--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 173 NORML Ref: DCH00007 Date: 08/12/96 From: L P Time: 11:26am \/To: GUY GEORGE (Read 1 times) Subj: 1996 elections & Hemp (5) --==<<< Continued from previous message >>>==-- interviewer says, "Libertarians are extremists. I understand you people want to do away with the police and the army:" Like any group, Libertarians have many different opinions. But none of us wants to live in an unsafe neighborhood or in a country that can be overrun by foreign marauders. Unfortunately, most of us do live in unsafe neighborhoods, because government doesn't deliver on its promises to keep our communities and schools safe. Plus it taxes us to death so that we can't afford to protect ourselves. We need to find better ways. We need to get rid of the welfare programs that breed crime; we need to stop filling up the prisons with non-violent people who pose no threat to society; we have to put an end to the Drug War that makes the drug trade lucrative for criminals, fosters gang violence, and drives addicts to steal to support their habits. Government isn't working -- so, wherever feasible, we need voluntary arrangements that do work, that allow people to choose for themselves how to participate -- replacing government programs that are subverted by political pork and bureaucratic nonsense. The extremists are those who refuse to change the system -- who will let innocent people die to protect their political programs. "Don't you think the government should protect children from pornography?" That's a worthy ideal, but the fact is that government doesn't protect children. For as long as I've been alive, government has had laws against pornography, prostitution, gambling, drug use, and myriad other activities. And yet these activities have thrived. Government doesn't work; it makes big promises, but it never delivers. If you want your child protected from pornography, it's up to you -- the government won't do it for you, with or without a law. Unfortunately, the government subverts family values with welfare programs, anti-family textbooks, and with an income tax that forces both parents to work. So we need to get rid of the ways in which the government prevents us from raising our children properly. "I understand you want to take Social Security away from people." No, I want to make Social Security secure for a change. I want to transfer it to private companies that will guarantee their contracts permanently. Today, every retiree is afraid each year that Congress will take away some of his benefits or destroy the system by overpromising. And every young person must fear another hike in Social Security taxes and the addition of new benefits that could bankrupt the system before he retires. I want to take politics and government out of Social Security, so that everyone knows what he is paying and getting -- and can count on it. "Shouldn't government protect us from unsafe products and unscrupulous businessmen?" Government doesn't protect us from these things. The savings and loan crisis, every financial scandal, every class-action law suit is a testament to the failure of government regulation. Government's war on drugs, its war on insider traders, its promises to clean up the environment or reduce crime always have the same result -- the innocent lose more of their freedoms and the guilty slip through the net. Government doesn't work, and the money government has taken from us to provide this "protection" is money we could have used to take care of ourselves. So let's get the money back into the hands of the people. Philosophical arguments are no longer necessary. Now that government has created such a mess, we are the ones who can use the one-liners, and they must take minutes to explain how they will somehow improve their failed programs. People can see for themselves that government doesn't work, and we're the only credible party that recognizes this and will act decisively. We are the mainstream now. Most people are on our side, because they --==<<< Continued next message >>>==-- --- RBBSMail/386 v1.0 * Origin: Who's Askin'? Matanuska-Susitna Valley, AK (1:17/75.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 173 NORML Ref: DCH00008 Date: 08/12/96 From: L P Time: 11:26am \/To: GUY GEORGE (Read 1 times) Subj: 1996 elections & Hemp (6) --==<<< Continued from previous message >>>==-- want more control over their own lives and they want to escape the chaos and misery the government has inflicted upon them. There is no reason to compromise what we believe, and no reason to threaten anyone. All we have to do is tell our story honestly. Spoiler? A major challenge will be to convince voters that they will achieve more by voting for me -- even if they think that would help reelect Bill Clinton -- than to vote for the Republican candidate. We need to point out that electing the lesser of two evils merely assures that you will have to choose between two evils again the next time. We need to tell the American people: If the Democrat or the Republican wins the election, the next four years will bring bigger, more intrusive government, more crime, and continued deterioration of schools. The winner will help expand the government, and it will be eight more years before his party can nominate someone who could turn the tide toward less government. The most you can hope for is that one of these two candidates will increase government control over your life at only 95% of the speed of the other. But if the Libertarian wins, we will move in the other direction -- actually reducing government, giving you back control over your life, increasing your take-home pay, and finally doing something positive to reduce crime. We will end a 60-year trend and change the course of history. And if the Libertarian loses but gets a large vote, this probably will pave the way for the next Libertarian presidential candidate to be elected -- just four years from now -- and he will change the course of history. So you have to decide how you want to use your vote. Do you want to vote to slow the growth of government by maybe 5%, or do you want to change the course of history forever? Campaign Strategy The Libertarian Party's nominating convention will be held July 4, 1996 -- just four months before the general election. Obviously, a third party can't mount an effective campaign in only four months. So I hope that by the summer of 1995 my nomination will be a foregone conclusion and I will be the party's de facto candidate. I can then direct 95% of the campaign toward the general public throughout 1995 and 1996. I will give radio and TV interviews and in-person speeches. We plan to produce one or more TV infomercials that local libertarian groups can air on stations around the country or show to people in living rooms. We will build support at first through the many social groups that are on our side -- small businessmen suffering from government regulation, gun owners appalled by the loss of their rights, property owners chafing under high taxes and environmental regulations. We have started with investment newsletter writers -- whose readers are strongly anti-government. These newsletters are already publishing enthusiastic endorsements -- urging readers to get involved and to contribute money. For example, Mark Skousen told his 50,000 readers: We already have a good man who has decided to run for president on the Libertarian ticket: Harry Browne! He's articulate, a great writer, and an intelligent thinker. I suggest you contribute to his campaign by sending a donation (up to $1,000 per person). From these groups, we can work outward to the entire public. My new book, Why Government Doesn't Work, will be published in September 1995. That will bring about further national and local TV/radio interviews -- talking about the campaign and the book. At the same time, we'll start an energetic campaign in New Hampshire to attract the attention of the 2,000 journalists covering the primary there. I hope that by the time the primary season is well under way in early 1996, I will have sufficient name recognition that poll-takers will list me along with the Democratic and Republican candidates. By the summer of 1996, we need to have at least triple the present membership of the Libertarian Party, so that our infomercial is being shown everywhere and the campaign is being talked about. And we need --==<<< Continued next message >>>==-- --- RBBSMail/386 v1.0 * Origin: Who's Askin'? Matanuska-Susitna Valley, AK (1:17/75.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 173 NORML Ref: DCH00009 Date: 08/12/96 From: L P Time: 11:26am \/To: GUY GEORGE (Read 1 times) Subj: 1996 elections & Hemp (7) --==<<< Continued from previous message >>>==-- to have raised close to $50 million by then, so that we can buy enough TV time to have an impact. That can be the leverage that gets me into the campaign debates in the fall of 1996 -- so that our message will reach millions of people. We can't expect to raise enough money to compete head-to-head with the two old parties, so we will rely on originality and media events to let people know there's an alternative to more government. Some very creative people are already helping plan these activities. Dealing with Surprises There will be many surprises between now and November 1996. New parties will spring up to exploit the public's disgust with the two major parties. Famous people may decide to run as independents. President Clinton could resign, stripping his opponents of their favorite issue. President Gore would have a fresh start and would command more respect -- even if it isn't merited. We can't foresee these things. So we must be ready to take advantage of whatever comes. To capitalize on the unknown future, we must establish ourselves early with the press and the public as the only authentic, credible party that can speak for those who want less government. To do this, we need to get off to a fast start in 1995. So we need support and money right away. We can't wait for 1996. Am I the Candidate? I believe I'm uniquely qualified to be the Libertarian candidate. My philosophical and political views jelled about 35 years ago, and I have lived most of my adult life as a libertarian. I have been writing and speaking about government and individual liberty for over three decades. Unlike most candidates, I don't need to be "prepped" for a debate or public appearance; I know what to say, and I can answer any question. No one will maneuver me into a position of conceding the need for any government program. I've made hundreds of radio and TV appearances -- on national networks and local stations. I focus on winning over the audience, not on scoring debating points. I can think on my feet, and I know how to deal with hostility, ignorance, or honest disagreements. Compromise? Most of all, my libertarian beliefs are unshakable. I've discussed libertarian ideas for over a quarter of a century -- and never felt the need to soft-pedal anything. Each of my books -- investment or otherwise -- has been a libertarian tract. The philosophy is so deeply a part of me that there's no question for which I don't have an effective, persuasive answer. A political candidate often softens his views as his prospects for winning improve -- trying not to offend any voter or contributor. Even if he is running to further some principle, he may believe he can do so only if he wins -- and that he can't win without compromising. Once in office, seemingly libertarian candidates often go over to the other side. First, they make deals -- giving large concessions to obtain small victories for their principles. Then they make bigger concessions merely to stay in office. Always the rationale is, "I can't do any good if I lose the next election." But I know that such temptations can be fatal. As a third-party candidate, my greatest strength is that I'm the only candidate with a consistent, less-government message. If I compromise that in any way, my message is meaningless, my strongest asset is lost, and the whole enterprise is a waste of my time. If I stand for more government on even one issue, no one can know for sure how I stand on other issues -- and the campaign will collapse. We don't have to compromise. We are the mainstream now -- the only credible group offering ways to reduce the cost and impact of government. We must recognize the opportunity we have. Our chance has finally come, but to make the most of it we must be like no other political party -- we must be 100% consistent. Only if we run the campaign on clear principles can the Libertarian Party overcome the two old parties. I understand this, and so I will never be tempted to compromise or trade a principle for a bloc of support. Neither will I be tempted to shade my beliefs to make them palatable; I have never been afraid to speak honestly, because honesty always brings me more than it costs. --==<<< Continued next message >>>==-- --- RBBSMail/386 v1.0 * Origin: Who's Askin'? Matanuska-Susitna Valley, AK (1:17/75.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 173 NORML Ref: DCH00010 Date: 08/12/96 From: L P Time: 11:26am \/To: GUY GEORGE (Read 1 times) Subj: 1996 elections & Hemp (8) --==<<< Continued from previous message >>>==-- Lastly, I have a wife whom I love very much, and who loves me for what I am. If I became a glad-handing, compromising politician, I would lose the most important things in my life -- her love and respect. That's the greatest possible incentive to remain as I am. Should You Participate? I've undertaken this project because I wouldn't be happy not doing it. I believe I have a unique opportunity to tell a wide audience what I believe about government and about living freely in a civil society -- and perhaps to change the course of American history. The next two to six years will be an exciting time for me. Should you become involved? Only if you want to. You have no duty to do anything but what you believe is best for you and your family. I hope you do decide to participate. Here are some ways you can provide valuable help: You can mention the campaign whenever you find yourself talking politics. This allows you to transform abstract principles into a concrete issue on which people can take action. You can feed ideas to me by writing or faxing the campaign office. You can use the coupon in this article to join the campaign. If you're not already in the Libertarian Party, we'll send you an application. From time to time you'll receive material from the campaign or the party -- policy papers, campaign news, and other items. You can arrange meetings to view the first TV infomercial when it's ready. Or, you could arrange for me to speak before an organization. Either way this will get your views to people who mean something to you. Let me be your voice. You can contribute money to the campaign. It's an easy way to get the satisfaction that comes from acting on what you believe. By 1996, we may be dealing with millions of dollars in campaign funds. But at this stage every $1,000 or $100 makes an enormous difference and will eventually be leveraged many times over. Without money now, the idea of slashing government is just a dream. You can organize a fundraising event at which I speak. Even though we've just begun, we already have energetic support from libertarians inside and outside the party. I hope you will choose to join us. The Opportunity A great deal has been said about Bill Clinton's philandering, arrogance, abuse of power, waffling, policy reversals, lies, and trading of favors for Congressional votes. But these attacks often miss the point. His sins are merely symptoms of the weakness of government itself, and the sins have become scandals precisely because people are fed up with government. Mr. Clinton's arrogance and philandering are encouraged by the power and insulation that government provides. His waffling, lies, and reversals are necessary (to him) because government has run out of room to maneuver. People are sick of all this -- not just of the Clintons, but of the whole political game. But up to now the Clintons have provided the clearest target for their anger. Bill Clinton may be the last of a long line of powerful politicians who have had their way with the American people for a century or more. These people have assured their own reelections by rewarding the politically powerful. They have been free to use their offices as lavish endowments -- as though they were princes or viceroys. But that time is passing. Government has become so big, so cumbersome, so incapable of hiding its own costs and drawbacks, so useless that no one can keep a straight face when calling politicians "public servants." Now people see them as self-serving manipulators who cost us money and freedom. All that's needed is for someone to shout the obvious -- that the problem is government itself, not the current cast of characters. And that's what I will do. We will suffer in silence no longer. Whether I win the election remains to be seen. The opportunity is many times greater than it would have been just a decade ago. But the --==<<< Continued next message >>>==-- --- RBBSMail/386 v1.0 * Origin: Who's Askin'? Matanuska-Susitna Valley, AK (1:17/75.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 173 NORML Ref: DCH00011 Date: 08/12/96 From: L P Time: 11:26am \/To: GUY GEORGE (Read 1 times) Subj: 1996 elections & Hemp (9) --==<<< Continued from previous message >>>==-- next two years will bring many surprises -- some helpful and some hindering. So we can be certain only that we have a remarkable chance to make an impact far beyond anything that's been possible before. Even if we don't win this election, we can change forever the face of politics in America. Two Generations of Freedom But what if we do win? Will it have any lasting benefit? If we succeed in reducing government to a third its present size and scope, we may gain the time and opportunity to go much further -- to reduce government at all levels to a small fraction of its size today. But the tide might someday turn back against us. Government is a parasite -- a cancer that by nature tries to spread itself deeper into society. Those who want to run others' lives won't give up and start minding their own business. So it may be that after 20 or 40 years the cycle will begin anew, and government will resume its relentless growth. If that happens, will those few years of freedom have been worth the trouble we went to? I believe they will. The next two generations will have lived their lives free of the crime-ridden culture the government promotes through welfare programs and its no-win Drug War. They will be free to use their money to build their own futures, free to choose their own retirement plans, free to get medical care from a greater array of choices than we have today, free from fear of the IRS, free to make of their lives whatever they want. We will have given our children and grandchildren two generations of freedom. What they do with that will be up to them. But at least they will know an atmosphere freer than most of us have ever known. The prospect of two generations of freedom is enough to motivate me. It makes this the most exciting thing I've done in my life. I hope you'll join me. ====================================================================== HARRY BROWNE FOR PRESIDENT Send contributions to: Harry Browne for President 4094 Majestic Lane, Suite 240 Fairfax, VA 22033 Please print out and use the following form or enclose a note with the same information: Name___________________________________________________ Address________________________________________________ City_________________________ State____ Zip____________ Phone__________________________________________________ E-Mail_________________________________________________ Occupation_____________________________________________ Employer_______________________________________________ Federal law requires political committees to report the name, mailing address, and occupation and name of employer for each individual whose contributions aggregate in excess of $200 in a calendar year. Amount: [] $1000 [] $500 [] $250 [] $100 [] $25 Other $________ Contributions are limited to $1000 per individual prior to the nomination (July 1996); you may contribute another $1000 after the nomination. Each member of a family may contribute up to the limit, as long as funds used belong to that individual. Contributions may not be made from corporate or union funds. Contributions to political committees are not tax-deductible. Enclose check payable to "Harry Browne for President" or provide the following for credit card payment: Mastercard [] Visa [] Card number________________________ Expires____________ Signature______________________________________________ --==<<< Continued next message >>>==-- --- RBBSMail/386 v1.0 * Origin: Who's Askin'? Matanuska-Susitna Valley, AK (1:17/75.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 173 NORML Ref: DCH00012 Date: 08/12/96 From: L P Time: 11:26am \/To: GUY GEORGE (Read 1 times) Subj: 1996 elections & Hemp(10) --==<<< Continued from previous message >>>==-- --- Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 * Origin: Who's Askin'? Matanuska-Susitna Valley, AK (1:17/75.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 173 NORML Ref: DCH00013 Date: 08/13/96 From: MIKE PHILLIPS Time: 01:47am \/To: ALL (Read 1 times) Subj: Seizure article * Originally By: RIC DUNCAN * Originally To: ALL * Originally Re: Seizure article * Original Area: PN: Washington, DC happenings * Forwarded by : Blue Wave v2.12 OS/2 From: BHaleinc@aol.com Subject: Chattanooga Free Press Prints Article On Forfeiture Chattanooga Free Press ~ Opinion ~ Sunday, August 11, 1996 Sunday Focus Page B7 Militant Forfeiture Apparatus Violates Law Forfeiture is a two-sided coin. On one side it is government taking from a crook his cash, Mercedes or condo because they are the fruit of his crime and he has lost his rights to own them. On the other side we see the cases of innocent owners losing cars, homes and businesses to police agencies after raids. For them, forfeiture describes the loss of rights as a consequence of some obligation or condition which somehow has attached itself to the dismayed property owner. Civil forfeiture proceedings all across the country are called "in rem proceedings" (in rem is Latin for "as things"), in which the federal, state or local government acts against a piece of property ~ an envelope of U.S. currency in an airline passenger's bag, for example ~ and separates it from its owner. Forfeiture actions which net millions of dollars for police agencies from thousands of people never charged with a crime are washing over the nation's property owners like a tidal wave. That increasing roar of police action reflects a similar tidal wave in the legal realm in which federal or "maritime" jurisdiction sloshes over into common law jurisdiction. Common law or natural law jurisdiction, long dominant in the 50 states, is the one presumed by our original Constitution to be the dominant law realm of the land in which the people live and relate. Common law suffered its major defeat in the War Between the States in the 1860's. War was waged against the states under Washington's martial law power. The District of Columbia was originally set up in maritime jurisdiction, allowing federal power to operate outside the continental United States. The war helped replace the civilized common law-oriented Constitution with a militant international law sphere. The pervasive claims of people working in this sphere of law allows for forfeiture against innocent owners who have no remedy except costly lawsuits. In the old days, forfeiture was legitimate only if the seized property came from crime. Now property may be seized at whim. The defenders of federal power that denies common law rights of the people in the 50 states argue that "necessity" rquires the spread of forfeiture. The legal doctrine of necessity is one always resorted to by despots. Is there any way we can rid ourselves of the plague by eliminating the necessity which despots claim? First, two unlikely options: The president can issue an executive order overturning the layers of martial law established under Reagan/Bush/Clinton and their predecessors. Or a foreign power could work to re-establish "civil" government. A possible third option would be for the people to establish what are called "jural societies." Such a society is formed when a group of likeminded people agree to form a governing body and adhere to its rule. Our national and state constitutions envision a process in which a sovereign citizenry forms a governing body or "jural society" starting at the local level. I think that the formation of such institutions could allow the people to have a legal standing to argue against the harsh aspects of the social-control and police-state apparatus. Forfeiture of houses, cars, acreage and currency is sadly a symptom of a larger forfeiture action which we can blame on the sin of omission by the American people. We have failed to keep the republic and restore it as it slipped away, and now we are surrounded on all sides by a democracy established under military-maritime jurisdiction disguised to appear "all normal." I am helping to develope the Internet Ecclesiastical Jural Society, which argues for a return to God's law as a way to bring renewal to America and eventually elevate common law reality over arbitrary maritime jurisdiction and the worldview that comes with it (e-mail: Saints@dabney.com). Remember Wallace's words in Braveheart: "Every man dies, not every man really lives." Burk Elder Hale III of Chickamauga, Ga., is national director of the Fully Informed Grand Jurors Alliance. End of Article * Patriot Information Mailing List (PIML) * -!- OLX 2.2 I want what the government wants; MY GUNS, MY FREEDOM! -!- GOMail v1.1 [92-0793] ! Origin: Texas Patriot BBS - Dallas TX (214)495-6699 (976:1777/1) --- FMail 1.0g * Origin: oOo The Pit Viper oOo (1:124/2145) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 173 NORML Ref: DCI00000 Date: 08/13/96 From: RICH WOODS Time: 12:5 am \/To: L P (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: Rules Etc In a message dated 11 Aug 96 09:22:02, L P wrote: GW> The questions are in relation to cultivation and GW> current laws in California. TE> Unfortunately, discussing cultivation would be against TE> the rule (thank-you mr. moderator for posting them again) Well I don't really consider it against the rules - it is a valid topic of conversation especially since the CBC bust of a couple days ago. As long as we keep the topic related to MEDICAL cultivation vis-a-vis the San Francisco situation. At this point even discussing it improperly could be considered "conspiracy to manufacture" or some such other bullshit. TE> I'm sure by a technicality we could discuss it's TE> cultivation in regards to medicinal benefits TE> or such..... I'm sure to! TE> ATTENTION MR. MODERATOR! TE> Where would we go to JUST discuss the cultivation of TE> Hemp for medicinal or recreational reasons?? Let's discuss it here - but keep it under the MEDICINAL tag - cultivation for recreational purposes might be a felony under US Federal law. (Except for Billy Boy Clinton snorting cocaine on the Oval Office desk). LP> This is the only place to do so that I am aware of. LP> Just recheck the rules regarding the recommendation to LP> use aliases and the manner in which you might want to If you feel an alias is something you are comfortable with by all means use it - I can understand the paranoia people may have using full real names. LP> discuss whatever information you want to discuss. I LP> wouldn't recommend posting anything here in a manner LP> that you wouldn't want to express yourself in front of LP> the police. But this shouldn't stop open discussion since At this point saying bong and bomb in the same sentence will probably get you a couple years. But use commen sense and discretion. --- DLG Pro v1.1u5/PDQMail v2.60 * Origin: I Didn't Inhale-Honest! Origin-White House, Washington DC (1:209/245) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 173 NORML Ref: DCJ00000 Date: 08/13/96 From: ROCKY FRISCO Time: 11:33pm \/To: L P (Read 1 times) Subj: 1996 Elections LP> The only candidate I can see who will champion ending the current LP> drug hysteria and prohibition is Harry Browne. This is consistent LP> with his promoting a nation that appreciates personal responsibility LP> and reducing government to its Constitutional boundaries. Harry LP> Browne is the candidate I can vote *for*. A vote for anyone else is LP> a wasted vote, unless you prefer a nation that continues to become LP> more and more like the authoritarian Soviet Union that was not so LP> long ago the "evil empire" that gave the U.S. meaning as a LP> purportedly free nation. I couldn't have said it any better. -Rock * RM 1.31 1542 * If we can pass a few more laws, we can all be criminals. --- (C) 1996 * Origin: Big Dreams Communications Exchange Center (1:170/609) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 173 NORML Ref: DCJ00001 Date: 08/12/96 From: GUY GEORGE Time: 08:09am \/To: MIKE PHILLIPS (Read 1 times) Subj: Zychik Zychik? Is that an Irish name? (Dang ferners... :-) Mike, this echo is for discussing hemp and it's various uses. One of the uses of hemp was to make a long lasting parchment upon which the Constitution was written. And...