Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

.
  Archive Message Manager
.

July 2002


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

Subject: Focusing on Agreement
Date: 13 Jul 2002 11:36:46 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Ok, in an attempt to allow us to see where we AGREE, and an effort to
get us moving toward some common goals and means to achieve them we can
all support, rather than the usual attack and avoid, I am reposting some
things I support and favor. Gordon would like to see this done in public
view, and I agree it can be a good thing.

So I propose a simply voting means, one that only requires simple math
on our part. :) We tally up the votes, and start with the highest
FAVORED items, and see where we can go from there. Perhaps when we get
ourselves a 'platform of ideas", Frank can post it to the
liberty-northwest.org page as our "platform?" ;) If not, I can host it
elsewhere if people are interested in it.

Keep in mind that you do not have to agree completely with the
suggestions, or when described, implementations. However, since we can
pretty well all agree on things when they are made vague enough, let us
focus more on more narrow topics. For example, as opposed to "End
government abuse of arms rights", we should be looking more for things
like "end registration of firearms" or "end the ban on so-called
'assault rifles'".

Most of these below are lifted from an earlier post I made, some with
minor clarifications or modifications to suit the purpose of this email.

I suggest that if you want to discuss an item in more detail, that we
start a thread just for that item. That way we can keep this thread
clean.

Now, for the "voting booth" means. Below each item is a blank line. When
you reply, you put your vote in that area. your vote is either +1 or -1.

For example:
----
> Being shot sucks
+1

> Being happy sucks
-1
----

Then, we can all see the tally of votes, and track it's progress. :)
(This system is used in a number of open source software programmer
lists for feature requests, the idea itself is not mine. But it is
tremendously useful, and works well!)

So, without any further ado ...

=======================================================================
I would like to see the government have nothing to do with churches, no
tax breaks, no involvement in religious matters such as gay marriage,
who can marry, what is or is not a church or religion, nothing.

======================================================
I would like to see the government get the hell out of gun control (real
gun control is accurate shooting!). No registration, no requirements
beyond not being a convicted violent felon. I want to see pilots able to
arm themselves.

Now, here we come up against a potential sticky wicket, provided we
don;t want violent offenders sporting arms such as firearms. First off,
I'll state that I do not see a problem with non-violent felons, such as
embezzlers or con-artists retaining their right to keep and bear arms.

So, how do we provide a means that allows stores to make a good faith
attempt to prevent violent felons from obtaining guns without it
becoming a means for government registration? This is an important
issue, as it is how instant check was passed. While I do not claim it a
perfect solution, and since it uses technology it is potentially open
for attack, I do have a proposal. As it sits now, your name is submitted
to an agency that then "clears" you. This opens the possibility up for
registration by simply keeping a list of who has tried to purchase
firearms.

Reverse it. Shops that sell them pull the database down, and verify
locally. Nothing is sent, and the query is not sent to a government
agency. Basically the database consists of violent felons, and nothing
more. If you are not on the list, no problem, and the govt. Need not
know you tried.

======================================================
I want to see *real* security in my airport, best achieved through
elimination of the government enforced hub and spoke model, removal of
the feel-good measures (such as baggage limits, "random" searches, no
parking near the airport, no persons other than ticket holders in the
terminal, etc.), and a focus put on capturing actual terrorists; not
simply going after the implements.

======================================================
I want to see the government out of education. Period. However, this
will not happen overnight, we've been fighting it since the early days
of the republic. I favor incremental steps that are combined with other
steps, to produce a whole package. For example, charter schools, with
the funding limit set incrementally lower than the state's per-student
fees, combined with a direct, dollar-for-dollar tax reduction.

======================================================
I want to see the government stop the income tax, minimum wage, and a
whole host of crap that hinders economic growth, such as licensing laws,
and the attempt to "manage" the economy.

======================================================
I want to see the land and air cleaned up. This is best done by private
individuals, the government screws it up every time they try! Private
ownership is time tested to be the best ecological management system
ever! Instead of having ecogroups spending millions lobbying someone who
doe snot own the lands, they should be able to spend that money
purchasing the lands they want to protect from willing owners. Then they
can manage it themselves, with their own money.

======================================================
I want to see a return to sanity in our courts, removal on "victim-less
crimes". Removal of the thousands of "dead laws", the "blue laws", the
laws that try to legislate morality, or legislate against stupidity.

======================================================
I want to see an end to the laws that inhibit political movement of the
people, specifically these so called "campaign finance" laws. Notice
this is of the people, not of the corporations. As corporations are a
government fiction, they should not possess the means to control those
that control their charter.

======================================================
I want to see a return to constitutional military. Specifically the
de-federalization of the state National Guards, the build up of the
navy, and the end to the air force and army as standing forces. I want
to see them NOT deployed for "peacekeeping" missions across the globe. I
want them based right here (meaning the U.S. and it's waters). I want to
see them trained to defend this place, not trained to defend other
places. I want to see them pulled entirely from domestic law enforcement
activities, whether in a "support role" or in an "active role".

======================================================
I want to see the destruction of damned near every law passed under the
"general welfare" clause, as well as the "interstate commerce" as they
are responsible for most of the problems on their own. Interstate
commerce meant commerce between the states proper, not between the
people of the states.

======================================================
I want to see U.S. Senators be representatives of the State, not the
people (We have the House for that!). While I am at it, I'm damned tired
of presidential races too. We don't vote for them (and I agree that we
shouldn't), why go through with a charade?

======================================================
I want to see an end to protectionism, an end to NAFTA, and to our
participation in the UN. I can rewrite NAFTA in one line:
"We will match import tariffs with the prospective country; no tariffs
means no tariffs."

There, done. No need for social engineering, no need for internal
involvement beyond recognizing that free trade is a simple, and ancient
concept that simply works best when exercised on both sides, and without
fifty pounds of regulations.

======================================================
I want to see an end to corporate welfare, an end to corporate
protectionism. There are three forms of power in a society: business,
government, and people. I say the lion's share of that belongs in the
final category, right now we are pretty well dead last.

======================================================
I want to see a decimation of taxes, brought about primarily through a
reduction of budget items, and a move toward user fees. I think for the
comparatively small budget the fedgov would have by the time I would be
through with it, it should bill the states based on the State's
percentage of citizens. If California, for example, had 20% of the
population, the State of California pays 20% of the budget. How the
States decide to collect that amount is up to the people in said state,
so long as it stays within the state (and yes, sales tax is considered
in the state, so long as it isn't taxing Internet sales.).

======================================================
On that subject, I want to see the government get the hell out of the
Internet business. I want to see sanity return to the patent, trademark,
and copyright offices.

======================================================
I also want to see the government get the hell out my child-rearing, my
bank accounts, my free association, my email, my web browsing, my ISP's
servers, and my business in general!

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

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

Subject: Re: Focusing on Agreement
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 03:09:35 -0400
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 1:36 PM
Subject: Focusing on Agreement

> Ok, in an attempt to allow us to see where we AGREE, and an effort to
> get us moving toward some common goals and means to achieve them we can
> all support, rather than the usual attack and avoid, I am reposting some
> things I support and favor. Gordon would like to see this done in public
> view, and I agree it can be a good thing.
>
> So I propose a simply voting means, one that only requires simple math
> on our part. :) We tally up the votes, and start with the highest
> FAVORED items, and see where we can go from there. Perhaps when we get
> ourselves a 'platform of ideas", Frank can post it to the
> liberty-northwest.org page as our "platform?" ;) If not, I can host it
> elsewhere if people are interested in it.
>
> Keep in mind that you do not have to agree completely with the
> suggestions, or when described, implementations. However, since we can
> pretty well all agree on things when they are made vague enough, let us
> focus more on more narrow topics. For example, as opposed to "End
> government abuse of arms rights", we should be looking more for things
> like "end registration of firearms" or "end the ban on so-called
> 'assault rifles'".
>
> Most of these below are lifted from an earlier post I made, some with
> minor clarifications or modifications to suit the purpose of this email.
>
> I suggest that if you want to discuss an item in more detail, that we
> start a thread just for that item. That way we can keep this thread
> clean.
>
> Now, for the "voting booth" means. Below each item is a blank line. When
> you reply, you put your vote in that area. your vote is either +1 or -1.
>
> For example:
> ----
> > Being shot sucks
> +1
>
> > Being happy sucks
> -1
> ----
>
> Then, we can all see the tally of votes, and track it's progress. :)
> (This system is used in a number of open source software programmer
> lists for feature requests, the idea itself is not mine. But it is
> tremendously useful, and works well!)
>
> So, without any further ado ...
>
> =======================================================================
> I would like to see the government have nothing to do with churches, no
> tax breaks, no involvement in religious matters such as gay marriage,
> who can marry, what is or is not a church or religion, nothing.
> +1
> ======================================================
> I would like to see the government get the hell out of gun control (real
> gun control is accurate shooting!). No registration, no requirements
> beyond not being a convicted violent felon. I want to see pilots able to
> arm themselves.
> +1
> Now, here we come up against a potential sticky wicket, provided we
> don;t want violent offenders sporting arms such as firearms. First off,
> I'll state that I do not see a problem with non-violent felons, such as
> embezzlers or con-artists retaining their right to keep and bear arms.
> +1
> So, how do we provide a means that allows stores to make a good faith
> attempt to prevent violent felons from obtaining guns without it
> becoming a means for government registration? This is an important
> issue, as it is how instant check was passed. While I do not claim it a
> perfect solution, and since it uses technology it is potentially open
> for attack, I do have a proposal. As it sits now, your name is submitted
> to an agency that then "clears" you. This opens the possibility up for
> registration by simply keeping a list of who has tried to purchase
> firearms.
>
> Reverse it. Shops that sell them pull the database down, and verify
> locally. Nothing is sent, and the query is not sent to a government
> agency. Basically the database consists of violent felons, and nothing
> more. If you are not on the list, no problem, and the govt. Need not
> know you tried.
> +1
> ======================================================
> I want to see *real* security in my airport, best achieved through
> elimination of the government enforced hub and spoke model, removal of
> the feel-good measures (such as baggage limits, "random" searches, no
> parking near the airport, no persons other than ticket holders in the
> terminal, etc.), and a focus put on capturing actual terrorists; not
> simply going after the implements.
>+1
> ======================================================
> I want to see the government out of education. Period. However, this
> will not happen overnight, we've been fighting it since the early days
> of the republic. I favor incremental steps that are combined with other
> steps, to produce a whole package. For example, charter schools, with
> the funding limit set incrementally lower than the state's per-student
> fees, combined with a direct, dollar-for-dollar tax reduction.
> -1
> ======================================================
> I want to see the government stop the income tax, minimum wage, and a
> whole host of crap that hinders economic growth, such as licensing laws,
> and the attempt to "manage" the economy.
> +1
> ======================================================
> I want to see the land and air cleaned up. This is best done by private
> individuals, the government screws it up every time they try! Private
> ownership is time tested to be the best ecological management system
> ever! Instead of having ecogroups spending millions lobbying someone who
> doe snot own the lands, they should be able to spend that money
> purchasing the lands they want to protect from willing owners. Then they
> can manage it themselves, with their own money.
> +1
> ======================================================
> I want to see a return to sanity in our courts, removal on "victim-less
> crimes". Removal of the thousands of "dead laws", the "blue laws", the
> laws that try to legislate morality, or legislate against stupidity.
> +1
> ======================================================
> I want to see an end to the laws that inhibit political movement of the
> people, specifically these so called "campaign finance" laws. Notice
> this is of the people, not of the corporations. As corporations are a
> government fiction, they should not possess the means to control those
> that control their charter.
> +1
> ======================================================
> I want to see a return to constitutional military. Specifically the
> de-federalization of the state National Guards, the build up of the
> navy, and the end to the air force and army as standing forces. I want
> to see them NOT deployed for "peacekeeping" missions across the globe. I
> want them based right here (meaning the U.S. and it's waters). I want to
> see them trained to defend this place, not trained to defend other
> places. I want to see them pulled entirely from domestic law enforcement
> activities, whether in a "support role" or in an "active role".
> -1
> ======================================================
> I want to see the destruction of damned near every law passed under the
> "general welfare" clause, as well as the "interstate commerce" as they
> are responsible for most of the problems on their own. Interstate
> commerce meant commerce between the states proper, not between the
> people of the states.
> +1
> ======================================================
> I want to see U.S. Senators be representatives of the State, not the
> people (We have the House for that!). While I am at it, I'm damned tired
> of presidential races too. We don't vote for them (and I agree that we
> shouldn't), why go through with a charade?
> +1
> ======================================================
> I want to see an end to protectionism, an end to NAFTA, and to our
> participation in the UN. I can rewrite NAFTA in one line:
> "We will match import tariffs with the prospective country; no tariffs
> means no tariffs."
>
> There, done. No need for social engineering, no need for internal
> involvement beyond recognizing that free trade is a simple, and ancient
> concept that simply works best when exercised on both sides, and without
> fifty pounds of regulations.
> +1
> ======================================================
> I want to see an end to corporate welfare, an end to corporate
> protectionism. There are three forms of power in a society: business,
> government, and people. I say the lion's share of that belongs in the
> final category, right now we are pretty well dead last.
> +1
> ======================================================
> I want to see a decimation of taxes, brought about primarily through a
> reduction of budget items, and a move toward user fees. I think for the
> comparatively small budget the fedgov would have by the time I would be
> through with it, it should bill the states based on the State's
> percentage of citizens. If California, for example, had 20% of the
> population, the State of California pays 20% of the budget. How the
> States decide to collect that amount is up to the people in said state,
> so long as it stays within the state (and yes, sales tax is considered
> in the state, so long as it isn't taxing Internet sales.).
> +1
> ======================================================
> On that subject, I want to see the government get the hell out of the
> Internet business. I want to see sanity return to the patent, trademark,
> and copyright offices.
>+1
> ======================================================
> I also want to see the government get the hell out my child-rearing, my
> bank accounts, my free association, my email, my web browsing, my ISP's
> servers, and my business in general!
> +1
> --
> Bill Anderson
> Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
> Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
> Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: libnw-help@immosys.com
>

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

Subject: Re: Focusing on Agreement
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 10:00:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ken <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org> wrote:

> So, without any further ado ...
>
I would also add a question mark as a response to a
few where I don't know enough on an issue or
understand the position exactly. It might make me look
dumb, but I always figured it was better not to make
up your mind or vote on an issue until you were
informed.
=======================================================================
> I would like to see the government have nothing to
> do with churches, no
> tax breaks, no involvement in religious matters such
> as gay marriage,
> who can marry, what is or is not a church or
> religion, nothing.
>
+1
======================================================

> Reverse it. Shops that sell them pull the database
> down, and verify
> locally. Nothing is sent, and the query is not sent
> to a government
> agency. Basically the database consists of violent
> felons, and nothing
> more. If you are not on the list, no problem, and
> the govt. Need not
> know you tried.

+1
>
======================================================
> I want to see *real* security in my airport, best
> achieved through
> elimination of the government enforced hub and spoke
> model, removal of
> the feel-good measures (such as baggage limits,
> "random" searches, no
> parking near the airport, no persons other than
> ticket holders in the
> terminal, etc.), and a focus put on capturing actual
> terrorists; not
> simply going after the implements.

+1
>
======================================================
> I want to see the government out of education.
> Period. However, this
> will not happen overnight, we've been fighting it
> since the early days
> of the republic. I favor incremental steps that are
> combined with other
> steps, to produce a whole package. For example,
> charter schools, with
> the funding limit set incrementally lower than the
> state's per-student
> fees, combined with a direct, dollar-for-dollar tax
> reduction.

+1
>
======================================================
> I want to see the government stop the income tax,
> minimum wage, and a
> whole host of crap that hinders economic growth,
> such as licensing laws,
> and the attempt to "manage" the economy.

+1
>
======================================================
> I want to see the land and air cleaned up. This is
> best done by private
> individuals, the government screws it up every time
> they try! Private
> ownership is time tested to be the best ecological
> management system
> ever! Instead of having ecogroups spending millions
> lobbying someone who
> doe snot own the lands, they should be able to spend
> that money
> purchasing the lands they want to protect from
> willing owners. Then they
> can manage it themselves, with their own money.

+1
>
======================================================
> I want to see a return to sanity in our courts,
> removal on "victim-less
> crimes". Removal of the thousands of "dead laws",
> the "blue laws", the
> laws that try to legislate morality, or legislate
> against stupidity.

+1
>
======================================================
> I want to see an end to the laws that inhibit
> political movement of the
> people, specifically these so called "campaign
> finance" laws. Notice
> this is of the people, not of the corporations. As
> corporations are a
> government fiction, they should not possess the
> means to control those
> that control their charter.

+1
>
======================================================
> I want to see a return to constitutional military.
> Specifically the
> de-federalization of the state National Guards, the
> build up of the
> navy, and the end to the air force and army as
> standing forces. I want
> to see them NOT deployed for "peacekeeping" missions
> across the globe. I
> want them based right here (meaning the U.S. and
> it's waters). I want to
> see them trained to defend this place, not trained
> to defend other
> places. I want to see them pulled entirely from
> domestic law enforcement
> activities, whether in a "support role" or in an
> "active role".

-1
>
======================================================
> I want to see the destruction of damned near every
> law passed under the
> "general welfare" clause, as well as the "interstate
> commerce" as they
> are responsible for most of the problems on their
> own. Interstate
> commerce meant commerce between the states proper,
> not between the
> people of the states.
?
>
======================================================
> I want to see U.S. Senators be representatives of
> the State, not the
> people (We have the House for that!). While I am at
> it, I'm damned tired
> of presidential races too. We don't vote for them
> (and I agree that we
> shouldn't), why go through with a charade?

-1
>
======================================================
> I want to see an end to protectionism, an end to
> NAFTA, and to our
> participation in the UN. I can rewrite NAFTA in one
> line:
> "We will match import tariffs with the prospective
> country; no tariffs
> means no tariffs."
>
+1
======================================================
> I want to see an end to corporate welfare, an end to
> corporate
> protectionism. There are three forms of power in a
> society: business,
> government, and people. I say the lion's share of
> that belongs in the
> final category, right now we are pretty well dead
> last.

+1
>======================================================
> I want to see a decimation of taxes, brought about
> primarily through a
> reduction of budget items, and a move toward user
> fees. I think for the
> comparatively small budget the fedgov would have by
> the time I would be
> through with it, it should bill the states based on
> the State's
> percentage of citizens. If California, for example,
> had 20% of the
> population, the State of California pays 20% of the
> budget. How the
> States decide to collect that amount is up to the
> people in said state,
> so long as it stays within the state (and yes, sales
> tax is considered
> in the state, so long as it isn't taxing Internet
> sales.).

-1
>
======================================================
> On that subject, I want to see the government get
> the hell out of the
> Internet business. I want to see sanity return to
> the patent, trademark,
> and copyright offices.

?
>
======================================================
> I also want to see the government get the hell out
> my child-rearing, my
> bank accounts, my free association, my email, my web
> browsing, my ISP's
> servers, and my business in general!

+1

=====
Remember the days when Ozzy was dangerous and the Catholic Church was safe?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com

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

Subject: Re: Focusing on Agreement
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:34:33 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Ken!

Ken Butler wrote to Bill Anderson!

> I would also add a question mark as a response to a
> few where I don't know enough on an issue or
> understand the position exactly. It might make me look
> dumb, but I always figured it was better not to make
> up your mind or vote on an issue until you were
> informed.

It's one thing to keep an open mind, quite another when you notice
something that is obviously wrong. For those of us who believe
government should not be involved in something in which they are
ill-suited, then it is quite easy to know why things get hosed up so
badly everytime the government moves in to "fix" a problem, something
that went wrong.

As evidenced by the government's ecology and "wilderness" policies, in
simply invited the devastation of thousands of acres in the current
western wild fires. "Wilderness" was defined as no access roads, no
harvesting of timber to create natural fire breaks, and a host of
other disasters.

I may not have a degree in forest management, I just *know* however
that the government doesn't have a clue about management of property,
private, public or otherwise. Most of the ecofreaks don't either,
since they mostly advocate even getting the government to impose more
draconian measures, including allowing wildfires to continue as a
"natural" order of nature! When portions of Yellowstone Park was
ablaze a few years ago, most of these groups were lobbying the
government to let the fires burn!

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Re: Focusing on Agreement
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 18:25:28 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

At 11:36 07/13/02 -0600, you wrote:
>Ok, in an attempt to allow us to see where we AGREE, and an effort to
>get us moving toward some common goals and means to achieve them we can
>all support, rather than the usual attack and avoid, I am reposting some
>things I support and favor. Gordon would like to see this done in public
>view, and I agree it can be a good thing.

Sounds good to me.

>=======================================================================
>I would like to see the government have nothing to do with churches, no
>tax breaks, no involvement in religious matters such as gay marriage,
>who can marry, what is or is not a church or religion, nothing.
>+1

With the caveat that you're not going to get the government out of marriage
soon. Probably the best bet is going to be getting other organizations
(churches, etc.) to come up with some kind of a marriage contract (a prenup
agreement, if you will, endorsed by the church and then the church uses its
resources to defend that agreement in civil court.)

>======================================================
>I would like to see the government get the hell out of gun control (real
>gun control is accurate shooting!). No registration, no requirements
>beyond not being a convicted violent felon. I want to see pilots able to
>arm themselves.
>
>Now, here we come up against a potential sticky wicket, provided we
>don;t want violent offenders sporting arms such as firearms. First off,
>I'll state that I do not see a problem with non-violent felons, such as
>embezzlers or con-artists retaining their right to keep and bear arms.
+1

May I suggest what I think is a better idea? Make people's
voter-registration card their "presumed good-person" card. If someone's
rights have been disabled due to a felony and you want to only partially
restore them, then they get a special voter's registration card that lists
only the rights that have been restored. This might have the additional
benefit of actually helping to protect other rights (like voting rights)
since politicians, law enforcement, etc. will now have more reason to chase
after fraudulently registered voters (who may be felons attempting to
obtain guns, etc.)

>======================================================
>I want to see *real* security in my airport, best achieved through
>elimination of the government enforced hub and spoke model, removal of
>the feel-good measures (such as baggage limits, "random" searches, no
>parking near the airport, no persons other than ticket holders in the
>terminal, etc.), and a focus put on capturing actual terrorists; not
>simply going after the implements.
0

I thought the "hub-and-spoke" model came from airline economics. It's a
lot easier to schedule planes and passengers into hubs and then out to
their destinations than trying to come up with direct flights from
everywhere to everywhere. If I'm going from Spokane to Buffalo, there's
probably no more than 10 other people on that day making that same trip.

Otherwise, what you've got there isn't bad, it's just that it's a bunch of
"don't do this" prescriptions without much in the way of "instead do
that"--although I think you did say something somewhere about arming
pilots. How about: set up terrorist profiles and check those people out
more (even if it means "racial profiling"), also, go ahead and implement
John Magaw's "Trusted traveller" program--but then *trust* these
travelers--including allowing them to arm themselves.

>======================================================
>I want to see the government out of education. Period. However, this
>will not happen overnight, we've been fighting it since the early days
>of the republic. I favor incremental steps that are combined with other
>steps, to produce a whole package. For example, charter schools, with
>the funding limit set incrementally lower than the state's per-student
>fees, combined with a direct, dollar-for-dollar tax reduction.
>+1
>======================================================
>I want to see the government stop the income tax, minimum wage, and a
>whole host of crap that hinders economic growth, such as licensing laws,
>and the attempt to "manage" the economy.
>+1

But start with the Capital Gains tax. Also, the percentage tax on
dividends and on corporations added together should be less than the
percentage tax on personal income (at least, until all income taxes are
gone, in which case the dividends and corporate taxes should also both be
zero.)

>======================================================
>I want to see the land and air cleaned up. This is best done by private
>individuals, the government screws it up every time they try! Private
>ownership is time tested to be the best ecological management system
>ever! Instead of having ecogroups spending millions lobbying someone who
>doe snot own the lands, they should be able to spend that money
>purchasing the lands they want to protect from willing owners. Then they
>can manage it themselves, with their own money.
>+1
>======================================================
>I want to see a return to sanity in our courts, removal on "victim-less
>crimes". Removal of the thousands of "dead laws", the "blue laws", the
>laws that try to legislate morality, or legislate against stupidity.
>+1
>======================================================
>I want to see an end to the laws that inhibit political movement of the
>people, specifically these so called "campaign finance" laws. Notice
>this is of the people, not of the corporations. As corporations are a
>government fiction, they should not possess the means to control those
>that control their charter.
>+1

Actually, it is my understanding that corporations cannot give to
politicians or political parties. All of these news stories you read and
hear about "XYZ Corporation gave $XXXXX to politician ABC" are adding up
the contributions of individuals who must give the name of the company they
work for.

>======================================================
>I want to see a return to constitutional military. Specifically the
>de-federalization of the state National Guards, the build up of the
>navy, and the end to the air force and army as standing forces. I want
>to see them NOT deployed for "peacekeeping" missions across the globe. I
>want them based right here (meaning the U.S. and it's waters). I want to
>see them trained to defend this place, not trained to defend other
>places. I want to see them pulled entirely from domestic law enforcement
>activities, whether in a "support role" or in an "active role".
>0

Yes, a return to constitutionality would be a good thing. But I think
there is a place for some of this "peacekeeping" and "policing the
world". As much as I don't like losing soldiers in some far-off land, it
beats the heck out of losing soldiers *and* civilians here at
home. There's plenty of room for disagreement on whether US leadership is
doing the best or even the right thing in the ways we involve ourselves
around the world. However, I'm not anywhere near ready to say that we
should simply "get out" of our involvement in things overseas.

>======================================================
>I want to see the destruction of damned near every law passed under the
>"general welfare" clause, as well as the "interstate commerce" as they
>are responsible for most of the problems on their own. Interstate
>commerce meant commerce between the states proper, not between the
>people of the states.
>+1
>======================================================
>I want to see U.S. Senators be representatives of the State, not the
>people (We have the House for that!). While I am at it, I'm damned tired
>of presidential races too. We don't vote for them (and I agree that we
>shouldn't), why go through with a charade?
>?

I've heard arguments on both sides of this. Still not sure which way to go.

>======================================================
>I want to see an end to protectionism, an end to NAFTA, and to our
>participation in the UN. I can rewrite NAFTA in one line:
>"We will match import tariffs with the prospective country; no tariffs
>means no tariffs."
>
>There, done. No need for social engineering, no need for internal
>involvement beyond recognizing that free trade is a simple, and ancient
>concept that simply works best when exercised on both sides, and without
>fifty pounds of regulations.
>+1
>======================================================
>I want to see an end to corporate welfare, an end to corporate
>protectionism. There are three forms of power in a society: business,
>government, and people. I say the lion's share of that belongs in the
>final category, right now we are pretty well dead last.
>+1
>======================================================
>I want to see a decimation of taxes, brought about primarily through a
>reduction of budget items, and a move toward user fees. I think for the
>comparatively small budget the fedgov would have by the time I would be
>through with it, it should bill the states based on the State's
>percentage of citizens. If California, for example, had 20% of the
>population, the State of California pays 20% of the budget. How the
>States decide to collect that amount is up to the people in said state,
>so long as it stays within the state (and yes, sales tax is considered
>in the state, so long as it isn't taxing Internet sales.).
>0

Interesting. I'd need to think about it some more.

>======================================================
>On that subject, I want to see the government get the hell out of the
>Internet business. I want to see sanity return to the patent, trademark,
>and copyright offices.
>0

Not sure what part of the trouble is "insanity" and what part is simply
that technology is ahead of policy and law.

>======================================================
>I also want to see the government get the hell out my child-rearing, my
>bank accounts, my free association, my email, my web browsing, my ISP's
>servers, and my business in general!
>+1

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

Subject: Re: Focusing on Agreement
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:50:36 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote...

> May I suggest what I think is a better idea? Make people's
> voter-registration card their "presumed good-person" card. If someone's
> rights have been disabled due to a felony and you want to only partially
> restore them, then they get a special voter's registration card that lists
> only the rights that have been restored. This might have the additional
> benefit of actually helping to protect other rights (like voting rights)
> since politicians, law enforcement, etc. will now have more reason to
chase
> after fraudulently registered voters (who may be felons attempting to
> obtain guns, etc.)

Why would you revoke voting rights, or other civil liberties away from
otherwise non-violent felons? In Idaho, as in other states for
example, we have laws such as Felony Due's for third time repeat
offenders. Most of these people may be otherwise non-violent, and
have no other offences. I don't particularly see how one could
justify trampling on their civil liberties in any what whatsoever,
particularly voting rights or the right to keep and bear arms.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Re: Focusing on Agreement
Date: 15 Jul 2002 23:59:16 -0600
From: Daniel Fackrell <unlearned@learn2think.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2002-07-13 at 11:36, Bill Anderson wrote:
> =======================================================================
> I would like to see the government have nothing to do with churches, no
> tax breaks, no involvement in religious matters such as gay marriage,
> who can marry, what is or is not a church or religion, nothing.

+1

> ======================================================
> I would like to see the government get the hell out of gun control (real
> gun control is accurate shooting!). No registration, no requirements
> beyond not being a convicted violent felon. I want to see pilots able to
> arm themselves.
>
> Now, here we come up against a potential sticky wicket, provided we
> don;t want violent offenders sporting arms such as firearms. First off,
> I'll state that I do not see a problem with non-violent felons, such as
> embezzlers or con-artists retaining their right to keep and bear arms.
>
> So, how do we provide a means that allows stores to make a good faith
> attempt to prevent violent felons from obtaining guns without it
> becoming a means for government registration? This is an important
> issue, as it is how instant check was passed. While I do not claim it a
> perfect solution, and since it uses technology it is potentially open
> for attack, I do have a proposal. As it sits now, your name is submitted
> to an agency that then "clears" you. This opens the possibility up for
> registration by simply keeping a list of who has tried to purchase
> firearms.
>
> Reverse it. Shops that sell them pull the database down, and verify
> locally. Nothing is sent, and the query is not sent to a government
> agency. Basically the database consists of violent felons, and nothing
> more. If you are not on the list, no problem, and the govt. Need not
> know you tried.

+1

> ======================================================
> I want to see *real* security in my airport, best achieved through
> elimination of the government enforced hub and spoke model, removal of
> the feel-good measures (such as baggage limits, "random" searches, no
> parking near the airport, no persons other than ticket holders in the
> terminal, etc.), and a focus put on capturing actual terrorists; not
> simply going after the implements.

+1

> ======================================================
> I want to see the government out of education. Period. However, this
> will not happen overnight, we've been fighting it since the early days
> of the republic. I favor incremental steps that are combined with other
> steps, to produce a whole package. For example, charter schools, with
> the funding limit set incrementally lower than the state's per-student
> fees, combined with a direct, dollar-for-dollar tax reduction.

+1

> ======================================================
> I want to see the government stop the income tax, minimum wage, and a
> whole host of crap that hinders economic growth, such as licensing laws,
> and the attempt to "manage" the economy.

+1

> ======================================================
> I want to see the land and air cleaned up. This is best done by private
> individuals, the government screws it up every time they try! Private
> ownership is time tested to be the best ecological management system
> ever! Instead of having ecogroups spending millions lobbying someone who
> doe snot own the lands, they should be able to spend that money
> purchasing the lands they want to protect from willing owners. Then they
> can manage it themselves, with their own money.

+1

> ======================================================
> I want to see a return to sanity in our courts, removal on "victim-less
> crimes". Removal of the thousands of "dead laws", the "blue laws", the
> laws that try to legislate morality, or legislate against stupidity.

+1

> ======================================================
> I want to see an end to the laws that inhibit political movement of the
> people, specifically these so called "campaign finance" laws. Notice
> this is of the people, not of the corporations. As corporations are a
> government fiction, they should not possess the means to control those
> that control their charter.

+1

> ======================================================
> I want to see a return to constitutional military. Specifically the
> de-federalization of the state National Guards, the build up of the
> navy, and the end to the air force and army as standing forces. I want
> to see them NOT deployed for "peacekeeping" missions across the globe. I
> want them based right here (meaning the U.S. and it's waters). I want to
> see them trained to defend this place, not trained to defend other
> places. I want to see them pulled entirely from domestic law enforcement
> activities, whether in a "support role" or in an "active role".

+1

> ======================================================
> I want to see the destruction of damned near every law passed under the
> "general welfare" clause, as well as the "interstate commerce" as they
> are responsible for most of the problems on their own. Interstate
> commerce meant commerce between the states proper, not between the
> people of the states.

+1

> ======================================================
> I want to see U.S. Senators be representatives of the State, not the
> people (We have the House for that!). While I am at it, I'm damned tired
> of presidential races too. We don't vote for them (and I agree that we
> shouldn't), why go through with a charade?

+1

> ======================================================
> I want to see an end to protectionism, an end to NAFTA, and to our
> participation in the UN. I can rewrite NAFTA in one line:
> "We will match import tariffs with the prospective country; no tariffs
> means no tariffs."
>
> There, done. No need for social engineering, no need for internal
> involvement beyond recognizing that free trade is a simple, and ancient
> concept that simply works best when exercised on both sides, and without
> fifty pounds of regulations.

+1

> ======================================================
> I want to see an end to corporate welfare, an end to corporate
> protectionism. There are three forms of power in a society: business,
> government, and people. I say the lion's share of that belongs in the
> final category, right now we are pretty well dead last.

+1

> ======================================================
> I want to see a decimation of taxes, brought about primarily through a
> reduction of budget items, and a move toward user fees. I think for the
> comparatively small budget the fedgov would have by the time I would be
> through with it, it should bill the states based on the State's
> percentage of citizens. If California, for example, had 20% of the
> population, the State of California pays 20% of the budget. How the
> States decide to collect that amount is up to the people in said state,
> so long as it stays within the state (and yes, sales tax is considered
> in the state, so long as it isn't taxing Internet sales.).

+1

> ======================================================
> On that subject, I want to see the government get the hell out of the
> Internet business. I want to see sanity return to the patent, trademark,
> and copyright offices.

+1

> ======================================================
> I also want to see the government get the hell out my child-rearing, my
> bank accounts, my free association, my email, my web browsing, my ISP's
> servers, and my business in general!

+1

Hmm... Looks like I just voted party line. :)

Daniel Fackrell

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

Subject: Re: Focusing on Agreement
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:45:00 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again, Frank!
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote...
>
> > May I suggest what I think is a better idea? Make people's
> > voter-registration card their "presumed good-person" card. If someone's
> > rights have been disabled due to a felony and you want to only partially
> > restore them, then they get a special voter's registration card that
lists
> > only the rights that have been restored. This might have the additional
> > benefit of actually helping to protect other rights (like voting rights)
> > since politicians, law enforcement, etc. will now have more reason to
chase
> > after fraudulently registered voters (who may be felons attempting to
> > obtain guns, etc.)
>
>Why would you revoke voting rights, or other civil liberties away from
>otherwise non-violent felons? In Idaho, as in other states for
>example, we have laws such as Felony Due's for third time repeat
>offenders. Most of these people may be otherwise non-violent, and
>have no other offences. I don't particularly see how one could
>justify trampling on their civil liberties in any what whatsoever,
>particularly voting rights or the right to keep and bear arms.

Fine. But regardless of what felonies should disable what rights, the
point is to tie voting rights to firearm rights. If a state wants to
restore voting rights to violent felons on their release (or even let them
vote in prison) but not restore their firearm rights, that would be fine by
me. Same thing with not restoring voting rights to someone who convicted
of vote fraud but restoring their firearm rights. However, those would be
the special cases. The general case should be: if you can vote, you can
own and carry a gun. You handle the special cases with notations on the
card (if there is any restored right that is covered by the card--if not,
they don't get the card.)

My point was not to change what rights are disabled by what felonies,
simply to make it so that there is only one card which denotes what rights
have not been disabled. I didn't want to flesh out the idea completely,
because that was already going to be a long post. However, here are a few
other pieces to the idea. First, Joe Citizen should get a "clean" card
(indicating no disabled rights) unless a records check indicates
otherwise. If he doesn't get a "clean" card, he can appeal to the courts
and if he wins, he not only gets his "clean" card, he gets his attorney's
fees paid. Next, whether they have expiration dates or not, if someone is
convicted of a rights-disabling crime, and they've "lost" their card, then
when they get out of prison, a public notice goes out (and perhaps goes to
especially to gun dealers or others who might be involved in "assisting"
this person in exercising a right that has been disabled.) Avoiding the
embarrassment factor of the public notice would probably be enough for most
people to simply turn the thing in and then get the new "annotated" one
explaining exactly what rights they've lost.

The reason I go with the voter registration card, here, is that it is the
one right which *must* be kept track of by the government in order to
protect the right. In other words, the government has a *duty* to use some
mechanism to ensure that I don't vote multiple times because my doing so
violates your right to vote. Of course, since it is actually a *duty* of
government, getting the government to do it is nearly impossible. (And,
since other things are NOT a *duty*, the government is all too happy to get
involved in every way possible.) But, since we have a "citizenship" card
here that the government *must* give out to *all* deserving persons, it is
a perfect vehicle for certifying eligibility for gun ownership. Also, by
explicitly tying the two together, you make it much harder for the
legislature to come up with reasons to disable gun rights alone. Another
thing is that it doesn't register gun ownership. Another is that it might
get the government paying attention to one of its primary *duties*--that
is, assuring that the democratic process is conducted properly. The final
thing is that it might get a few more @#$%^& gun owners off their fat
*&^%'s and registered to vote.

One fat *&^% that's registered to vote! :-)

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

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

Subject: Preliminary Test...
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 20:46:54 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone,

This is a preliminary test, pls disregard. There will be one or two
other tests doing on throughout today, obviously. Please bear with
me.

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: Yahoogroups turned off
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:04:45 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings everyone!

Effective immediately, libnw@yahoogroups.com has been turned off from
distributing Liberty Northwest traffic. We still have several members who I
am trying to contact in private e-mail to notify them of this change. There
will be daily reminders sent to them for one week as of today to resubscribe
at immosys.

If you still have past messages on libnw@yahoogroups that you wish to
respond
to, to maintain the thread, you can do so be changing the "To" line to:
libnw@immosys.com, and deleting the pop up line which included the
yahoogroups
domain address.

Kinest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Test [7-14-02]
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 23:31:12 -0600
From: "B Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>
To: "Northwest LIBERTARIANS" <libnw@immosys.com>


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

Subject: Re: Test [7-14-02]
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:36:36 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Ben!

Ben Irvin wrote to everyone...

This was a blank message with no text. If this was a test to see if
you made it onboard, then it worked flawlessly.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Filter and Directory changes...
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:23:54 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again everyone!

I forgot to mention an important factor in how you receive Liberty
Northwest and making filter changes to direct your traffic.

If you are like I am, I employ a filter to send incoming Liberty
Northwest traffic to a specific directory for reading as a group.
This also keeps my main inbox uncluttered.

Immosys is slightly different from Yahoogroups in the way that it
handles mail headers. With yahoogroups it was rather simple to add
"libnw@yahoogroups", since it was always on the "Reply to" line in
every message.

To be safe, change the filter settings to the "to line", which will
always use libnw@immosys.com. Simply click on the "to line" in your
filter settings, and add "libnw@immosys.com" as the search name on the
"to" line, then specify which directory to send the messages to. If
you have never employed filters in such a way, then you'll have to add
a subdirectory called: Liberty Northwest (or LIBNW) BEFORE you set up
the filter to direct the traffic.

This works with the two common email clients, Netscape and Outlook
Express. If you are using another client to receive your mail, or a
browser web system, you'll have to check how they set up filtering and
directing of incoming mail, but most of these are very simple to set
up.

If you have problems, or need some advise, please drop me a note in
private email and let me know HOW you are getting your mail. I'm
familiar with most of the common web page clients, except AOL.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:41:25 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

Don Morgan posted this informative piece on the Idaho Libs group
earlier.

This is astonishing to say the least!

Kindest regards,
Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [idaho_libs] US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as
citizen spies
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 14:32:34
From: Don Morgan <donaldfmorgan@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
To: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com

>From http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/14/1026185141232.html

US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen spies

By Ritt Goldstein
July 15 2002

The Bush Administration aims to recruit millions of United States
citizens
as domestic informants in a program likely to alarm civil liberties
groups.

The Terrorism Information and Prevention System, or TIPS, means the US

will have a higher percentage of citizen informants than the former
East
Germany through the infamous Stasi secret police. The program would
use a
minimum of 4 per cent of Americans to report "suspicious activity".

Civil liberties groups have already warned that, with the passage
earlier
this year of the Patriot Act, there is potential for abusive,
large-scale
investigations of US citizens.

As with the Patriot Act, TIPS is being pursued as part of the
so-called
war against terrorism. It is a Department of Justice project.

Highlighting the scope of the surveillance network, TIPS volunteers
are
being recruited primarily from among those whose work provides access
to
homes, businesses or transport systems. Letter carriers, utility
employees,
truck drivers and train conductors are among those named as targeted
recruits.

A pilot program, described on the government Web site
www.citizencorps.gov, is scheduled to start next month in 10 cities,
with 1
million informants participating in the first stage. Assuming the
program
is initiated in the 10 largest US cities, that will be 1 million
informants
for a total population of almost 24 million, or one in 24 people.

Historically, informant systems have been the tools of non-democratic
states. According to a 1992 report by Harvard University's Project on
Justice, the accuracy of informant reports is problematic, with some
informants having embellished the truth, and others suspected of
having
fabricated their reports.

Present Justice Department procedures mean that informant reports will

enter databases for future reference and/or action. The information
will
then be broadly available within the department, related agencies and
local
police forces. The targeted individual will remain unaware of the
existence
of the report and of its contents.

The Patriot Act already provides for a person's home to be searched
without that person being informed that a search was ever performed,
or of
any surveillance devices that were implanted.

At state and local levels the TIPS program will be co-ordinated by the

Federal Emergency Management Agency, which

was given sweeping new powers, including internment, as part of the
Reagan
Administration's national security initiatives. Many key figures of
the
Reagan era are part of the Bush Administration.

The creation of a US "shadow government", operating in secret, was
another
Reagan national security initiative.

Ritt Goldstein is an investigative journalist and a former leader in
the
movement for US law enforcement accountability. He has lived in Sweden

since 1997, seeking political asylum there, saying he was the victim
of
life-threatening assaults in retaliation for his accountability
efforts.
His application has been supported by the European Parliament, five of

Sweden's seven big political parties, clergy, and Amnesty and other
rights
groups.
____________________________________________________________
This message has been sent with an unregistered
copy of HotCast Mass E-Mailer.
< < This notice doesn't appear on the registered version > >

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
[Click here to visit our exclusive feature of ACUVUE2 Colours at
LensExpress.com!]
Click here to find your contact lenses!

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.lp-idaho.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.

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

Subject: Re: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 03:40:45 -0400
From: "Doris Gordon" <libertarian@erols.com>
To: "MDLP discussion" <MDLP@yahoogroups.com>,
<libnw@immosys.com>,
"LPUS" <LPUS-misc@dehnbase.org>

> The Bush Administration aims to recruit millions of United States citizens
> as domestic informants in a program likely to alarm civil liberties
groups.
>
> The Terrorism Information and Prevention System, or TIPS, means the US
will
> have a higher percentage of citizen informants than the former East
Germany
> through the infamous Stasi secret police. The program would use a minimum
> of 4 per cent of Americans to report "suspicious activity".

TIPS spelled backwards is SPIT. Any ideas to establish a System to Prevent
Information Terrorism?

Doris Gordon, Libertarians for Life
LFL's Web site: http://www.L4L.org
-- If you find any serious or fatal flaws
there, please let me know.

>
> Civil liberties groups have already warned that, with the passage earlier
> this year of the Patriot Act, there is potential for abusive, large-scale
> investigations of US citizens.
>
> As with the Patriot Act, TIPS is being pursued as part of the so-called
war
> against terrorism. It is a Department of Justice project.
>
> Highlighting the scope of the surveillance network, TIPS volunteers are
> being recruited primarily from among those whose work provides access to
> homes, businesses or transport systems. Letter carriers, utility
employees,
> truck drivers and train conductors are among those named as targeted
recruits.
>
> A pilot program, described on the government Web site
www.citizencorps.gov,
> is scheduled to start next month in 10 cities, with 1 million informants
> participating in the first stage. Assuming the program is initiated in the
> 10 largest US cities, that will be 1 million informants for a total
> population of almost 24 million, or one in 24 people.
>
> Historically, informant systems have been the tools of non-democratic
> states. According to a 1992 report by Harvard University's Project on
> Justice, the accuracy of informant reports is problematic, with some
> informants having embellished the truth, and others suspected of having
> fabricated their reports.
>
> Present Justice Department procedures mean that informant reports will
> enter databases for future reference and/or action. The information will
> then be broadly available within the department, related agencies and
local
> police forces. The targeted individual will remain unaware of the
existence
> of the report and of its contents.
>
> The Patriot Act already provides for a person's home to be searched
without
> that person being informed that a search was ever performed, or of any
> surveillance devices that were implanted.
>
> At state and local levels the TIPS program will be co-ordinated by the
> Federal Emergency Management Agency, which
>
> was given sweeping new powers, including internment, as part of the Reagan
> Administration's national security initiatives. Many key figures of the
> Reagan era are part of the Bush Administration.
>
> The creation of a US "shadow government", operating in secret, was another
> Reagan national security initiative.
>
> Ritt Goldstein is an investigative journalist and a former leader in the
> movement for US law enforcement accountability. He has lived in Sweden
> since 1997, seeking political asylum there, saying he was the victim of
> life-threatening assaults in retaliation for his accountability efforts.
> His application has been supported by the European Parliament, five of
> Sweden's seven big political parties, clergy, and Amnesty and other rights
> groups.
>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Reichert" <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 1:41 AM
Subject: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen

> Greetings everyone!
>
> Don Morgan posted this informative piece on the Idaho Libs group
> earlier.
>
> This is astonishing to say the least!
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [idaho_libs] US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as
> citizen spies
> Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 14:32:34
> From: Don Morgan <donaldfmorgan@yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
> To: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
>
> >From http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/14/1026185141232.html
>
> US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen spies
>
> By Ritt Goldstein
> July 15 2002
>
> The Bush Administration aims to recruit millions of United States
> citizens
> as domestic informants in a program likely to alarm civil liberties
> groups.
>
> The Terrorism Information and Prevention System, or TIPS, means the US
>
> will have a higher percentage of citizen informants than the former
> East
> Germany through the infamous Stasi secret police. The program would
> use a
> minimum of 4 per cent of Americans to report "suspicious activity".
>
> Civil liberties groups have already warned that, with the passage
> earlier
> this year of the Patriot Act, there is potential for abusive,
> large-scale
> investigations of US citizens.
>
> As with the Patriot Act, TIPS is being pursued as part of the
> so-called
> war against terrorism. It is a Department of Justice project.
>
> Highlighting the scope of the surveillance network, TIPS volunteers
> are
> being recruited primarily from among those whose work provides access
> to
> homes, businesses or transport systems. Letter carriers, utility
> employees,
> truck drivers and train conductors are among those named as targeted
> recruits.
>
> A pilot program, described on the government Web site
> www.citizencorps.gov, is scheduled to start next month in 10 cities,
> with 1
> million informants participating in the first stage. Assuming the
> program
> is initiated in the 10 largest US cities, that will be 1 million
> informants
> for a total population of almost 24 million, or one in 24 people.
>
> Historically, informant systems have been the tools of non-democratic
> states. According to a 1992 report by Harvard University's Project on
> Justice, the accuracy of informant reports is problematic, with some
> informants having embellished the truth, and others suspected of
> having
> fabricated their reports.
>
> Present Justice Department procedures mean that informant reports will
>
> enter databases for future reference and/or action. The information
> will
> then be broadly available within the department, related agencies and
> local
> police forces. The targeted individual will remain unaware of the
> existence
> of the report and of its contents.
>
> The Patriot Act already provides for a person's home to be searched
> without that person being informed that a search was ever performed,
> or of
> any surveillance devices that were implanted.
>
> At state and local levels the TIPS program will be co-ordinated by the
>
> Federal Emergency Management Agency, which
>
> was given sweeping new powers, including internment, as part of the
> Reagan
> Administration's national security initiatives. Many key figures of
> the
> Reagan era are part of the Bush Administration.
>
> The creation of a US "shadow government", operating in secret, was
> another
> Reagan national security initiative.
>
> Ritt Goldstein is an investigative journalist and a former leader in
> the
> movement for US law enforcement accountability. He has lived in Sweden
>
> since 1997, seeking political asylum there, saying he was the victim
> of
> life-threatening assaults in retaliation for his accountability
> efforts.
> His application has been supported by the European Parliament, five of
>
> Sweden's seven big political parties, clergy, and Amnesty and other
> rights
> groups.
> ____________________________________________________________
> This message has been sent with an unregistered
> copy of HotCast Mass E-Mailer.
> < < This notice doesn't appear on the registered version > >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> [Click here to visit our exclusive feature of ACUVUE2 Colours at
LensExpress.com!]
> Click here to find your contact lenses!
>
> 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.lp-idaho.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.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: libnw-help@immosys.com
>

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

Subject: Re: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 10:54:01 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

>This is astonishing to say the least!

But is this good, bad, or what?

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

Subject: Re: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

> >This is astonishing to say the least!
>
> But is this good, bad, or what?

Umm, I think it should be pretty obvious that it is
very, very bad.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com

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

Subject: Re: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:31:12 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

>> >This is astonishing to say the least!

>> But is this good, bad, or what?

>Umm, I think it should be pretty obvious that it is
>very, very bad.

Then somebody better explain to me why. Why is this any different from,
say, the Auxiliary Police?

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

Subject: Re: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:46:55 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to (undetermined)...

Some, unidentified, wrote:
> >Umm, I think it should be pretty obvious that it is
> >very, very bad.

You replied:
> Then somebody better explain to me why. Why is this any different from,
> say, the Auxiliary Police?

It amounts to paid snitches, and the centralization of a national
police gestapo, with its' tentacles everyone. In another era, such
tactics were used by others as a means for controlling dissatisfaction
with the regime in control.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Re: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:01:47 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Michelle!

Michelle wrote to Robert Goodman to Michelle Eilers...

I originally wrote:
> > >This is astonishing to say the least!

Robert Goodman replied:
> > But is this good, bad, or what?

You commented:
> Umm, I think it should be pretty obvious that it is
> very, very bad.

It's too bad Roger isn't still around at a time like this. It's hard
for me to deal with individuals who can't see an obvious draconian
increase in the number of paid snitches, and the centralization of
police power in the hands of a few under the control of the Executive
Branch of the US government. This is becoming a trend, lately, with
the new Department of Homeland Security taking upon itself real
police-state functions. Even local police forces, the county sheriff
and others are being coaxed into the nationalization of police. No
this isn't a really great trend.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Re: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:35:50 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote:

>> Then somebody better explain to me why. Why is this any
>>different from, say, the Auxiliary Police?

>It amounts to paid snitches, and the centralization of a national
>police gestapo, with its' tentacles everyone. In another era, such
>tactics were used by others as a means for controlling
>dissatisfaction with the regime in control.

Seems this is all a matter of perspective -- and more importantly,
projection. I see people being encouraged to report suspicion of criminal
activity. Did we want paid gov't agents to be the only ones doing that?
Others on this list see it as nefarious.

Carol wants to get rid of the FBI, and also apparently sees tis as ominous.
Hmm...the gov't shouldn't emply people to investigate crime, and shouldn't
encourage volunteers either. What's left?

It seems fedgov intelligence operation was insufficient (by virtue of being
inefficient) to prevent terrorism of a national scope. What's wrong with
their calling for regular folks to be their eyes & ears, to get around the
bureaucratic intelligence bottleneck?

I wonder whether I'm the only libertarian who's not a mere malcontent. I
suspect that if the volunteer intelligence network envisioned has already
been in place, and a proposal had been made by gov't to dismantle it, the
same people would be complaining about that. They'd give it as an example
of fedgov's distrust of the people, and attempt to monopolize intelligence.

Truly I So Briney,
Robert

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

Subject: Re: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:00:53 -0500
From: Becky Kivak <bkivak@bellsouth.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Frank Reichert wrote in response to Robert G. and Michelle E.:

> It's too bad Roger isn't still around at a time like this.

(laughing out loud) Roger would be spitting nails!
I have to agree with you here, Frank...indeed, I sorely
miss him...

> (snipped your centralization of police power comment)

> ....This is becoming a trend, lately, with
> the new Department of Homeland Security taking upon itself real
> police-state functions. Even local police forces, the county sheriff
> and others are being coaxed into the nationalization of police. No
> this isn't a really great trend.
>

"Homeland Security"...I don't even like the name...kinda'
collectivist sounding, don't you think?...
Nazi Germany comes to mind (I hear Roger gasping that
I would say such)...Alexander Hamilton stated words to
the effect that to be more safe, they (we) at length are
willing to run the risk of being less free...continual dangers
allows rulers the great luxury of directing the attention of
their subjects outward... TIPS...defined...networks of
civilian informants ... my question...who polices the police...or
should I ask...who polices the informants? Required
courses that I took in school (admittedly years ago) were
Communism, totalitarianism, socialism, and democracy...
Nazi Germany, communist Cuba, China and our new
best friend the Soviet Union...replaced with dumbing
down of America...puts a new light on education, doesn't
it...I can just see my mailman now...am I a good witch or a
bad witch....pilfer, pilfer...the ability to turn neighbor against
neighbor...who polices the police? Yep, I sorely miss Roger...

Becky

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

Subject: Re: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
Date: 16 Jul 2002 00:29:40 -0600
From: Daniel Fackrell <unlearned@learn2think.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 09:54, Robert Goodman wrote:
> >This is astonishing to say the least!
>
> But is this good, bad, or what?

Hmm... I wonder. What would you think about knowing that I could be
employed by the government to watch you for anything that I think might
be indicative of suspicious activity?

Now consider that I am also offered a $1000 or more bonus for
information that I give them that allows them to apprehend a "suspected
terrorist".

You'd have to hope beyond hope that I don't have a good imagination, and
don't need extra money.

And once such a program is in place, with everybody suspicious of
everybody else, some because they start seeing terrorists everywhere,
and others because they -know- that snitches are everywhere, you can
kiss any hope of the people uniting for a common cause goodbye.

Would that be good, bad, or what? ;)

Daniel Fackrell

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

Subject: Re: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
Date: 16 Jul 2002 00:35:06 -0600
From: Daniel Fackrell <unlearned@learn2think.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 21:35, Robert Goodman wrote in part:
> Carol wants to get rid of the FBI, and also apparently sees tis as
ominous.
> Hmm...the gov't shouldn't emply people to investigate crime, and shouldn't
> encourage volunteers either. What's left?
>
> It seems fedgov intelligence operation was insufficient (by virtue of
being
> inefficient) to prevent terrorism of a national scope. What's wrong with
> their calling for regular folks to be their eyes & ears, to get around the
> bureaucratic intelligence bottleneck?

We have already had volunteer regular folks reporting suspicious
activity in this country, so this is unnecessary.

But if it's unnecessary, why do it? Who's behind it? Who stands to
gain?

The fact that these types of government-organized secret organizations
(yes, they have to remain secret to work) have been invariably used
against the citizens of the country where they were created should be
one among many signs of what lies ahead if we cannot stop this.

Daniel Fackrell

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

Subject: Re: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 06:53:03 -0600
From: "Ted Dunlap" <teddunlap@outdrs.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

: >Subject: Re: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans
as citizen

: > But is this good, bad, or what?

Daniel gave most of the answers that I was wanting to get
around to, but left out one.

Now these "good" people formally have this new purpose in
life
"watching for suspicious or anti-American activity".
Jim Oyler would probably be better at explaining it, but
there is a mentality and mind-set
that goes with seeking and accepting this role. Their ideas
of what is un-American expand
well beyond normal. Their feeling of power grows and with
it, the willingness to turn
neighbors in for goofy stuff, or even trumped-up stuff.
(your dog pooped on their rose
bush, so you are in for a big-time hassle from the
brown-shirts).

Use your imagination or a decent history book to visualize
the resultant society.

Ted

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

Subject: Re: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:30:45 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Daniel Fackrell wrote in part:

>The fact that these types of government-organized secret
>organizations (yes, they have to remain secret to work)

If so, then there's no way this could work. 1 in 24 USAns? Too big a
conspiracy. But I don't think there's any plan to make it secret.

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

Subject: Re: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:30:49 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

unlearned@learn2think.org wrote in part:

>Hmm... I wonder. What would you think about knowing that I could be
>employed by the government to watch you for anything that I think
>might be indicative of suspicious activity?

>Now consider that I am also offered a $1000 or more bonus for
>information that I give them that allows them to apprehend a
>"suspected terrorist".

No different from the way I think about any of the other tip programs
around.
We have them all the time here in New York.

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

Subject: Re: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:30:53 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

>: > But is this good, bad, or what?

>Daniel gave most of the answers that I was wanting to get
>around to, but left out one.

>Now these "good" people formally have this new purpose in
>life
>"watching for suspicious or anti-American activity".
>Jim Oyler would probably be better at explaining it, but
>there is a mentality and mind-set
>that goes with seeking and accepting this role. Their ideas
>of what is un-American expand
>well beyond normal. Their feeling of power grows and with
>it, the willingness to turn
>neighbors in for goofy stuff, or even trumped-up stuff.
>(your dog pooped on their rose
>bush, so you are in for a big-time hassle from the
>brown-shirts).

>Use your imagination or a decent history book to visualize
>the resultant society.
>Ted
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
But there's a strong countervailing attitude against whistle-blowers that
says, don't fink no matter what crimes you see perpetrated.

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

Subject: Re: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 23:45:27 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Ted!

Ted Dunlap wrote, I believe, to Robert Goodman...

I believe that Robert Goodman wrote:
> : > But is this good, bad, or what?

Ted Dunlap replied:
> Daniel gave most of the answers that I was wanting to get
> around to, but left out one.

This should be quite revealing, as I thought Daniel covered the field
in this case.

> Now these "good" people formally have this new purpose in
> life
> "watching for suspicious or anti-American activity".
> Jim Oyler would probably be better at explaining it, but
> there is a mentality and mind-set
> that goes with seeking and accepting this role. Their ideas
> of what is un-American expand
> well beyond normal. Their feeling of power grows and with
> it, the willingness to turn
> neighbors in for goofy stuff, or even trumped-up stuff.
> (your dog pooped on their rose
> bush, so you are in for a big-time hassle from the
> brown-shirts).

I believe this is certainly an important factor for those accepting
such roles. But I tend to look in the direction of who's in charge,
and why the real need for such "informants". The pool is endless,
individuals with their own vision of morality, religion, ethnic
correctness, right or wrong, and wishing to use the bureaucratic power
of the state to fulfil their own visions of "correctness". When you
consider the magnitude of recruiting 24-million individuals
(approximately 10 percent of the US population) to "inform" on
suspicious behaviour, you really open a can of worms, namely:

1. What behaviour becomes suspicious? Those disagreeing with the
government, for example on foreign policy matters. Those that just
don't like this government in the context in which it is current made
up, the list goes on.

2. Who in the neighbourhood who are outside of the "mainstream", or
dares to publish letters to the editor, or hold meetings, or say
anything that "disturbs" others.

3. Those having visitors at their home who "look" different.

All I am saying here, is we are not talking about paid professionals
who supposedly have an objective way of evaluating cases, but rather
24-million goons who accept the role of judging their neighbours
according to their own "correct" moral, social, political, ethnic (you
fill in the others) vision of what "ought to be". That's what gets
scary here!

This has all the trappings of a police state, since the real power
rests with the government in following the leads, and using the new
draconian powers of the Patriot Act, and subsequent acts, to use
extraordinary force to violate the rights and privacy of individuals
who mean no harm to anyone!

> Use your imagination or a decent history book to visualize
> the resultant society.

This is all too true, unfortunately. We may have already reached a
point of no return on this one. I don't know if this stinking mess
can ever be turned around even in our own lifetimes. I am encouraged
with the Shrub Regime's<tm> lower "approval" ratings -- at least that
is encouraging. But what does that mean? A Democratic alternative?
In the immediate sense, I don't know just how relevant the LP is in
all of this anymore. We'll target Bob Barr, or perhaps, Ron Paul for
his stand for pro-life, and we'll certainly elect what is much worse.

The REAL problem with the LP right now is we keep on picking the
issues that really do not resonate at all with the American people.
All I am saying is that we can support everything that we believe, but
we need to get our priorities straight in terms of the issues that
really matter to most Americans. Yes, I am against the 'war on drugs",
and I believe the government should not have anything whatsoever to do
with our own choices. But as the California LP just did a month ago,
putting a marijuana plant on their front page of their newsletter, is
hardly helping our cause even in that ridiculous project!

Let's face it, most people don't smoke "joints", so why rub it in
their face? Most are even offended by it. On the other hand, everyone
pays taxes. We are ALL offended, or we should be, by the increase of
police power! The loss in civil liberties as a result of the current
Shrug Regime's <tm> agenda since 9/11 ought to be our hot and front
burner issue!

And, in Idaho, the historical loss over the "public lands" issue, and
the administration of "wilderness" sites, ought to be the top
priority. These are real issues that determine whether people take the
LP in a favourable light, or else see us as a bunch of lunatics and a
fringe group. I actually believe that libertarian ideology is largely
"mainstream" -- it's our "priority driven" message, and our priorities
that tend to place us as just another fringe group that should be
avoided at all costs.

I believe we can do better than this.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Re: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net> wrote:
> Daniel Fackrell wrote in part:
>
> >The fact that these types of
> government-organized secret
> >organizations (yes, they have to remain secret
> to work)
>
> If so, then there's no way this could work. 1 in 24
> USAns? Too big a
> conspiracy. But I don't think there's any plan to
> make it secret.

You think they are going to announce who all the 1 in
24 Americans are?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com

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

Subject: Re: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 23:56:46 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Daniel Fackrell...

Daniel Fackrell wrote:
> >The fact that these types of government-organized secret
> >organizations (yes, they have to remain secret to work)

You replied:
> If so, then there's no way this could work. 1 in 24 USAns? Too big a
> conspiracy. But I don't think there's any plan to make it secret.

Well, not with the current Shrub's approval ratings certainly... it's
a patriotic duty to squeal on your neighbours, and for your own
judgements in terms of morality and other factors! Since 9/11, we
have been living in "right wing" heaven! FOX NEWS jumped to #1.
Nothing is questioned anymore, objectivity is out of vogue. No one is
asking the really serious questions anymore, and if they do, they are
relegated to the sidelines.

It may be a conspiracy yes, but it is a good one if it exists at all.
It is however a question of a police-state mentality forming around
the notion that if "anything" looks particularly strange with your
neighbour, and YOU don't like, it simply turn him in and report it!
That could mean damn near anything. Your neighbour might possible be
a Muslim for example, and YOU are a Christian. It's really as simple
as that. You report on Muslim friends, visiting the home of your
neighbour, because YOU feel uncomfortable with that.

Well, so much for the freedom of association.

I'm not resting my case completely, but in the current context of
things, I see the potential here for tremendous abuse.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Re: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:20:23 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Becky!

It's been a long time since I last heard from you. This is my
pleasure, believe me!

Becky Kivak wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> > It's too bad Roger isn't still around at a time like this.

You replied:
> (laughing out loud) Roger would be spitting nails!
> I have to agree with you here, Frank...indeed, I sorely
> miss him...

I miss him a lot as well. We communicated almost daily in private
e-mail, as well as here on Liberty Northwest. His terrible death, and
it certainly has come home to me as personally as it can get, has left
a huge vacuum in my life, and at a time when we were still discussing
some of the same subjects right here on Liberty Northwest up until the
end. What a lot of folks here probably don't realize, is that Roger
had a lot of very close and personal friends, many of which didn't
agree with his political ideals.

Yes, I've noted many times since, that I WISH Roger were here even
tonight on some of these topics. I miss him a lot, and he was an even
and stabilizing influence in my own life, and I am trying my best to
adjust to this tragedy, and to press on for justice in this case.

> "Homeland Security"...I don't even like the name...kinda'
> collectivist sounding, don't you think?...
> Nazi Germany comes to mind (I hear Roger gasping that
> I would say such)...Alexander Hamilton stated words to
> the effect that to be more safe, they (we) at length are
> willing to run the risk of being less free...continual dangers
> allows rulers the great luxury of directing the attention of
> their subjects outward...

Indeed. But I don't want my agreement to be at the expense of what
Roger might like to say for himself, if he were capable of doing. I
agree with you. And, as you just spoke of Hamilton that security for
the sake of liberty is not an option, or an even trade off (my
words). Roger may, or may not have agreed, I don't know frankly. All
I can say, is that Roger and I agreed most often in terms of defining
fascism in America, and the trend towards a police state. We also
largely agreed, with some differences, on social matters regarding
morality and the freedom to live our own lives in a fashion becoming
of our own conscience.

> TIPS...defined...networks of
> civilian informants ... my question...who polices the police...or
> should I ask...who polices the informants?

Excellent questions! And, who's morality, religion, or social agenda
becomes the "correct" one! And, conversely, which, of the "others"
becomes suspect?

> I can just see my mailman now...am I a good witch or a
> bad witch....pilfer, pilfer...the ability to turn neighbor against
> neighbor...who polices the police? Yep, I sorely miss Roger...

It looks like that might be the road we are heading down now. I hope
the hell that I am wrong, but when the "government" has the power to
decide, that is already for foregone conclusion.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Re: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:00:42 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

>You think they are going to announce who all the 1 in
>24 Americans are?
>__________________________________________________
The press release already indicated the type of people they want -- people
whose jobs take them around to places anyway, such as delivery people. To
recruit that many people, practically all the people of those types will
have to participate. Everyone's going to know who they are.

But in a neighborhood watch, secrecy is not a desideratum. Otherwise you'd
wind up with spies spying on spies, because it'd be their activity that'd be
most suspicious.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

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

Subject: Re: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
Date: 16 Jul 2002 18:38:05 -0600
From: Daniel Fackrell <unlearned@learn2think.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Tue, 2002-07-16 at 09:30, Robert Goodman wrote:
> unlearned@learn2think.org wrote in part:
>
> >Hmm... I wonder. What would you think about knowing that I could be
> >employed by the government to watch you for anything that I think
> >might be indicative of suspicious activity?
>
> >Now consider that I am also offered a $1000 or more bonus for
> >information that I give them that allows them to apprehend a
> >"suspected terrorist".
>
> No different from the way I think about any of the other tip programs
around.
> We have them all the time here in New York.

Robert,

Then we are in full agreement that this is a bad thing?

Daniel Fackrell

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

Subject: test... disregard
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:43:19 +0800
From: "Frank Reichert" <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
Reply-To: "Frank Reichert" <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

test, disregard.

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

Subject: Bin ladin still in charge...
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:27:29 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

Here's a great press release from the Australian press. Certainly
appears that very little has changed at all, except for the loss of
civil liberties.

Check this one out:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/14/1026185141219.html

And, billions of dollars later, we still haven't figured out why the
only one winning in this war, is perhaps the terrorists themselves.

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: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen spies
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:34:47 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: Don Morgan <donaldfmorgan@yahoo.com>
CC: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Dan!

Don Morgan wrote to Frank Reichert...

>From http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/14/1026185141232.html

> US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen spies
>
> By Ritt Goldstein
> July 15 2002
>
> The Bush Administration aims to recruit millions of United States citizens
> as domestic informants in a program likely to alarm civil liberties
groups.

Yes. Isn't this just wonderful. No wonder the 'US War on Terror' is
losing. Thanks so much for passing this on!

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: How Can You Lauugh at a Time Like This? (Forward From robgood@bestweb.net)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 10:54:06 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>,
"Willy Chaplin" <willy@dreamagic.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
"Gypsy" <gypsy@dreamagic.com>

This and every other column we have written is freely available for
reprint...even if it must be edited to sanitize it for the print medium. If

your local newspaper isn't among those choosing to reprint it, please send
this to the editor with your endorsement.

We have met the enemy...
========================

A few weeks ago, we wrote and article entitled Doctors cause cancer! dealing

with one of the aspects of the medicalization of American society...namely,
the excessive...almost obsessive...attention being paid to "health" by the
public. We reasoned that this might be doing more harm than good, actually
CAUSING bad health. However, some didn't get far enough past the
title...which we admit was over the top...but, hey, we have to get your
attention somehow! They came away with the impression that we hate
doctors...or something like that. So, this week, we are going to re-visit
the topic in more detail, plainly stating what we think is going on.

And what is that? The process of medicalization...as signaled mainly by the

preponderance of "health" news in the media... results AT LEAST in the
following negative outcomes, in addition to worrying constantly about one's
health. Doctor's say that a majority of their patients do not need medical
attention. Then why have these patients allocated time and money to
visiting the doctor? The media tell them to! Their symptoms, rather than
indicating the common cold, may instead be AIDS, cancer, diabetes, attention

deficit syndrome...God knows what!...and the only way to be sure is to "ASK
YOUR DOCTOR." Forget that someone, somewhere must pay the cost of "asking
your doctor."

--- Once behavior or symptoms have been linked to a "disease," then they are

no longer the responsibility of the victim, since the "cause" is some
outside agent over which he or she has no control. Thus people committing
horrible criminal acts are "excused" on the grounds that they are mentally
ill. Consider the "disease" of addiction. Not only is the addict excused
from his or her behavior...because he/she can not help him/herself...but
many people are coerced into "treatment" who are doing nothing more than
medicating themselves, using their own personal definition of health and
happiness.

--- Our societal obsession with health and health care sets up a situation
wherein all participants are placed into antagonism with one another. It
used to be true that all cooperated in the principal goal, the treatment of
real, treatable ailments...healing. Now doctors fight with insurance
companies, drug companies, the government and the patients themselves.
Patients struggle with insurance companies and the government. Hospitals
fight with all of the above.

--- Last but certainly not least, the costs of medical treatment are
spiraling out of control, far outpacing all other inflationary pressures.

So, who are the villains in this melodrama? Just as many people thought
that we were blaming the doctors, they in fact do just that. Reasoning that

doctors make a whole lot of money, live in big houses and are unconcerned
with the real wellbeing of their patients, they call upon the doctors to
reform the system. But, it wasn't the doctors who mandated socialized
medicine that creates a blizzard of paperwork...which SOMEBODY has to do and

SOMEBODY has to pay for. It wasn't doctors who created the VERY expensive
drugs and hi-tech gadgetry which has come to dominate medical care. They
all know, from experience, that ALL healing is done by the patients
themselves, that their job is to shepherd us through the difficult times
while our bodies are healing themselves. They can sew up our gashes,
provide us with substitute organs and limbs, provide us with substances
which will speed and facilitate recovery, but in the last analysis, we heal
ourselves.

Well, if it isn't the doctors, maybe it is the hospitals, the nurses and the

swarm of other people...many highly paid...who surround doctors these days.
Hospitals urge doctors to prescribe expensive tests...just in case the
preliminary diagnosis masks something more serious...but also to pay for the

enormously expensive equipment in which they have been mandated to "invest."

Medical professionals all have unions or professional organizations that
lobby incessantly for higher wages and more benefits. But all these players

are merely doing what comes naturally, looking out for the best interests
of...well...THEIR interests. This is how "business" works, and the medical
establishment has become, if nothing else, BIG business.

So, it must be the insurance companies. Like bookies, they make bets that
their costs can be kept lower than their income, based on elaborate
probabilities. To do so, they must continually press hospitals, doctors and

other health professionals to keep their costs down. To make sure that they

are trying their best to do so, insurance companies...and the
government...mandate mountains of paperwork to check up on just that. But,
are they not just free market capitalists doing what free market capitalists

do?

Drug companies are constantly releasing new "wonder" drugs, some simply
recreational drugs...like viagra...masquerading as medicine. Others are
created to treat diseases...like attention deficit syndrome or generalized
anxiety syndrome, that didn't even exist fifty years ago. So surely they
are just a bunch of pirates getting rich off us suckers. They retort, not
unreasonably, that government regulations force them to spend enormous sums
of money just to research and test new drugs before they can be sold to the
public. They have to recover those costs somehow, or they will cease to
exist. Then where will the REAL wonder drugs come from?

The media are certainly major players as well. You can't turn on CNN for
five minutes without hearing about the latest "findings" concerning YOUR
health...so pay attention, dammit...your life may depend upon it!
Newspapers and other periodical often have a regular health column in
addition to frequent articles about YOUR health. After all, who is it that
is constantly reminding us that we are all victims of cruel destiny,
afflicted with myriad diseases, cast adrift on the storms of fickle fate.
Life's a bitch...and then you die!

But, why do they publish and broadcast all this stuff? Because YOU want it.

Because YOU do not want to overlook a single chance to make your life
healthier and happier...neglecting, of course, to take into account just how

much all this concern is costing you.

If you are a loyal fan of this column, you think you know what's coming
next.

But, we are not going to blame government either. Most of the changes that
brought about the current situation were actually OPPOSED by most
politicians at the time they were first mentioned. It was we who eventually

convinced them that they had to make the government a servant of the
people...actually as well as figuratively. That the government should watch

out for things that might hurt us and protect us from ourselves. Unable to
grasp the reality of who pays for government intervention...we do...and
filled with post-modern good intentions toward the "less fortunate" than
we...we FORCED the government to give us what we now have, a nightmare of
total lack of common sense.

We have met the enemy...and he is us! - Walt Kelly, via POGO

Talk to you later...

============================================

Want a new computer?

Go to URL:

http://www.nexgenmicro.com/reseller.asp?rid=blEJ9Nmj7B&AID=0023

For the best prices you can find...ANYWHERE!

============================================

This column is also published on the Web at:

http://www.dreamagic.com/bruce/gandw190.html

Go there if you wish to investigate the links, or visit the following URL
for all previously published columns:

http://www.dreamagic.com/bruce/prvbruce.html

To write to Gypsy and Willy, reply to this email and delete the text you
don't want repeated.

Would you like to recommend this column to some friends?
If so, go to the page:

http://www.dreamagic.com/cgi-bin/birdcast1.cgi

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

Subject: testing old egroups address
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 10:54:30 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@egroups.com>
CC: <libnw@immosys.com>

Just for fun, seeing if the old egroups address will still work. What was
it before that, onelist?

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

Subject: Re: testing old egroups address
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:31:11 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to everyone...
>
> Just for fun, seeing if the old egroups address will still work. What was
> it before that, onelist?

It started out around the beginning of 1999, I believe, as
libnw@onelist.com

Then several months later, onelist was bought out by egroups.com, and
then finally yahoogroups took it over. You can check the archives
going back around 3 years for precise dates.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Re: testing old egroups address
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:30:55 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to everyone...

> Just for fun, seeing if the old egroups address will still work. What was
> it before that, onelist?

I tested it myself using three different web accounts I have with
webmail. They all went through nicely into the archives. I noticed
here's appeared there as well.

Problem right now is that our normal mail here isn't going to the
archives, and I've been trying to work with Bill Anderson to resolve
why there is a hangup with this. According to the subscriber list,
libnw@yahoogroups.com is listed to receive mail, but for some oddball
reason it isn't happening yet.

Also, I've noticed LP nationals releases aren't coming through either.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:56:48 -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 automatted. 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: Bush's Popularity Falls!!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:18:33 -0600
From: "B Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>
To: "Northwest LIBERTARIANS" <libnw@immosys.com>

According to this just released Zogby Poll, Bush's
popularity rating has dropped 7 points to 62%.

Ben

> Bush job performance drops 7 points to 62%;
> One in three are worse off today than one year ago;
> Nearly one in three worse off than two years ago;
> Majority less likely to invest because of scandals
>
> Zogby International's "Zogby America Poll"
> surveyed approximately 1,109 likely voters
> nationwide July 12-15. The margin of
> sampling error is +/- 3.1%
>
> Details: http://www.zogby.com

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

Subject: Re: Bush's Popularity Falls!!!!!!!!
Date: 15 Jul 2002 16:16:07 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 16:18, B Irvin wrote:
> According to this just released Zogby Poll, Bush's
> popularity rating has dropped 7 points to 62%.

It's about damned time.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

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

Subject: Re: Bush's Popularity Falls!!!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:09:53 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Ben!

Ben Irvin wrote to everyone...

> According to this just released Zogby Poll, Bush's
> popularity rating has dropped 7 points to 62%.

I suspected that it would, once the hysteria over 9/11 dissipates.
Now he has to deal with "real" issues, such as the rapidly falling
stock market, corporate failures, rising unemployment, currency
devaluation, and a host of other economic issues; kind of like what
happened to his dad, who tried to ride on the coattails of the "Gulf
War" over a decade ago.

Finally, it appears also, that some Americans are finally starting to
question US foreign policy and this insanity we call the 'war on
terror', and with increasing funding, may likely end up further
exacerbating the already bankrupt federal treasury. Oh well, I
suppose taxes can simply be increased. That ought to make The Shrub
Regime's<tm> popularity soar.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Re: Bush's Popularity Falls!!!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:12:15 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Ben Irvin...

Ben Irvin wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 16:18, B Irvin wrote:
> > According to this just released Zogby Poll, Bush's
> > popularity rating has dropped 7 points to 62%.

You replied:
> It's about damned time.

Well, at least we agree on something, after all!

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: The New American - New Product
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:31:08 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

It's not very often around here that I promote a book. I just
received this announcement from "The New American" a moment ago.

The author is John F. McManus. I have heard him speak on two
occasions, and read just about every other book he has written. I'd
like to get a copy of this one myself, but do to my geographical
location, getting such good material is very expensive. McManus is
always articulate, persuasive, but readable for the average layman.

And, in this case, McManus is right on target yet once again. Buckley
is no conservative, and certainly not a libertarian either. Yes, I
recommend this book as worthy reading for any interested in the
convoluted political landscape that is often defined today between the
left vs. right.

Kindest regards,
Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: The New American - New Product
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:45:49 -0500
From: alerts@thenewamerican.com
Reply-To: alerts@thenewamerican.com
To: "The New American Alert Network"

New blockbuster hard-bound now available!
----------------------------------------
William F. Buckley, Jr.: Pied Piper for the Establishment - $24.95

John F. McManus, publisher of The New American, examines the life and
career of William F. Buckley, Jr. who, chosen by the liberals as the
chief
"acceptable" spokesman for conservatives, has been leading Americans
away
from true conservatism since the 1960s. By understanding how and why
the
New York-Washington establishment embraced Buckley and his so-called
conservatism, you can avoid the traps laid down by similar false
conservatives. Get your copy today! (2002, 288pp, hb)

Find this book at:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/marketplace/

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

To subscribe, unsubscribe or to change your email address, please go
to:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/contact/alert.htm

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

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

Subject: Unsubscribe Request Received.
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 00:25:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: libnw@immosys.com
To: libnw@immosys.com

You have been unsubscribed from the mailing list lp-announce by WWW form:

http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

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

Subject: Re: Unsubscribe Request Received.
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 01:15:52 -0400
From: "Doris Gordon" <libertarian@erols.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: <libnw@immosys.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:25 AM
Subject: Unsubscribe Request Received.

>
> You have been unsubscribed from the mailing list lp-announce by WWW form:
>
> http://www.lp.org/action/email.html
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Unsubscribe Request Received.
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 02:00:47 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Doris!

Doris Gordon wrote to everyone...

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <libnw@immosys.com>
> To: <libnw@immosys.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:25 AM
> Subject: Unsubscribe Request Received.

I believe, right now, we are subscribed to the LP announce list. This
was an effort to unsubscribe from the old list. Since you didn't add
anything here, I have no idea what this msg is trying to convey.
There was also a "subscribe request" sent out, that you may have
missed.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Welcome to The New American Email Alert Network
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:31:53 -0500
From: "SparkLIST.com" <sparklist@burst.sparklist.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Welcome to The New American's Email Alert Network

To unsubscribe or to change your email address, please visit:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/contact/alert.htm

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

Subject: Welcome to The John Birch Society Email Alert Network
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:51:44 -0500
From: "SparkLIST.com" <sparklist@comet.sparklist.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Welcome to The John Birch Society's Legislative Alert Network

To unsubscribe or to change your email address, please visit:
http://www.jbs.org/contact/alert.htm

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

Subject: LPUS press releases...
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:14:58 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone...

LP National replied to my request...

> You have been subscribed to the mailing list lp-announce by WWW form:

Looks like the link to LP National's press releases may have been
restored after all. We'll see if they start filtering through.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: 3-7-77????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:58:00 -0600
From: "B Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Kahe',

In the spirit of some of tonight's discussion (Daniel, Robert, etc.),
I have a Montana history question for everyone. Whom ever gets
the correct answer, gets a two days vacation to Monida. Here's
the question:

If you have ever driven through Montana and been stopped by the
Highway Patrol (MT doesn't have State Police), you should have
noticed that every officer has the numbers 3-7-77 all over his uniform
(brass lapels, shoulder patch, etc.) and on the bottom of the Montana
Hwy. Patrol logo on both front doors of his/her vehicle. All Montana
patrol officers always have the same number combination: 3-7-77.
What does 3-7-77 represent?

Ben

P.S. Remember Monida!!!!!!!!!!

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

Subject: Re:
3-7-77????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:47:58 -0500
From: Becky Kivak <bkivak@bellsouth.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

according to their website "The historic 3-7-77 was
added to the shoulder patch by Chief Alex B. Stephenson
in 1956. The emblem is a tribute to the Vigilantes, the first
law enforcement group in the Montana Territory.

Becky

B Irvin wrote:

>
> What does 3-7-77 represent?
>
> Ben
>
> P.S. Remember Monida!!!!!!!!!!
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
3-7-77????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 02:06:41 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Becky!

Becky Kivak wrote to Ben Irvin...

> according to their website "The historic 3-7-77 was
> added to the shoulder patch by Chief Alex B. Stephenson
> in 1956. The emblem is a tribute to the Vigilantes, the first
> law enforcement group in the Montana Territory.

How did you ever come up with this one? How times have changed, and I
am sure no one around here was up to the challenge, but you. I don't
know exactly what this says about Montana's law enforcement, but maybe
it has some historical philosophical significance.

Kindest regards,
Frank

P.S.: Maybe you just won the prise for excellence that Ben had in
mind.

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

Subject: Green groups share blame for U.S. Fires
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 02:16:38 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

I'm passing this along tonight, mainly because I DISAGREE with it. I
believe all such land such be privatized, and as soon as possible.
Only private owners can responsibly manage and protect their own land
from such disasters, and, secondly, government has no right to own
such in any respect.

Kindest regards,
Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Green groups share blame for U.S. Fires
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:58:43 -0600
From: "M.O.M." <nox2128@blackfoot.net>
Organization: Militia of Montana

Subject: Green groups share blame for U.S. fires

http://enn.com/extras/printer-friendly.asp?storyid=47836

Green groups share blame for U.S. fires, say
Republicans
By Christopher Doering, Reuters
Friday, July 12, 2002

WASHINGTON Republican lawmakers on Thursday blamed environmental
groups
for
contributing to U.S. forest fires that destroyed more than 3.1 million
acres this year by
blocking federal attempts to thin undergrowth.

Green groups and the timber industry disagree on when brush and small
trees should be
removed from federal forests to reduce the risk of wildfires.

Colorado Republican Scott McInnis, who chairs a House forestry
subcommittee, said green
groups have repeatedly gone to court to block attempts by the federal
government to thin
forests. The delays have led to overgrown brush that becomes tinder in
spreading fires such
as the ones in Arizona and Colorado.

"The environmental community ... has attempted to walk away from its
share of the
blame," said McInnis. "I am urging those environmental groups to sit
down, come to us
with ways to work through this." McInnis and other lawmakers said
green
groups such as
the Sierra Club had little incentive to work with the U.S. Forest
Service to reach an
agreement because they can simply delay a project in court.

Thinning a forest removes the overgrowth of underlying brush and dead
trees, which serve
as fuel in the spread of wildfires, especially during a drought.

Environmental groups and some lawmakers have long opposed efforts to
thin forest land,
contending the government is too eager to remove large trees coveted
by
big timber
companies for profit. The groups also say commercial logging increases
fire risks by leaving
flammable debris behind. The Forest Service is trying "to blur the
lines
and say any
management activity is fuel reduction," said Sean Cosgrove, a forest
specialist with the
Sierra Club.

Less than one-third of the forest thinning projects proposed this year
by the Forest Service
are near homes or other buildings, according to green groups. The
green
groups argue the
Forest Service has not thinned enough land near homes, focusing its
attention on removing
lumber in areas where the public is not in danger.

"The public and general populous will be more responsive to an agency
that says, 'We're
doing our best, but we need to do better,' instead of this 'let's
blame
anybody and
everybody so we don't have to take full responsibility for our
actions,'" said Keith Ashdown,
a spokesman with Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The Forest Service, a division of the U.S. Agriculture Department,
estimated that as many
as 50 percent of all thinning projects are challenged in court.
However,
a study by the
General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm, found less
than
2 percent of
projects were appealed. The study is now being reviewed by the GAO.

The Forest Service "got caught with their hand in the cookie jar,"
said
Jay Inslee, a
Washington Democrat. "They want to do logging for big timber rather
than
fuel reduction."

About 3.1 million acres (1.26 million hectares) of land already has
burned this year across
the United States, nearly double the 10-year average, according to the
federal government.
Drought conditions throughout much of the Southwest, Rockies, and the
East Coast add to
the risk of forest fires this year. The agency said Arizona, Colorado,
Wyoming, and
California have the greatest fire risk during July.

In Arizona, the Chediski fire has consumed about 468,000 acres
(190,000
hectares) while
wiping out millions of dollars worth of timber sold by Native American
tribes for income.
The Hayman fire in Colorado, 55 miles (88 km) southwest of Denver,
burned 137,768 acres
(55,750 hectares) and destroyed 133 homes.

**********************************************************************************************

--

--
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107,
any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use
without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
educational
purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]

Join the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by writing to MOM,
P.O.Box
1486, Noxon, Montana 59853 and enclosing $15.00 for one year(Feb. 1 to
Jan. 31)

For the latest in great survival, preparedness and politically
incorrect
materials visit
our Online Catalog at:

http://www.militiaofmontana.com Some great deals are to be
had! Or, send $2.00 to the address below for a copy of our 44+ page
Preparedness Catalog.

Militia of Montana
P.O. Box 1486, Noxon, MT 59853
Tel: 406-847-2735 n Fax: 406-847-2246

Remove yourself from this list by writing to: militia@montana.com and
type
"UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

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

Subject: RE; Libertarian Party Seeks Medical Marijuana Patients for TV ads. (Forward From robgood@bestweb.net)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:53:57 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>,
eco man <tents444@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: tents444@yahoo.com
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
"DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" <drctalk@drcnet.org>
CC: cannabisaction@yahoogroups.com, mayday@yahoogroups.com,

The original LP medical marijuana political ad campaign message is at
the end. I separated each of the various email message replies below by
3 dashed lines. I also SmartWrapped all the messages. This compilation
is thus good for distribution to other lists for further discussion.

Please distribute. This message is publicly archived here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cannabisaction

RE; Libertarian Party Seeks Medical Marijuana Patients for TV ads.
---------1---------2---------3---------4---------5---------6---------7--

My reply to the messages below is that I think the Libertarian Party
medical marijuana patient ad campaign is a brilliant idea. I normally
vote Green if there are any Green candidates. For the other races
without Green candidates I hold my nose and vote Democrat. If there were
someone like Republican drug reformer Gary Johnson on the ballot I would
vote for him.

If the Libertarian Party candidate is actually putting out moving media
ads for medical marijuana patients I would vote for that candidate.
Maybe even if there were a Green candidate on the ballot. I would call
the Green candidate and tell them my dilemma. The Green Party is for
cannabis and drug reform. But not all candidates are as vocal as others.
I'd love to have the hammer of the LP ads to push the Green candidates
who aren't vocal on the issue to have to reply publicly. :

As for the issue among black voters I listen to my local black talk
radio station. Several of the hosts are openly for major cannabis and
drug reform when given a chance to discuss the issue. I've even called
in to them on the issue. I am white. Things are changing rapidly among
black voters. Alliances are forming among blacks and whites on this
issue.

If there were some kind of strategy to defeat the biggest drug warriors
by voting in more moderate drug warriors in that candidate's primary I
would vote for the more moderate candidate even if that meant voting in
a Republican primary. I'll just hold my nose again. :

It doesn't take many votes to make a big difference in these primary
elections. Especially in getting more moderate candidates in.

In final elections we could encourage people to vote Libertarian in
order to drain Republican voters from the arch-drug-warrior Republican
candidates running against more moderate Democrats. It would happen even
if not explicitly asked for. Because people will remember the moving
medical marijuana patient ads.

There is no reason Greens couldn't do it against arch-drug-warrior
Democrats. Though most arch-drug-warriors are Republican.

eco man

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

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

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

To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" <drctalk@drcnet.org>

From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:30:39 -0500

Subject: Re: Fw: Libertarian Party Seeks Medical Marijuana Patients for
TV ads

On 2002-07-15 krinklyfig@myrealbox.com said in part:
>>>
>>> While 73% of Americans favor medical marijuana,
>>
>> How many of them will VOTE (or, more precisely, CHANGE their vote) on
>> that issue above others? How many erstwhile supporters of these
>> particular incumbents will change their votes because of this? How
>> many who otherwise wouldn't vote will come out to vote for an
>> opponent in a primary or general election? Remember, they're not
>> electing a drug, they're electing politicians. Med mj is not a
>> candidate for office!
>
> Neither is abortion, but it's still a campaign *issue.*

But in that case, there are significant numbers of voters who will make
up their mind about a candidate on the basis of hir position on that
issue. I just don't see that happening with medical marijuana. With
marijuana generally, just possibly, but not medical marijuana.
>>
>> Meanwhile my judgement is that the medical marijuana issue will go
>> away in a few years anyway -- that in a few years there will be
>> marketed in the USA a cannabis-extract drug more effective than
>> Marinol, not requiring swallowing or smoking, containing multiple
>> natural cannabinoids. At this point I think it's too late to use med
>> mj as a significant drug reform stepping stone in the USA. A few
>> years ago it still had legs.
>
> So, essentially what you're saying is, why bother? Am I correct in
> guessing this?

No, I'm making a stronger statement than that. I'm saying this
particular effort (to unseat certain politicians) is likely to have
negative consequences (at least in the case of the Barr campaign), and
that any gains involving medical marijuana will be transitory. A few
years from now we'll be in the same position re marijuana regardless of
whether current med mj efforts are very successful or not.

On top of that, I've stated elsewhere that the WAY LP is planning to
campaign to unseat these people is half-assed and therefore unlikely to
be effective. Actually that makes up a part of my criticism in this
thread too re the med mj polls. If you really want to unseat a
politician, you do it by any means -- attacking that candidate and/or
promoting another on whatever issue that candidate is weakest on with
the voters, regardless of whether that issue is the real reason you want
the incumbent out.

Robert

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:27:10 -0700

To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" <drctalk@drcnet.org>

From: "Gerald Sutliff" <geraldm@covad.net>

Subject: Re: Fw: Libertarian Party Seeks Medical Marijuana Patients for
TV ads

IMHO most people have a total disconnect between their lives and
marijuana except as a generalized response that MJ is bad for kids and
families. It's my perception that even though many black families have
seen the horrors of the drug war up close and personal they blame the
horror on the drugs themselves not the drug war. There's a generalized
fear that doing anything to abide drug use will make ravages of the drug
war worse.

Last weekend here in Oakland, California, a number of churches sponsored
a march against violence or "Stop the killings" of young black men by
other young black men. Nothing that I read about the speeches made
hinted at the idea that any of the killings can be laid at the feet of
the drug war, even though it was born of racism and enforced selectively
by whites... (you all know the rest of it).

The rights of marijuana using patients to be free from the pain and
ravishes of their particular disease doesn't figure into the calculus of
most people, white, black, brown, yellow or mixed, when considering drug
law reform.

Good Luck to the Libertarians with the project but IMHO it will not have
much effect. Few congressmen will be turned out because his or her
opposition to drug law reform or position on the use of MMJ.

vty jerry sutliff

At 10:30 AM 7/16/02 -0500, Robert Goodman wrote:
>
> But in that case, there are significant numbers of voters who will
> make up their mind about a candidate on the basis of hir position on
> that issue. I just don't see that happening with medical marijuana.
> With marijuana generally, just possibly, but not medical marijuana.

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

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

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

From: "Joshua Tinnin" <krinklyfig@myrealbox.com>

To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" <drctalk@drcnet.org>

Subject: Fw: Libertarian Party Seeks Medical Marijuana Patients for TV
ads

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 20:47:44 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: "Libertarian Party Announcements" <owner-announce@lp.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Libertarian Party Seeks Medical Marijuana Patients for TV ads.

Please forward this message to any appropriate local drug reform groups
or medical marijuana patients you may be aware of.

The Libertarian Party is looking for medical marijuana patients who are
willing to speak out publicly in TV commercials.

As part of its Drug War Focus Strategy, the Libertarian Party will
produce and run TV ads on the issue of medical marijuana. These ads will
be used by the LP to raise public awareness of the issue, and to help
defeat the worst Drug Warriors in Congress and State legislatures. We
will produce ads that can be used by our 50 state parties, and that can
also be customized for our more than 1,300 candidates running this year.

While 73% of Americans favor medical marijuana, 90% of congress opposes
it. These ads will help pressure congress to respect the will of the
voters, and pass meaningful legislative relief for medical marijuana
patients.

We will specifically target Bob Barr with pro-medical marijuana
advertising. Barr is the congressman most responsible for the war on
medical marijuana users. Even among his strongest supporters, Barr is
out of step on this issue. Due to this year's redistricting, Barr is
very vulnerable, and we hope to ensure his defeat.

In the commercials, patients will announce their profession, their
medical condition, and state how medical marijuana helps to alleviate
their symptoms. If you are a medical marijuana patient, and would
possibly be willing to appear in a commercial, please contact me at your
earliest convenience. My E-Mail is: RonCrickenberger@hq.lp.org

Thank you. With your help, we will end the war on medical marijuana
patients.

Ron Crickenberger Political Director

To learn more about the LP's Drug War Focus Strategy, or to sign up for
our Drug War Task Force E-Mail list, go to:

http://www.lp.org/issues/drug-war-task-force.html

For more information on our Medical Marijuana ad campaign, or to donate,
go to:

www.lp.org/contribute?pro=medmjad02=2002-0119

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBPTNIG9CSe1KnQG7RAQGUuAQArSNXtUlQZYf7147JvNpC3zNg6UNI+tqg
MjMMHoBLmUljEu59KyN/npY7DsRD84+nfLZN/UR6dedo728Ot58mGLpg6MzV7MGJ
udI4g0JCalUkGFnFF/bbQXogVxiG4K2wPUMeV0X84+6ILtlZBTQ6TfgsU/YTsYvX
2AV6DgnGaAA=AsJg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com

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

Subject: Re: 3-7-77? [CLOSE; But, NO CIGAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:35:03 -0600
From: "B Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Becky wrote:

> according to their website "The historic 3-7-77 was
> added to the shoulder patch by Chief Alex B. Stephenson
> in 1956. The emblem is a tribute to the Vigilantes, the first
> law enforcement group in the Montana Territory.
> > What does 3-7-77 represent?

Sorry, no cigar, yet. I still need to know what 3-7-77
means. Yes, it was a code used by the Montana
Vigilantes and emblem used by the Montana
Highway Patrol; but, what does it mean??????

Ben
==============================
> >
> > Ben
> >
> > P.S. Remember Monida!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: 3-7-77? [CLOSE; But, NO CIGAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:36:53 -0500
From: Becky Kivak <bkivak@bellsouth.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Well, Ben...why don't you ask them?

Becky

B Irvin wrote:

> Becky wrote:
>
> > according to their website "The historic 3-7-77 was
> > added to the shoulder patch by Chief Alex B. Stephenson
> > in 1956. The emblem is a tribute to the Vigilantes, the first
> > law enforcement group in the Montana Territory.
> > > What does 3-7-77 represent?
>
> Sorry, no cigar, yet. I still need to know what 3-7-77
> means. Yes, it was a code used by the Montana
> Vigilantes and emblem used by the Montana
> Highway Patrol; but, what does it mean??????
>
> Ben
> ==============================
> > >
> > > Ben
> > >
> > > P.S. Remember Monida!!!!!!!!!!
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: 3-7-77? [CLOSE; But, NO CIGAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:01:20 -0600
From: "B Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Becky wrote:

> Well, Ben...why don't you ask them?

I know the answer (since my youth). I
posed this question on two different
Libertarian groups. We have a winner
with the other group (it was not presented
to the MTLP group; for, it would have
been too easy).

I'm still waiting for the NWLP to get the
correct answer. Strangely, the other group
is primarily based in the East.

Ben
-------------------------------------------------
> B Irvin wrote:
>
> > Becky wrote:
> >
> > > according to their website "The historic 3-7-77 was
> > > added to the shoulder patch by Chief Alex B. Stephenson
> > > in 1956. The emblem is a tribute to the Vigilantes, the first
> > > law enforcement group in the Montana Territory.
> > > > What does 3-7-77 represent?
> >
> > Sorry, no cigar, yet. I still need to know what 3-7-77
> > means. Yes, it was a code used by the Montana
> > Vigilantes and emblem used by the Montana
> > Highway Patrol; but, what does it mean??????
> >
> > Ben
> > ==============================
> > > >
> > > > Ben
> > > >
> > > > P.S. Remember Monida!!!!!!!!!!
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 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
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: 3-7-77? [CLOSE; But, NO CIGAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:57:04 -0500
From: Becky Kivak <bkivak@bellsouth.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

(laughing out loud)...well, then I guess someone
else will need to ask them...I'm in the South...

Becky

B Irvin wrote:

> Becky wrote:
>
> > Well, Ben...why don't you ask them?
>
> I know the answer (since my youth). I
> posed this question on two different
> Libertarian groups. We have a winner
> with the other group (it was not presented
> to the MTLP group; for, it would have
> been too easy).
>
> I'm still waiting for the NWLP to get the
> correct answer. Strangely, the other group
> is primarily based in the East.
>
> Ben
> -------------------------------------------------
> > B Irvin wrote:
> >
> > > Becky wrote:
> > >
> > > > according to their website "The historic 3-7-77 was
> > > > added to the shoulder patch by Chief Alex B. Stephenson
> > > > in 1956. The emblem is a tribute to the Vigilantes, the first
> > > > law enforcement group in the Montana Territory.
> > > > > What does 3-7-77 represent?
> > >
> > > Sorry, no cigar, yet. I still need to know what 3-7-77
> > > means. Yes, it was a code used by the Montana
> > > Vigilantes and emblem used by the Montana
> > > Highway Patrol; but, what does it mean??????
> > >
> > > Ben
> > > ==============================
> > > > >
> > > > > Ben
> > > > >
> > > > > P.S. Remember Monida!!!!!!!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > >
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 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
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: US planning to recruit millions of citizen spies (Forward From robgood@bestweb.net)
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:58:17 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>,
Bob Ramsey <b.rmz@verizon.net>
Reply-To: b.rmz@verizon.net
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
"DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" <drctalk@drcnet.org>

--============_-1185215058==_ma============

<http://www.citizencorps.gov>

I downloaded the citizens' manual and found it to be little different
from the Civil Defense literature they used to pass out in the 1950s
when we were terrified by H-bombs.

We can rightfully get our knickers in a knot about this attempt, but
it won't amount to anything for the same reason people tolerate the
drug war: most people just want to be left alone, and they think
somebody else (the government) will take care of their problems for
them.

The same people will sign up for this as Neighborhood Watch. They
will work just as long as any other non-paying job. With taxes
consuming 40+ percent of everyone's money, they will need to move on
to jobs that pay, and will be "too busy to bitch," just like everyone
else.

Check out Nixon's attempt to do this in 1972 with the "Heroin Hotline."

http://edwardjayepstein.com/agency/chap28.htm

-Bob R

(also available at the drug library
<http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/aof/index.html>)

=====================================

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:17:58 -0400
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" <drctalk@drcnet.org>
From: "Charles P. Conrad" <cpconrad@cnmnetwork.com>
Subject: Welcome to the Fourth Reich

This story was found at:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/14/1026185141232.html

Since Ron Bennett brought it up, here's the whole story I saw from
the Sydney Morning Herald. Of course it's from the foreign press and
by someone who has had to seek political asylum elsewhere.

US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen spies

By Ritt Goldstein
July 15 2002

The Bush Administration aims to recruit millions of United States
citizens as domestic informants in a program likely to alarm civil
liberties groups.

The Terrorism Information and Prevention System, or TIPS, means the
US will have a higher percentage of citizen informants than the
former East Germany through the infamous Stasi secret police. The
program would use a minimum of 4 per cent of Americans to report
"suspicious activity".

Civil liberties groups have already warned that, with the passage
earlier this year of the Patriot Act, there is potential for abusive,
large-scale investigations of US citizens.
As with the Patriot Act, TIPS is being pursued as part of the
so-called war against terrorism. It is a Department of Justice
project.

Highlighting the scope of the surveillance network, TIPS volunteers
are being recruited primarily from among those whose work provides
access to homes, businesses or transport systems. Letter carriers,
utility employees, truck drivers and train conductors are among those
named as targeted recruits.

A pilot program, described on the government Web site
www.citizencorps.gov, is scheduled to start next month in 10 cities,
with 1 million informants participating in the first stage. Assuming
the program is initiated in the 10 largest US cities, that will be 1
million informants for a total population of almost 24 million, or
one in 24 people.
----------- snip -------------------
Ritt Goldstein is an investigative journalist and a former leader in
the movement for US law enforcement accountability. He has lived in
Sweden since 1997, seeking political asylum there, saying he was the
victim of life-threatening assaults in retaliation for his
accountability efforts. His application has been supported by the
European Parliament, five of Sweden's seven big political parties,
clergy, and Amnesty and other rights groups.
--============_-1185215058==_ma============

<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: US planning to recruit millions of citizen
spies</title></head><body>
<div>&lt;http://www.citizencorps.gov&gt;</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I downloaded the citizens' manual and found it to be little
different from the Civil Defense literature they used to pass out in
the 1950s when we were terrified by H-bombs.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>We can rightfully get our knickers in a knot about this attempt,
but it won't amount to anything for the same reason people tolerate
the drug war: most people just want to be left alone, and they think
somebody else (the government) will take care of their problems for
them.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The same people will sign up for this as Neighborhood Watch.&nbsp;
They will work just as long as any other non-paying job.&nbsp; With
taxes consuming 40+ percent of everyone's money, they will need to
move on to jobs that pay, and will be &quot;too busy to bitch,&quot;
just like everyone else.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Check out Nixon's attempt to do this in 1972 with the
&quot;Heroin Hotline.&quot;</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>http://edwardjayepstein.com/agency/chap28.htm</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>&nbsp;&nbsp; -Bob R</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>(also available at the drug library</div>
<div
>&lt;http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/aof/index.html&gt;)</div
>
<div><br></div>
<div>=====================================</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:17:58 -0400<br>
To: &quot;DRCTalk Reformers' Forum&quot;
&lt;drctalk@drcnet.org&gt;<br>
From: &quot;Charles P. Conrad&quot;
&lt;cpconrad@cnmnetwork.com&gt;</div>
<div>Subject: Welcome to the Fourth Reich</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><i>This story was found at:<font color="#0000FF"><u>
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/14/1026185141232.html</u></font
></i></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Since Ron Bennett brought it up, here's the whole story I saw
from the Sydney Morning Herald.&nbsp; Of course it's from the foreign
press and by someone who has had to seek political asylum
elsewhere.<br>
</div>
<div>US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen spies<br>
<br>
By Ritt Goldstein<br>
July 15 2002<br>
</div>
<div>The Bush Administration aims to recruit millions of United States
citizens as domestic informants in a program likely to alarm civil
liberties groups.<br>
<br>
The Terrorism Information and Prevention System, or TIPS, means the US
will have a higher percentage of citizen informants than the former
East Germany through the infamous Stasi secret police. The program
would use a minimum of 4 per cent of Americans to report
&quot;suspicious activity&quot;.<br>
<br>
Civil liberties groups have already warned that, with the passage
earlier this year of the Patriot Act, there is potential for abusive,
large-scale investigations of US citizens.<br>
As with the Patriot Act, TIPS is being pursued as part of the
so-called war against terrorism. It is a Department of Justice
project.<br>
<br>
Highlighting the scope of the surveillance network, TIPS volunteers
are being recruited primarily from among those whose work provides
access to homes, businesses or transport systems. Letter carriers,
utility employees, truck drivers and train conductors are among those
named as targeted recruits.<br>
</div>
<div>A pilot program, described on the government Web site
www.citizencorps.gov, is scheduled to start next month in 10 cities,
with 1 million informants participating in the first stage. Assuming
the program is initiated in the 10 largest US cities, that will be 1
million informants for a total population of almost 24 million, or one
in 24 people.</div>
<div>----------- snip -------------------</div>
<div><i>Ritt Goldstein is an investigative journalist and a former
leader in the movement for US law enforcement accountability. He has
lived in Sweden since 1997, seeking political asylum there, saying he
was the victim of life-threatening assaults in retaliation for his
accountability efforts. His application has been supported by the
European Parliament, five of Sweden's seven big political parties,
clergy, and Amnesty and other rights groups.</i></div>
</body>
</html>
--============_-1185215058==_ma============--

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

Subject: 1972. The Heroin Hotline. From Agency of Fear, 1977 book by Edward Jay Epstein (Forward From robgood@bestweb.net)
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 21:11:29 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>,
eco man <tents444@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: tents444@yahoo.com
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
"DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" <drctalk@drcnet.org>
CC: cannabisaction@yahoogroups.com, mayday@yahoogroups.com,

Agency of Fear. Opiates and Political Power in America. By Edward Jay
Epstein. 1977.

PART VII: THE COUP

CHAPTER 28 - THE HEROIN HOTLINE.
http://edwardjayepstein.com/agency/chap28.htm

THE HEROIN HOTLINE

After the president designated Myles Ambrose the administration's "drug
czar" in 1972, a nationwide program of public appearances and speeches was
arranged for him so that he could focus public attention on the
administration's war on heroin. "Anyone who isn't aware that President
Nixon has been leading the light against drug abuse hasn't been paying
attention," Ambrose said In a typical appearance before the 18th National
Republican Women's Conference, at the Bellevue Stratford Hotel, in
Philadelphia, on May 20, 1972. "As the president's special consultant on
drug abuse, I can assure you that this is true and not empty rhetoric....
The fight has been all the tougher because, prior to 1969, the government
napped for most of the decade while drug abuse ballooned into a national
epidemic." Though Ambrose proved to be a "highly dramatic spokesman" for
the administration, according to Krogh, the White House also wanted him to
undertake a more "media-oriented approach" which could reach tens of
millions of potential voters. At one meeting, in March, 1972, Ehrlichman
suggested to Krogh that Ambrose should establish "some sort of hotline
system which could be nationally advertised on television throughout the
United States. Accordingly, in three weeks of frenetic planning, Ambrose
established a national heroin hotline system through which citizens
anywhere In the continental United States Could call, without charge, a
special ODA LE "Intelligence center" and report suspected heroin sellers
in their neighborhood. The intelligence center would then alert a strike
force in the area, which would immediately swoop down on the suspect. To
make, the hotline operational, ODALE took over a communications center
located in a mine shaft in Virginia, which was originally planned by the
Office of Emergency Preparedness as a nuclear-attack refuge for high White
House officials and was already wired for emergency telephone
communications. Geoffrey Sheppard, one of Krogh's young assistants on the
Domestic Council, later recalled, "When I first heard that Ambrose
intended to put all those narcotics agents in a fortified mine shaft in
Virginia, I thought he was being overly paranoid about the possibility of
having his center attacked by heroin pushers; they later told me that this
was the only facility the White House could find on three weeks' notice
which had the necessary telephone cables." In order to process the
expected flood of telephone calls from informers, ODALE leased twenty
wide-area telephone systems (called WATS lines) from the American
Telephone and Telegraph Company. Almost the entire staff of the Office of
Emergency Preparedness, which had been established in the White House
after World War II to plan for nuclear disasters, was requisitioned by
Ambrose to man the telephones twenty-four hours a day. Agents who had been
transferred to ODALE, from the BNDD were reassigncd to this mine shaft to
evaluate the contents of the tips and, if they were relevant, to pass the
information on to the appropriately located strike force. Since the
success of the hotline depended on national publicity-the entire citizenry
of America had to be made aware of ODALE's toll-free number-Ambrose
contracted with Grey Advertising Agency, in New York City, for a
nationwide publicity campaign. Television licensees across the country
were expected to donate tens of millions of dollars' worth of free time on
local television stations for these advertisements from Ambrose's office.
Since there was no provision in the budget of any federal agency to pay
the Grey Advertising Agency for designing this campaign (which presumably
would also help alert the electorate to the Nixon administration's fight
against heroin dealers), Krogh arranged to finance Grey's work through
grants from the always available Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration. In his April 7statement to the press Ambrose justified
this hotline in terms of a new "citizen's crusade." He explained, "To give
each citizen the opportunity to join in this battle, the president has
today directed that a national heroin hotline be established and manned
twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Public-spirited citizens
having information heroin traffickers are urged to dial this number
[800-368-5363]."

Since the hotline required that a large number of narcotics agents be
detached from ongoing investigations of major traffickers in order to
process telephone calls, BNDD director John Ingersoll was appalled by what
he considered to be nothing more than a "White House publicity stunt." He
argued that all analyses of heroin transactions showed that the vast
preponderance of addicts acquired their heroin supply from other addicts
or from persons with whom they had long-term ties, rather than from
strangers who might be likely to turn them in. Therefore, the hotline was
not likely to produce many valid tips. An audit of the first three months
of telephone calls received over the hotline supported Ingersoll's
contention. Of 33,313 calls received and evaluated by narcotics agents,
28,079 were deemed useless-obscene calls, pranks, or simply heavy
breathing over the phone. Most of the remaining 5,234 were appraised as
sincere, but of no immediate use. For example, agents were told merely
that "drugs were bad" or that the caller thought "Nixon was doing a good
job." Only 113 calls provided any lead at all for the strike forces, and
even these calls produced only four cases of arrests and one seizure-two
grams of adulterated heroin. which Ingersoll estimated at "a street value
of two dollars." Despite such meager results, and the fact that agents
were diverted from more profitable investigations, the hotline messages
continued on national television. Playing on popular fears, for example, a
typical ODALE commercial designed by Grey Advertising would show a person
cringing in his room behind barred windows. The message would state, "The
pusher should live behind bars, not you," followed by the hotline
telephone number. Indeed, the commercials proved so successful with local
television station owners as a means of fulfilling their public-service
requirements that they continued broadcasting these messages long after
the narcotics agents had deserted the fortified mine shaft in Virginia and
relinquished the wide-area telephone system to the American Telephone and
Telegraph Company, those who continued to call the hotline (whether to
provide valid tips or simply obscene denouncements) received a recorded
message asking them to call their local police. Even after the entire
concept of a hotline was abandoned, there was simply no way of "gracefully
recalling the commercials," Krogh explained.

Ambrose's strike forces proved to be very aggressive: they executed well
over one hundred no-knock search warrants in the first six months of their
existence, compared to only four such warrants executed by the Bureau of
Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs in its entire five-year history. However,
they failed to generate as much publicity as had been hoped for, since
they were arresting mainly local street pushers. And the night raids on
the wrong homes in Collinsville, Illinois, were a source of negative
publicity.

Whatever other purposes it may have served, ODALE did not gain the
favorable publicity that Haldeman and Ehrlichman desired, even with its
hotline.

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com

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

Subject: Hypocrisy, Bill O'Reilly, and Drug Warriors!
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 02:11:01 -0600
From: "B Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>
To: "Northwest LIBERTARIANS" <libnw@immosys.com>

WESTERN PERSPECTIVES
Pocatello, Idaho July 18, 2002

It seems that Noelle Bush, daughter of Governor Jeb Bush, has been arrested
again for having "unauthorized prescription" drugs. Is Florida a police
state or
what? Who "authorizes" prescription drugs? Any prescription drug available
on earth can be ordered via the internet; so, why the fuss and hassle?

Those that live by the "War on Drugs" may well be destroyed by that
unconstitutional
fascist action. Apparently if one has an unauthorized Viagra pill it is
forced imprisonment
and rehabilitation. However, in fairness I think that Fox's Bill O'Reilly
was right in
supporting the new federal mandate that any family members caught using
"illegal"
drugs will be evicted from public housing. This federal policy applies
whether or
not the drug possession or use was done in the public housing. I am now
waiting
for Bill O'Reilly and all drug warriors to demand that Jeb Bush and family
be evicted
from the Florida Governor's Mansion....the state's most expensive public
house.
Either they should make the demand in public or shut up about the "War on
Drugs"
and meditate on their own hypocrisy.

Ben

Here is the Noelle Bush story:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-asec-noelle07182002.story?coll=orl%2Dhome%2Dheadlines

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

Subject: phone number????? Re: 1972. The Heroin Hotline. From Agency of
Fear, 1977 book by Edward Jay Epstein (Forward From robgood@bestweb.net)
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:05:36 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

robert,

thanks for the wonderful chapter from e.j. epstein's book.

yeah, you're right, we libs are likely over-reacting to the nature of the
real threat. on the otherhand, to praphrase karl hess (and barry goldwater)
"over-reaction in defense of liberty is no vice".

the dea's drug hotline was still operational a couple of years ago. i know.
i routinely stepped to the pay phone across the street and turned in the
mayor, the city coulcil, local bishops, local cops - they were swamped in
tips, just from me. finally i lost the pen with the phone number. too bad.

i highly recommend that guerrilla action to all libs.

i have a black haired, dark skinned neighbor who flys a very large flag
every damn day. that is every bit as suspicious as another neighbor who
never flys one.

i'm gonna turn both in, in defense of the nazi "homeland", soon as i have
the phone number.

LF

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

Subject: Welcome To SNITCH!
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:20:40 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

http://snitchreport.com/index2.html

group,

i posted the above link to idlibs a couple of months ago when it was not
nearlly so timely, just presienct.

check it out. it'll lead to you rotflyao!!!

start with "how to spot a terrorist".

larry f.

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

Subject: C-SPAN: American Politics
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 23:11:20 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

http://cspan.org/americanpolitics/

folks,

you can hear and watch Harry browne & neal boortz with real player at the
above link - nlp convention coverage.

ya gotta hear boortz on barr as a drug-warrior!!!!!!
no wonder he got targeted.

lf

Subject: libnw Digest of: get.101_200
Date: 22 Mar 2003 10:22:57 -0000
From: libnw-help@immosys.com
To: admin@liberty-northwest.org

libnw Digest of: get.101_200

Topics (messages 101 through 200):

US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
101 by: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>

Hypocrisy, Bill O'Reilly, and Drug Warriors!
102 by: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>

C-SPAN: American Politics
103 by: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
107 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
109 by: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>

What, exactly, is terrorism?
104 by: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>

Noelle Bush nabbed for drugs again in Orlando
105 by: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
106 by: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
108 by: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
123 by: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>

Subscribe Request Received.
110 by: libnw@immosys.com

C-SPAN: Boortz, etc.
111 by: "B Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>

test pls disregard
112 by: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>

2nd test, pls disregard
113 by: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>

3rd test with remote settings
114 by: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>

4th test, please bear with me
115 by: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>

frank - beg to differ with ya about taxes and drugs.....
116 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
117 by: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
128 by: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
145 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>

WELCOME to libnw@immosys.com
118 by: "libnw" <libnw@usa.net>

three issues - Re: frank - beg to differ with ya about taxes and drugs.....
119 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

nlp as a fringe group, appealing to the fringe - harry's biggest mistake
120 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

motor mouth asks about machine guns.....
121 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
135 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
149 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
150 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
156 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
157 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>

rock & roll, dave slack, up against bullshit, even from libs!!!!!!!Re:
[idaho_libs] Peer pressure?
122 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

Lindh's Pragmatic Choice
124 by: sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) (by way of Sam Sloan
<sloan@ishipress.com>)
127 by: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
130 by: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
133 by: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
137 by: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
138 by: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
139 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
146 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
147 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
148 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
154 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
168 by: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
199 by: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>

Weekly subscriber update
125 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
166 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>

Pat Williams/Vouchers & the NRA
126 by: "B Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>

Libertarian Insurance
129 by: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
131 by: "Ted Dunlap" <teddunlap@outdrs.net>
134 by: david polen <appatang@juno.com>
136 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
151 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
153 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
198 by: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
200 by: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>

somethin' to prove.........? zev sero
132 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

hey, zero, did lindh kill anybody.....
140 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
141 by: david polen <appatang@juno.com>
142 by: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>

John Stossel SPECIAL: "War on Drugs, A War on Ourselves"
143 by: "B Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>

the point - Re: hey, zero, did lindh kill anybody.....
144 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

Lindh's pragmatic choice, and the 'limits' of US jurisidiction
152 by: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
165 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
170 by: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>

WP: Islam in Europe...An Awakening!!!!!!!!!!!
155 by: "B Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>

police state??
158 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
163 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>

police state?? - footnote...
159 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
164 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>

WILDFIRES FORCE WND EVACUATION
160 by: "B Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>

THE WAR AGAINST DRUGS IS A WAR AGAINST US - says j. stossel on tv tue.
nite......
161 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
162 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>

i'm a bore.....drug war....abc news special...
167 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

More on jurisdiction
169 by: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
171 by: Daniel Fackrell <unlearned@learn2think.org>
172 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
173 by: Daniel Fackrell <unlearned@learn2think.org>
174 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
185 by: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
188 by: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>

eichman, pol pot & lindh....
175 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

Liberty Northwest Policies & Guidelines
176 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>

campaigning on jury reform my way
177 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>

John Lindh, Patriot (fwd)
178 by: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
179 by: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
193 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
195 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>

jury reform
180 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
181 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
186 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>

No U.S. jurisdiction in Olympic skating case (fwd)
182 by: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
183 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
184 by: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
187 by: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
189 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
196 by: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>

Story from NYPOST.COM
190 by: Frank Reichert <frank.reichert@excite.com>

consent from a puppet.......
191 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

sev's patriotism......
192 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

A replay folks...
194 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>

Dark Lady for Oregon House
197 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>

Administrivia:

--- Administrative commands for the libnw list ---

I can handle administrative requests automatically. Please
do not send them to the list address! Instead, send
your message to the correct command address:

To subscribe to the list, send a message to:
<libnw-subscribe@immosys.com>

To remove your address from the list, send a message to:
<libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com>

Send mail to the following for info and FAQ for this list:
<libnw-info@immosys.com>
<libnw-faq@immosys.com>

To get messages 123 through 145 (a maximum of 100 per request), mail:
<libnw-get.123_145@immosys.com>

To get an index with subject and author for messages 123-456 , mail:
<libnw-index.123_456@immosys.com>

They are always returned as sets of 100, max 2000 per request,
so you'll actually get 100-499.

To receive all messages with the same subject as message 12345,
send an empty message to:
<libnw-thread.12345@immosys.com>

The messages do not really need to be empty, but I will ignore
their content. Only the ADDRESS you send to is important.

You can start a subscription for an alternate address,
for example "john@host.domain", just add a hyphen and your
address (with '=' instead of '@') after the command word:
<libnw-subscribe-john=host.domain@immosys.com>

To stop subscription for this address, mail:
<libnw-unsubscribe-john=host.domain@immosys.com>

In both cases, I'll send a confirmation message to that address. When
you receive it, simply reply to it to complete your subscription.

If despite following these instructions, you do not get the
desired results, please contact my owner at
libnw-owner@immosys.com. Please be patient, my owner is a
lot slower than I am ;-)

--- Enclosed is a copy of the request I received.

Return-Path: <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
Received: (qmail 23633 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2003 10:22:56 -0000
Received: from cmsrelay02.mx.net (165.212.11.111)
by ucntcme224.dsl.micron.net with SMTP; 22 Mar 2003 10:22:56 -0000
Received: from cmsapps02.cms.usa.net (HELO localhost) (165.212.11.138)
by cmsoutbound.mx.net with SMTP; 22 Mar 2003 10:22:30 -0000
Received: from liberty-northwest.org [203.148.66.242] by
cmsapps02.cms.usa.net
(ASMTP/libnw@usa.net) via mtad (C8.MAIN.2.05)
with ESMTP id 675HcVkV70253M38; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 10:22:24 GMT
Return-Path: <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
Message-ID: <3E7C38C5.E746B290@liberty-northwest.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:19:49 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
Organization: Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup
http://www.liberty-northwest.org
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en,en-GB
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: libnw-get.101_200@immosys.com, libnw-get.201_300@immosys.com,
libnw-get.301_400@immosys.com, libnw-get.401_500@immosys.com,
libnw-get.501_600@immosys.com, libnw-get.601_700@immosys.com,
libnw-get.701_800@immosys.com, libnw-get.801_900@immosys.com,
libnw-get.901_1000@immosys.com, libnw-get.1001_1100@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1101_1200@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1201_1300@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1301_1400@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1401_1500@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1501_1600@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1601_1700@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1701_1800@immosys.com, libnw-get.1801_1900@immosys.com
Subject: (no subject)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe or unsubscribe: http://www.liberty-northwest.org/

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: US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 17:01:35 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Daniel!

Daniel Fackrell wrote to Robert Goodman...

> The fact that these types of government-organized secret organizations
> (yes, they have to remain secret to work) have been invariably used
> against the citizens of the country where they were created should be
> one among many signs of what lies ahead if we cannot stop this.

That's the real danger here, anytime you employ the use of volunteer
civilians in an attempt to use them for tips, or surveillance
activities of any sort. First they aren't trained in such skills,
since most seem to be truck drivers, mail delivery, or maintenance
technicians designed to penetrate homes. Second, their motivation for
calling in tips might be a self-motivated bitch at a neighbour with
any political or social axe to grind.

There is also this obvious reality that we are seeing played out
increasingly daily. The Shrub Regime's<tm> lust for power is
insatiable! Everyday on the nightly news we are being treated with
the quest for more power to be placed in the hands of the Executive
Branch. We see more and more of our civil liberties and
Constitutionally protected rights being trampled on in that process.

In my judgement, in this insanity to rush to a utopian security, it
will soon not only be political incorrect to challenge government
policy, but it may become a "crime" to do so! In that case, anyone
outside of the mainstream could likely be the target for such a tip,
and Libertarians stand out as the major voice opposing big government
in any form.

I would suggest that on at least 90 percent of all political issues, I
could come down pretty hard against what the mainstream majority is
willing to put up with in terms of government policy, from social
welfare, to foreign policy. Since that is so, then it might be
reasonable to suggest that any number of my political enemies or
opponents, who want even MORE government, might ostensibly make a
phone call and phone in a tip that I bear special watching!

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bill O'Reilly, and Drug Warriors!
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 17:16:05 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Ben!

Excellent comments and observation Ben!

Ben Irvin wrote to everyone...

> WESTERN PERSPECTIVESPocatello, Idaho July
> 18, 2002 It seems that Noelle Bush, daughter of Governor Jeb Bush,
> has been arrested again for having "unauthorized prescription" drugs.
> Is Florida a police state or what?

I would be hard pressed right now to identify any state that has not
become a police state, but what do I know?

> Who "authorizes" prescription
> drugs? Any prescription drug available on earth can be ordered via
> the internet; so, why the fuss and hassle? Those that live by the
> "War on Drugs" may well be destroyed by that unconstitutional fascist
> action.

I've always believed that what goes around, comes around...
eventually. I just love it when politicians fall over the d**k when
laws in which they helped create and support, end up biting them in
the ass. I've also believed that whoever passes such laws, should get
a double sentence when they violate them and are caught in that
process.

> Apparently if one has an unauthorized Viagra pill it is
> forced imprisonmentand rehabilitation.

I'd like to know how many times Bill Clinton violated such laws during
his two terms of office while occupying the White House?

> However, in fairness I think
> that Fox's Bill O'Reilly was right in supporting the new federal
> mandate that any family members caught using "illegal"drugs will be
> evicted from public housing. This federal policy applies whether
> or not the drug possession or use was done in the public housing. I
> am now waiting for Bill O'Reilly and all drug warriors to demand that
> Jeb Bush and family be evicted from the Florida Governor's
> Mansion....the state's most expensive public house. Either they
> should make the demand in public or shut up about the "War on
> Drugs" and meditate on their own hypocrisy.

I'll take a look at the clip, then send another email to
foxandfriends@foxnews.com and see if they have the balls to read it.
I would be shocked if they did.

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: C-SPAN: American Politics
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 17:17:46 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Larry!

larry fullmer wrote to everyone...

> http://cspan.org/americanpolitics/
>
> folks,
>
> you can hear and watch Harry browne & neal boortz with real player at the
> above link - nlp convention coverage.

Larry, what day and time does it play?

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Re: C-SPAN: American Politics
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 14:13:50 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

sorry, frank,

i wasn't clear, here. it's archived, for some relatively short time. you
can punch it up anytime on your computer. i listened to harry again last
night. i tried listening to boortz (i caught him when it was brodcast - he
was great!!) but i couldn't find him. it was late, though. maybe i gave up
too easily.

larry

on 7/19/02 2:17 AM, Frank Reichert at moderator@liberty-northwest.org wrote:

> Greetings again Larry!
>
> larry fullmer wrote to everyone...
>
>> http://cspan.org/americanpolitics/
>>
>> folks,
>>
>> you can hear and watch Harry browne & neal boortz with real player at the
>> above link - nlp convention coverage.
>
> Larry, what day and time does it play?
>
> 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: C-SPAN: American Politics
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 10:53:21 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Larry!

larry fullmer wrote to Frank Reichert...

> i wasn't clear, here. it's archived, for some relatively short time. you
> can punch it up anytime on your computer. i listened to harry again last
> night. i tried listening to boortz (i caught him when it was brodcast -
he
> was great!!) but i couldn't find him. it was late, though. maybe i gave
up
> too easily.

I made it to the web site, but for some reason the pesky audio server
wouldn't load up. Boortz was listed as one of the archives, but
Browne was on top of the list. I'll try again later using another
Browser and see if I can get through.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: What, exactly, is terrorism?
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 17:30:54 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

Patrick Buchanan wrote a rather challenging article that raises
several questions surrounding the legitimacy of the Shrub Regime's<tm>
'war on terror'. He calls into question several contradictions that
currently exist in even the definitions that are used to describe and
prosecute this 'war'.

He also profoundly points out that this dismal pattern has eventually
led to many historical defeats, such as the US defeat in Somalia, the
Israeli defeat in Beirut, and the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan.

This is an excellent read, and I highly commend it to one and all!

Kindest regards,
Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: What,exactly ,is terrorism?
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:43:25 -0600
From: "M.O.M." <nox2128@blackfoot.net>
Reply-To: militia@montana.com
Organization: Militia of Montana

What, exactly, is terrorism?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Wednesday, July 17, 2002

"The American government sure is easily baffled. An extremist Egyptian
Muslim chooses July Fourth to murder Americans and
Israelis who are flying from an American airport on Israel's national
airline – and the official line is we can't call this terror ..."

Adds exasperated columnist Dennis Prager, "This country's officials
are
in a state of denial and confusion that is almost as
frightening as the terrorists they are supposed to be fighting."

But there is reason for this confusion. Though President Bush has
declared that we are fighting a "war on terrorism," he has yet
to define what terrorism is, or tell us who exactly our enemies are.
Where in the U.S. military or criminal code is terrorism
defined?

Traditionally, terrorism has meant the slaughter of innocents for
political ends. But what was the political end of the atrocity at
LAX? To get Israel off the West Bank? And if it was terrorism, should
such a killer be transferred to Guantanamo Bay and
denied the full protections of the Bill of Rights, like the rest?

The assassinations of JFK by a Castroite, of Robert Kennedy by a
Palestinian, of Dr. King and Medgar Evers by racists, of
Malcolm X by black Muslims, of George Lincoln Rockwell by a fellow
Nazi
were all "political" assassinations. But which ones
were "terrorist" acts?

The assassination of Lincoln in John Wilkes Booth's plot to decapitate
the Union government, to re-ignite the Southern
rebellion, seems to qualify as terrorism, and the assassins were tried
in a military court. But, again, they were not hanged for
terrorism.

The confusion as to what to call the LAX atrocity stems from a
confusion
of thought in Washington and a failure to follow the
U.S. Constitution, declare war and identify precisely who our enemies
are. When Bush says we are fighting terrorism, does he
mean the IRA, the Basque ETA, the Tamil Tigers, FARC, Hezbollah?

None of the above. The president is authorized by Congress only to
take
down the Taliban and al-Qaida, and any other
nation-state that helped or harbored the mass murderers of 9-11. Yet,
no
other nation, not even the "axis-of-evil" nations,
seems to have been involved.

Why not then declare war on al-Qaida? Because that would tie the
president's hands and give legitimacy to al-Qaida. For there
are rules of war we would then have to observe. And what would we do
if
al-Qaida offered to negotiate an end to their attacks
in return for U.S. withdrawal from Saudi Arabia? Negotiate? We would
confront the same problem Ariel Sharon has. Because
he doesn't want to negotiate with Arafat, he de-legitimizes Arafat by
calling him a terrorist.

We are in a new era, though few recognize it. One who does is William
Lind, who calls today's conflicts Fourth Generation
Warfare – a feature of our new world in which nation-states are losing
their legitimacy, the first loyalty of their peoples and the
monopoly on warfare they have held since the Peace of Westphalia in
1648.

As nations crumble, loyalties are transferred to cults, gangs, tribes,
races, cartels, religions and causes, from FARC to the Cali
Cartel, to Crips and Bloods, Hutu and Pashtun, Islamists,
anti-globalists, enviro-terrorists and Branch Davidians.

These "non-state actors" cannot hope to defeat nation-states in
conventional war. The Taliban's try proved suicidal. But now
that the Taliban no longer have a state we can smash, and al-Qaida is
no
longer concentrated where smart bombs can strike it,
the odds have shifted. Recall: Fourth-generation warfare drove the
Marines out of Beirut, the United States out of Somalia, the
Israelis out of Lebanon and the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

Non-state actors have adopted their own rules of warfare to justify
what
they do, even as we justified Nagasaki. To us,
Timothy McVeigh is a mass-murderer and a terrorist. To McVeigh, the
United States was the enemy on which he had
declared war, and he attacked a U.S. command post with unfortunate
"collateral damage" – i.e., the kids in that daycare
center. Seeing himself as a soldier, McVeigh was no more remorseful
than
the British bomber pilots who did Dresden.

Of Nagasaki and Dresden, we say, "That was war!" But Osama bin Laden
declared war on us, and al-Qaida says it is waging
war to drive Americans out of their region, as we once drove the
British
out of ours. We reply, "You are terrorists!" They
reply: Before 9-11, our targets were U.S. embassies, Marine barracks,
the USS Cole and Khobar Towers – all political or
military command sites.

If Congress will not force our War Cabinet to tell us exactly who we
are
fighting and what the expectations are of the war's
duration and the war dead, it will leave us in this dangerous limbo of
confusion columnist Prager rightly deplores.

If we do not do this, this war on terrorism could end like the war on
drugs, in a twilight struggle in which Americans soon lose
interest, that results only in a steady loss of our freedom to the
true
enemy of American liberty: The Leviathan State.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28311

--

--
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107,
any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use
without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
educational
purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]

Join the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by writing to MOM,
P.O.Box
1486, Noxon, Montana 59853 and enclosing $15.00 for one year(Feb. 1 to
Jan. 31)

For the latest in great survival, preparedness and politically
incorrect
materials visit
our Online Catalog at:

http://www.militiaofmontana.com Some great deals are to be
had! Or, send $2.00 to the address below for a copy of our 44+ page
Preparedness Catalog.

Militia of Montana
P.O. Box 1486, Noxon, MT 59853
Tel: 406-847-2735 n Fax: 406-847-2246

Remove yourself from this list by writing to: militia@montana.com and
type
"UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

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

Subject: Noelle Bush nabbed for drugs again in Orlando
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 19:34:36 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Noelle Bush nabbed for drugs again in Orlando
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 18:00:36 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
Organization: Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup
http://www.liberty-northwest.org/
To: foxandfriends@foxnews.com

Greetings staff:

Please pass this on to Fox and Friends.

Well, Florida Governor Jeb Bush's daughter has been caught again in
the possession of illegal prescription drugs, and this time in a theft
that took place where she is undergoing court mandated drug
rehabilitation.

Since the Bush family has been one of the leading political families
sponsoring this 'War on Drugs', a war in which federal requirements
mandate that those convicted of drug-related crimes should be
forcefully evicted from government housing.

In the aftermath of this latest episode, will anyone kindly ask Jeb
Bush and family why they do not follow these same federal guidelines
and vacate without haste the Florida Governor's Mansion? I believe it
is high time that the politicians, and those supporting the creation
of such laws, that such should be the first to have such laws applied
in force when the laws are violated.

Kindest regards,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

--
_____________________________________________________________________
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: Noelle Bush nabbed for drugs again in Orlando
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 05:56:14 PDT
From: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
To: Frank Reichert <libnw@immosys.com>

On 19-Jul-02, Frank Reichert wrote:

FR> Well, Florida Governor Jeb Bush's daughter has been caught again in
FR> the possession of illegal prescription drugs, and this time in a theft
FR> that took place where she is undergoing court mandated drug
FR> rehabilitation.

I missed this - what was stolen?

FR> Since the Bush family has been one of the leading political families
FR> sponsoring this 'War on Drugs', a war in which federal requirements
FR> mandate that those convicted of drug-related crimes should be
FR> forcefully evicted from government housing.

FR> In the aftermath of this latest episode, will anyone kindly ask Jeb
FR> Bush and family why they do not follow these same federal guidelines
FR> and vacate without haste the Florida Governor's Mansion?...

I assume the Florida governor's mansion is owned by the state, not the
federal government.

FR> ... I believe it is high time that the politicians, and those
supporting
FR> the creation of such laws, that such should be the first to have such
FR> laws applied in force when the laws are violated.

Does Ms Bush live with her parents?

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

Subject: Re: Noelle Bush nabbed for drugs again in Orlando
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 10:50:34 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Ed!

Ed Fischang wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> FR> Well, Florida Governor Jeb Bush's daughter has been caught again in
> FR> the possession of illegal prescription drugs, and this time in a
theft
> FR> that took place where she is undergoing court mandated drug
> FR> rehabilitation.

You replied:
> I missed this - what was stolen?

According to the account that I received, she apparently took the
prescription drugs from the nurses station in the facility where she
was undergoing her drug treatment therapy, and within around 20
minutes prior to being caught.

> I assume the Florida governor's mansion is owned by the state, not the
> federal government.

This is correct. I was only trying to make a point. Point in this
case was that politicians who push so hard to get laws passed, at
least in my judgement should get hammered the hardest when they, or
members of their family find themselves violating such laws.

> Does Ms Bush live with her parents?

I don't know that. At her age, I believe 25, I hope not.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Re: Noelle Bush nabbed for drugs again in Orlando
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 05:57:58 PDT
From: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
To: Frank Reichert <libnw@immosys.com>

On 19-Jul-02, Frank Reichert wrote:

FR> ... This is correct. I was only trying to make a point. Point in this
FR> case was that politicians who push so hard to get laws passed, at
FR> least in my judgement should get hammered the hardest when they, or
FR> members of their family find themselves violating such laws.

I believe this policy predates this Bush administration.

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

Subject: Subscribe Request Received.
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 22:51:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: libnw@immosys.com
To: libnw@immosys.com

You have been subscribed to the mailing list lp-announce by WWW form:

http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

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

Subject: Re: C-SPAN: Boortz, etc.
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 21:07:59 -0600
From: "B Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote:

> I made it to the web site, but for some reason the pesky audio server
> wouldn't load up. Boortz was listed as one of the archives, but
> Browne was on top of the list. I'll try again later using another
> Browser and see if I can get through.

Boortz is on the same site/broadcast as Harry. They have Harry's
speech and then Boortz.

Ben

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

Subject: test pls disregard
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 11:42:39 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

test pls disregard
--
_____________________________________________________________________
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: 2nd test, pls disregard
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 12:02:08 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

2nd test, pls disregard

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

Subject: 3rd test with remote settings
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 12:23:17 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Pls disregard
--
_____________________________________________________________________
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: 4th test, please bear with me
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 13:26:24 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

4th test might be the charm
--
_____________________________________________________________________
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: frank - beg to differ with ya about taxes and drugs.....
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 02:56:53 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

frank, my friend,

i couldn't find you original communication about how stupid it was for libs
to focus on the drug issue while everybody pays taxes, so i'm goin' from
memory.

beg to differ with ya, frank. beg to.

the drug war is going to go away, just like prohibition did, sooner or
later. either that or it's a full blown police state. the only question is
who's gonna get credit for it going away. not libs, if they follow your
advice and talk about taxes, like all the rest of the parties, promising but
not delivering.

canada has effectively decriminalized marijuana - vancover b.c. is very
similar to amsterdam. just last week england decriminalized posession.
6 or 8 u.s. states have decriminalized medical marijuana. 56% of california
voters demanded that such be done. now the CA supreme court, just in the
last few days, has taken on the u.s. supreme court on the issue. all that
has happened, frank, with no political parties leading. none. not the
republicans, democrats, or libertarians.

it is an issue made by government for us. we oughta be leading, frank. we
ought to be leading the groundswell. if we follow your advice and talk
about taxes, we'll get left in the dust again, as we should be.

i figure you're thinking about what concerns you, frank, and those in your
church. liberty must take a much broader perspective.

you may not have, frank, but well over 50% of folks in this country have
smoked marijauna, including presidents. lots of folks know the drug war is
pure bullshit, but the dems and repubs are bent on satisfying the lowest
common denominator on the issue. that leaves us to speak for the
disaffected, them with no where else to go.

and you tell us to shut-up about it.

good gawd, frank, not only is the war against humans who use drugs the
greatest threat to liberty in america at the moment, it's even the greatest
threat to the 2nd ammendement. given that, it is also the greatest
opportunity for libertarians to talk about liberty when no one else is - the
groundswell with no leader.

open you eyes, pluuuuuze, frank, and you ilp candidates (with the cost of
prisons, taxpayers gettin' tired of it, with more folks in prison than in
any other country in the world).

criminee, i gotta go smoke some sanity,

larry


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

Subject: Re: frank - beg to differ with ya about taxes and drugs.....
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 19:43:11 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Larry!

larry fullmer wrote to Frank Reichert...

> beg to differ with ya, frank. beg to.
> the drug war is going to go away, just like prohibition did, sooner or
> later. either that or it's a full blown police state. the only question
is
> who's gonna get credit for it going away. not libs, if they follow your
> advice and talk about taxes, like all the rest of the parties, promising
but
> not delivering.

I agree with you that the 'war on drugs' is an important issue. And,
as I wrote last time, there are several other 'wars' being waged by
the government to 'rally the troops (citizens)" to support larger and
more intrusive government. My problem is that the LP often seems to
make the WODs a central key issue, as if nothing else matters. Well
hell. A lot of shit matters a lot to most Americans. The stock market
just plunged another 400 points yesterday to close the week for crying
out loud!

It's damn hard to convince the average Joe Blow that the 'war on
drugs' is particularly important when their lifetime retirement plans
and savings are evaporating in a cloud of smoke.

So, even if we, the Libertarian Party, got 100 percent of the credit
tomorrow morning, for ending this insane 'war on drugs', most people
will never hear of it, and even if they do, they won't care. Meaning
that, what does matter to them is putting food on the table, paying
the mortgage, and keeping the old fliver running another year.

> canada has effectively decriminalized marijuana - vancover b.c. is very
> similar to amsterdam. just last week england decriminalized posession.

All of that is fine and good, however even in Britain and Canada, this
is not the front burner issues. The London Stock Exchange just
plunged again today also, again following the lead of the NYSE. I
haven't followed the Canadian exchanges, but my guess is they are also
in a tailspin. The stock exchange is lower now than it was in the
aftermath of 9/11. Again, do you think for a moment that even if we
won the WODs argument tomorrow, most people will care. It has become
a giant, win or lose battle for the LP, and frankly most could care
less. Even if we win, we are still the lunatic "fringe" party, what
many call Republicans who want to smoke joints! In the mind of the
public, that's the difference. It's because we have made it the
difference by placing it as the front burner issue for our existence,
and IT IS NOT! If it is, then we're doomed. Yes, even if we win.

> 6 or 8 u.s. states have decriminalized medical marijuana. 56% of
california
> voters demanded that such be done. now the CA supreme court, just in the
> last few days, has taken on the u.s. supreme court on the issue. all that
> has happened, frank, with no political parties leading. none. not the
> republicans, democrats, or libertarians.

I know the statistics as well as you do, or probably as well, since it
is pushed into my face every month by LP NEWS. And, again I say, so
what? What if we win a major battle for us, and no one else could
give a damn? And, we didn't win it anyway. It's just common sense,
and more people are coming around to it. It's relatively small
potatoes in the scheme of things that confront most people, all of the
time, and on a daily basis.

Let me put this another way, and I hope it gains some perspective for
you. Let's presume that the 'war against prostitution' were are key
front burner issue. We all know that the real reason is that
government should not be in our bedrooms, criminalizing the decisions
that consenting adults choose to do with their own bodies. No one has
any argument here, not really. But what if the LP capitalized that as
our front burner issue? What is our candidates made this the top
platform upon which they were running. What if all our focus was
placed on this ONE issue alone, and everything else relegated into the
back burners?

Likely the majority of the real public, concerned with rising taxes, a
deteriorating economy, putting food on the table, paying the mortgage
off, would rightly conclude that we are the party of sex perverts!
And again, even if we were successful in helping to bring this matter
to the US Supreme Court, and if the justices decided to suddenly
nullify all laws against prostitution, we haven't won a damn thing.
Most likely we would have only reinforced the mindset who believed
that our party is the party of sex perverts.

I submit Larry, the LP is a Party that is identified with "fringe
group" issues! Drugs, prostitution, gambling, and the whole gambit.
Meanwhile, we downgrade the "real" issues that confront everyone on a
daily basis, as if they weren't important, or at least important
enough to identify ourselves with.

Let me make this perfectly clear: the Libertarian Party does NOT
support prostitution, drug use, gambling. We recognize that such
behaviour is nothing more than a free choice, and should be outside of
anyone else's domain, including the government. We will not make
anyone a criminal when such choices are made that violate no one else
rights to make other choices. That's really, in a nut shell, our
position officially. So why all the effort to place the 'WODs' as our
keynote front burner platform issue?

The issue is free choice, and personal responsibility. That's really
what we ought to be saying. I've done that. Harry Browne devoted an
extraordinary amount of time in the 2000 campaign, against the 'War on
Drugs', far too much time and energy! Real libertarian issues, on
issues that matter, were drowned out on this 'war on drugs' strategy.

> it is an issue made by government for us. we oughta be leading, frank.
we
> ought to be leading the groundswell. if we follow your advice and talk
> about taxes, we'll get left in the dust again, as we should be.

Crap. Is that what you really think I said? I'll talking about all of
the front burner issues, including the fiasco of US foreign policy
leading up to the 9/11 attacks on US soil for crying out loud. I am
not saying taxes, per se, are the leading issue. We also have a
tremendous issue if we wish to seize upon it, in talking about
government interference and corruption in the current economic
catastrophe facing the US and industrialized governments around the
globe! These are all issues that I have brought up continuously on
Liberty Northwest for the last 9 months, and even prior with less
energy.

I am not about to spend 90 percent of my time talking about the 'war
on drugs' these days!

> i figure you're thinking about what concerns you, frank, and those in your
> church. liberty must take a much broader perspective.

Well, let's start that process along by beginning to speak on issues
in which most people really care about, are the most concerned, etc.
The 'war on drugs' was never that issue, and likely never will be.
What about the Shrub Regime's<tm> insistence on attacking Iraq, the
arrogance of US foreign policy against third world nations, and why we
are hated by most on this planet that we live on due to our
militaristic aggression? Why not talk about the loss of real civil
liberties, military tribunals, searches and seizures, taping into our
email, faxes, and other electronic communications by the government?
Larry, the Gestapo is standing at the door right now, and you want to
discuss the 'war on drugs' as a front burner issue? My God! If
everyone here believes as such, maybe we really are the Libertarian
Party faction that want to make smoking a joint legal!

> you may not have, frank, but well over 50% of folks in this country have
> smoked marijauna, including presidents.

I know that, and I also know that if Bill Clinton, Al Gore and the
Shrub<tm> had to face the music under the judicial system for their
own conduct, they would likely not have ever arrived at their
prominence and power. But what would you expect from this prostitute
judicial and criminal justice system?

> lots of folks know the drug war is
> pure bullshit, but the dems and repubs are bent on satisfying the lowest
> common denominator on the issue. that leaves us to speak for the
> disaffected, them with no where else to go.

Yea, and that's exactly my point! THAT'S ALL WE ARE GOING TO BE
SPEAKING TO -- the small fringe groups that have little or no focus on
what is important to the average voter. That is my point exactly --
and YOU just confirmed it, thank you! You just down win that way
unfortunately. Your satisfaction will boil down to getting 3% of the
vote, perpetually forever! What a show! Even as I said, if we win,
you lose. Everyone else if focused on what really matters, and you
had better address those concerns profusely if you ever hope to make a
difference.

Larry, we are living in an ever-increasing fascist police state. It
is growing exponentially as we speak. We need now, more than ever
before to address that in the context of what it costs, in economic,
moral, and simple loss of personal liberties. A part of that is
choices we make to use drugs, gamble, or engage in prostitution. Why
is it necessary to pander to the fringe as if this party supports any
such choices? We don't. Let's make this clear by speaking to the big
and real issues that everyone else is concerned with in one way or
another, in their own lives. A drug addict in South Central Los
Angeles is likely NOT going to register, or even vote for you on the
'war on drugs' issue! Neither are most prostitutes going to be of
much benefit to you if you are engaging on a political battle where
people's hearts and minds lie.

> and you tell us to shut-up about it.

I didn't say that. I am saying it's time to set some priorities that
really do matter.

> good gawd, frank, not only is the war against humans who use drugs the
> greatest threat to liberty in america at the moment, it's even the
greatest
> threat to the 2nd ammendement.

I doubt it very much. That's a real stretch Larry.

> given that, it is also the greatest
> opportunity for libertarians to talk about liberty when no one else is -
the
> groundswell with no leader.

Unfortunately, outside of LP National's hype, we're really not leading
the charge for liberty, now are we?

> open you eyes, pluuuuuze, frank, and you ilp candidates (with the cost of
> prisons, taxpayers gettin' tired of it, with more folks in prison than in
> any other country in the world).
> criminee, i gotta go smoke some sanity,

Larry, your choices are your own, and as they should be.

I have personally campaigned hard against government making our moral
decisions for us, and the personal choices we choose to make for
ourselves; and, also for the personal responsibility inherent in such
choices once made.

In today's environment especially, I will NOT support the 'war on
drugs' as the Libertarian Party's front burner issue. If it becomes
as such, then we've already lost the war, even though we may perhaps
have won a small battle. We need to rid ourselves of any image or
connotation that suggests that we support the idea that fringe groups
make up the centre of our core. Again, if they do, we've already
lost, and liberty has lost a companion with the Libertarian Party.

I find it very difficult to believe that you would want to make such a
priority ostensibly to sanction the freedom and liberty to choose to
take drugs, in the light of the liberty being deprived by the
Shrub<tm> Administration's 'war on terror'! The money (funding) isn't
anymore directed on the 'war on drugs' -- it is directed on the 'war
on terror'! Haven't you noticed the shift in priorities in the
current regime? If you haven't noticed, since 9/11, the shift in 'war
strategy' is in the direction of saving us from ourselves in the form
defeating an enemy that has yet to be defined.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Re: frank - beg to differ with ya about taxes and drugs.....
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:15:41 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

<lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:

> now the CA supreme court, just in the last few days, has taken on the
> u.s. supreme court on the issue.

No, it hasn't. All the CA court did was remind everyone that medical MJ
is not a crime under CA state law, so it can't be prosecuted as one in a
state court. It remains criminal under federal law (which state judges
are obliged by the constitution to obey), but violations must be
prosecuted in a federal court, just like any other federal crime.

The US Supreme Court never said that MJ was illegal under CA law, and
the CA Supreme Court never said that MJ was legal under federal law.
Both sets laws remain valid. Federal law preempts state law, but that
doesn't make federal crimes prosecutable in state courts.

--
Zev Sero When we put a mob boss in jail, we don't whine to
zsero@free-market.net the prosecutor, "How do you expect Don Corleone to
be able to stop the Mafia from killing people when
he can't even use his cell phone?"

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

Subject: Re: frank - beg to differ with ya about taxes and drugs.....
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 19:49:41 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Zev!

Zev, great to see some of your posts show up again. It's been a long
while. Sorry though, that it has taken so long for me to get around to
writing very much lately. I have been embroiled in several projects,
and just haven't noticed until now that some of the traffic was headed
my way, directly or indirectly. Sorry.

Zev Sero wrote to Larry Fullmer...

Larry Fullmer wrote:
> > now the CA supreme court, just in the last few days, has taken on the
> > u.s. supreme court on the issue.

You replied:
> No, it hasn't. All the CA court did was remind everyone that medical MJ
> is not a crime under CA state law, so it can't be prosecuted as one in a
> state court. It remains criminal under federal law (which state judges
> are obliged by the constitution to obey), but violations must be
> prosecuted in a federal court, just like any other federal crime.

I don't know what it will take to finally be able to reduce the number
of cases the feds are "allowed" to prosecute within the states. This
stinking mess is clearly abuse, just about the same as in all other
federal "interference" in criminal and civil law.

I've noticed, as of today, the Department of Homeland Security will
likely become the largest federal agency, in terms of both revenue
consumption and in the number of police agencies falling under its
jurisdiction. Obviously, this will increase the federal government's
case load in a variety of criminal cases in which the federal
government claims jurisdiction. It is certainly not the best of times
for ending the police state and restoring civil liberties.

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: WELCOME to libnw@immosys.com
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 12:37:04 -0000
From: "libnw" <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- In libnw@y..., libnw-help@i... wrote:
> Greetings again!
>
> This concerns your subscription with the libnw@i... mailing
> list.
>
>
> Greetings again from the Moderator of Liberty Northwest:
>
> Welcome to the Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup!
>
> This is an acknowledgment: I have added your e-mail address
>
> listsaver-of-libnw@y...
>
> to the libnw mailing list.
>
> Welcome to libnw@i...!
>
> Please save this message so that you know the address you are
> subscribed under, in case you later want to unsubscribe or change
your
> subscription address.
>
> Again, Liberty Northwest is one of the oldest, most successful
> and most vibrant libertarian discussion lists on the planet!
> We have been in action for over a decade providing news, commentary,
> and discussion since 1992.
>
> Our policies for participation are very simple and straight forward.
> I encourage you to read the policy document below and enjoy
> participating often in our lively discussions!
>
> If you have any administrative questions or comments, please feel
> free to discuss them with me at any time. My e-mail address is:
> moderator@l...
>
> Again, welcome aboard Liberty Northwest! Enjoy yourself and most of
> all participate to get the real pleasure and satisfaction of some of
> our vibrant encounters!
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank M. Reichert
> Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> RULES AND POLICIES FOLLOW:
>
> =================================================================
>
> The following is the Liberty Northwest Rules and Policies which
> govern the conduct and decorum of this newsgroup. I suggest that
> you review this information and acquaint yourself with its
> contents prior to participating. Any questions or comments
> should be directed to the moderator at:
> moderator@l...
> ==================================================================
>
> =========================================================
> L I B E R T Y N O R T H W E S T C O N F E R E N C E
> A N D N E W S G R O U P
>
> A Fidonet Backbone Echo
>
> FidoNet 1:346/16 -*- Bonners Ferry, Idaho
> Email subscriber list: libnw-subscribe@i...
>
> E-MAIL - Admin@l...
> =========================================================
>
> MODIFIED AND UPDATED: 13th, July 2002
>
> PURPOSE: Liberty Northwest Conference and Newsgroup is a discussion
> Conference dedicated to promoting various discussions of political,
> economic, and social issues in the overall context and perspective
of
> Libertarian idealism. The overall hope is to promote and discuss
> "free choice" as the best and most viable alternative to coerced
> or forced solutions and choices made by others for us, and embodied
> in the so-called "statist" government "solutions" most prevalent
> in the mentality and political reference as institutionalised today.
>
> Therefore, we believe that the best solutions are the free choices
> that individuals make for themselves, their families and their own
> privately owned property. We believe that individuals have the
> unalienable right to not only make their own personal choices for
> themselves, but that they have the responsibility for the
consequences
> of such choices once made.
>
> PARTICIPATION: Bringing people together to discuss these issues is
the
> goal and objective. However, we are also a genuine Newsgroup,
> receiving
> news and press releases from the national Libertarian Party of the
> U.S. and other organisations that are most consistent with these
> goals.
>
> Although we are a Libertarian-oriented conference, we welcome all
> participants. However the topic is "libertarianism" and the
Moderator
> reserves the right to limit and restrict discussions that fail to
> meet this criteria. The Moderator will at all times set overall
> policy. Participants disagreeing with the Moderator are directed
> to submit such disagreements to the Moderator via NETMAIL, or
> private email, not publicly on the Liberty Northwest Conference
> and Newsgroup.
>
> Generally, all political, economic and social issues are on-topic.
> Therefore a variety of perspectives and philosophy are expected and
> encouraged. However, all participants are expected to communicate
> in an adult and responsible fashion. Flame throwing is
discouraged,
> as are personal attacks against the character of others
participating
> regardless of they're political beliefs! In other words, the
Golden
> Rule applies here. Respect others as you would wish them to
respect
> you!
>
> This does NOT mean you necessarily have to respect their beliefs --
> you may feel free to debate any issue as you see fit and
appropriate.
> In doing that however, it is important to remember: you are not
> looking into the faces of those you choose to communicate with
here.
> Some personalities take a while to get to know and appreciate.
>
> The restrictions here are intended to be minimal. Here are a few of
> The obvious that are considered necessary:
>
> 1. Posting of messages: Communication should be personal
communication
> between you and other participants on the Conference itself, not
> a conversation you are entertaining on another forum or platform
> elsewhere. News releases and personal essays are considered within
> the above mentioned scope, if the intent is to engender
communication
> or begin a thread or discussion.
>
> 2. Crossposting of messages between members of other conferences
are
> strictly prohibited unless a clear unbroken dialogue between LIB_NW
> participants can be established within the Conference itself.
> If it cannot, then it has no place or purpose on LIB_NW. Endless
> or voluminous cross posting of material is NOT permitted and is
> considered grossly disrespectful to others! It serves no purpose
> for personal dialogue and is irritating to almost everyone who has
to
> download such unwarranted material, most often at personal expense
> off a commercial news or mail server.
>
> 2. Resource Information: Participants are free to post (sparingly)
> resource information to include Conservative, Libertarian and
> Constitutionalist meetings, group discussions, and other pertinent
> information that back up and supplement ongoing discussion topics on
> the Conference. Multiple posting of lengthy and fragmented
> information
> is prohibited without Moderator approval in advance.
>
> 3. Human dignity. Regardless of perspective, philosophy or
ideology,
> all persons deserve the dignity and respect that you feel is due
> yourself. Anyone expressing racial, ethnic, religious or slurs or
> comments should be ignored, and if done deliberately and with
malice,
> will not be tolerated. Proselytising and other "salesmanlike"
> behaviour
> will not be tolerated. Matters and concerns of a religious nature
are
> welcome, but preaching sermons and attempting to entice others to
> accept your particular religious views go beyond the purpose of this
> Conference.
>
> 4. Political restraints: None. All perspectives are invited.
>
> 5. Grievances and protocol. If any participant feels personally
> offended by another participant on the conference, a private
NETMAIL
> message to the Moderator would normally be in order if the two
> parties in question cannot otherwise resolve a particular
> conflict. If subject matter is a source of conflict, then the
> offended party should normally post the alleged offence directly to
> the Conference itself and not the Moderator, since the input of
> others concerning the subject would be pertinent to resolving the
> issue.
>
> 6. In order to keep the rules and standards of the echo at a bare
> minimum, participants are asked to contribute as responsible adults.
> The above rules and standards are subject to change at any time
> when it becomes necessary to do so.
>
>
> Frank M. Reichert
> Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup
> ---
>
> Greetings!
>
> Thank you for your interest in subscribing to the Liberty Northwest
> Conference and Newsgroup, one of the oldest (since 1992) and
liveliest
> Libertarian discussion lists on the entire planet!
>
> Before I can take the action to approve your subscription, you must
> return the invitation/confirmation message that was sent to you. You
> may simply click on "reply to" and then click on "send". You do
> not need to add any text, your message response will simply confirm
> that it is your desire to join the Liberty Northwest group.
>
> Once your subscription has been approved, you will receive a
> confirmation, and also in that package you will receive a welcome
> aboard message and a copy of the policies and procedures that govern
> the conference.
>
> Again, welcome aboard. Please return the confirmation message that
> was originally sent to you to confirm your subscription.
>
> If you wish to communicate with me personally on any matter relating
> to the Liberty Northwest list, please send it to me at:
>
> moderator@l...
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank M. Reichert
> Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference &
>
Newsgroup

>
>
> --- Administrative commands for the libnw list ---
>
> I can handle administrative requests automatically. Please
> do not send them to the list address! Instead, send
> your message to the correct command address:
>
> To subscribe to the list, send a message to:
> <libnw-subscribe@i...>
>
> To remove your address from the list, send a message to:
> <libnw-unsubscribe@i...>
>
> Send mail to the following for info and FAQ for this list:
> <libnw-info@i...>
> <libnw-faq@i...>
>
> To get messages 123 through 145 (a maximum of 100 per request),
mail:
> <libnw-get.123_145@i...>
>
> To get an index with subject and author for messages 123-456 , mail:
> <libnw-index.123_456@i...>
>
> They are always returned as sets of 100, max 2000 per request,
> so you'll actually get 100-499.
>
> To receive all messages with the same subject as message 12345,
> send an empty message to:
> <libnw-thread.12345@i...>
>
> The messages do not really need to be empty, but I will ignore
> their content. Only the ADDRESS you send to is important.
>
> You can start a subscription for an alternate address,
> for example "john@h...", just add a hyphen and your
> address (with '=' instead of '@') after the command word:
> <libnw-subscribe-john=host.domain@i...>
>
> To stop subscription for this address, mail:
> <libnw-unsubscribe-john=host.domain@i...>
>
> In both cases, I'll send a confirmation message to that address.
When
> you receive it, simply reply to it to complete your subscription.
>
> If despite following these instructions, you do not get the
> desired results, please contact my owner at
> libnw-owner@i... Please be patient, my owner is a
> lot slower than I am ;-)
>
> --- Enclosed is a copy of the request I received.
>
>
> <suppressed>

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

Subject: three issues - Re: frank - beg to differ with ya about taxes and
drugs.....
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 17:00:18 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hi, frank,

thanks for the time you spent responding on the above question, and for the
calm reasoned nature of it. i figure we don't disagree too much, really. i
certainly agree with the other concerns that you raised. maybe it mostly
comes down to how many front burners we need on our stove.

i still believe, for reasons i stated, that the war on humans who use drugs
definitely diserves front-burner status. i don't believe it's just fringe
groups we reach with that. prohibition was ended, not by fringe groups, nor
even drinkers. it was ended by the revulsion of a very large part of
society. right or wrong, that is the potential i see for us this time
around.

anyway, it's a question of strategy, and stratigic questions are very
difficult to resolve.

when donovan ran for congress he convinced me that any candidate, any
political party, should have 3 front-burner, specific issues - no more and
no less, all of which get equal time. his argument, best i can remember,
was that more than three spreads the arguments too thin and generates
confusion. less than three makes for appearing single focused, and under-
utilizes the potential for communication.

i watched him implement that strategy (and helped with it). he was very
careful with his literature, media interviews, debates, ect. to do exactly
what he proposed to do. his three front-burners were taxes, salmon/dams &
marijauna (drug war). note that the issues he selected have varying appeal
across the spectrum, which made it very difficult to pigeon-hole him as a
left or right-winger. given that is all most folks want to do anyway, they
had to listen to him to find where to pigeon-hole him. even after listening
they found that they couldn't. but they did understand that all three
issues arose from the principle of liberty. his strategy worked
wonderfully. time after time i saw him turn blatant
why-am-i-wasteing-my-time skeptcism, into curiousity, and then in to
respect. as i've mentioned before, he received a partial editorial
endorsement from the idaho statesman, among many other sucesses.

anyway, i've gone on too long. for the party, and most candidates, i'd vote
for an economic issue, a civil-liberties issue (the drug-war, hands down),
and a foriegn policy issue (the war on terrorism, with it's domestic
implications, hands down). for state candidates, i'd try to work in an
environmental issue, for which we libs have a solution, to replace foreign
policy. that's just my personal opinion.

so, frank, thanks. you help keep my brain cells from atrophy.

larry

on 7/20/02 4:43 AM, Frank Reichert at moderator@liberty-northwest.org wrote:

> Greetings again Larry!
>
> larry fullmer wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
>> beg to differ with ya, frank. beg to.
>> the drug war is going to go away, just like prohibition did, sooner or
>> later. either that or it's a full blown police state. the only question
is
>> who's gonna get credit for it going away. not libs, if they follow your
>> advice and talk about taxes, like all the rest of the parties, promising
but
>> not delivering.
>
> I agree with you that the 'war on drugs' is an important issue. And,
> as I wrote last time, there are several other 'wars' being waged by
> the government to 'rally the troops (citizens)" to support larger and
> more intrusive government. My problem is that the LP often seems to
> make the WODs a central key issue, as if nothing else matters. Well
> hell. A lot of shit matters a lot to most Americans. The stock market
> just plunged another 400 points yesterday to close the week for crying
> out loud!
>
> It's damn hard to convince the average Joe Blow that the 'war on
> drugs' is particularly important when their lifetime retirement plans
> and savings are evaporating in a cloud of smoke.
>
> So, even if we, the Libertarian Party, got 100 percent of the credit
> tomorrow morning, for ending this insane 'war on drugs', most people
> will never hear of it, and even if they do, they won't care. Meaning
> that, what does matter to them is putting food on the table, paying
> the mortgage, and keeping the old fliver running another year.
>
>> canada has effectively decriminalized marijuana - vancover b.c. is very
>> similar to amsterdam. just last week england decriminalized posession.
>
> All of that is fine and good, however even in Britain and Canada, this
> is not the front burner issues. The London Stock Exchange just
> plunged again today also, again following the lead of the NYSE. I
> haven't followed the Canadian exchanges, but my guess is they are also
> in a tailspin. The stock exchange is lower now than it was in the
> aftermath of 9/11. Again, do you think for a moment that even if we
> won the WODs argument tomorrow, most people will care. It has become
> a giant, win or lose battle for the LP, and frankly most could care
> less. Even if we win, we are still the lunatic "fringe" party, what
> many call Republicans who want to smoke joints! In the mind of the
> public, that's the difference. It's because we have made it the
> difference by placing it as the front burner issue for our existence,
> and IT IS NOT! If it is, then we're doomed. Yes, even if we win.
>
>> 6 or 8 u.s. states have decriminalized medical marijuana. 56% of
california
>> voters demanded that such be done. now the CA supreme court, just in the
>> last few days, has taken on the u.s. supreme court on the issue. all
that
>> has happened, frank, with no political parties leading. none. not the
>> republicans, democrats, or libertarians.
>
> I know the statistics as well as you do, or probably as well, since it
> is pushed into my face every month by LP NEWS. And, again I say, so
> what? What if we win a major battle for us, and no one else could
> give a damn? And, we didn't win it anyway. It's just common sense,
> and more people are coming around to it. It's relatively small
> potatoes in the scheme of things that confront most people, all of the
> time, and on a daily basis.
>
> Let me put this another way, and I hope it gains some perspective for
> you. Let's presume that the 'war against prostitution' were are key
> front burner issue. We all know that the real reason is that
> government should not be in our bedrooms, criminalizing the decisions
> that consenting adults choose to do with their own bodies. No one has
> any argument here, not really. But what if the LP capitalized that as
> our front burner issue? What is our candidates made this the top
> platform upon which they were running. What if all our focus was
> placed on this ONE issue alone, and everything else relegated into the
> back burners?
>
> Likely the majority of the real public, concerned with rising taxes, a
> deteriorating economy, putting food on the table, paying the mortgage
> off, would rightly conclude that we are the party of sex perverts!
> And again, even if we were successful in helping to bring this matter
> to the US Supreme Court, and if the justices decided to suddenly
> nullify all laws against prostitution, we haven't won a damn thing.
> Most likely we would have only reinforced the mindset who believed
> that our party is the party of sex perverts.
>
> I submit Larry, the LP is a Party that is identified with "fringe
> group" issues! Drugs, prostitution, gambling, and the whole gambit.
> Meanwhile, we downgrade the "real" issues that confront everyone on a
> daily basis, as if they weren't important, or at least important
> enough to identify ourselves with.
>
> Let me make this perfectly clear: the Libertarian Party does NOT
> support prostitution, drug use, gambling. We recognize that such
> behaviour is nothing more than a free choice, and should be outside of
> anyone else's domain, including the government. We will not make
> anyone a criminal when such choices are made that violate no one else
> rights to make other choices. That's really, in a nut shell, our
> position officially. So why all the effort to place the 'WODs' as our
> keynote front burner platform issue?
>
> The issue is free choice, and personal responsibility. That's really
> what we ought to be saying. I've done that. Harry Browne devoted an
> extraordinary amount of time in the 2000 campaign, against the 'War on
> Drugs', far too much time and energy! Real libertarian issues, on
> issues that matter, were drowned out on this 'war on drugs' strategy.
>
>> it is an issue made by government for us. we oughta be leading, frank.
we
>> ought to be leading the groundswell. if we follow your advice and talk
>> about taxes, we'll get left in the dust again, as we should be.
>
> Crap. Is that what you really think I said? I'll talking about all of
> the front burner issues, including the fiasco of US foreign policy
> leading up to the 9/11 attacks on US soil for crying out loud. I am
> not saying taxes, per se, are the leading issue. We also have a
> tremendous issue if we wish to seize upon it, in talking about
> government interference and corruption in the current economic
> catastrophe facing the US and industrialized governments around the
> globe! These are all issues that I have brought up continuously on
> Liberty Northwest for the last 9 months, and even prior with less
> energy.
>
> I am not about to spend 90 percent of my time talking about the 'war
> on drugs' these days!
>
>> i figure you're thinking about what concerns you, frank, and those in
your
>> church. liberty must take a much broader perspective.
>
> Well, let's start that process along by beginning to speak on issues
> in which most people really care about, are the most concerned, etc.
> The 'war on drugs' was never that issue, and likely never will be.
> What about the Shrub Regime's<tm> insistence on attacking Iraq, the
> arrogance of US foreign policy against third world nations, and why we
> are hated by most on this planet that we live on due to our
> militaristic aggression? Why not talk about the loss of real civil
> liberties, military tribunals, searches and seizures, taping into our
> email, faxes, and other electronic communications by the government?
> Larry, the Gestapo is standing at the door right now, and you want to
> discuss the 'war on drugs' as a front burner issue? My God! If
> everyone here believes as such, maybe we really are the Libertarian
> Party faction that want to make smoking a joint legal!
>
>> you may not have, frank, but well over 50% of folks in this country have
>> smoked marijauna, including presidents.
>
> I know that, and I also know that if Bill Clinton, Al Gore and the
> Shrub<tm> had to face the music under the judicial system for their
> own conduct, they would likely not have ever arrived at their
> prominence and power. But what would you expect from this prostitute
> judicial and criminal justice system?
>
>> lots of folks know the drug war is
>> pure bullshit, but the dems and repubs are bent on satisfying the lowest
>> common denominator on the issue. that leaves us to speak for the
>> disaffected, them with no where else to go.
>
> Yea, and that's exactly my point! THAT'S ALL WE ARE GOING TO BE
> SPEAKING TO -- the small fringe groups that have little or no focus on
> what is important to the average voter. That is my point exactly --
> and YOU just confirmed it, thank you! You just down win that way
> unfortunately. Your satisfaction will boil down to getting 3% of the
> vote, perpetually forever! What a show! Even as I said, if we win,
> you lose. Everyone else if focused on what really matters, and you
> had better address those concerns profusely if you ever hope to make a
> difference.
>
> Larry, we are living in an ever-increasing fascist police state. It
> is growing exponentially as we speak. We need now, more than ever
> before to address that in the context of what it costs, in economic,
> moral, and simple loss of personal liberties. A part of that is
> choices we make to use drugs, gamble, or engage in prostitution. Why
> is it necessary to pander to the fringe as if this party supports any
> such choices? We don't. Let's make this clear by speaking to the big
> and real issues that everyone else is concerned with in one way or
> another, in their own lives. A drug addict in South Central Los
> Angeles is likely NOT going to register, or even vote for you on the
> 'war on drugs' issue! Neither are most prostitutes going to be of
> much benefit to you if you are engaging on a political battle where
> people's hearts and minds lie.
>
>> and you tell us to shut-up about it.
>
> I didn't say that. I am saying it's time to set some priorities that
> really do matter.
>
>> good gawd, frank, not only is the war against humans who use drugs the
>> greatest threat to liberty in america at the moment, it's even the
greatest
>> threat to the 2nd ammendement.
>
> I doubt it very much. That's a real stretch Larry.
>
>> given that, it is also the greatest
>> opportunity for libertarians to talk about liberty when no one else is -
the
>> groundswell with no leader.
>
> Unfortunately, outside of LP National's hype, we're really not leading
> the charge for liberty, now are we?
>
>> open you eyes, pluuuuuze, frank, and you ilp candidates (with the cost of
>> prisons, taxpayers gettin' tired of it, with more folks in prison than in
>> any other country in the world).
>> criminee, i gotta go smoke some sanity,
>
> Larry, your choices are your own, and as they should be.
>
> I have personally campaigned hard against government making our moral
> decisions for us, and the personal choices we choose to make for
> ourselves; and, also for the personal responsibility inherent in such
> choices once made.
>
> In today's environment especially, I will NOT support the 'war on
> drugs' as the Libertarian Party's front burner issue. If it becomes
> as such, then we've already lost the war, even though we may perhaps
> have won a small battle. We need to rid ourselves of any image or
> connotation that suggests that we support the idea that fringe groups
> make up the centre of our core. Again, if they do, we've already
> lost, and liberty has lost a companion with the Libertarian Party.
>
> I find it very difficult to believe that you would want to make such a
> priority ostensibly to sanction the freedom and liberty to choose to
> take drugs, in the light of the liberty being deprived by the
> Shrub<tm> Administration's 'war on terror'! The money (funding) isn't
> anymore directed on the 'war on drugs' -- it is directed on the 'war
> on terror'! Haven't you noticed the shift in priorities in the
> current regime? If you haven't noticed, since 9/11, the shift in 'war
> strategy' is in the direction of saving us from ourselves in the form
> defeating an enemy that has yet to be defined.
>
> 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: nlp as a fringe group, appealing to the fringe - harry's biggest
mistake
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 18:35:34 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hi, group, frank,

frank wrote, today, about the perception that the lp is a fringe group
appealing to fringes.

there is no question that that perception exists. some of we've earned,
some of it comes with the territory.

frank gave as example harry's focus on the drug war. truly, i don't recall
that he gave that a focus out of line with other issues, especially the one
dear to his heart - foreign policy. it could be i missed it, though, frank.
i was real busy with donovan's campaign.

every time i did hear him, though, i heard him call for the sale of all
"public" lands. i have a far different opinion than you, frank, in relation
to what harry did to get us dismissed as kooks.

his position on the sale of 'government land' was straight out bonkers, even
from my point of view. it made us look totally bonkers in the eyes of all
but a few nuttsos in nevada, and **some** libertarians.

why? i recommended to many, across the political spectrum, that they pay
attention to harry. the response i got in return was "bonkers" from across
the political spectrum. from the left i got "what the hell about
yellowstone, are you folks wanting to sell it to disneyland??!!", and from
the right i got "what the hell about my grazing **rights**!!. are you
nuttsos gonna make me bid against housing developers when i have a
**right**??!!

then there was the fisher folks, the hunters, the hikers, the
environmentalists, the shooters, the orv folks - we pissed 'em all of with
private fences, nothing but money paid to the government deciding the issue.

it is a far more complex issue than harry presented the voters with. first
of all, the government doesn't own the land. what the hell right does it
have to sell it??! many, many folks, from cattle ones, to
environmentalists, to fisherfolks, have established private use claims
already. those legit, common law, natural law, claims ought to be
recognized by libs, not auctioned of to the highest bidder, the government
getting the cash.

recommending that the government sell the "public" lands, when it doesn't
even own 'em is, i figure, the stupidiest thing we libs have done, to get
ourselves defined as nuttso. we've only thought about that issue with our
knees. even the former commies were smarter than us. either they
recognized existing legit claims, or they issued stock. they didn't
**sell** squat. they recognized they had no right to, unlike we libs.

i could write a couple more pages. this issue is dear to my heart, as a
libertarian environmentalist, and one who loves the common law.

as i see it, if we've done anything to **earn** 'fringe group', calling on
government to sell land it doesn't even own has to be the at the top of the
list, as i see it.

taken with the reaction to 'under god' in the pledge, from many libs,
calling for government to sell what it doesn't even own is damn near enough
to make me go away. what ya think about others???!!

sincerely,

larry

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

Subject: motor mouth asks about machine guns.....
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 00:09:53 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

group,

last night i wrote to frank that the drug war was the largest single threat
to the 2nd ammendment. he wrote back with "that's a stretch'.

dunno, really. maybe i just saw too many al capone movies, with drive by
machine-gun shootings during prohibition.

in the last few weeks, in pocky, there have been drive by shootings. turned
out they were drug related, settleing things the only way they could, on the
black market.

that's my evidence for the drug war being the greatest single threat to the
2nd. the drug war generates violence all around, no peace to be found.

i've been thinking, but i don't really know, that the first real gun control
came with prohibition, or shortly after. anybody know for sure?

either way, it makes a lot of sense to me that we can sell our opposition to
the drug war to the 2nd folks on that basis - right and left with a common
enemy - government.

i think it's a real good argument, but could somebody fill me in on the
facts, come to machine-guns, not that it matters in relation to the
argument.

motor-mouth, with a question,

larry


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

Subject: Re: motor mouth asks about machine guns.....
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 00:13:07 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Well Larry, you're correct. The NFA (National Firearms Act) was passed in
1932 or 1933--right at the end of prohibition and smack dab in the middle
of the decade with the highest murder rate (1926-1935, note: 1980 was the
*year* with the highest murder rate). Of course, when national prohibition
ended, that did not necessarily end all of the state prohibitions.

The NFA was the one that established a $200 tax on the manufacture or
transfer of a machine gun or "destructive device", and a $10 tax on the
"manufacture" or "transfer" of a short-barreled shotgun or rifle or
"silencer". Remember, this was back when $10 was some serious money....

I agree with you about the threat that the "war on drugs" poses to the 2nd
amendment.

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

At 00:09 07/21/02 -0700, you wrote:
>group,
>
>last night i wrote to frank that the drug war was the largest single threat
>to the 2nd ammendment. he wrote back with "that's a stretch'.
>
>dunno, really. maybe i just saw too many al capone movies, with drive by
>machine-gun shootings during prohibition.
>
>in the last few weeks, in pocky, there have been drive by shootings.
turned
>out they were drug related, settleing things the only way they could, on
the
>black market.
>
>that's my evidence for the drug war being the greatest single threat to the
>2nd. the drug war generates violence all around, no peace to be found.
>
>i've been thinking, but i don't really know, that the first real gun
control
>came with prohibition, or shortly after. anybody know for sure?
>
>either way, it makes a lot of sense to me that we can sell our opposition
to
>the drug war to the 2nd folks on that basis - right and left with a common
>enemy - government.
>
>i think it's a real good argument, but could somebody fill me in on the
>facts, come to machine-guns, not that it matters in relation to the
>argument.
>
>motor-mouth, with a question,
>
>larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: motor mouth asks about machine guns.....
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 20:34:30 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Larry!

larry fullmer wrote to everyone...

> i've been thinking, but i don't really know, that the first real gun
control
> came with prohibition, or shortly after. anybody know for sure?

I believe you are right, at least to a large extent, that a plethora
of gun laws were quickly enacted during prohibition, mainly against
fully-automatic (machine gun) type weapons.

However, the question has now become a rather moot point. Congress
has just officially ratified the new Department of Homeland Security,
which is going to receive the largest funding and police "state"
resources and powers of any agency within the federal government.

What I told you last time, and I believe it still holds, is that the
'War on Drugs' has since been superseded by the 'War on Terror' as the
#1 threat to liberty in our lifetimes!

It's pretty obviously actually. FBI Director, John Asscroft (to use
Roger's spelling), has admitted that the FBI's emphasis and resources
will now be directed primarily to the 'War on Terror' with less
emphasis on prosecuting drug and other "crimes", including VIOLENT
crime!

I believe that the Libertarian Party should do the right thing and
challenge this gestapo and make THAT the front burner issue. This
'War on Terror' will most likely bankrupt the already bankrupt federal
treasury, and bankrupt the national economy in the same swoop. It
will also largely relegate all of our civil liberties to a thing of
the past. As a result we will have little to no social or economic
liberties left once the police state mechanisms are put into place.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Re: motor mouth asks about machine guns.....
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 20:38:06 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Larry Fullmer...

> I agree with you about the threat that the "war on drugs" poses to the 2nd
> amendment.

Well, with the new Department of Homeland Security eating up the
largest chunk of the federal budget, and the consolidation of police
power within one giant mega-gestapo, how would you now put your
priorities on which "war" poses the greatest threat to the Second
Amendment, and all other constitutionally protected liberties?

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Re: motor mouth asks about machine guns.....
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 15:23:35 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Frank!
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Larry Fullmer...
>
> > I agree with you about the threat that the "war on drugs" poses to the
2nd
> > amendment.
>
>Well, with the new Department of Homeland Security eating up the
>largest chunk of the federal budget, and the consolidation of police
>power within one giant mega-gestapo, how would you now put your
>priorities on which "war" poses the greatest threat to the Second
>Amendment, and all other constitutionally protected liberties?

At this point, it is too soon to say. Although I'm not sure that the money
being spent on the WOT in the new department exceeds the money already
being spent in the WOD. Even if it were, it's still too soon to say
whether the WOT is a greater threat to the Second Amendment than the
WOD. I suppose that it might have greater potential. But, on the other
hand, the WOT seems to have come with less incentive for 2nd Amendment
infringements and even for some 2nd Amendment violations to be rolled back
(at least partially).

While Ridge is no friend of gunowners, I don't see him calling for new laws
that violate the 2nd amendment (to be sure, he isn't calling for any
rollbacks either). So Ridge (and, apparently, the administration as a
whole) seems to be neutral regarding the 2nd Amendment. Meanwhile, there's
a lot of pressure to arm pilots (a small rollback) and there's a lot more
support for some sort of national concealed-carry (whether it's just for
cops or for those with state CCW permits, that's a rollback)--because of
the WOT. So on the whole, it seems marginally positive.

Of course, McCain and the usual suspects are pushing their usual trash (gun
shows, etc.) but they don't seem to be getting much traction.

So, like I said: At this point, it is too soon to say.

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

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

Subject: Re: motor mouth asks about machine guns.....
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 15:43:18 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Frank!
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Larry Fullmer...
>
> > I agree with you about the threat that the "war on drugs" poses to the
2nd
> > amendment.
>
>Well, with the new Department of Homeland Security eating up the
>largest chunk of the federal budget, and the consolidation of police
>power within one giant mega-gestapo, how would you now put your
>priorities on which "war" poses the greatest threat to the Second
>Amendment, and all other constitutionally protected liberties?

I just happened to read this again and had one of those "say what!!!??"
moments.

Frank, get a grip, do some math, or something. The "new Department of
Homeland Security eating up the largest chunk of the federal
budget"!!!??? They were originally talking $37B which was the combined
budget of the agencies that were being moved to DHS. I haven't heard the
latest figures, but of course it was going to go up from there. Let's
suppose it went up 5 times. (Totally unrealistic.) Now we're talking
almost $200B. That's not pocket change. But that's what you've got to do
to get close to the DOD. Of course, the DOD isn't the largest chunk of the
budget anymore either. SS (and probably even Medicare) are
larger. Realistically, the outer limit (at least for now) for DHS is
around $100B (and there'll be a fight in Congress if it gets that
high). My guess is that it'll come in somewhere around $50B-$60B. It's
big, it's a lot, it's a lot bigger than I want. But it certainly isn't
"the largest chunk" of a $2T budget.

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

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

Subject: rock & roll, dave slack, up against bullshit, even from
libs!!!!!!!Re: [idaho_libs] Peer pressure?
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 02:54:56 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>,
<libnw@immosys.com>

group,

i ain't got any kids, so i couldn't write what dave did.

so, dave, assholes in this group who have wanted to defend "under god" are
just that - assholes, liberty nothing to do with it.

thank you, dave, from the bottom of my heart,

larry f.

on 7/21/02 1:35 AM, David H. Slack at slack@activist.com wrote:

With all this talk going on about the pledge I thought I would
pass on a person experience over this very issue. It is
interesting that in the state of Idaho the pledge is considered
voluntary. The law, as I understand it, merely requires that the
pledge be offered in the schools every morning. Now the context
to keep in mind here is the ³offered² idea. Included with that
offer is the forum and environment in which it is provided.

In the case of my own daughter this would be a Boise junior high
school classroom. I ask you to look back on your own school
experiences during your junior high school days. Take a moment
and place your self in that classroom just after the bell rings
for that first class. As you are sitting there joking and
chattering with classmates and the teacher is trying to bring
order to the class the teacher says ³All rise for the pledge of
allegiance.² Now that phrase does not seem overly threatening at
this moment. It may not be exactly what you may have heard.
However, I know from personal experience it is what my daughter
heard every morning and I heard while visiting a number of times
to her class. I ask you to keep in mind that this is a room full
of 13 and 14 year old teens. Do you consider such a statement to
imply a voluntary action or is it a command? Just how do you think
these teens perceived it?

There are two fundamental principles at issue here. The first is
the voluntary nature of the pledge. In order for any action to be
voluntary there can be no form of coercion to act? A command from
an acknowledged person of authority is typically considered
coercion. It carries with it the historical understanding that
the authority figure can take corrective action for not following
the command. Now we have set the stage for the indoctrination of
the children. This is the second issue.

The environment that the pledge is offered discourages students
from not taking the pledge. The end result is that they stand and
take a pledge that they, their parents or family may not agree
with. Each and every morning these students are subjected to this
unnecessary treatment. The only purpose it serves is to
indoctrinate the children into religion ­ a monotheistic religion.
This leaves out the agnostic, atheist and polytheistic. There
can be no clearer violation in my mind of my own rights to freedom
of religion.

Perhaps the solution is to have multiple pledges offered. One for
each form of belief: ³Šunder God², ³Šunder the Gods², ³Šmaybe
God², ³Šunder no God or Gods². Do we allow the teachers to
command ³All rise for the pledges of allegiance²? No, the best
solution was understood many, many years ago, no such pledge, no
such phrase or phrases.

This issue is one that I have had personal experience with. My
daughter, of her own accord, decided she did not agree with the
pledge. She quietly remained seated while the other students
stood to take the pledge. When the teacher saw that her still
sitting she directed her to stand for the pledge. To this my
daughter responded that she was not interested in taking the
pledge, she was immediately sent to the principle for
³disciplinary² action. Yes, in Idaho the pledge is voluntary and
it is made clear to the students just how voluntary it is.

The surprising thing about this is that I was called at my work by
the principle over this very issue. The attitude of the school
administration and the teacher was that I should take immediate
action to correct my daughter¹s behavior. I am proud to say that
it was the school¹s behavior that was quickly corrected. My
position was simple. If my daughter does not wish to take the
pledge she will sit quietly while the other students do. She will
not be asked to leave the room, nor take any other actions beyond
sitting quietly during the pledge. If this is unacceptable to the
school or the teacher, they are free to move the students outside
of the classroom for the pledge. This is consistant with my
position that my children are at school to learn not to take oaths
to the state or pray. The school was very easy to deal with once
I handed them a copy of the actual law with my attorney¹s card
stapled to it.

Dave.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

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.lp-idaho.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 <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

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

Subject: Lindh's Pragmatic Choice
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 12:56:47 -0400
From: sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) (by way of Sam Sloan <sloan@ishipress.com>)
To: libnw@immosys.com

Lindh's Pragmatic Choice

At first, it seemed that John Walker Lindh had displayed no balls at
all when he pled guilty to non-existent crimes in Alexandria Virginia
last week and agreed to a 20-year sentence. It was argued that if the
government's case was so weak, why did Lindh plead guilty?

However, on careful examination, it is clear that Lindh made the
correct pragmatic choice. He did not plead guilty to a crime, because
what he admitted to doing was not a crime. His actual words were:

"Yes, sir," Mr. Lindh replied in a low voice. "I provided my services
as a soldier to the Taliban last year and in the course of doing so, I
carried a rifle and two grenades."

Neither of the two things which Lindh admitted to doing are crimes. It
is not a crime to provide services as a soldier and it is not a crime
to carry a rifle and two grenades.

Virginia is notorious for its kangaroo courts, which is the reason why
this case was brought in Virginia as opposed to say, New York.
Virginia routinely sends innocent men to their deaths in the electric
chair. In New York, defendants do have some constitutional projections
such as the right to testify in their own behalf before a grand jury.
In Virginia, these rights do not exist.

The US Government claims world-wide jurisdiction to prosecute
offenses, while at the came time claiming that the rest of the world
has no jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by agents of the US
Government in other countries. A good example of this is the
kidnapping of my eight year old daughter in the United Arab Emirates
in 1990, a kidnapping which took place through the assistance of
Stephen R. Pattison, a US Consular Official, and John P. Butler, an
FBI agent. It is clear that a crime was committed by US officials, by
the fact that the mother of my daughter was a Pakistani of Afghan
origin and neither she or I brought my daughter from the United Arab
Emirates to America or consented to having my daughter taken to
America. Yet, the kidnappers go free and nothing had been done to
prosecute them.

Lindh is well represented by a legal team. They have not made a wrong
decision. They know that they are facing a kangaroo court. They know
that the US Government has no case at all against Lindh, but that the
government will be eager to make Lindh a scapegoat to cover up the
flaws and the errors made by US Intelligence. Plus, and most
importantly, Lindh has a way out. After Lindh's sentence becomes
final, he can file a habeas corpus petition on the obvious ground that
the crime of which he was sentenced was not a crime at all and,
moreover, the USA had no jurisdiction over it. This habeas corpus
petition would have no chance of success now, but 20 years is a long
time. Right now, the Fourth Circuit US Court of Appeals is controlled
by right-wing reactionary judges effectively appointed by Senator
Jesse Helms. However, Helms is retiring and, once he goes, there may
be new judges more willing to follow the US law.

Thus, had he gone to trial, John Walker Lindh would have stood no
Chinaman's chance but, by pleading guilty to non-crimes, he may in the
future get out.

Sam Sloan

About the Author: Sam Sloan is the only man since 1966 ever to have
gotten a convict out of a Virginia prison on habeas corpus. Sloan got
Kevin Moyna out of prison on the grounds that a Virginia judge had
sentenced Moyna to 20 years in prison for the crime of arson, which
only carried a maximum sentence of ten years, and Moyna had already
served more than ten years. Moyna now lives in San Francisco.

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

Subject: Re: Lindh's Pragmatic Choice
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:36:00 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

Sam Sloan <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote:

> However, on careful examination, it is clear that Lindh made the
> correct pragmatic choice. He did not plead guilty to a crime, because
> what he admitted to doing was not a crime. His actual words were:
>
> "Yes, sir," Mr. Lindh replied in a low voice. "I provided my services
> as a soldier to the Taliban last year and in the course of doing so,
> I carried a rifle and two grenades."
>
> Neither of the two things which Lindh admitted to doing are crimes.
> It is not a crime to provide services as a soldier and it is not a crime
> to carry a rifle and two grenades.

It is a crime to provide services, as a soldier or anything else, to
a foreign terrorist organisation, and it is a crime to carry firearms
in the course of committing another crime.

--
Zev Sero When we put a mob boss in jail, we don't whine to
zsero@free-market.net the prosecutor, "How do you expect Don Corleone to
be able to stop the Mafia from killing people when
he can't even use his cell phone?"

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

Subject: Re: Lindh's Pragmatic Choice
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:22:17 PDT
From: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
To: Zev Sero <libnw@immosys.com>

On 22-Jul-02, Zev Sero wrote:

SS>> "Yes, sir," Mr. Lindh replied in a low voice. "I provided my services
SS>> as a soldier to the Taliban last year and in the course of doing so,
SS>> I carried a rifle and two grenades."

SS>> Neither of the two things which Lindh admitted to doing are crimes. It
SS>> is not a crime to provide services as a soldier and it is not a crime
SS>> to carry a rifle and two grenades.

ZS> It is a crime to provide services, as a soldier or anything else, to
ZS> a foreign terrorist organisation,...

Irrelevant. The Taliban was the recognised government of Afghanistan.

ZS> ... and it is a crime to carry firearms in the course of committing
ZS> another crime.

In every country of the world?

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

Subject: Re: Lindh's Pragmatic Choice
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:43:47 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

SS = Sam Sloan <sloan@ishipress.com>
ZS = Zev Sero <zsero@free-market.net>
EF = Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>

SS> "Yes, sir," Mr. Lindh replied in a low voice. "I provided my services
SS> as a soldier to the Taliban last year and in the course of doing so,
SS> I carried a rifle and two grenades."
SS>
SS> Neither of the two things which Lindh admitted to doing are crimes. It
SS> is not a crime to provide services as a soldier and it is not a crime
SS> to carry a rifle and two grenades.

ZS> It is a crime to provide services, as a soldier or anything else, to
ZS> a foreign terrorist organisation,...

EF> Irrelevant. The Taliban was the recognised government of Afghanistan.

Recognised by whom, and how is that recognition relevant? Under USAn law,
the Taliban were a foreign terrorist organisation since 4-Jul-99. Lindh
admitted that he knew this was the case.

ZS> ... and it is a crime to carry firearms in the course of committing
ZS> another crime.

EF> In every country of the world?

Under USAn law, yes. USAn law has never considered itself limited to the
borders of the USA. It is often impractical or inadvisable to prosecute
violations of USAn law that happen outside its borders, but the option
has always been there. This is very annoying to other countries, but
that's how it is. This is not something new, it's the position USAn
courts have always taken.

--
Zev Sero When we put a mob boss in jail, we don't whine to
zsero@free-market.net the prosecutor, "How do you expect Don Corleone to
be able to stop the Mafia from killing people when
he can't even use his cell phone?"

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

Subject: Re: Lindh's Pragmatic Choice
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:46:28 PDT
From: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
To: Zev Sero <libnw@immosys.com>

On 23-Jul-02, Zev Sero wrote:

ZS>>> It is a crime to provide services, as a soldier or anything else, to
ZS>>> a foreign terrorist organisation,...

EF>> Irrelevant. The Taliban was the recognised government of Afghanistan.

ZS> Recognised by whom,...

The US and the UN, among others.

ZS> ... and how is that recognition relevant? Under USAN law, the Taliban
ZS> were a foreign terrorist organisation since 4-Jul-99....

Then the Dept of Justice should prosecute the Dept of State for providing
millions of dollars in the Spring of 2001 to the Taliban.

ZS> ... Lindh admitted that he knew this was the case.

If your information is correct, I would assume the State Dept did, too.

ZS>>> ... and it is a crime to carry firearms in the course of committing
ZS>>> another crime.

EF>> In every country of the world?

ZS> Under USAN law, yes. USAn law has never considered itself limited to
ZS> the borders of the USA....

Implying the US does not recognise the sovereignty of other states.

ZS> ... It is often impractical or inadvisable to prosecute violations of
ZS> USAn law that happen outside its borders, but the option has always
been
ZS> there. This is very annoying to other countries, but that's how it is.
ZS> This is not something new, it's the position USAn courts have always
ZS> taken.

So, if you're vacationing in Mexico and your aspirin hunt leads you to
discover that amphetamines are sold over the counter, your two-week speed
binge (and subsequent 20 lb. weight loss) leaves you liable for prosecution
when you return to the US?

How does this protect the public safety inside the US?

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

Subject: Re: Lindh's Pragmatic Choice
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:02:48 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

SS = Sam Sloan <sloan@ishipress.com>
ZS = Zev Sero <zsero@free-market.net>
EF = Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>

SS> "Yes, sir," Mr. Lindh replied in a low voice. "I provided my services
SS> as a soldier to the Taliban last year and in the course of doing so,
SS> I carried a rifle and two grenades."
SS>
SS> Neither of the two things which Lindh admitted to doing are crimes. It
SS> is not a crime to provide services as a soldier and it is not a crime
SS> to carry a rifle and two grenades.

ZS> It is a crime to provide services, as a soldier or anything else, to
ZS> a foreign terrorist organisation,...

EF> Irrelevant. The Taliban was the recognised government of Afghanistan.

ZS> Recognised by whom,...

EF> The US and the UN, among others.

No. Neither the USA nor the UN ever did recognise the Taliban, and
nor did almost any other government.

ZS> ... and how is that recognition relevant? Under USAN law, the Taliban
ZS> were a foreign terrorist organisation since 4-Jul-99....

EF> Then the Dept of Justice should prosecute the Dept of State for
EF> providing millions of dollars in the Spring of 2001 to the Taliban.

No, because it never happened. US aid in Afghanistan was provided
through Western humanitarian organisations, never to or through the
Taliban. The Taliban had nothing to do with these aid efforts, and
by Sep 2001 had succeeded in driving most of them out of the country.

ZS> ... and it is a crime to carry firearms in the course of committing
ZS> another crime.

EF>> In every country of the world?

ZS> Under USAN law, yes. USAn law has never considered itself limited to
ZS> the borders of the USA....

EF> Implying the US does not recognise the sovereignty of other states.

It recognises their sovereignty. It doesn't recognise a legal concept
that its own laws only apply in areas where it is sovereign. Other
countries take a different view, and tend to protest when one of their
citizens is prosecuted for doing something that is legal there, which
is one reason why it is rare for such cases to actually be prosecuted.
But where the act is illegal under their laws as well, and the accused
is not their citizen, they tend not to object if the US chooses to
prosecute, instead of sending the accused back to be prosecuted where
the crime happened.

ZS> ... It is often impractical or inadvisable to prosecute violations of
ZS> USAn law that happen outside its borders, but the option has always been
ZS> there. This is very annoying to other countries, but that's how it is.
ZS> This is not something new, it's the position USAn courts have always
ZS> taken.

EF> So, if you're vacationing in Mexico and your aspirin hunt leads you
EF> to discover that amphetamines are sold over the counter, your two-week
EF> speed binge (and subsequent 20 lb. weight loss) leaves you liable for
EF> prosecution when you return to the US?

In theory, yes. In practise, it's not going to happen, so don't worry
about it. They've got enough peaceful drug users to per^H^Hrosecute in
this country, without worrying about what happens overseas.

EF> How does this protect the public safety inside the US?

In your specific example, it doesn't, but then nor does prosecuting
those who use speed inside the USA! More generally, how is the
question of whether something protects the public safety relevant to
the issue of whether something is true under USAn law? Protecting
the public may be the *reason* why many USAn laws are enacted, but
it is not a legal criterion for judging a law's validity, and indeed
there are many valid laws in the USA that do nothing for the public
safety, and even harm it!

However, perhaps you can explain how letting a criminal get away
with impunity, merely because he committed his crime on the other
side of an imaginary line, protects the public safety. If I kill
someone 1 cm over the Mexican border, and the Mexican authorities
choose not to punish me, is the USAn public not safer if I'm punished
instead in the USA? Forget questions of sovereignty - is the public
not safer for murderers being locked away no matter where they did
their deed? And does the same not apply to all laws that actually
protect the public safety?

--
Zev Sero When we put a mob boss in jail, we don't whine to
zsero@free-market.net the prosecutor, "How do you expect Don Corleone to
be able to stop the Mafia from killing people when
he can't even use his cell phone?"

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

Subject: Re: Lindh's Pragmatic Choice
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:10:56 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

zev.sero@encodasystems.com wrote in part:

>EF> So, if you're vacationing in Mexico and your aspirin hunt leads
>EF>you to discover that amphetamines are sold over the counter,
>EF>your two-week speed binge (and subsequent 20 lb. weight loss)
>EF>leaves you liable for prosecution when you return to the US?

>In theory, yes.

No, not even in theory. The Controlled Substances Act is written so as not
to make such actions illegal. There are sections concerning importation to
the USA or actions aboard vessels under US jurisdiction that specify their
applicability outside US territory. The example above is not one of them.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

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

Subject: Re: Lindh's Pragmatic Choice
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 20:02:00 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Zev!

Zev Sero wrote to Sam Sloan...

> It is a crime to provide services, as a soldier or anything else, to
> a foreign terrorist organisation, and it is a crime to carry firearms
> in the course of committing another crime.

If Lindh had committed these acts and was apprehended, as such, within
the US, or a territory in which federal court could exercise legal
jurisdiction, I might tend to agree with you. In essence however, he
was apprehended in Afghanistan, and turned over to the US. The US
government essentially kidnapped the man and illegally transported him
from a jurisdiction in which they had no legal authority.

I doubt if Afghanistan had any laws specifically making any of Lindh's
acts "illegal" under Afghan law. So how can a foreign nation, use its
own court system, judges and laws to apply to acts committed in a
country where such acts were perfectly legal?

Let me give a few examples. It is common in many countries, to
legally be able to buy certain drugs and medicine over the counter and
without a prescription, such as here in the Philippines, and also in
Mexico. If an American chooses to travel abroad, and say buy
penicillin in Mexico or the Philippines, and consume the drugs in the
host country, should US federal courts have jurisdiction to arrest and
try cases that would be contrary to US law if the acts had occurred in
the United States?

Another example. The Philippines has no seat belt laws. I've been
here for almost five years now. Occasionally, I rent a vehicle to
either travel locally, or haul something to my home. Should some US
mole take photos of me driving a vehicle here in the Philippines
without wearing a seatbelt, hold me in violation of US law, and should
I be apprehended once I arrive back in the States? Worse yet, should
I be kidnapped by US operatives and secreted out of the Philippines to
stand trial in the US?

My case here is really very simple. Lindh was probably doing nothing
illegal in Afghanistan. And, if he was, then he should be prosecuted
in Afghanistan by the Afghan government, and certainly NOT kidnapped
and spirited away out of the country to be taken to trail in a
jurisdiction where he committed no crime.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Re: Lindh's Pragmatic Choice
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 20:04:24 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Ed!

Ed Fischang wrote to Zev Sero...

Zev Sero wrote:
> ZS> ... and it is a crime to carry firearms in the course of committing
> ZS> another crime.

You replied:
> In every country of the world?

I see your point. Again, as I wrote just earlier, if Lindh was not
breaking Afghan law, then US courts have no jurisdiction anyway. If
Lindh was indeed breaking Afghan laws, then the proper jurisdiction
would be with the Afghan government to prosecute.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Re: Lindh's Pragmatic Choice
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 20:17:47 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Zev!

Zev Sero wrote to Ed Fischang, Sam Sloan and others...

Ed Fischang wrote:
> EF> In every country of the world?

You replied:
> Under USAn law, yes. USAn law has never considered itself limited to the
> borders of the USA. It is often impractical or inadvisable to prosecute
> violations of USAn law that happen outside its borders, but the option
> has always been there. This is very annoying to other countries, but
> that's how it is. This is not something new, it's the position USAn
> courts have always taken.

Well then, if the US government has determined that it has "maybe"
jurisdiction to spirit away individuals in foreign judicial
territories, to face time in US courts, and interfering in the
jurisdictions of other governments without invitation, then my
question: Has the US government itself become a rogue terrorist state
in its own right? I would have to conclude, based entirely on your
own description of what is considered "legal", that this is
unacceptable and does raise several questions, the first of which is
what should be done to reign in this arrogant and abusive rogue
government in terms of international law? In terms of international
law, I would suggest that the US government is criminally culpable if
indeed US law believes it has such international jurisdiction.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Re: Lindh's Pragmatic Choice
Date: 27 Jul 2002 11:06:18 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2002-07-27 at 06:02, Frank Reichert wrote:

> My case here is really very simple. Lindh was probably doing nothing
> illegal in Afghanistan. And, if he was, then he should be prosecuted
> in Afghanistan by the Afghan government, and certainly NOT kidnapped
> and spirited away out of the country to be taken to trail in a
> jurisdiction where he committed no crime.

Since most people here may well be unaware of it, I'll point out that
this is not the first case of it happening recently. The case of Dimitri
Skylarov (sp?) comes right to mind.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

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

Subject: Re: Lindh's Pragmatic Choice
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:48:57 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

First, let's recap what this thread's about. Sam Sloan claimed that
the acts to which Lindh pled guilty are not crimes. I pointed out
that they are indeed crimes under US law, which is the legal system
under which he was charged and convicted. I further pointed out that
the USAn legal system has never seen its application as being limited
by geography, so the fact that he committed these acts in Afghanistan
is irrelevant.

Frank Reichert and several others have thrown their arms up in shock
and horror at this fact. They make emotional claims that this
position of USAn law is wrong, that it makes the USA a `rogue state'
or a `terrorist state', that it ought to be changed. They certainly
have a valid point, though IMHO a debatable one. But this isn't
about what ought to be, it's about what is. And it is indisputable
that, whether you like it or not, USAn law *does* apply everywhere in
the world, and always has.

If you are outside the borders of the USA, and you are contemplating
doing something that breaches USAn law, you should be aware that there
is a risk, however remote, that when you come to the USA you will be
arrested, and even a risk - though even more remote - that you will be
arrested by the USA outside its borders. In 99.999% of cases, this
isn't something you should worry about, since the chance of the USA
doing anything about it are extremely remote. But if you are taking up
arms against the USA, or otherwise directly challenging the USA in a
way that makes it likely that USAn authorities will care enough to go
after you, and the local authorities are not going to kick up a fuss
about it, then the fact that you're not geographically within the USA
will not protect you.

Frank wrote:
> If an American chooses to travel abroad, and say buy penicillin in Mexico
> or the Philippines, and consume the drugs in the host country, should US
> federal courts have jurisdiction to arrest and try cases that would be
> contrary to US law if the acts had occurred in the United States?

As Robert Goodman has pointed out, the federal laws regulating drugs
specifically limit their application to US territory. But in principle,
had the law not said otherwise, yes, you would be exposing yourself to
a (minimal) risk of arrest when you return to the USA (and an
infinitessimal risk of being arrested in the Philippines).

> Another example. The Philippines has no seat belt laws. I've been
> here for almost five years now. Occasionally, I rent a vehicle to
> either travel locally, or haul something to my home. Should some US
> mole take photos of me driving a vehicle here in the Philippines
> without wearing a seatbelt, hold me in violation of US law, and should
> I be apprehended once I arrive back in the States? Worse yet, should
> I be kidnapped by US operatives and secreted out of the Philippines to
> stand trial in the US?

As far as I know, there is no federal law requiring the use of seat
belts. Supposing there were one, though, and supposing that it said
it had global applicability, then yes, you would be running such a risk,
though it would be so minimal that it wouldn't be worth worrying about.
Again, this isn't a question of `should' but of `is'. US law *does*
apply everywhere, because the USA says so. This is not a change, this
has been the case since before most other nations even existed. Whether
any individual needs to worry about that is entirely a question of
whether he is likely to be affected by it, and in almost all cases the
answer is no.

> Well then, if the US government has determined that it has "maybe"
> jurisdiction to spirit away individuals in foreign judicial
> territories, to face time in US courts

It hasn't `determined' that it `maybe' has anything. Under USAn law,
the USAn govt definitely has this power, and has always had it, though
it very rarely uses it, mostly because it annoys other countries with
whom the USA generally wants to be friendly. Where the criminal lives
in a country that 1) doesn't mind the USA coming in and making an arrest,
or 2) the USA doesn't mind pissing off, they can and will do it.

This is a fact, not an opinion. If you don't like this law, you're free
to campaign in the USA to get it changed. But surely there are lots of
laws that are in much greater need of change. In any case, I don't see
how you are personally aggrieved - AFAIK you are an individual, not a
foreign country whose jurisdiction has been violated or stands to be
violated, so what difference does it make to you?

> and interfering in the jurisdictions of other governments without
> invitation, then my question: Has the US government itself become a
> rogue terrorist state in its own right?

`Rogue'? Only if the USA has some obligation not to do so. It has
never recognised any such obligation. `Terrorist'? That's completely
absurd, even if we were to agree that it shouldn't be doing it.

> I would have to conclude, based entirely on your own description of
> what is considered "legal", that this is unacceptable and does raise
> several questions, the first of which is what should be done to reign
> in this arrogant and abusive rogue government in terms of international
> law? In terms of international law, I would suggest that the US
> government is criminally culpable if indeed US law believes it has such
> international jurisdiction.

There is no such thing as binding international law. Or at least, that
is the USAn position, and always has been. International law, at least
as far as the USA is concerned, is the body of customs that have grown
up between nations to prevent them from going to war with each other at
the drop of a hat. Abiding by this set of customs is entirely a matter
of prudence, not binding law. Generally, it's a good idea to follow
these customs, but occasionally it's worth breaking them. IOW, it's
like cutting in line at the grocery; generally not a good idea, but if
the need is great enough there's no binding law to prevent it.

> My case here is really very simple. Lindh was probably doing nothing
> illegal in Afghanistan.

And Eichmann was doing nothing illegal in Germany. And Pol Pot was
doing nothing illegal in Cambodia. So what?

--
Zev Sero "It is a great mistake to learn from history.
zsero@free-market.net There is nothing to learn from history."
Shimon Peres (M'aariv interview, 1993)

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

Subject: Re: Lindh's Pragmatic Choice
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 20:35:25 -0400
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Zev:

"In theory yes" "but never in practice"

This assurance doesn't cut it for me. Once there is a theoretical legal
avenue for an agency to assert control, you can be sure it is just a matter
of time before they start doing it.
You are essentially saying that there is not place on earth that you are not
subject to the laws of the United States.

>USAn law has never considered itself limited to
> ZS> the borders of the USA....
>
> EF> Implying the US does not recognise the sovereignty of other states.
>
> It recognises their sovereignty. It doesn't recognise a legal concept
> that its own laws only apply in areas where it is sovereign. Other
> countries take a different view, and tend to protest when one of their
> citizens is prosecuted for doing something that is legal there, which
> is one reason why it is rare for such cases to actually be prosecuted.
> But where the act is illegal under their laws as well, and the accused
> is not their citizen, they tend not to object if the US chooses to
> prosecute, instead of sending the accused back to be prosecuted where
> the crime happened.
>
>
> ZS> ... It is often impractical or inadvisable to prosecute violations of
> ZS> USAn law that happen outside its borders, but the option has always
been
> ZS> there. This is very annoying to other countries, but that's how it
is.
> ZS> This is not something new, it's the position USAn courts have always
> ZS> taken.
>
> EF> So, if you're vacationing in Mexico and your aspirin hunt leads you
> EF> to discover that amphetamines are sold over the counter, your two-week
> EF> speed binge (and subsequent 20 lb. weight loss) leaves you liable for
> EF> prosecution when you return to the US?
>
> In theory, yes. In practise, it's not going to happen, so don't worry
> about it. They've got enough peaceful drug users to per^H^Hrosecute in
> this country, without worrying about what happens overseas.
>
>

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

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 15:56:44 -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 automatted. 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, 29 Jul 2002 15:56:49 -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 automatted. 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: Pat Williams/Vouchers & the NRA
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:57:03 -0600
From: "B Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
CC: "Northwest LIBERTARIANS" <libnw@immosys.com>

WESTERN PERSPECTIVES
Pocatello, Idaho July 22, 2002

I have included an article by former Montana Congressman Pat Williams
that elaborates on some of dangers and pitfalls in permitting school
vouchers
to be used in funding schools. His, as usual, is an interesting
perspective.

Pat Williams is an example of how a single issue candidate can survive an
election that should have been lost. Williams in 1994 was Montana's At-
Large lone Congressman. Williams, a Democrat, was considered the most
liberal Congressman in the Rocky Mountain West (even to the left of the
other Pat in Colorado). The 1994 elections almost destroyed the Democratic
Party in Montana and many other Western states. In Montana the Republicans
increased their control of the legislature from 57% to 76%...the Party swept
80% of elected Democrats from office. The 1994 election victory prospects
for Williams must have seemed bleak. Not only was there a conservative
Republican tide running strong in the state, but, Williams got a well funded
challenger from the left. A Bozeman millionaire and a Green Party member
decided to challenge Williams and run as an Independent. Williams
Republican
challenger was a former under-Secretary of the Agriculture Dept, under
Bush #1.

Everybody from the Political Science department at the University of
Montana,
to the major newspapers, to the average citizen, predicted Pat Williams
defeat.
Remember, even Tom Foley, the Speaker of the House, was defeated in 1994.
The election results were almost unbelievable:

Pat Williams = 47%
Republican = 43%
Left Indep. = 10%

Yes, old Pat Williams did the impossible...he bucked the tide and won. A
few weeks
after the election the state's second largest newspaper, the Missoulian,
posed the
question: How did Pat Williams win? They seemed totally baffled. They
asked their
readers to give them some insight on how Williams pulled off the impossible.
I along
with many others, wrote in and gave our suggestions.

When Williams first ran for Congress in 1978 he had a strong challenger in
the Democratic
Party...Dorothy Bradley. Bradley was a popular state Senator with money.
All during the
primary the straw polls showed her leading Williams. A week before the
electron the two
had their first and only televised debate. During the debate both were
asked about "gun
control'. Out of character, and probably rehearsed, Williams slammed his
fist on the podium
and yelled that he would vote against any and all "gun control"
legislation. His statement
made headlines the next day, and caused him to win both the primary and
general election.

Flash forward to 1994. Williams knew that he was in the election fight of a
lifetime. Old
Williams decided to play his NRA card. Williams asked the NRA (and other
pro-gun
organizations) for help, and he got it in spades. In the two months leading
up to the general
election I must have received over a dozen letters from the NRA and other
pro-gun organizations
requesting that I vote for the man that votes to allow you to keep your
guns. The NRA even
sent me a half dozen "The NRA Needs PAT WILLIAMS" bumper stickers. The NRA
ran
a series of 30 second TV spots every night promoting Williams. Indeed, the
NRA alone must
have spent close to a million dollars in Montana for Williams.

The Missoulian received all the letters requested and published their
opinion based off the
letters (on how Williams won). They acknowledged that Williams had won
solely on the gun
issue and as a result of the second largest NRA support campaign ever
attempted (Tom
Foley was the largest). It seemed that the single issue of NRA support
caused an entire
state to forget and forgive Williams for his socialist voting record. There
must be a lesson in this
somewhere for Libertarian candidates.

Ben

Pat Williams article on school vouchers:
http://www.headwatersnews.org/pat072202.html

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

Subject: Libertarian Insurance
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 21:28:46 -0400
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: "Libertarian Newsgroups Northwest" <libnw@immosys.com>

I always thought that it would be a great idea, and party membership
incentive, to offer health and legal insurance to LP members via a
non-profit insurance plan.

Elilibility would be first based on LP membership and/or Libertarian voter
registration as prerequisites.
It could then perhaps be used to voluntarily exclude oneself from several
involuntary government taxes that purport to supply the same services; if
and when there is an official objection to such elective services transfer I
believe an argument in court could be raised that this is a political creed,
belief system and protected right under the 5th and 14th Amendments and that
such right imparts the choice to participate in another but equally socially
responsible insurance plan, and trumps such other laws imposed by Congress.

Said insurance would protect LP members health care costs and from legal
costs (provisionally say only for crimes that the LP does not consider to be
real offenses).

Just an idea, but one I believe woudd/could swell the ranks of the LP party
and registered Libertarian voters, as well as enhance our income to
something significant and steady from the insurance fund/trust.

All feedback on this idea is welcome and encouraged . . . .

Gary.

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

Subject: Re: Libertarian Insurance
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:48:18 -0600
From: "Ted Dunlap" <teddunlap@outdrs.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

You could interest me in participating
Ted Dunlap

----- Original Message -----
From: G Triest
To: Libertarian Newsgroups Northwest
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 7:28 PM
Subject: Libertarian Insurance

I always thought that it would be a great idea, and party
membership
incentive, to offer health and legal insurance to LP members via a
non-profit insurance plan.

Elilibility would be first based on LP membership and/or
Libertarian voter
registration as prerequisites.
It could then perhaps be used to voluntarily exclude oneself from
several
involuntary government taxes that purport to supply the same
services; if
and when there is an official objection to such elective services
transfer I
believe an argument in court could be raised that this is a
political creed,
belief system and protected right under the 5th and 14th
Amendments and that
such right imparts the choice to participate in another but
equally socially
responsible insurance plan, and trumps such other laws imposed by
Congress.

Said insurance would protect LP members health care costs and from
legal
costs (provisionally say only for crimes that the LP does not
consider to be
real offenses).

Just an idea, but one I believe woudd/could swell the ranks of the
LP party
and registered Libertarian voters, as well as enhance our income
to
something significant and steady from the insurance fund/trust.

All feedback on this idea is welcome and encouraged . . . .

Gary.

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

Subject: Re: Libertarian Insurance
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:34:06 -0700
From: david polen <appatang@juno.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

This insurance idea is terrific. It gets my vote, David

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:48:18 -0600 "Ted Dunlap" <teddunlap@outdrs.net>
writes:

You could interest me in participating
Ted Dunlap

----- Original Message -----
From: G Triest
To: Libertarian Newsgroups Northwest
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 7:28 PM
Subject: Libertarian Insurance

I always thought that it would be a great idea, and
party membership
incentive, to offer health and legal insurance to LP
members via a
non-profit insurance plan.

Elilibility would be first based on LP membership and/or
Libertarian voter
registration as prerequisites.
It could then perhaps be used to voluntarily exclude
oneself from several
involuntary government taxes that purport to supply the
same services; if
and when there is an official objection to such elective
services transfer I
believe an argument in court could be raised that this
is a political creed,
belief system and protected right under the 5th and 14th
Amendments and that
such right imparts the choice to participate in another
but equally socially
responsible insurance plan, and trumps such other laws
imposed by Congress.

Said insurance would protect LP members health care
costs and from legal
costs (provisionally say only for crimes that the LP
does not consider to be
real offenses).

Just an idea, but one I believe woudd/could swell the
ranks of the LP party
and registered Libertarian voters, as well as enhance
our income to
something significant and steady from the insurance
fund/trust.

All feedback on this idea is welcome and encouraged . .
. .

Gary.


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

Subject: Re: Libertarian Insurance
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 17:44:14 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Gary Triest wrote:
>I always thought that it would be a great idea, and party membership
>incentive, to offer health and legal insurance to LP members via a
>non-profit insurance plan.

Not a bad idea, so far. But most likely you'd need to have a "real
insurance company" do it--especially the health insurance. Otherwise, you
won't have a big enough base to handle claims. You'd also run into the
"free-rider" problem. Finally, you'd probably have the rates set
politically rather than actuarially (a $64 word that essentially means
"based on cost").

>Elilibility would be first based on LP membership and/or Libertarian voter
>registration as prerequisites.
>It could then perhaps be used to voluntarily exclude oneself from several
>involuntary government taxes that purport to supply the same services; if
>and when there is an official objection to such elective services transfer
I
>believe an argument in court could be raised that this is a political
creed,
>belief system and protected right under the 5th and 14th Amendments and
that
>such right imparts the choice to participate in another but equally
socially
>responsible insurance plan, and trumps such other laws imposed by Congress.

Rots o' ruck. There are some organizations trying to do this based on 1st
Amendment religious freedom rights (which are actually better-protected by
the courts). What they are winning isn't enough to be worth the trouble.

>Said insurance would protect LP members health care costs and from legal
>costs (provisionally say only for crimes that the LP does not consider to
be
>real offenses).

So, instead of paying for your attorney before you go to jail, you now get
someone else to pay your attorney before you go to jail. What a deal...I
guess.

>Just an idea, but one I believe woudd/could swell the ranks of the LP party
>and registered Libertarian voters, as well as enhance our income to
>something significant and steady from the insurance fund/trust.

Perhaps that will equalize the exodus of people who leave the LP because
it's "gone off its rocker."

>All feedback on this idea is welcome and encouraged . . . .

Well, you asked for it.... (But it was a nice try, anyhow.)

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

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

Subject: Re: Libertarian Insurance
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 20:47:58 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Gary!

Gary Triest wrote to everyone...

> I always thought that it would be a great idea, and party membership
> incentive, to offer health and legal insurance to LP members via a
> non-profit insurance plan.

I read your entire post. I'd like to see the details on how this
would work. Obviously it should be a guaranteed plan, and NOT
guaranteed by LP national bureaucrats. I think several insurance
companies might be interested in coming onboard to underwrite such.

A lot of organizations offer such plans, but they are always driven by
a real insurance agency. I don't believe that the LP ought to get
into the insurance business. We are, after all, a political party.
As such, getting into the business would imply that we advocate some
sort of government insurance plan.

It's a lot like saying that the Federal government should privatize
social security, and then manage it anyway! Harry Browne has long
advocated privatizing social security, medicare and all other
government insurance programmes, and making them voluntary. I don't
believe he has spelled out the details very well either.

I'm not throwing this all out as nonsense, but it could send the wrong
message. If we believe in personal choice, and in medical choices that
the government has no business becoming involved in our private
choices, then I would like to know what you are proposing here that
wouldn't prohibit such choices if the LP were to find itself in real
political power?

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Re: Libertarian Insurance
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 10:50:24 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in part:

>As such, getting into the business would imply that we
>advocate some sort of government insurance plan.

I don't see how. Please explain where that implication lies.

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

Subject: Re: Libertarian Insurance
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 20:29:38 -0400
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Lowell:

Well I would be skeptical of it working if it relies on a regular insurance
agency to underwrite.
The whole idea is that it is a nonprofit based plan. I don't think there is
room for profit in it if it is to be successful.

Has this idea been tried in the courts under the 'right to political
persuasion' guarantee? I admit it is a new one but the courts may think it
less sweeping in scope and therefore less controversial.
If the mandates and findings of Congress that underly the statues that
permit/enact the taxes for national health and retirement insurance (social
security, medicare/caid, etc) are substantively fullfilled by our insurance
plan, then as a precept the person choosing it over the public plan is still
operating within the law; as it would/could be argued before a federal
court.

(splain the free rider problem, and why the rates could not be based on
acturial tables?)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: Libertarian Insurance

> Gary Triest wrote:
> >I always thought that it would be a great idea, and party membership
> >incentive, to offer health and legal insurance to LP members via a
> >non-profit insurance plan.
>
> Not a bad idea, so far. But most likely you'd need to have a "real
> insurance company" do it--especially the health insurance. Otherwise, you
> won't have a big enough base to handle claims. You'd also run into the
> "free-rider" problem. Finally, you'd probably have the rates set
> politically rather than actuarially (a $64 word that essentially means
> "based on cost").
>
> >Elilibility would be first based on LP membership and/or Libertarian
voter
> >registration as prerequisites.
> >It could then perhaps be used to voluntarily exclude oneself from several
> >involuntary government taxes that purport to supply the same services; if
> >and when there is an official objection to such elective services
transfer I
> >believe an argument in court could be raised that this is a political
creed,
> >belief system and protected right under the 5th and 14th Amendments and
that
> >such right imparts the choice to participate in another but equally
socially
> >responsible insurance plan, and trumps such other laws imposed by
Congress.
>
> Rots o' ruck. There are some organizations trying to do this based on 1st
> Amendment religious freedom rights (which are actually better-protected by
> the courts). What they are winning isn't enough to be worth the trouble.
>
> >Said insurance would protect LP members health care costs and from legal
> >costs (provisionally say only for crimes that the LP does not consider to
be
> >real offenses).
>
> So, instead of paying for your attorney before you go to jail, you now get
> someone else to pay your attorney before you go to jail. What a deal...I
> guess.
>
> >Just an idea, but one I believe woudd/could swell the ranks of the LP
party
> >and registered Libertarian voters, as well as enhance our income to
> >something significant and steady from the insurance fund/trust.
>
> Perhaps that will equalize the exodus of people who leave the LP because
> it's "gone off its rocker."
>
> >All feedback on this idea is welcome and encouraged . . . .
>
> Well, you asked for it.... (But it was a nice try, anyhow.)
>
> 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: Re: Libertarian Insurance
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 20:54:04 -0400
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: "Libertarian Newsgroups Northwest" <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank:

I believe that an external insurance agency underwriting the plan would
undermine the economic attractiveness of it. The idea is that it would be a
non-profit based insurance; the savings would be far more amenable to the LP
members' enrollment.
I don't think the LP would itself minister the plan, but rather an
affiliated non-profit corporation, an offshoot of the LP that has
independent legal status.

I too believe in personal choice on even whether a person should have to
participate in any insurance plan. But as it sits there are gunenforced laws
that demand you pay into the national insurance plan. I am proposing that
since these laws exist, for protected political reasons, a person should be
legally able to transfer his legal obligation to investing into the public
plan to this subject private plan.

Obviously if the LP ever finds itself in real political power than the
element of involuntary participation would be abolished.

It could be made viable by a number of means . . . perhaps a start up stock
offering, perhaps via a grant from a non-profit organization (since this
plan is intended to be non-profit itself), perhaps from some group of
sympathetic benefactors.
The main problem in starting it up would be the main fund to protect the
policy holders in a worst case scenario of 30% of them taking more out of
the fund than it was able to accumulate.
Although I recognize the devil may be in the details here, my main thrust
(and point of interest) was in offering such a health/legal/(mebe
retirement) plan only to registered Libertarians.
I do think that the details can be worked out, as it is based on the same
precepts as any other insurance plan, which are mostly all economically
viable.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Reichert" <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: Libertarian Insurance

> Greetings Gary!
>
> Gary Triest wrote to everyone...
>
> > I always thought that it would be a great idea, and party membership
> > incentive, to offer health and legal insurance to LP members via a
> > non-profit insurance plan.
>
> I read your entire post. I'd like to see the details on how this
> would work. Obviously it should be a guaranteed plan, and NOT
> guaranteed by LP national bureaucrats. I think several insurance
> companies might be interested in coming onboard to underwrite such.
>
> A lot of organizations offer such plans, but they are always driven by
> a real insurance agency. I don't believe that the LP ought to get
> into the insurance business. We are, after all, a political party.
> As such, getting into the business would imply that we advocate some
> sort of government insurance plan.
>
> It's a lot like saying that the Federal government should privatize
> social security, and then manage it anyway! Harry Browne has long
> advocated privatizing social security, medicare and all other
> government insurance programmes, and making them voluntary. I don't
> believe he has spelled out the details very well either.
>
> I'm not throwing this all out as nonsense, but it could send the wrong
> message. If we believe in personal choice, and in medical choices that
> the government has no business becoming involved in our private
> choices, then I would like to know what you are proposing here that
> wouldn't prohibit such choices if the LP were to find itself in real
> political power?
>
> 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: somethin' to prove.........? zev sero
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 00:30:15 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hey, zsero,

criminee, i know that (below). i was speaking loosely. sorry. i do that.
you'll get lots of chances to correct me. i'd have felt much better about
your 'correction' if you'd found even the slightest positive to communicate
about a post i put alot of time and thought into.

it sure does strike me that there one helluva a lot of male libs with
something to prove.

can't wait to read what ya think about 'under gawd' in the pledge.

and, lindh? he's a poor lost soul who never hurt anyone, that i know of.
i'm not saying he ought no to be in prison. but the outrage he has
generated from so many quarters tells me more about those with the outrage
than it does about lindh.

comes to outrage, zev sero, given things to be outraged about,if figure you
maybe ought to take a look at your priorities if your a lib.

anyway, thanks for tellin' me what i already knew. i could be i might have
led to confusion on the part of others. the record is straight, now.

LF

on 7/22/02 3:15 PM, Zev Sero at zev.sero@encodasystems.com wrote:

> <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> now the CA supreme court, just in the last few days, has taken on the
>> u.s. supreme court on the issue.
>
> No, it hasn't. All the CA court did was remind everyone that medical MJ
> is not a crime under CA state law, so it can't be prosecuted as one in a
> state court. It remains criminal under federal law (which state judges
> are obliged by the constitution to obey), but violations must be
> prosecuted in a federal court, just like any other federal crime.
>
> The US Supreme Court never said that MJ was illegal under CA law, and
> the CA Supreme Court never said that MJ was legal under federal law.
> Both sets laws remain valid. Federal law preempts state law, but that
> doesn't make federal crimes prosecutable in state courts.

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

Subject: hey, zero, did lindh kill anybody.....
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 02:48:29 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hey, zero,

did lindh kill anybody??

this fuckn debate reminds me about the pledge one.

assholes trying to prove how smart they are over the finest of points.

screw that.

did lindh kill anybody. lemmie know that or shut the f--- up with peanut
crap.

liberty,

LF

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

Subject: Re: hey, zero, did lindh kill anybody.....
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 09:48:09 -0700
From: david polen <appatang@juno.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 02:48:29 -0700 larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
writes:
> hey, zero,
>
> did lindh kill anybody??
>
> this fuckn debate reminds me about the pledge one.
>
> assholes trying to prove how smart they are over the finest of
> points.
>
> screw that.
>
> did lindh kill anybody. lemmie know that or shut the f--- up with
> peanut
> crap.
>
> liberty,
>
> LF
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

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

Subject: Re: hey, zero, did lindh kill anybody.....
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 15:19:24 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:

> hey, zero,
>
> did lindh kill anybody??
>
> this fuckn debate reminds me about the pledge one.
>
> assholes trying to prove how smart they are over the finest of
> points.
>
> screw that.
>
> did lindh kill anybody. lemmie know that or shut the f--- up with
> peanut crap.

hey, moron, what's your point? or do you have one? do you even
know what one is?

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

Subject: John Stossel SPECIAL: "War on Drugs, A War on Ourselves"
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 23:02:16 -0600
From: "B Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>
To: "Northwest LIBERTARIANS" <libnw@immosys.com>

SAVE & REMEMBER THIS!!!!! It should be on at either 8 or 9:00 p.m.
Mountain Time!

TUESDAY (7/30)

10:00PM~ABC~ Special~ "War on Drugs, A War on Ourselves with John
Stossel. How many wars can America fight? Now that we're at war
against
terrorism, can we also afford to fight drug wars in Afghanistan,
Colombia, and against millions of our own people? Is it wise to fight
on two fronts? Should drugs be legalized? John Stossel asks whether
some
of the world's biggest problems stem not from the drugs themselves but
from the prohibition of drugs."


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

Subject: the point - Re: hey, zero, did lindh kill anybody.....
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 01:29:59 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

group, if there is one,

on 7/25/02 12:19 PM, Zev Sero at zev.sero@encodasystems.com wrote:

> hey, moron, what's your point? or do you have one? do you even
> know what one is?

hey, zero,

i thought i made i pretty damned clear what my point was. lindh is a lost
soul, and so is u.s. foriegn policy, and so is the religion of islam.

i'd much rather talk about the sickness of religion, or the sickness of
state foreign policy.

gimmiee on fucn reason why i should devote one brain cell to a loser like
lindh - THAT'S MY POINT, SINCE YOU CLAIMED TO MISS IT.

with you responding with nothing but diatribe, i figure your one of those
short dick folks with something to prove.

prove me wrong, pluuze, or give me a reason why i should concern myself with
the subject you are wasting you brain cells on, as i see it.

i know a paranoid "short-dick" when i see one, with something to prove.
prove me wrong, pluuuuuze!!

LF


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

Subject: Lindh's pragmatic choice, and the 'limits' of US jurisidiction
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 10:52:22 -0400
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: "Libertarian Newsgroups Northwest" <libnw@immosys.com>

I totally agree with you on this one, Frank.

No nation has any right to prosecute a person for an act committed outside
of its geographical jurisdiction.
The problem is, and I am learning more of this 'principle' about US law as
the years go by, the US Govt seems to think there are no limits to its
geographical jurisdiction. And they seem to think it is OK to illegally
seize and export a person from any country, and make them face charges for
whatever. This is current US law.
I wonder how we, Americans and the US Govt, would feel and react if other
countries' agent routinely illegally entered our land, illegally kidnapped
one of our (or even their) citizens and illegally transported them back to
their country to be put on trial for something that is not a crime in this
country?
How would we feel if they did that to one of our politicians (ala Noriega)?
Obviously we wouldn't stomach it, but yet how would we reconcile that
activity when with full sanction and legal acceptability it is treated in
our courts when we do it to some other soveriegnty?
The principle of might makes right is the one that seems to take precedent
here, way over any sense of fairness or reciprocity.
And who is to put us in our place on these matters? No country can. And we
as citizens can barely rein in our own govt's pugnaciousness.
It is fukt up.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Reichert"

> Greetings again Zev!
>
> Zev Sero wrote to Sam Sloan...
>
> > It is a crime to provide services, as a soldier or anything else, to
> > a foreign terrorist organisation, and it is a crime to carry firearms
> > in the course of committing another crime.
>
> If Lindh had committed these acts and was apprehended, as such, within
> the US, or a territory in which federal court could exercise legal
> jurisdiction, I might tend to agree with you. In essence however, he
> was apprehended in Afghanistan, and turned over to the US. The US
> government essentially kidnapped the man and illegally transported him
> from a jurisdiction in which they had no legal authority.
>
> I doubt if Afghanistan had any laws specifically making any of Lindh's
> acts "illegal" under Afghan law. So how can a foreign nation, use its
> own court system, judges and laws to apply to acts committed in a
> country where such acts were perfectly legal?
>
> Let me give a few examples. It is common in many countries, to
> legally be able to buy certain drugs and medicine over the counter and
> without a prescription, such as here in the Philippines, and also in
> Mexico. If an American chooses to travel abroad, and say buy
> penicillin in Mexico or the Philippines, and consume the drugs in the
> host country, should US federal courts have jurisdiction to arrest and
> try cases that would be contrary to US law if the acts had occurred in
> the United States?
>
> Another example. The Philippines has no seat belt laws. I've been
> here for almost five years now. Occasionally, I rent a vehicle to
> either travel locally, or haul something to my home. Should some US
> mole take photos of me driving a vehicle here in the Philippines
> without wearing a seatbelt, hold me in violation of US law, and should
> I be apprehended once I arrive back in the States? Worse yet, should
> I be kidnapped by US operatives and secreted out of the Philippines to
> stand trial in the US?
>
> My case here is really very simple. Lindh was probably doing nothing
> illegal in Afghanistan. And, if he was, then he should be prosecuted
> in Afghanistan by the Afghan government, and certainly NOT kidnapped
> and spirited away out of the country to be taken to trail in a
> jurisdiction where he committed no crime.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank
>
>
>
>

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

Subject: Re: Lindh's pragmatic choice, and the 'limits' of US jurisidiction
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 22:53:06 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Gary!

Gary Triest wrote to Frank Reichert...

> I totally agree with you on this one, Frank.

It's not very often that I get such a ringing endorsement. Thank you!

> No nation has any right to prosecute a person for an act committed outside
> of its geographical jurisdiction.

Yea, I'm still wondering how Zev Sero might come down on his defence
of current US law in terms of international realities. We may have
the power to pull off a lot of bull shit, but that doesn't score many
points in terms of international relations, respect, or gaining any
real "friends". We're seen rather as the big bully with the power to
invoke military power to enforce our own policies again the will of
others who don't "think" the same way.

> The problem is, and I am learning more of this 'principle' about US law as
> the years go by, the US Govt seems to think there are no limits to its
> geographical jurisdiction. And they seem to think it is OK to illegally
> seize and export a person from any country, and make them face charges for
> whatever. This is current US law.

Yes, and we've doing that on a much larger scale. I've been around a
long time, and we've done the same thing in Korea, Vietnam, and
anywhere else where US politicians and paid bureaucrats feel the need
to exercise superior power. The "concept" of the "Ugly American" still
rings true today, and perhaps even more so than it did four decades
ago.

> I wonder how we, Americans and the US Govt, would feel and react if other
> countries' agent routinely illegally entered our land, illegally kidnapped
> one of our (or even their) citizens and illegally transported them back to
> their country to be put on trial for something that is not a crime in this
> country?

Now you are starting to get the real picture. The US routinely seizes
ships in international waters, whenever it feels the urge. If ANY US
ship were seized by a foreign government in such a fashion, we would
obviously be on the stage of declaring war.

> How would we feel if they did that to one of our politicians (ala
Noriega)?
> Obviously we wouldn't stomach it, but yet how would we reconcile that
> activity when with full sanction and legal acceptability it is treated in
> our courts when we do it to some other soveriegnty?

Well. Simply put, most people today don't even take the time to ask
such questions. We simply believe we have the high moral ground, and
any use of force is justified. That's the way it is. It's been that
way for a very long time, and, as a result, we are still hated and not
trusted by anyone, including or "so-called" allies.

> The principle of might makes right is the one that seems to take precedent
> here, way over any sense of fairness or reciprocity.
> And who is to put us in our place on these matters? No country can. And we
> as citizens can barely rein in our own govt's pugnaciousness.
> It is fukt up.

You got that entirely right, and in spades.

Thanks so much for your thoughtful contributions to this thread! What
you wrote will hopefully be observed by several others as at least
something to ponder and think about. We do need to take a sober look
at US foreign policy, and how it has existed in the last several
decades, and why, why, we find ourselves fight this 'War on Terror'
today.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Re: Lindh's pragmatic choice, and the 'limits' of US jurisidictio
n
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:59:58 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

I really meant to consolidate all this into one post, to keep the
volume down, but it didn't work out that way.

Frank wrote:
> Yea, I'm still wondering how Zev Sero might come down on his defence
> of current US law in terms of international realities. We may have
> the power to pull off a lot of bull shit, but that doesn't score many
> points in terms of international relations, respect, or gaining any
> real "friends". We're seen rather as the big bully with the power to
> invoke military power to enforce our own policies again the will of
> others who don't "think" the same way.

That's a pragmatic question, not one of principle. The international
reality is that the USA can pretty much do as it wishes, so the only
question is whether it's a good idea. Generally it isn't, which is
why generally the USA does take the feelings of other nations into
account, and doesn't routinely go around arresting people for things
they've done in other countries, and very very rarely arrests them
while they're actually in those countries. But in principle I see no
reason why the USA shouldn't enforce its laws everywhere (assuming
that those laws should be enforced anywhere, which in most cases isn't
true).

> The US routinely seizes ships in international waters, whenever it
> feels the urge. If ANY US ship were seized by a foreign government
> in such a fashion, we would obviously be on the stage of declaring war.

And yet the USA hasn't been to war over this issue since 1812. So
obviously it's managing the `problem' well. Again, this isn't an issue
of principle, it's one of prudence. Provoking a war is a Bad Thing,
and if seizing foreign ships were likely to have that result, the USA
wouldn't do it. Since it's not having that result, what's your problem?
(Leaving aside, once again, the question of which specific laws they're
enforcing, and whether they should be enforced. We all know that in
most of these cases the laws they're enforcing are those against drug
trafficing, which oughtn't to be enforced within the USA's borders,
let alone outside them.)

> We do need to take a sober look at US foreign policy, and how it has
> existed in the last several decades, and why, why, we find ourselves
> fight this 'War on Terror' today.

We're not fighting a war on terror because we've been seizing drug
shipments in the Caribbean, or because we entered Mexico to arrest
someone who tortured and murdered a US federal agent. Osama bin
Laden's problems with the USA have nothing to do with any violations
of `sovereignty' - his declared problem is with the USAn bases in
Saudi Arabia, which are there with the full consent of the House of
Saud.

--
Zev Sero "It is a great mistake to learn from history.
zsero@free-market.net There is nothing to learn from history."
Shimon Peres (M'aariv interview, 1993)

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

Subject: WP: Islam in Europe...An Awakening!!!!!!!!!!!
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 13:13:34 -0600
From: "B Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
CC: "Northwest LIBERTARIANS" <libnw@immosys.com>

WESTERN PERSPECTIVES

This article from Horowitz's FRONT PAGE magazine by Bruce Bawer
talks about how Europeans are finally beginning to wake up to the evils of
Islam. Until recent months, most Europeans were Islamists apologists.
Slowly,
Europeans are starting to comprehend that fundamentalist Islam is
detrimentally
opposed to the basic values of Western Civilization: freedom, gender
equality,
democracy, freedom of expression, Gay rights, religious tolerance,
etc. Bawer
notes that Islam is not a race or an ethnic group; but, it is an ideology,
just like
Communism, Fascism, or Nazism. He further implies that if Europe does not
soon grasp that concept, Western Civilization on the continent is doomed.

Ben

Bawer's article - "The Challenge of Fundamentalist Islam in Western
Europe":
http://www.partisanreview.org/archive/2002/3/bawer.html

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

Subject: police state??
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 20:09:13 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

howdy, frank,

on 7/27/02 5:34 AM, Frank Reichert at libnw@usa.net wrote:

> What I told you last time, and I believe it still holds, is that the
> 'War on Drugs' has since been superseded by the 'War on Terror' as the
> #1 threat to liberty in our lifetimes!

devlopements might convince me, frank. the one concrete leading indicator
that has scared me the most is the case of the "dirty bomber".

he's a u.s. citizen. as i understand it, his home was searched with no
warrant. he's being held without charges, and without an attorney. as i
understand it, he can be held indefinitely in that 'no man's land' with the
state not having to present a shred of evidence to justify holding him.

that tells me the state can 'disappear' anyone they want, anytime they want,
for any reason, or for no reason. it's an especially disturbing indicator
because the last time i heard it was sounding to me very much like the whole
damn thing was trumpted up by asscrotf and his thugs for p. r. reasons.
if so, they're gonna want to protect their p.r. anyway they can. they're
not gonna want that guy talking to anyone, ever.

in addition, given the widespread mindset in an out of government, it's
really a very tiny step to define drug importers and dealers as 'terrorists'
- i mean they prey on children and all the rest, the argument goes. how
long before the dea is engaged in defending the homeland?

it seems to me clear that there is a potential for a full-blown police state
already written into the law. all we need is somebody like richard nixon.
oops, guess we got him already: bushcroft, with gawd explicitly and loudly
on their side. they got the nude statues covered up. wonder what they're
gonna cover-up next?

still, frank, i think there's room for more than one front-burner. no more
than three, though.

liberty,

larry


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

Subject: Re: police state??
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 22:13:38 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Larry!

Just a quick note here.

larry fullmer wrote to Frank Reichert...

> that tells me the state can 'disappear' anyone they want, anytime they
want,
> for any reason, or for no reason. it's an especially disturbing indicator
> because the last time i heard it was sounding to me very much like the
whole
> damn thing was trumpted up by asscrotf and his thugs for p. r. reasons.
> if so, they're gonna want to protect their p.r. anyway they can. they're
> not gonna want that guy talking to anyone, ever.

Now, you are starting to get the idea. The next groups targeted will
obviously be the Patriot and Militia groups, and they have been under
siege since OKC, even though they had nothing to do with it. The
FedGov loves it when the LP focuses un the 'War on Drugs'. In total,
we are ignoring perhaps the greatest threat ever on civil liberties,
and we are focusing our attention on the wrong issue.

> in addition, given the widespread mindset in an out of government, it's
> really a very tiny step to define drug importers and dealers as
'terrorists'
> - i mean they prey on children and all the rest, the argument goes. how
> long before the dea is engaged in defending the homeland?

Trust me. They already are Larry. That's the #1 concern of the Bush
gestapo right now, and anyone can see that if they choose to read
between the lines of everything that is currently going on.

> it seems to me clear that there is a potential for a full-blown police
state
> already written into the law.

It's already here and amongst us, as we speak. And, it's the 'war on
terror' that's driving it all, and I mean ALL!

> all we need is somebody like richard nixon.
> oops, guess we got him already: bushcroft, with gawd explicitly and loudly
> on their side. they got the nude statues covered up. wonder what they're
> gonna cover-up next?
> still, frank, i think there's room for more than one front-burner. no
more
> than three, though.

Well. Let's start with several decades of arrogant imperialistic US
foreign policy and where that has led us. What happened on 9/11 was
not an accident. It was planned that way, because the US is the
enemy. And, why is THAT the case? We don't frankly, have many
friends, and I doubt the ones who claim they are, are being perfectly
honest either. They are dependent upon US taxpayer's support to prop
up themselves at our expense. And, why do you suppose we might be the
most hated government on the face of the planet today?

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Re: police state?? - footnote...
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 20:26:01 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

and don't forget, if you already know: McVeigh, writing the Washington Post
from prison, identified himself as a libertarian. right there, frank, is a
pretty good case for locking you up right now, or me, with no charges, no
attorney, and no hope.

yeah, i'm a bit paranoid, but that doesn't mean there's no one after me
(grin).

lf

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

Subject: Re: police state?? - footnote...
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 22:36:31 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Larry!

larry fullmer wrote to Frank Reichert...

> and don't forget, if you already know: McVeigh, writing the Washington
Post
> from prison, identified himself as a libertarian. right there, frank, is
a
> pretty good case for locking you up right now, or me, with no charges, no
> attorney, and no hope.
> yeah, i'm a bit paranoid, but that doesn't mean there's no one after me
> (grin).

You are correct. The 'War on Terror' can be interpreted anytime to
mean virtually anyone who opposes the status quo, including myself. I
know that, but I guess I'm getting too old to give a damn what the
gov't does anymore!

I often wish I were much younger, or at least capable of re-making
many of my decisions at a much earlier time, such as joining the US
military.

To answer your final question, I don't frankly know WHO is coming
after us, that is, in terms of young people who appreciate the concept
of personal liberty. In my lifetime and yours, not many individuals
exist anymore who have experienced liberty, but only the notion of
mandated government solutions to personal and social problems. That's
scary. This is a real challenge, of course. Government has become the
Sovereign God, in all caps. What government decides to do is always
right and correct, omnipotent, and without question always
unquestionable.

A once free people have become mere serfs on their own land and
property. Their most intimate decisions are relegated to "experts"
hired and "licensed" by government at all levels. Most of our people
are in on this scam. We can't even discipline our own children
without inviting suspension by "concerned" neighbours! They report to
the government, and the "approved" "social net" takes over. That,
too, is what the 'War on Terror' is all about. The "War on Terror" is
now placed within the arms of those politicians and bureaucrats, who
will decide who is promoting "terror", and that could mean virtually
anyone who disagrees with this fascist government as it currently
exists and develops.

I know I am writing to a much wider audience here, that is, other than
yourself. But at least I believe Roger was correct in many, many
respects. He didn't trust the gestapo either. And, we are living
under one even as I speak.

So, Larry. The 'War on Drugs' maybe important. But what's coming down
as we speak is far more dangerous to individual liberty than anything
we have EVER experienced in both your and my lifetimes. We now have
the centralization of "police authority" under the control of the
"Department of Homeland Security"... believe me, that is the MOST
Orwellian concept that I have every experienced in my entire life!

I hope that others might pay attention to this conversation.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: WILDFIRES FORCE WND EVACUATION
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 20:45:47 -0600
From: "B Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
CC: "Northwest LIBERTARIANS" <libnw@immosys.com>

WP - BREAKING NEWS!

It appears that the Oregon fires has forced the immediate evacuation of the
corporate
headquarters of WorldNetDailey. I just got this.

Ben

> Oregon blazes close corporate offices indefinitely
>
> The wildfires destroying homes, farms, ranches and hundreds of thousands
of acres of pristine redwood forestland in southern Oregon is threatening
WorldNetDaily's secluded corporate headquarters, forcing evacuation of all
personnel and vital equipment.
>
> "Our primary concern right now is for the safety of our employees and
their fight to save their own homes," said Joseph Farah, editor and chief
executive officer of WorldNetDaily. "They have heroically pulled together to
get our computers, data and valuable equipment out of harm's way. Even our
company's mascot, a 3-year-old cocker mix, has been spirited away."
>
> The news gathering for and the production of the website are not expected
to be adversely affected by the fire. However, the administrative offices,
including customer service lines, will be down until the evacuation order is
over and the fires are under control.
>
> "We're asking our customers, our vendors and all those who have reason to
call our corporate headquarters to be patient," said Farah. "There is little
we can do in the face of this natural disaster hitting southern Oregon --
except pray."
>
> WorldNetDaily has been hit with a series of calamities in recent weeks --
a major hacking effort that shut down the site's online store and a major
Internet network outage in Northern California that shut down the site this
week for more than seven hours.
>
> "It seems like we've had more than our share of illness and misfortune
befalling us for sometime," said Farah. "But the good news is we have
managed, with God's blessing, to survive it all. And we will meet this
challenge as well."
>
> Farah asks WorldNetDaily subscribers to pray for the company and to
support it through this trauamtic time with purchases in the online store.
>
> http://www.shopnetdaily.com
>
>
>

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

Subject: THE WAR AGAINST DRUGS IS A WAR AGAINST US - says j. stossel on tv
tue. nite......
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 23:23:00 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

group,

this is just a reminder. john stossel is going to have an abc-tv news
special on tuesday nite at 9:00 mtn titled 'the war against drugs is a war
against us'.

given the advances i've read, he's gonna rip up the the drug warriors.

plueeze check it out, and spred the word anyway you can!!!!!

LF

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

Subject: Re: THE WAR AGAINST DRUGS IS A WAR AGAINST US - says j. stossel on
tvtue. nite......
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 22:00:37 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Larry!

larry fullmer wrote to everyone...

> this is just a reminder. john stossel is going to have an abc-tv news
> special on tuesday nite at 9:00 mtn titled 'the war against drugs is a war
> against us'.
> given the advances i've read, he's gonna rip up the the drug warriors.
> plueeze check it out, and spred the word anyway you can!!!!!

He's about two years too late! Nobody gives a damn right now, and
they shouldn't. People are concerned mainly with the declining
economy, and the new war on terror, to care about the druggies. The
war on terror is far more dangerous than the war on drugs ever was.
Even the govt's police force, the FBI, concedes that is the case.
That's no longer a major priority for the fed police gestapo.

Again, Stosel may be correct, he is just too late and overcome by
current events.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: i'm a bore.....drug war....abc news special...
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 05:47:23 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<quicksilver810@yahoo.com>,
<azbengal@msn.com>,
<jkerns@abf.com>,
Chris <cdweimer@if.rmci.net>

hey, friends, if i have any,

today is the day (tuesday) to catch john stossel on th drug war!!

9:00 mtn.

you'll thank me if you watch it. yeah, even you frank!! (grin).

lf

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

Subject: More on jurisdiction
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:08:06 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

Preface: I really don't see why libertarians ought to concern ourselves
with which government has the right to enforce just laws, or the purported
right to enforce unjust ones. If a law is unjust then it should not be
enforced by anybody, and if it just then the question of who enforces it
ought to be entirely one of efficiency and prudence, not one of principle.

"G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com> wrote:

> No nation has any right to prosecute a person for an act committed
> outside of its geographical jurisdiction.

Why not? More specifically, how is this a libertarian principle?

> The problem is, and I am learning more of this 'principle' about US
> law as the years go by, the US Govt seems to think there are no limits
> to its geographical jurisdiction. And they seem to think it is OK to
> illegally seize and export a person from any country, and make them
> face charges for whatever. This is current US law.

Not just current but always has been. This isn't something that `the
US Govt seems to think', it's something that is, under US law, which is
the only law that has any binding authority over the actions of the USA.
And it's not just the `Govt' in the narrow sense, i.e. the Executive
Branch, that `seems to think' this, it's the Legislative and Judicial
branches as well.

> I wonder how we, Americans and the US Govt, would feel and react if
> other countries' agent routinely illegally entered our land, illegally
> kidnapped one of our (or even their) citizens and illegally transported
> them back to their country to be put on trial for something that is not
> a crime in this country?

They'd feel insulted, and they might feel insulted enough to do something
about it, up to and including a declaration of war, if they thought badly
enough of it. That wouldn't make it `wrong' in any absolute sense, though.
At least, I don't know of any principle in libertarian philosophy that
would make it wrong. Now, since the USA is so much bigger than most other
countries, they would be advised to think twice about it. Indeed, even
though it's so much bigger than most other countries, the USA does in
fact think twice about doing this, and certainly doesn't do it `routinely'.
But it does do it on very rare occasions, when it feels the risk is worth
it.

> The principle of might makes right is the one that seems to take
> precedent here, way over any sense of fairness or reciprocity.

Sovereignty and jurisdiction is mostly about might rather than right.
What principle makes something right on one side of a line and wrong
on the other side? None that I can think of. But if something is
legal under one country's laws and illegal under another's, it's safer
to do it in the country where it's legal. Law isn't a game, where
`fairness and reciprocity' is an important consideration.

> And who is to put us in our place on these matters? No country can.
> And we as citizens can barely rein in our own govt's pugnaciousness.

Why should we?

--
Zev Sero "It is a great mistake to learn from history.
zsero@free-market.net There is nothing to learn from history."
Shimon Peres (M'aariv interview, 1993)

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

Subject: Re: More on jurisdiction
Date: 30 Jul 2002 18:13:47 -0600
From: Daniel Fackrell <unlearned@learn2think.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 15:08, Zev Sero wrote:
> "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > No nation has any right to prosecute a person for an act committed
> > outside of its geographical jurisdiction.
>
> Why not? More specifically, how is this a libertarian principle?

To answer this question, consider the inverse.

How libertarian a society can you have if every nation has the right to
enforce its laws anywhere it pleases? It's exactly the same as asking
how libertarian a society you can have if everybody has the right to
impose their moral/ethical/religious/social/whatever standards on
others. And the answer is not surprising: not libertarian at all.

If we can, there's no reason (other than brute force) that other nations
cannot as well. The whole point of the libertarian philosophy is rooted
in this: take care of yourself and that which you own and leave
everybody else alone.

It applies equally well to governments as to individuals. And the fact
that we as the superpower are not abusing it (to public knowledge) on a
daily basis does not mean that we will be immune to the consequences
which are now building.

Daniel Fackrell

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

Subject: Re: More on jurisdiction
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 19:00:37 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

>On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 15:08, Zev Sero wrote:

>> "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> > No nation has any right to prosecute a person for an act
>>committed > outside of its geographical jurisdiction.

>> Why not? More specifically, how is this a libertarian principle?

>To answer this question, consider the inverse.

>How libertarian a society can you have if every nation has the
>right to enforce its laws anywhere it pleases? It's exactly the
>same as asking how libertarian a society you can have if everybody
>has the right to impose their
>moral/ethical/religious/social/whatever standards on others. And
>the answer is not surprising: not libertarian at all.

>If we can, there's no reason (other than brute force) that other
>nations cannot as well. The whole point of the libertarian
>philosophy is rooted in this: take care of yourself and that which
>you own and leave everybody else alone.

>It applies equally well to governments as to individuals. And the
>fact that we as the superpower are not abusing it (to public
>knowledge) on a daily basis does not mean that we will be immune to
>the consequences which are now building.

>Daniel Fackrell
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
I see the fallacy in your thinking "take care of yourself and that which you
own and leave everybody else" applies. That would work only if
nation-states
owned certain people. But if nation-states owned people, what sense would
you make of individual liberty?

You might also as well ask how libertarian a society you can have if even
one entity has enforcement powers, or if no entity has such powers. Or how
you can have a libertarian society if people in it are allowed to have
lethal weapons.

So let's break it down to cases. How libertarian a society can you have if
one nation, and only one nation, has the right or power to enforce its laws
anywhere it pleases? The answer is that it depends 100% on how libertarian
those laws are.

How libertarian a society can you have if overlapping jurisdictions exist?
If those jurisdictions are 100% libertarian, it doesn't matter. (If they're
not, then it depends on how matters resolve in individual cases.) But you
still CAN have a libertarian society. You can have a more libertarian
society if the more libertarian jurisdiction is more active in enforcement
than is the less libertarian jurisdiction. Note that this does NOT apply in
cases where matters resolve the way they often do -- wherein any level of
gov't can make an individual's act illegal; in that case it's the lowest
common denominator.

How libertarian a society can you have if no nation at all has the right or
power to enforce its laws? That depends how you judge how libertarian a
society is. Do you judge by the average what people in that society believe
to be right & wrong? Or do you judge by people's behavior, averaged over
the population? If a few people commit an enormous amount of crime, but
everyone else thinks that's wrong but no enforcement mechanism exists, how
libertarian do you consider that society to be?

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

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

Subject: Re: More on jurisdiction
Date: 30 Jul 2002 19:57:40 -0600
From: Daniel Fackrell <unlearned@learn2think.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 18:00, Robert Goodman wrote:
> >On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 15:08, Zev Sero wrote:
>
> >> "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > No nation has any right to prosecute a person for an act
> >>committed > outside of its geographical jurisdiction.
>
> >> Why not? More specifically, how is this a libertarian principle?
>
> >To answer this question, consider the inverse.
>
> >How libertarian a society can you have if every nation has the
> >right to enforce its laws anywhere it pleases? It's exactly the
> >same as asking how libertarian a society you can have if everybody
> >has the right to impose their
> >moral/ethical/religious/social/whatever standards on others. And
> >the answer is not surprising: not libertarian at all.
>
> >If we can, there's no reason (other than brute force) that other
> >nations cannot as well. The whole point of the libertarian
> >philosophy is rooted in this: take care of yourself and that which
> >you own and leave everybody else alone.
>
> >It applies equally well to governments as to individuals. And the
> >fact that we as the superpower are not abusing it (to public
> >knowledge) on a daily basis does not mean that we will be immune to
> >the consequences which are now building.
>
> >Daniel Fackrell
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
> I see the fallacy in your thinking "take care of yourself and that which
you
> own and leave everybody else" applies. That would work only if
nation-states
> owned certain people. But if nation-states owned people, what sense would
> you make of individual liberty?

I would consider this a misunderstanding. Governments do not own
people, but rather the people collectively own the government, hence our
responsibility to steer it toward liberty.

If government owned people, there could be nothing wrong with any law
whatsoever. *shudder*

> You might also as well ask how libertarian a society you can have if even
> one entity has enforcement powers, or if no entity has such powers. Or
how
> you can have a libertarian society if people in it are allowed to have
> lethal weapons.

The issue is when one entity claims global enforcement powers, or any
enforcement powers outside its borders. If a person walks up to me with
a gun aimed at my face because he thinks he has the right to enforce his
ideas about (insert any old thing here), the power is aimed outside at
trying to make others do something. And for both individuals and large
entities, this is usually a symptom that things are not in order inside.

> So let's break it down to cases. How libertarian a society can you have
if
> one nation, and only one nation, has the right or power to enforce its
laws
> anywhere it pleases? The answer is that it depends 100% on how
libertarian
> those laws are.

Taking into consideration the oft-proved maxim that power corrupts and
absolute power corrupts absolutely, how likely is it that the laws will
be libertarian? The other consideration is that when you have
overlapping jurisdictions, the combined libertarianism of any area of
society is the -least- of the libertarianism of all the applicable
jurisdictions.

Overlapping jurisdictions is a libertarian nightmare because in order to
make a difference, you have to go through the agony of changing several
governments instead of only one.

> How libertarian a society can you have if overlapping jurisdictions exist?
> If those jurisdictions are 100% libertarian, it doesn't matter. (If
they're
> not, then it depends on how matters resolve in individual cases.) But you
> still CAN have a libertarian society. You can have a more libertarian
> society if the more libertarian jurisdiction is more active in enforcement
> than is the less libertarian jurisdiction. Note that this does NOT apply
in
> cases where matters resolve the way they often do -- wherein any level of
> gov't can make an individual's act illegal; in that case it's the lowest
> common denominator.

Exactly. The more jurisdictions overlap, the more chances and
possibilities for abuse of government. And if you don't have a say in
the working of some of those overlapping jurisdictions, you might as
well say goodbye to all of your rights.

> How libertarian a society can you have if no nation at all has the right
or
> power to enforce its laws? That depends how you judge how libertarian a
> society is. Do you judge by the average what people in that society
believe
> to be right & wrong? Or do you judge by people's behavior, averaged over
> the population? If a few people commit an enormous amount of crime, but
> everyone else thinks that's wrong but no enforcement mechanism exists, how
> libertarian do you consider that society to be?

Actually, enforcement mechanisms always exist, and have to.
Self-defense is the primary one (from which all other enforcement power
-should- be derived) and it only disappears as a viable option when the
authority in place outlaws it and uses enforcement to stop it.

Daniel Fackrell

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

Subject: Re: More on jurisdiction
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:59:57 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

unlearned@learn2think.org wrote in part:

>The issue is when one entity claims global enforcement powers, or
>any enforcement powers outside its borders. If a person walks up
>to me with a gun aimed at my face because he thinks he has the
>right to enforce his ideas about (insert any old thing here), the
>power is aimed outside at trying to make others do something. And
>for both individuals and large entities, this is usually a symptom
>that things are not in order inside.

But with no further details than the above, how can I judge that things are
not in order? Is it not possible that, depending on circumstances, the
person pointing the gun at your face is doing the right thing? Otherwise
you might as well ask why people should be allowed to have guns at all.

>Taking into consideration the oft-proved maxim that power corrupts
>and absolute power corrupts absolutely, how likely is it that the
>laws will be libertarian?

I don't know. It doesn't seem to have much to do with the size of the
jurisdiction. I'm in a pretty big country here, and it's a lot more
libertarian than most smaller countries.

>The other consideration is that when you
>have overlapping jurisdictions, the combined libertarianism of any
>area of society is the -least- of the libertarianism of all the
>applicable jurisdictions.

>Overlapping jurisdictions is a libertarian nightmare because in
>order to make a difference, you have to go through the agony of
>changing several governments instead of only one.

But on the other hand, so do people trying to make a difference AGAINST you.

>>You can have a more libertarian society if
>>the more libertarian jurisdiction is more active in enforcement
>>than is the less libertarian jurisdiction. Note that this does
>>NOT apply in cases where matters resolve the way they often do --
>>wherein any level of gov't can make an individual's act illegal;
>>in that case it's the lowest common denominator.

>Exactly. The more jurisdictions overlap, the more chances and
>possibilities for abuse of government. And if you don't have a say
>in the working of some of those overlapping jurisdictions, you
>might as well say goodbye to all of your rights.

Not in all cases. It depends how the details resolve. For instance, one
jurisdiction's laws may protect you against aggression better than the
other, or even against aggression BY the other. Happens a fair amount in
the USA with 14th amendment cases.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

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

Subject: Re: More on jurisdiction
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:52:21 -0400
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

While I admire the concept of applying Libertarian values to international
interactions, I don't believe that justification of national sovereignty
needs libertarian underpinnings. (and in fact I don't agree that
Libertarianism should be applied or necessarily held to in international
relations or philosophy).
Simply the concept of sovereignty should be enough. And implicit in
sovereignty is the idea of geographical limitations, namely wherever that
sovereignty actually controls the law of the land.
The operative question is: Does the US control the law of the land in Italy?
Malaysia, Japan, Australia or whatever? Does it legislate the laws in those
countries? Does it collect taxes and tariffs on commerce there? Does it keep
the peace and militarily protect it? The obvious answer is NO! And as such
it is a simple touchstone to determine whether or not a given country has
geographical sovereign jurisdiction over a given land.
The US has NO right to invade surreptitiously another country, nor does it
have any right to exert what it feels are its laws over and into another
sovereignty.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Fackrell" <unlearned@learn2think.org>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: More on jurisdiction

> On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 15:08, Zev Sero wrote:
> > "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > No nation has any right to prosecute a person for an act committed
> > > outside of its geographical jurisdiction.
> >
> > Why not? More specifically, how is this a libertarian principle?
>
> To answer this question, consider the inverse.
>
> How libertarian a society can you have if every nation has the right to
> enforce its laws anywhere it pleases? It's exactly the same as asking
> how libertarian a society you can have if everybody has the right to
> impose their moral/ethical/religious/social/whatever standards on
> others. And the answer is not surprising: not libertarian at all.
>
> If we can, there's no reason (other than brute force) that other nations
> cannot as well. The whole point of the libertarian philosophy is rooted
> in this: take care of yourself and that which you own and leave
> everybody else alone.
>
> It applies equally well to governments as to individuals. And the fact
> that we as the superpower are not abusing it (to public knowledge) on a
> daily basis does not mean that we will be immune to the consequences
> which are now building.
>
> Daniel Fackrell
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: More on jurisdiction
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 18:08:40 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com> wrote:

> While I admire the concept of applying Libertarian values to
> international interactions, I don't believe that justification of
> national sovereignty needs libertarian underpinnings. (and in fact I
> don't agree that Libertarianism should be applied or necessarily held
> to in international relations or philosophy). Simply the concept of
> sovereignty should be enough.

What's its justification? Why should a libertarian recognise it at all?
And to the extent that we do recognise it, why should it impede actions
that are we are entitled to do under the Non-Aggression Principle? You
seem to be saying that `sovereignty' (i.e. the rights of states) is
primary to libertarianism (which deals with the rights of individuals),
and does not need to be justified in terms of it. Why do you say this?
If sovereignty isn't based on libertarianism, then what is it based on?
(We may be getting at something here).

> And implicit in sovereignty is the idea of geographical limitations,
> namely wherever that sovereignty actually controls the law of the land.

But is this exclusive? Does it violate one nation's sovereignty to have
another nation prosecute offenses that occured in a piece of geography
claimed by the first nation? And if so, why should we care?

You are asserting a position which is commonly held around the world,
but which the USA has traditionally rejected. If you want the USA to
change its traditional position and accept yours, it's up to you to
justify it with arguments, not mere assertions. You are saying that
applying USAn law to acts committed in Afghanistan or Italy is wrong,
and the USA has been wrong to do it for 200 years, and should stop;
the USA figuratively asks: why? And since this is a libertarian list,
I ask the same question.

--
Zev Sero "It is a great mistake to learn from history.
zsero@free-market.net There is nothing to learn from history."
Shimon Peres (M'aariv interview, 1993)

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

Subject: eichman, pol pot & lindh....
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 01:14:05 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

on 7/30/02 1:48 PM, Zev Sero at zev.sero@encodasystems.com wrote:

> And Eichmann was doing nothing illegal in Germany. And Pol Pot was
> doing nothing illegal in Cambodia. So what?

hey, zero,

lindh, pol pot, and eichman, eh? interesting group you've lumped lindh in
with. as i said, i've encountered no evidence that he killed even one
single human being, nor any that he even punched anyone.

as i already wrote you, i don't mind the fact that he's in prison, and i
wouldn't mind if he gets out. given important things to think about, lindh
is not one of them - he's a poor lost soul, who never hurt anyone, as far as
i know.

what i wanna know, zero, is why you think this is such a damned important
question, given that any one of us libs could end up "disappered" for
treason two years from now, if not sooner, whether we've hurt anyone or not?

like billie o'riely, it strikes me you are trying to prove your intelligence
by raging about a non-issue. that might help his ratings. it's done
nothing for yours, in my mind.

lindh is a symbol. that's all he is. the folks who want him dead make me
puke. it's self-righteous patriotism. it's burning witches.

lindh didn't blow up the WTC. if there's anyone to blame but the pilots,
it's the insanity of religion, and u.s. foreign policy.

now, there are some "witches" to burn.

larry fullmer

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

Subject: Liberty Northwest Policies & Guidelines
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 15:56:58 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

=========================================================
L I B E R T Y N O R T H W E S T C O N F E R E N C E
A N D N E W S G R O U P

A Fidonet Backbone Echo

FidoNet 1:346/16 -*- Bonners Ferry, Idaho
Email subscriber list: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

E-MAIL - moderator@liberty-northwest.org
=========================================================

MODIFIED AND UPDATED: 13th, July 2002

Liberty Northwest is a moderated Fidonet Backbone echo. Fidonet
Policy applies. The Fidonet TAG is LIB_NW. Fidonet policy is
Contained in the current edition of Policy 4 of the Fidonet
standards. A copy of such Policy will be provided upon request.
In cases of conflict between policy rules for Liberty Northwest
and Fidonet standards, Fidonet Policy hereby supersedes such
policies as contained herein.

PURPOSE: Liberty Northwest Conference and Newsgroup is a discussion
Conference dedicated to promoting various discussions of political,
economic, and social issues in the overall context and perspective of
Libertarian idealism. The overall hope is to promote and discuss
"free choice" as the best and most viable alternative to coerced
or forced solutions and choices made by others for us, and embodied
in the so-called "statist" government "solutions" most prevalent
in the mentality and political reference as institutionalised today.

Therefore, we believe that the best solutions are the free choices
that individuals make for themselves, their families and their own
privately owned property. We believe that individuals have the
unalienable right to not only make their own personal choices for
themselves, but that they have the responsibility for the consequences
of such choices once made.

PARTICIPATION: Bringing people together to discuss these issues is the
goal and objective. However, we are also a genuine Newsgroup, receiving
news and press releases from the national Libertarian Party of the
U.S. and other organisations that are most consistent with these goals.

Although we are a Libertarian-oriented conference, we welcome all
participants. However the topic is "libertarianism" and the Moderator
reserves the right to limit and restrict discussions that fail to
meet this criteria. The Moderator will at all times set overall
policy. Participants disagreeing with the Moderator are directed
to submit such disagreements to the Moderator via NETMAIL, or
private email, not publicly on the Liberty Northwest Conference
and Newsgroup.

Generally, all political, economic and social issues are on-topic.
Therefore a variety of perspectives and philosophy are expected and
encouraged. However, all participants are expected to communicate
in an adult and responsible fashion. Flame throwing is discouraged,
as are personal attacks against the character of others participating
regardless of they're political beliefs! In other words, the Golden
Rule applies here. Respect others as you would wish them to respect
you!

This does NOT mean you necessarily have to respect their beliefs --
you may feel free to debate any issue as you see fit and appropriate.
In doing that however, it is important to remember: you are not
looking into the faces of those you choose to communicate with here.
Some personalities take a while to get to know and appreciate.

The restrictions here are intended to be minimal. Here are a few of
The obvious that are considered necessary:

1. Posting of messages: Communication should be personal communication
between you and other participants on the Conference itself, not
a conversation you are entertaining on another forum or platform
elsewhere. News releases and personal essays are considered within
the above mentioned scope, if the intent is to engender communication
or begin a thread or discussion.

2. Crossposting of messages between members of other conferences are
strictly prohibited unless a clear unbroken dialogue between LIB_NW
participants can be established within the Conference itself.
If it cannot, then it has no place or purpose on LIB_NW. Endless
or voluminous cross posting of material is NOT permitted and is
considered grossly disrespectful to others! It serves no purpose
for personal dialogue and is irritating to almost everyone who has to
download such unwarranted material, most often at personal expense
off a commercial news or mail server.

2. Resource Information: Participants are free to post (sparingly)
resource information to include Conservative, Libertarian and
Constitutionalist meetings, group discussions, and other pertinent
information that back up and supplement ongoing discussion topics on
the Conference. Multiple posting of lengthy and fragmented information
is prohibited without Moderator approval in advance.

3. Human dignity. Regardless of perspective, philosophy or ideology,
all persons deserve the dignity and respect that you feel is due
yourself. Anyone expressing racial, ethnic, religious or slurs or
comments should be ignored, and if done deliberately and with malice,
will not be tolerated. Proselytising and other "salesmanlike" behaviour
will not be tolerated. Matters and concerns of a religious nature are
welcome, but preaching sermons and attempting to entice others to
accept your particular religious views go beyond the purpose of this
Conference.

4. Political restraints: None. All perspectives are invited.

5. Grievances and protocol. If any participant feels personally
offended by another participant on the conference, a private NETMAIL
message to the Moderator would normally be in order if the two
parties in question cannot otherwise resolve a particular
conflict. If subject matter is a source of conflict, then the
offended party should normally post the alleged offence directly to
the Conference itself and not the Moderator, since the input of
others concerning the subject would be pertinent to resolving the
issue.

6. In order to keep the rules and standards of the echo at a bare
minimum, participants are asked to contribute as responsible adults.
The above rules and standards are subject to change at any time
when it becomes necessary to do so.

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

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

Subject: campaigning on jury reform my way
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:20:37 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <lpny_discuss@egroups.com>, <libnw@immosys.com>

After spending my first day on jury duty and not getting onto any panels, on
the bus coming home I had a brainstorm. This is going to be the signature
issue of my senate campaign.

A few years ago they were so proud of doing things more efficiently than
they used to, saving prospective jurors considerable time. A generation
used to the old way must think this is just so keen. Will we have to wait
another generation before people realize what a waste of time this STILL is?
They're doing things backwards, assembling a jury before holding the trial.
What you do is have the trial first, record on video the parts that the jury
is supposed to get, and send it out to people. Examine it at home,
reviewing it as many times as you want, then send in a verdict. If they're
not unanimous, then have them meet to confer on points of difference.

You could cut jurors' pay in half and they'd still want to do it. No need
to go to court and assemble in a central jury room. No need to hang around
while the lawyers & judges dicker in secret. No mistrials by having someone
err before the jury -- you just cut that out of the record. No having a
jury hear part or all of a case only to find out it's been settled, or
dismissed, or a change of plea. Think of the savings. It's the equivalent
of a very broad tax cut, and you can cut spending too.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

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

It won't work. It hasn't worked. What we have today is exactly a
product of our own arrogance.

Kindest regards,
Frank

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

Subject: Re: John Lindh, Patriot (fwd)
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 08:54:53 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in small part:

>Anyway, this is mousemilking rhetoric. Point is, the US has no
>moral authority or moral right to change any government on the face
>of the earth. The current government in Afghanistan today is a
>direct product of US imperialistic aggression pure and simple. That
>government has no will of the Afghan people, and as such, is immoral
>and illegitimate.

How do you determine "will of the Afghan people"? I'm sure it reflects the
will of SOME Afghan people. And what has any of that to do with morality or
legitimacy?
where the murder we were plotting was eventually committed.

Ed Fischang wrote:

> I believe that if one does not violate the laws of the state where one
> is, that state may not abuse one.

Not even to execute a valid warrant from another state? So if I kill
someone in NY and flee to NJ, NJ cannot arrest me on a NY warrant, because
I didn't violate any NJ laws?

> However, the state wherein the offended party resides may petition the
> offender's government for assistance in prosecuting the offender.

Which means what, exactly? Issuing a warrant and asking the state where
the guy is to arrest him and send him over? That's exactly what the USA
did with Italy, and you seem to be complaining about it.

> It's like those Nigerian scams - the US State Dept bitches to Nigeria
> and the Nigerians say. "Tsk tsk. We'll look into it."

However, if Nigeria ever actually bothered to arrest one of these guys
and sent him over here, are you saying that the USA should not be able
to prosecute him?

> If you were to question the veracity of Holocaust reports, should
> Canada be able to prosecute you for violating Canadian law? (Assuming
> you're not a Canadian citizen.)

Let's assume that you are. Should Canada be able to prosecute you then?
What if you were a Canadian acting entirely in Canada, and had never
even set foot outside Canada in your life; should Canada then be able to
prosecute you for lying about a historical fact? If we take the
libertarian viewpoint that nobody (including any state) may use force
or fraud against someone who has not initiated it, and that Holocaust
denial is not an `initiation of fraud', then Canada has no right to
prosecute *anybody* for doing this, no matter who they are, or where
they did it. But suppose that instead of lying you killed somebody,
which we agree ought to be a crime, and we agree that the country where
it happened does have a right to prosecute it. Does nobody else have
that right? And if they do so, are they violating your rights?

Suppose that instead of merely lying about the Holocaust, you actually
participated in it, by killing people in Lithuania, and Canada passed a
law allowing such crimes to be prosecuted there. Are you saying that
they have no *right* to do so? That if the Lithuanian govt isn't
interested in prosecuting you, nobody else has the right to do so?
Are you saying that Israel had no right to prosecute Eichmann, because
he committed his crimes in Germany, where they weren't even illegal?
I'm interested in how you justify such a claim, but more importantly
I'm interested in how such a claim can be logically derived from
libertarian principles.

--
Zev Sero "It is a great mistake to learn from history.
zsero@free-market.net There is nothing to learn from history."
Shimon Peres (M'aariv interview, 1993)

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

Subject: Re: No U.S. jurisdiction in Olympic skating case (fwd)
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 17:42:01 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

>>No U.S. jurisdiction in Olympic skating case
>>The arrest in Italy of Russian Alimzan Tokhtakhounov for inducing,
>>or attempting to induce, Olympic skating judges to trade votes on
>>contestants, raises some troubling constitutional issues. He is
>>charged with "conspiracy to commit wire fraud" and "conspiracy to
>>commit bribery relating to sporting contests". However, the
>>allegation is that he committed the offenses while on the
>>territory of Italy, which at last report had not been admitted
>>into the United States as a state, nor did the Italian legislature
>>cede exclusive legislative jurisdiction to the U.S. Congress of
>>the parcel of land on which he acted, as the grounds of a U.S.
>>diplomatic mission.

>Interesting...do you (and Jon Roland) believe that Italy has
>jurisdiction to prosecute this case? What crime was committed in
>Italy? Does this mean I am free to commit crimes that harm people
>in other countries as long as I never physically am present in
>those other countries?
>Lowell C. Savage

The way I look at it, if this action did harm someone else and nobody else
was going to adjudicate it, it'd better be the USA than nobody -- and maybe
better the USA than some other countries. I don't care if it took place on
Mars.

But to me the question is, was this a victimful crime at all? What is the
Olympics anyway? Just a bunch of people playing. Not playing for stakes
AFAIK. Say you cheat your sister at checkers; is that a crime? No money
changed hands, after all. Where's the fraud? If you surreptitiously pay
your cousin to snatch one of your sister's men while she's not looking,
where's the fraud? What are the damages?

I don't know the details of the case, but somebody's going to have to show
me how this can be fraud unless the Olympics admits that they are playing
for stakes. And actually, I don't think they are! They play for some
chatchkas. Hugh Loebner even pointed out their gold medals are only plated
gold. Do the Olympics sell tickets with a guarantee of fair competition?
Or is a show all they give you?

Because of all the publicity involved, maybe a fairer analogy would be that
this is like bribing some people to be witnesses to the effect that a flying
saucer made a pit stop nearby, backing up your story. You could susequently
derive fame & fortune from that, and it'd be a lie, but not fraud. There's
no crime in making up stories like that.

Remember that it was not a crime to rig quiz shows when that became common
practice. Since then a USA statute has been passed against doing so, but I
would argue that statute to be unjust. (It's also of questionable
Constitutionality, and has a big loophole -- all you need do is post a tiny,
almost unnoticeable disclaimer if it's rigged.) Strangely, states also have
laws in effect mandating that pro wrestling BE rigged! (They make
competitive professional wrestling illegal, but exhibitions -- scripted
bouts -- are not competition.)

If they sold you tickets with the claim that the contests are fair, then
they could owe you your money back if they're not. However, I think
promoters would be very hesitant to make such a guarantee. Tickets to
entertainment events often come with lots of fine print waivers &
disclaimers as is. Similarly, I doubt judges of amateur events would
guarantee their fairness to their employers.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

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

Sovereignty. No crime was committed in Israel; no Israeli was involved.

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