--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1M00071 Date: 01/16/98 From: MIKE ANGWIN Time: 09:56am \/To: ROLAND BALKE (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: FIDO and political policy RB>I did not expect to see such a glaring threat to be so lightly taken. B RB>will be content to wait for further reactions. But not forever. My Syso RB>provided me with FIDO Policy files, and I shall peruse them. I would ST RB>recommend all the regular usership here to do likewise. Clearly this vi RB>has not, or this situation would not have arisen. Further, I will be wo RB>on AOL to open a backup FORLE if it becomes necessary, and contacting t RB>folks at Electronic Freedom Front for counsel. Roland, with all due respect, this all seems aweful hard core. I hae participated on a regular basis in the echo for many years and have always been both respectful and honest with everyone here. We do disagree on some issues, while agreeing on others, but we have always maintained both a friendly and honorable relationship. I am, at best, an insignifigant candidate and would be astonished to garner even 1% of the vote in the election and hardly look here for votes since there will be a conservative Republican running against me that will most certianly appeal to most of the posters her. My participation in this echo is purely recreational and always has been. I enjoy rasing questions and issues that might otherwise not be raised here, causing both others and myself to think about what we are saying and doing while studying the rationality of our own individual positions. As a result, I believe, we mutually benifit. It is sheer happanstance that the opportunity presented itself for me to run for Texas Attorney General and this happenstance in no way alters my perspectives nor, I hope, will it alter my friendships. /\/\ike --- RBBSMail/386 v0.997 * Origin: (713) 664-0002 Lightspeed Systems - 24hrs (1:106/7.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1M00072 Date: 01/16/98 From: MIKE ANGWIN Time: 01:53pm \/To: DAVID HARTUNG (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Gates vs Reno 01/ -=> Quoting Mike Angwin to Justin Baustert <=- MA> Changing subjects mid-stream...I looking for advice. I've just MA> done a strange thing and filed to run for Texas Attorney General this MA> coming fall. Since noone else in party has filed, if I get by the MA> state convention, it appears I will be on the ballot next November. MA> What I am looking for, starting with nothing, are recommendations MA> about what to do to run a respectable campaign. Any ideas? DH> Which party? I thought that you were a partisan of Texas independance. Very much so, but supporters of self-government in Texas run the gauntlet of the entire political spectrum. I happen to be a Libertarian since the LP most closely parallels my own political beliefs. Like everyone, of course, I have my own ideas and am occasionally at variance with controversial parts of the party platform with which I disagree, but overall the LP has been my political affiliation since the late 70s. Interestingly enough the Libertarian Party of Texas has a plank in it's state platform supporting independence and calling for a binding referrendum on the issue. However, I don't personally believe the question is that simple. First, there is no referrendum process under the current consitution and second there are other considerations that must be taken into account as stipulated in White vs. Texas by the U.S. Supreme Court. While I do support the concept of independence and do encourage open discussion on the issue, I also support following the lawful, constitutional process to achieve that goal should the desire ever become present for the people of Texas to pursue it. Unilateral action is simply not an option available to us legally. Still, be a Texan a Republican, or a Libertarian, or a Democrat, or a Reform Party supporter, there is no inherent conflict with the proposition of Texas independence so long as they recognize both the current state and federal consitutions and abide by the provisions established within them. Even an independent Texas would have political parties and a diverse array of views among the people. Mike Angwin --- RBBSMail/386 v0.997 * Origin: (713) 664-0002 Lightspeed Systems - 24hrs (1:106/7.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1M00073 Date: 01/16/98 From: MIKE ANGWIN Time: 01:59pm \/To: DAVID HARTUNG (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Libertarian Party -=> Quoting Robert Plett to David Hartung <=- DH> IOW, you do approve of the abolition of public education? RP> Absolutely, and I've said so in this forum several times. The sooner RP> the better, and that ain't soon enough. The public school system is RP> an engine of this country's destruction. DH> Hmm, let's see, no mandatory education, no public schools, this would DH> mean that those in school would be there because they wish an DH> education. What an interesting concept! Combine this with educational insitutions competing among one another for the best quality teachers and most innovative and productive approaches to education in a free market and...hey...the kids might actually find themselves learning something. /\/\ike --- RBBSMail/386 v0.997 * Origin: (713) 664-0002 Lightspeed Systems - 24hrs (1:106/7.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1M00074 Date: 01/17/98 From: MIKE ANGWIN Time: 02:16pm \/To: WAYNE THOMPSON (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Global warning WT> Mike was discussing "Global warning" with Janada. JO>Yep, we get sheered enough as it is. Although I always figured JO>our state animal was the longhorn steer...even if sometimes it JO>seems a bit light on the longhorn and heavy on the steer part JO>...kinda leaves us short on defense and/or testosterone. (sigh) WT>MA I always tended to prefer the armadillo meself... WT>It appears that through an act of the Texas State Legislature, the WT>armadillo is the Texas -=STATE BIRD=-!!! That story, actually, pre-dates the state and goes back to the days of the Republic, but it is indeed founded in truth. It seems that 1843, late in Houstons second term as President, Congress, the Senate, and the cabinet, including Houston, adjorned from their daily business and, as was the custom at the time, proceeded across the street to Emily Millers establishment for the usual entertainments of whiskey, gambling, and female accompanyment. Somehow, during the evening conversations, it came to the attention of several present that Texas had never officially recognized a national bird. The Eagle, of course, was immediately put forward but it was quickly pointed out that both the United States and Mexico had the eagle as their national bird and that Texas ought have something different. As the evening progressed the discussions became increasingly heated as the participants became increasingly inibreated. At one point the Raven, in honor of General Sam was almost selected, but with a city named after him, twice holding the presidency of the Republic, and all the hoopla he recieved from the late revolution, objections were raised that he had already gotten more than enough attention and the Raven was rejected. Somewhere around three AM, those present totally smashed by this time, someone, serious or not, proposed ther Armadillo. In the state of mind of the revelers the idea immediately caught on and it was decided to "just go ahead and do it!" Counting heads it was discovered a quorum of both the House and the Senate was present so both convened right there in Emily's house of ill repute, decalred the Armadillo the national bird of Texas, and then adjorned. Houston, reportedly passed out in a corner, was awakened just enough to hold a pen and sign the quickly drafted new bill into law. Oddly enough this happen the next to the last day of the next to last session of the Texas National Congress and when a vote was held the next day to repeal the grevious error, the required 2/3 majority of the Senate could not be found to repeal the new law. During the summer, with Congress out of session, the law was challanged before the Texas Supreme Court and Chief Justice Collingsworth, in one of hos more enlightened, albeit no doubt less sober, moments ruled that "all constitutional requirements have been met and without regard to the laws which govern nature, the laws which govern Texas decalre the Armidillo as the national bird of the Republic". It was the intent of the Congress to correct this with the forst session under Anson Jones, the new President of the Republic, but matter such as a treaty offer by Mexico, US troops occupying Corpus Christi, and ultimatley the Treaty between the United States and Texas dissolving the national government, took precedent. Therefore, to this day, with no power on Earth capable of altering the situation, the national bird of the Texas remains the Armadillo. /\/\ike Angwin --- RBBSMail/386 v0.997 * Origin: (713) 664-0002 Lightspeed Systems - 24hrs (1:106/7.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1M00075 Date: 01/17/98 From: MIKE ANGWIN Time: 03:19pm \/To: ROBERT CRAFT (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: The American Culture RC>EXACTLY! And *despite* the fact that German was nearly as RC>widespread a language as English, that Congress specifically RC>made NO provision for government operation in that second RC>language. The point is that English, as the language of operating government, is no more that a matter of convienence. Just as Engliah was once selected and is currently used, should circumstances ever change, it may be replaced by any other language just as easily. It ougth not be the role of a government, in a free society, to determine what language the people speak nor, in a representative government, mandate they must com,municate with their own representatives in any other language than the most convienent for the individual citizen. RC>That vote clearly indicates that the original intent of the RC>Founders was that government would operate in a SINGLE RC>language which would form a common connection among all RC>citizens. To now suggest that government adopt a second or RC>third language is clearly a violation of original intent. It only indicates to me that it was rational for elected and appointed officers of government to use a common language among themselves. It does not indicate to me that either the intent, or even the desire, was to mandate that all citizens be required to deal with their representative government in a language of that governments choice. /\/\ike --- RBBSMail/386 v0.997 * Origin: (713) 664-0002 Lightspeed Systems - 24hrs (1:106/7.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1M00076 Date: 01/17/98 From: MIKE ANGWIN Time: 03:40pm \/To: ROBERT CRAFT (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: The American Culture RC>Better check the Flag Code - you are in error. A state flag RC>is flown below Old Glory when both are flown on the SAME RC>pole. When flown on separate poles, Old Glory is flown in RC>the superior position - the right. The subordinate position RC>is on the left, even when flown at the same height. RC>Next argument? I would prefer to corrcet this one. It is inappropiate to fly the Texas flag on the same pole in a subordiante position to the US flag. While this may apply to other states, doing so violates proper protocol with the Lone Star and formally, it may only be flown alongside the United States flag on a pole of equal size, or equal height, and with a banner of equal measurement. The proper protocol does, indeed, defer the superior position to the US flag but only the position, nothing else. MA> Second, Texas reserves, and federal courts have recognized MA> the reserved right of Texas, to subdivide into as many as MA> five states if the desire is ever present. No other state MA> has this right. RC>Wrong. That is not unique to Texas. Not only is California RC>is even now entertaining that idea, but it has been RC>utilized by other states in the past. With congressional approval, however, Texas reserves that right unilaterally and requires no congressional approval. MA> If your argumement is, as you suggest, that once we were annexed MA> all former national rights were ceded, then hoiw can the purchase, by MA> the United States from Texas, of a third of our national territory in MA> 1850 be explained. If, as you suggest, Texas territory is American MA> territory, where would be the motive to compensate Texas for the loss MA> of half of New Mexico and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and MA> Nebraska? RC>Red herring - Texas re-entered the Union under current RC>conditions AFTER the Civil War - not in 1850. According to White vs. Texas (1868), which is still considered the definative Supreme Court decsision on secession, Texas never left the Union, the act of secession was unconstitutional, and therefore could not "re-enter". It never left. Therefore, all terms of agreements between our nations remain in effect. If you wish to take the alternative course and declare the Supreme Court in error and state that Texas did seceed, acknowledging the constitutional right to do so, then we are no more than a conquered nation under foreign occupation. Which is it? MA> [...snip...] Also, our own courts have ruled that Texas MA> cannot violate the bi-lingual provisions of our treaty even MA> if we ourselves desire to alter them. RC>Irrelvant until ruled upon by the Federal Supreme Court. It would be interesting to see that happen. Again you are left with a Catch 22 situation. If the Supreme Court declares our treaty null and void, then lawfully, we ought to revert to the position previous to the treaty which was a state of independence. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court recognizes the treaty and rules in favor of this position, we are accorded acknowledgement of all our independent rights under the treaty including the right of severance if we can demonstrate violations of the treaty by the United States. It would be quite interesting to hear that decision. RC>You've yet to produce any argument substantiating that RC>claim. Arguments are interesting things. Often revelance becomes the pawn of public opinion. Today, of course, litle of what I have to say has any value at all simply because there exists no strong motivation or desire on the part of Texans as a whole to move towards self-government. Tomorrow? Tomorrow is a different day and things considered irrevelent and incidental today may very well become important issue tomorrow. /\/\ike --- RBBSMail/386 v0.997 * Origin: (713) 664-0002 Lightspeed Systems - 24hrs (1:106/7.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1P00000 Date: 01/16/98 From: ROBERT PLETT Time: 01:15pm \/To: DAVID HARTUNG (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Voting?!?! On 01-14-98, DAVID HARTUNG declared to ROBERT PLETT: DH> RP> helpful to retaining majority? What good is a team that runs to the DH> RP> opponent's goal-line and scores for the opponent? DH> Robert, While she was specifically referring to the Republican party, DH> consider that the time may be right to field a completely new team. Thought that's what I'd been saying. Bob /\-/\ - proud Ilk homebody@galstar.com C.A.T. ( o o ) Chapter Ilks == ^ == Green Country - Oklahoma http://www.galstar.com/~homebody/ * SLMR 2.1a * USTP - the party of Constitutional original intent * Origin: Shadow of The Cat (1:170/1701.10) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1P00001 Date: 01/16/98 From: ROBERT PLETT Time: 01:19pm \/To: DAVID HARTUNG (Read 0 times) Subj: Legal types in office On 01-15-98, DAVID HARTUNG declared to ROBERT PLETT: DH> RP> Start reading - they forgot that long ago, as is so well illustrated DH> RP> by the following premises on which the Court operates as noted in ov. DH> RP> Fob James' letter to Judge Ira Dement, exerpted from a speech given y DH> RP> Justice William Brennan, Nov. 21, 1982: DH> Isn't Justice Brennan one of the more liberal members of the court? Yes, but his remarks describe the behavior of all courts in this country generally, including the Supreme Court. DH> RP> "The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what DH> RP> laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in DH> RP> their own sphere of action but for the legislature and executive DH> RP> also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch. DH> RP> To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all DH> RP> constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and DH> RP> one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.... DH> RP> The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal." DH> Sounds like it may be time to impeach a few justices. I've been saying that for some time. That it hasn't happened is one of the big complaints I have against Congress. Bob /\-/\ - proud Ilk homebody@galstar.com C.A.T. ( o o ) Chapter Ilks == ^ == Green Country - Oklahoma http://www.galstar.com/~homebody/ * SLMR 2.1a * Congress is supposed to defend the Constitution too. * Origin: Shadow of The Cat (1:170/1701.10) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1P00002 Date: 01/16/98 From: ROBERT PLETT Time: 08:13pm \/To: DAVID HARTUNG (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Religious costs. On 01-15-98, DAVID HARTUNG declared to ROBERT PLETT: DH> DH> Do you believe that those who follow non Christian faiths don't enjoy DH> DH> equal protection under our law? DH> RP> Of *course* they do! That fact has nothing whatever to do with the DH> RP> fact that ours is country established on the Christian faith, and whose DH> RP> laws incorporate the principles of that faith. DH> Good to hear it! I was beginning to wonder if you had slipped your DH> clutches, but then that is something all of us in this echo can be DH> accused of from time to time! :) Moi? It's apparently easy in discussions of this sort for folks to have problems distinguishing between government philosophical underpinnings, which is what I've been addressing, and lawmaking as regards religious establishments. The Constitution cannot be rightly understood without recognition of its grounding in Biblical beliefs, it's philosophical underpinning. Without that, it becomes completely fluid in its meaning as we have seen happen to our dismay and the erosion of our liberty. It is not a contradiction to insist government remain true to its foundation and openly and forthrightly acknowledge, honor, and submit to the God of the Bible, which it originally was designed to do, yet deny it the ability to make laws establishing a national church. Conscience CANNOT be compelled, and Biblical Christianity, which this nation was founded on, fully recognizes that fact, and is at the root of why freedom of conscience has always been such a fundamental and cherished concept in this country. Throw out our unique Christian heritage, and freedom of conscience gets tossed too. If anyone doubts that, all they need do is consider PC, and/or the status of free speech, most especially religious speech, in most any non-Christian or apostate country. Also, I think some folks get hung up on the word "respecting" in the First Amendment, some deliberately, misconstruing it completely. As used there, that word does NOT mean the federal government may not respect a particular religion, generalized Biblical Christianity in this instance, and conform itself to it. What it DOES mean is, that with respect to religion, the federal government is forbidden to make any laws establishing a national church, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, be it Christianity in any of its forms, or something else entirely. That prohibition, along with the specific statements that no religious test shall be a requirement for voting or holding public office, denys the federal government the ability to dictate compulsory membership and/or worship, and/or direct financial support of any religious institution (church), and/or make it a requirement for ownership of property or conducting business, all of which is what freedom of religion is about. When a president proclaims a national day of prayer for whatever reason, even if he calls upon the name of Christ in his proclamation, that is not a law establishing a religion, nor is there anything whatever compulsory about it, nor does it deny anyone their free exercise rights in connection with another religion or absence of one. Anti-Christian zealots, however, choose to ignore the free exercise part and attempt to do what the First Amendment specifically prohibits, which is to deny Christians that right, particularly any Christian in public office of any kind. Our Founding Fathers would never have stood for such for a moment. DH> DH> Question, suppose the State of Oklahoma were to make Shinto the DH> DH> official State religion, how would you react? DH> RP> I'd be upset about it and about the loss of our heritage, but that DH> RP> wouldn't make it unconstitutional. DH> That settles it! No way you could be a liberal, you are to consistent! DH> How could you possibly even consider using the word "liberal" in a sentence containing a reference to me? |-) Bob /\-/\ - proud Ilk homebody@galstar.com C.A.T. ( o o ) Chapter Ilks == ^ == Green Country - Oklahoma http://www.galstar.com/~homebody/ * SLMR 2.1a * Never try to outstubborn a cat. * Origin: Shadow of The Cat (1:170/1701.10) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1P00003 Date: 01/16/98 From: ROBERT PLETT Time: 02:01pm \/To: DAVID HARTUNG (Read 0 times) Subj: Libertarian Party On 01-15-98, DAVID HARTUNG declared to ROBERT PLETT: DH> RP> Absolutely, and I've said so in this forum several times. The sooner DH> RP> the better, and that ain't soon enough. The public school system is DH> RP> an engine of this country's destruction. DH> Hmm, let's see, no mandatory education, no public schools, this would DH> mean that those in school would be there because they wish an DH> education. What an interesting concept! Well, you know how us radicals are. Bob /\-/\ - proud Ilk homebody@galstar.com C.A.T. ( o o ) Chapter Ilks == ^ == Green Country - Oklahoma http://www.galstar.com/~homebody/ * SLMR 2.1a * narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life ... Matt 7:14 * Origin: Shadow of The Cat (1:170/1701.10)