I've seen people crowing in victory because Clinton has been allowed (so far) to remain where he is. Some newspapers have proclaimed victory for Clinton. The British newspapers are confused, to say the least--the Economist magazine is entirely exasperated: a recent article showed a picture of Clinton smiling, with the legend "Oh lucky man." Not in a positive or supportive sense, however.

I have had Clinton supporters cheerfully tell me appalling things. For example, when I mentioned that the primary reason that the Secretary of State for Wales, Ron Davies, had to resign is because the House of Commons brutally punishes lying, I was told by a Clinton supporter that lying was "integral" to the American political system. Not an aberration, but something that enabled it to function.

I have been fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to travel across the world. I have encountered ex-communists on the streets of East Berlin after reunification. I've met and talked to socialists from France and communists from Italy. My own grandmother was once a Labor mayor of a London borough. In comparison to them and to the philosophies they espouse, American liberalism appears not to be a philosophy--it appears to be an infantile disorder.

I choose my words carefully. Let us take a look at the goal of American liberalism in the modern context: it is to increase privilege, without a subsequent increase in responsibility. Indeed, if anything, the goal of American liberals is to avoid responsibility at all costs: hence they favor unlimited abortion, to undo the consequences of sex; they favor a ban on things that require one to be responsible for oneself--such as guns and tobacco. They would like us to believe that Clinton didn't have sex with Ms. Lewinsky--they want us to believe that Clinton just received it, and hence wasn't "responsible." Furthermore, the entire system of entitlements, welfare spending, subsidies--they are there to buttress a system which seeks to avoid responsibility: the responsibility to manage oneself and one's affairs, which is part and parcel of freedom.

Infantilism is an excellent word to describe such a philosophy. According to Webster's dictionary, the word indicates:

And:

But what is being an adult if not taking responsibility for one's action? What is it, if it does not mean standing up and saying, "Yes, I did that," for good or for ill? What is it, if it doesn't mean taking care of oneself and one's family or community? American liberalism's efforts are focused on relieving people of that responsibility: one doesn't have to take care of oneself; there is a national health care plan, subsidies, and entitlements to do that. If you're a criminal, you're not responsible, you have a mental disorder, or you were abused as a child. Women, you're not responsible for having sex, after all you can't help your lustful desires--so we'll provide abortion for you in order to relieve you of that. The only "responsibility" that is mentioned by American liberals is either vague (such as "saving the planet," which no individual has the power to do) or paying higher taxes--but apart from that, American liberalism has no hallmark or ethos or standard. --As far as morality is concerned, liberals want to live in a "Cole Porter" society-- "anything goes." And at the same time, they demand, much as shrill, spoiled children, to be absolved of the responsibility for what they do.

Even left wingers such as Vladimir Ilyich Lenin didn't want to live this way. When Alexandra Kollentai, a Party official and notorious libertine, stated "Sex is like a glass of water," Lenin quickly moved to quash such notions, fearing that a communist society would disintegrate from such rampant irresponsibility. American liberalism is virtually alone in being as irresponsible as it is.

What is dangerous about American liberalism is its seductiveness: a life that's free of responsibility has attractions. In return for enough security, and perhaps license to engage in unlimited self-indulgence, it's clear that some Americans will tolerate immoral and illegal behavior by their leaders. This is not how a free society operates, however. Indeed it throws out the idea of "equal justice under law," and replaces it with a master/slave relationship--in exchange for goodies, the slave will continue to acknowledge the master and his special privileges. It should come as no surprise if this is what eventually developes--after all, if people insist on behaving like children, it should not be surprising if they are treated as such.

Political philosophy is a fluid business. Paradigm shifts occur nearly every decade. One can only hope that liberal philosophy, which does so little to respect people as being capable of being responsible adults, will be cast aside as the infantile nonsense it is. America's greatness was built on rugged individualism and personal responsibility--it would be a tragedy if these virtues were just tossed away.

BRADY: PHASE II

There are three ways that states can comply with phase two of the Brady Act regarding background checks of firearms purchasers.

Twenty-four states, DC and four territories will use the federal NICS system for all background checks conducted at the time of purchase: Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, Arkansas, CNMI, Delaware, DC, Guam, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Fourteen states will perform all background checks of gun buyers at the state level: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont and Virginia.

Eleven states will perform handgun background checks at the state level and long guns background checks through the federal NICS system: Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin.

One state and one territory where the permit alternative applies to all firearms transactions: Hawaii and the US Virgin Islands.

State laws requiring waiting periods and permits to purchase a pistol or long gun will remain in place.

Source:http://www.atf.treas.gov/core/firearms/information/brady/poc_chart.htm

STRANGE BUT TRUE

Few of us can imagine what it would be like to spend ten stressful years in a Soviet gulag in some uncharted area of Siberia, as did Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, author of The Gulag Archipelago. But stress, Solzhenitsyn observed, is not necessarily the killer the medical profession would have us believe it is:

G.A. Sorokin: "After rehabilitation my mental health, which was the envy of my comrades in the camp, steadily deteriorated. A succession of neuroses and psychoses followed..."

Igor Kaminov: "After my release I weakened and went to pieces, and I seem to find things much harder on the outside."

Solzhenitsyn commented, "There used to be a saying: 'The hard times brace you, and the soft times drive you to drink.' Sometimes a man's teeth would all fall out in a year [after his release] . Sometimes he would grow old overnight. Another man's strength would give out as soon as he got home, and he would die burned out."

Solzhenitsyn said the exact opposite was true for others, such as himself. "I, for one, still look younger than I did in the first photograph I had taken in exile."

This is one for medical science to explain, and for others to ponder should certain ominous trends in this country persist.

ULTERIOR MOTIVES?

"Russian legislators considered a motion appealing to Monica Lewinsky to help halt the American attack on Iraq," the AP reported Dec. 17, 1998.

Said nationalist lawmaker Alexander Filatov, "The State Duma [lower chamber of parliament] appeals to Ms. Lewinsky to undertake corresponding measures to restrain the emotions of Bill Clinton."

"Many people link it with Clinton's impeachment and his intimate relations with a certain person, but if these relations develop into such acts of vandalism, then all of U.S. democracy isn't worth a penny," said Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov during a debate over the bombing of Iraq.

The Muslim world also believes that Clinton is using the bombing attack on Iraq to draw attention away from the impeachment hearings. "For Monica Lewinsky they hit Afghanistan and Sudan. And now, again for her, they hit Baghdad," said a commentator on Al-Jazeerah, a satellite channel that covers the Mid-East.

The headlines in Al Khaleej, an Arabic newspaper, read, "Wide American-British aggression against Iraq -- Monicagate Strikes Again."

There is also suspicion about the bombings here at home. The Washington Times reported that Clinton ordered the bombing raids a full 48 hours before he read the United Nations report regarding Iraq's noncompliance with inspections.

The Times reported, "A senior Congressional source, who asked not to be named, said senior Pentagon officers expressed great skepticism to him about the raids. This source said that the White House eagerness to launch air strikes grew with intensity as a parade of centrist Republicans announced they would vote to impeach the president."

The same source said, "I have had senior and general officers question the timing. I have had senior military officers laughing. I hate to say that...Why now? He hasn't built a coalition. He hasn't done anything. Why this timing?"

Scott Ritter, former chief UN weapons inspector (who quit in August charging the Clinton administration and the UN with hampering inspectors) said in a Washington Post article, "What Richard Butler [current chief UN weapons inspector] did with the inspectors was a set-up. This was designed to generate a conflict that would justify a bombing. You have no choice but to interpret this as 'Wag the Dog.' You have no choice." Ritter claimed that Butler's report was "politically motivated."

Ritter also pointed out that Butler's report contradicted an International Atomic Energy Agency report that Iraq was complying.

If Clinton used these bombing raids, Afghanistan, Sudan and now Iraq, to divert attention away from his tryst with Lewinsky, it comes very close to what King David did after his affair with Bathsheba. After she became pregnant with David's child, David arranged for Uriah, Bathsheba's husband (who had been away many months fighting for Israel and would know the child was not his) to be killed in battle.

At least David sincerely repented for the murder that covered his sexual affair. In Clinton's case his impeachment worries could pale beside his accountability for the deaths in Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, and among members of the U.S. Armed Forces, when it comes time to answer to the same higher authority as David did.

JUST IN TIME FOR CHRISTMAS

"Bad news for financially strapped holiday shoppers: You're going to buy a $2,500 'Christmas present' for every overpaid federal bureaucrat in the country--whether you want to or not. That's because President Clinton has signed an executive order giving the nation's 1.8 million federal civil servants raises averaging 3.1%," a Libertarian Party press release declared.

Said Libertarian spokesman Steve Dasbach, "According to a study by economist Wendell Cox, the wages and benefits of federal workers have risen five times as fast as private-sector workers since 1980. The result? Cox found that these bureaucrats now earn 50% more than those of us paying their salaries. Raising federal pay even further would turn the holiday spirit on its head by taking from the needy and giving to the greedy."

As George Orwell said: "All pigs are equal--but some pigs are more equal than others."

Dasbach also pointed out that many of the federal jobs are unnecessary and unconstitutional.

The pay raises cost $4.5 billion.

THE BOSTON TEA PARTY REVISITED

"Dressed in colonial garb, dozens of history buffs reenacted the Boston Tea Party Dec. 13 to commemorate the 225th anniversary of the famous tax protest. Participants first recreated the debate between protesters and those loyal to the English crown. They then took to the streets and headed for the harbor to reenact the dumping of tea crates into the harbor. In 1773 Parliament had repealed most import taxes, but kept the tax on tea to demonstrate that England still had power over the colonies." -- Boston Globe, Dec. 14, 1998

But is the Globe's story of the Boston Tea Party entirely accurate? Not according to Charles Adams who wrote Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization.

There is no question that taxation was the major factor that lead to the War of Independence, Adams wrote. "No modern revolution was more deeply rooted in taxation that the revolt of the thirteen colonies in British North America. British taxation not only caused the revolution, but perhaps most important, it acted as a unifying force in the colonies. The once-disorganized and squabbling colonies rallied around the cause of taxation without consent, took up arms against the British, and finally formed the United States of America. The American independence movement was not deep-rooted; it began in 1765 when colonial leaders met to protest British taxes under the Stamp Act. The Stamp Act Congress, as it was called, was the real birthplace of the United States."

What motivated the Boston Tea Party however was not taxed tea--but untaxed tea, i.e., "cheap imports" (sound familiar?)

Adams explained: "American postage stamps have recently depicted the Boston Tea Party as a glorious act of defying British colonialism. Most people believe it was a protest against taxes on tea, but this is not true. American tea merchants had been boycotting British tea for five years. Smuggled Dutch tea was used throughout the colonies. In response, the British government decided to remove the duties on East Indies tea when it arrived in Britain so it could be sold in America at a price cheaper than smuggled Dutch tea. In addition, a monopoly on this cheap tea was given to loyal British merchants in the colonies. American tea smugglers would be put out of business. The Crown's plan was based on the assumption that American consumers would not boycott low-priced English tea but would purchase it rather than the higher-priced, smuggled Dutch product.

"The implication of this to American merchants was frightening. If a monopoly could be granted for tea, it could be granted for other products as well. Economic sanctions of this kind could destroy American merchants. In protest, Bostonian merchants disguised themselves as Indians, boarded merchant ships loaded with tea, and threw the tea into the harbor. This was a wanton destruction of private property in an age when private property was held in great esteem."

Adams went on to say that "[Benjamin] Franklin was shocked and he acknowledged that full restitution should be paid at once to the owners of the tea."

American resentment against the British at that time was such that Franklin's advice went unheeded.

THE PROS AND CONS OF JURY NULLIFICATION

Last October Judge Jeffrey S. Ryan wrote a disparaging article about jury nullification for the Summit [County, Colorado] Free Press.

Jury nullification, or jury discretion as it is sometimes called, is the legal doctrine that jurors have the power to judge not only the facts but the law itself in criminal trials. Thus it acts as a brake on tyrannical or inappropriate applications of the law. Judges resent it because it puts the people (the jury) in charge.

Judge Ryan began by using the classic "guilt by association" smear technique to attack the alleged evils of jury nullification. First he described Red Beckman as "an infamous tax resister and anti-Semite," and then as "the spiritual father of modern-day jury nullification." (In 1994 the IRS took Beckman's house. Beckman, who believes the holocaust was God's judgment on the Jews, denies he is anti-Semitic.) Ryan said that Larry Dodge and Don Doig co-founded the Fully Informed Jury Association, which advocates jury discretion, when they came under Beckman's spell. -- As you can see we're off to a bad start from the git-go.

But Ryan's critique has a serious flaw. If Red Beckman is the "father of modern-day jury nullification" who is the father of " ancient-day jury nullification?" How do they differ? Does Ryan say? Not a word.

The fact is that jury nullification came into existence 800 years ago through Magna Carta--not because people didn't want to live under the rule of law (as Ryan claims) but because they didn't want to live under dictatorial kings who made up the law as they saw fit. It was ruthless, reprobate government, not bad people (or Red Beckman), that gave birth to jury nullification. In that day some 200 capital offenses sent people to the gallows in England, offenses such as hunting the "king's game". Ryan ignores the history of jury nullification because it would undermine his position. Also, it's to the advantage of our judicial system to keep the people uneducated in these matters.

Ryan continues, "FIJA is considered a hate group by many human rights organizations [Ryan failed to cite one]. While many who favor the legalization of drugs have embraced FIJA, it is a marriage of convenience. [Ryan is alluding to a trial in neighboring Gilpin County, Colorado, where juror Laura Kriho hung the jury in a drug possession case.] FIJA's roots are buried deep in the extremist, violent, racist right. It is important, therefore, to always look behind the statements of FIJA to determine the organization's true motivation."

Again, Ryan gives no particulars about why he believes FIJA is a racist hate group--a charge we've never heard before.

When our representatives continually stray from the Constitution, we have a representative government in name only. And when members of the judicial branch of government, such as Mr. Ryan, purposefully mislead the people concerning the function of jury nullification, we have the potential for oppression.

Secondly, incumbent politicians at present enjoy a 92% reelection rate. And bad legislation is rarely repealed..

Thirdly, Ryan conveniently ignores U.S. v. Wilson (629 F2d 439, 443, 6th Cir. 1980) which states: "In criminal cases, a jury is entitled to acquit the defendant because it has no sympathy for the government's position." And U.S. v. Datcher (830 F. Supp. 411, 413, M.D. Tenn. 1993): "Judicial and prosecutorial misconduct still occur, and Congress is not yet an infallible body incapable of making tyrannical laws." And when Congress enacts tyrannical laws the last defense we have to protect one another is jury nullification.

Ryan continues, "Contrary to FIJA's propaganda, nullification is not, and never truly has been, a jury's 'right.'"

This statement totally contradicts John Jay, first chief justice of the Supreme Court, who said, "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy" (1789). And Samuel Case, signer of he Declaration of Independence and Supreme Court justice, who said "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts." (Emphasis added) Furthermore, the Constitutions of Maryland, Indiana and Georgia include provisions guaranteeing the right of jurors to "judge the law", that is, to nullify it. Twenty-three state Constitutions, including Colorado's (Art. II, Sec. 10), include jury nullification provisions with respect to libel and sedition cases.

Ryan: "This was demonstrated beyond a doubt by the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895). In that case, Justice Harlan's opinion reviews the history of the rule that judges decide the law, while juries decide the facts, in criminal cases. The jury is to take their instructions on the law from the court, apply the law to the facts that they themselves find from the evidence presented, and by this method reach a verdict.

"More importantly, jury nullification undermines our entire system of government. Why elect legislators in the first place, when six or twelve lay people with no understanding of the underlying reason for the law, or its history, can negate it on a whim?" Can't help but notice the condescending attitude Ryan has towards us common folk. We're too ignorant to think for ourselves and, left to our own devices without the guidance of our judicial savants, our entire nation would spin out of orbit. Moreover, Justice Harlan's opinion in Sparf v. US is no different from King John's opinion of 1215, prior to Magna Carta: "My mouth is the law." When such arrogance is practiced by kings despotism results; when practiced by judges, judicial tyranny prevails. In both instances the people, from whom all lawful power flows, are excluded. As Judge Robert H. Jackson so eloquently put it, "But juries [the people] are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges." (Morisette v. U.S. 432 U.S. 246) What Ryan and the judiciary want is a "rubber stamp" to make it easier for them to impose "the law" upon us according to their whimsical interpretation.

Concerning jury nullification Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which government can be held to the principles of its constitution." The exact opposite is the case according to our learned Mr. Ryan.

Ryan, quotes U.S. v. Dougherty (473 F2d 1113, 1139 [1972]): "This so-called right of jury nullification is put forward in the name of liberty and democracy, but its explicit avowal risks the ultimate logic of anarchy...No legal system could long survive if it gave every individual the option of disregarding with impunity any such law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable."

This sounds more like Judicial Supremacy -- when judges usurp the power to determine the laws -- than jury nullification. As Roy Cohn once said, "I don't want to know what the law is, I want to know who the judge is." (Now there's someone who understood our misguided legal system.)

But Judge Ryan overlooks the section of US v.Dougherty that finds that "The jury has unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions of the law given by the trial judge...The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the Fugitive Slave Act."

The quotes cited by Mr. Ryan and ourselves illustrate an important point: He's quoting judges and we're quoting judges whose positions are diametrically opposed. So where's the anarchy? Is it with juries who disagree with the law, or with the judges who disagree with framers such as Jay and Jefferson? Let the people in the jury box decide.

Ryan's closing statement reads, "And, as noted by Judge Robert Steigmann of the Illinois Appellate court, in People v. Smith, 'Last, we should not forget the disgraceful episodes in our criminal justice system in the 1950s and 1960s when southern juries routinely acquitted those accused--including local law enforcement officers--of beating and killing civil rights protesters despite overwhelming evidence of guilt. With good reason, supporters of jury nullification choose not to remind us of those grim times, but those acquittals reflected in the concept of jury nullification in all its glory.'"

All its glory? Hardly! The glory of jury nullification is shown by the acquittal of William Penn who was spared from imprisonment when a jury refused to follow the judge's instructions to convict him for preaching the Gospel not sanctioned by the Church of England. And when Americans caught ferrying slaves out of the South were spared by jurors who refused to follow the judge's instructions to convict them for violating the Fugitive Slave Act. -- Mr. Ryan, you evidently would have instructed the jury to find Penn and the abolitionists guilty because they were violating "the law." It seems you have confused the rule of law with laws that rule, the view that the law is right regardless of its justice or unjustness. Shame on you -- and shame on King John, Justice Harlan and all other exemplars of the authoritarian mentality.

The abuses of jury nullification in the South were the result of unrepresentative juries. The officials who constitute the criminal justice system (judges, prosecutors, sheriffs, jury managers) deliberately tampered with the jury pool and excluded those they didn't like. You can blame that on criminal government, not jury nullification.

HITLER WOULD BE PROUD

Hollywood actor Alex Baldwin, while a guest on the Conan O'Brien Show, made the following comment about Rep. Henry Hyde, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee:

"I am thinking to myself in other countries they are laughing at us twenty-four hours a day and I'm thinking to myself if we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together (shouting) all of us together would go to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death. We would stone him to death! (Audience cheers) Wait! Shut up! Shut up! I'm not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes [other members of Congress who voted for impeachment] and we'd kill their wives and children. We would kill their families. (Stands up screaming) What is happening to this country? What is happening?"

Needless to say these rantings didn't sit too well with members of Congress who complained to Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America.

Valenti said that Baldwin's remarks were "...so off-base as to boggle the mind." Reuters reported that Baldwin later wrote a letter of apology to Henry Hyde and his family.

THE FIRST OF MANY?

(AP) -- A West Valley man has become the first Utah resident charged under a federal law prohibiting those convicted of domestic violence from owning guns.

Efred Rios Mojica, 35, had been convicted in the 3rd District Court of assault, criminal mischief, and lewdness--all of which were domestic-violence related.

A federal indictment filed last week alleges that Mojica violated federal law when he was allegedly found in possession of a Mossberg Model 5000 12-gauge shotgun.

If convicted, he faces 10 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine.

Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act in September 1996, in order to check domestic violence and interstate violations of protective orders.

Mojica is charged with violating a section that makes it illegal for anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to ship, transport, possess or receive a firearm or ammunition.

"AMA URGES EXPANSION OF GUN LAWS"

So reads the headline of an AP story released Dec. 23, 1998. Looks like the medical profession is getting in on the anti-Second Amendment band wagon.

The editorial, which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association, was co-written by Sarah Brady and Dr. Thomas Cole of the JAMA's editorial staff. The opening line reads:

"Laws barring felons from buying guns should be expanded to prospective buyers who have committed misdemeanors, researchers say in [the latest JAMA]."

Countering the study is Dr. Edgar A. Suter, chairman of the Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research, who said, "...its methods were flawed and its authors and underwriters are activists favoring gun bans regardless of science.

MORE SMUGGLING

"Bargain-hunting Washington state smokers got a surprise--and hefty fines--when they returned from Idaho stores with cartons of their favorite cigarette brands," reported the AP.

Susan Moller was pulled over by state agents who confiscated two cartons of cigarettes, total value in unpaid Washington taxes: $11--not exactly a multi-million dollar drug bust--but, what the hell, gotta maintain those state bureaucrats with meaningless employment. Washington agents drove into Idaho and parked by convenience stores where cigarettes are sold and radioed the license plate numbers to agents waiting at the state line.

"The operation was part of an effort to raise public awareness about the state's tobacco tax laws," said liquor board spokeswoman Gigi Zenk. (Tax laws have promoted smuggling since the dawn of time. It was a major factor which lead to our revolution with England--where's Ms. Zenk been.)

The article reported that states also lose revenue on cigarettes sold on Indian and military reservations. (As we mentioned before, you can order cigarettes from the Seneca Indian Reservation at 888-829-8643. Or go to www.hot-ent.com).

We also received a report that a shoot-out occurred on the California state line between police and a cigarette smuggler.

CITIZEN'S PROTECTION ACT OF 1998

The Citizen's Protection Act (HR 3396) would curb Federal prosecutors by telling them:

1) Don't lie in court.

2) Don't withhold exculpatory evidence.

3) Don't intimidate witnesses or color his testimony.

4) Don't leak information.

5) Don't buy testimony.

6) Don't offer leniency for testimony.

However, HR 3396 is receiving opposition from the following:

1) The Department of Justice

2) The FBI

3) The National Director of Drug Control Policy

4) The Fraternal Order of police

5) National District Attorney's Association

6) National Association of U.S. Attorney Generals

7) The National Sheriffs' Association

8) Many members of the above associations who are now members of the House of Representatives

To call your Congressman and express your opinion, dial 1-800-361-5222, ext. 90001; this will connect you to the Capitol Switchboard.

Or: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress

--Information supplied by David E. Parsons

AL GORE, PAGAN?

"...the prevailing ideology of belief in prehistoric Europe and much of the world was based on the worship of a single earth goddess, who was assumed to be the fount of all life and who radiated harmony among all living things...The last vestige of organized goddess worship was eliminated by Christianity as late as the fifteenth century...It seems obvious that a better understanding of [goddess worship] could offer us new insights into the nature of the human experience." -- Earth in the Balance by Al Gore pg. 260.

MORE TROUBLE IN THE NJ PINELANDS

It's enough that the Pinelands Commission has dictatorial control over more than a million acres in seven counties in southern Jersey--but now the federal government is jumping in.

"Calling it the most environmentally damaging proposal to come under its review, the federal Environmental Protection Agency [unelected bureaucrats dictating its agenda] is trying to block a Whitman administration plan to allow cranberry farmers to expand their operations into wetlands," reported Tom Johnson of the Star-Ledger.

New Jersey wants to allow cranberry growers an additional 300 wetland acres. The U.S. says no. The additional acreage would "...bolster New Jersey's annual $27 million cranberry crop, the third largest in the nation," reported the article.

Has anyone in Trenton (or other state capitols ever heard of the 10th Amendment?

HERE WE GO AGAIN

Another class action law suit has been leveled against the firearms industry on the basis "that it negligently markets a legal product." This is the same tactic used against the tobacco industry.

The case will go before a federal jury in Brooklyn, New York, Jan. 4, 1999.

U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein has already rejected a motion of dismissal by Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Ruger, Accu-Tek and some 30 other defendants.

"There is a total disconnect here," said S&W lawyer James Dorr, referring to the fact that the plaintiffs never conclusively linked which weapons were used in the crimes.

Elisa Barnes, attorney for the plaintiffs, claimed that the "chain of title" is irrelevant. "What matters is that the industry as a whole creates a widespread risk with indiscriminate marketing," the AP reported.

"It's huge. If you can get to trial, you have a chance to win. And if you win, the whole face of the industry would change," said Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Washington-based Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence.

STOLEN FERTILIZER RETURNED

Back in July 25 tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer was stolen from the Bruceton Farm Services in Bruceton Mills, W. Va.

Because it was of the same type supposedly used in the Oklahoma City bombing the FBI, fearing the worst, offered $25,000 for information. The fertilizer in question mysteriously reappeared at the Bruceton Farm Services warehouse.

"We didn't find any link to terrorism, and we have closed our investigation," said FBI Agent Bill Crowley.

A LETTER ABOUT POLLS

New Jersey Militia,

Someone showed me a copy of your most recent newsletter, in which you have a paragraph about a subscriber who was polled, but the pollster hung up when discovering that the subscriber was a Republican. You say you "smell a rat."

However, the most probable answer is that there is no rat involved at all. Many pollsters are hired to conduct polls that just measure certain variables--such as voter attitudes from one political party. So, for instance, if the pollster was studying attitudes among Democrats on certain issues, the pollster would have no reason to talk to someone identifying him or herself as a Republican. This is a very common phenomenon, particularly during primary seasons and as presidential election campaigns begin to gear up.

You may have experienced this same phenomenon with radio polls. It happens to me all the time; a pollster will call me up and ask me if I am willing to take a survey about radio stations. I say sure. The first question is whether I listen to country music. I say no, the pollster thanks me and hangs up. That pollster was only interested in finding out stations listened to by people who identified themselves as fans of country music.

I don't think there's any reason to go around looking for things to be paranoid about. Most things have simple explanations.

Best regards,

Mark Pitcavage

Editor: We're not paranoid, Mr. Pitcavage, just suspicious about Clinton's near 80% approval rating.

Note: Mr. Pitcavage is the director of The Militia Watchdog--he keeps an eye on supposed "dangerous, antigovernment" types. He currently heads-up SLATT (State/Local Anti-Terrorism Training Program) which is "...designed to educate senior state and local law enforcement officials on domestic terrorism issues," according to his web page (http://www.sff.net/people/pitman). He is funded by the Justice Department.

THIS IS A HOOT

During the bombing of Iraq Defense Department officials were upset when the Associated Press transmitted a photograph of a 2000-pound laser-guided bomb with "thoughtless graffiti" written on it. One inscription read, "Here's a Ramadan present from Chad Richenberg."

Said Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon, "Religious intolerance is anathema to Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and to all Americans who cherish the right to worship freely. The United States deeply respects Islam. We are grateful for our good relations with Arab and Islamic peoples, and we appreciate the important contributions of Muslim Americans to the U.S. military and our nation as a whole."

It's O.K. to drop 2000-pound bombs on Iraqis--just do it with a little more respect, more sincerity. Hate-bombs are like hate-crimes, politically incorrect. Perhaps a stencil of Jesus on the nose of a 2000-pounder with the words "See You In Paradise" would be more appropriate.

Said Bacon, "I know our people in uniform respect and appreciate religious practices different from their own."

Note: There's no Scriptural requirement for Christians and Jews to respect the religious beliefs of others . You won't find it anywhere in the Bible. As II Chronicles 19:2 says, "Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord."

Tolerate the religious beliefs of others, yes. But respecting them is what prompted God to kick the Israelites out of the land of Canaan. Let Mr. Bacon speak for himself.

TOO MUCH FEDERAL LAW

"Over the past decade, Congress has contributed significantly to the rising caseload by continuing to federalize crimes already covered by state laws," said Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who blamed Congress for responding too quickly to "sensational crimes."

Rehnquist said that for the first time in 26 years criminal filings had a double-digit increase, up 15%.

Note: If Mr. Rehnquist were serious he would enforce the Constitution and declare all Congressional criminal statutes null and void. The founding document recognizes four crimes only. Any other "federally created crime", unless added by amendment, is patently unlawful.

So said 13 year old Danny Williams who recently took a DNA test to find the truth. His mother, Bobbie Ann Williams, claims Danny's father is none other than President Bill Clinton. (She passed a lie-detector test). The DNA test results have not come in yet.

ONE ANGRY DUDE

Wayne LaPierre, Executive Director

National Rifle Association

11250 Waples Mill Rd.

Fairfax, VA 22030

Dear Sir:

You are a traitor to the Constitution, and if you want to promote the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, then leave the NRA and go join the ATF Gun Police.

I heard you on the radio complaining that [Attorney General] Janet Reno and ATF doesn't bring enough felon-in-possession cases. Since when has it become NRA's function to support those ATF stormtrooper cowards? You should be calling for the abolition of that corrupt agency.

Where in the Second Amendment does it bar individuals with 30-year-old bad check convictions [from owning a firearm]? It makes no exceptions at all, fool! The right to own guns is absolute. And show me where in the Constitution Congress is authorized to create gun possession crimes. There are only four crimes authorized and gun possession is not among them.

For your information, the federal gulags are full of felon-in-possession prisoners. One got caught duck hunting with a shotgun and got 15 years. Another got 20 for a single bullet which he was flipping in the air like a coin while walking down the street minding his own business.

I got 8 years for "constructive possession" by co-residency even though the licensed and registered guns were on my wife's side of the bedroom and she had the gun safe key on her key ring.

You need to have a copy of the Constitution nailed to your forehead. You are no better than all the other corrupt assholes who, at the end of the book, The Turner Diaries, were strung up from lamp posts and overpasses with signs around their necks.

I won't be signing up for NRA membership anymore and I shall discourage all family members and friends from doing so.

Sincerely yours,

M. C.

Federal Prisoner

TRULY OUTSTANDING WORK

In the late 1960s a Texas legislator became annoyed with his fellow legislators' habit of passing bills without giving them proper study and consideration. He therefore introduced a bill commending Mr. Albert DeSalvo for his outstanding work in population control. At the time Mr. DeSalvo was on trial for a series of murders and was better known by his nickname, The Boston Strangler. The bill passed unanimously. -- American Patriot Network

Editor's note: Why aren't we surprised by this?

"In the beginning of change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." --Mark Twain

New Jersey Militia
P.O. Box 10176
Trenton, NJ 08650