[CTRL] Ziggurats for Danno...
-Caveat Lector- we the Ziggurat builders of the world are conspiring against you Danno. FWP. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:05:42 -0800 (PST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Future-Cities] Victory City From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Future-Cities list. See http://www.victorycities.com. Seems to be one of the city-in-one-building designs like the Ziggurats of Keesy and Shimizu or Bini's Tower City which would be built on shallow coastal seas. FWP. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 23:24:26 -0500 From: Orville Simpson 11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: W Poley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Victory City I received your E mail of Dec. l8, l998 but there was no message. Could this have been lost in transmission somehow? Please try again, as I will be interested in hearing from you. Orville Simpson To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. *** With world population increasing at almost 100,000,000/year what will cities of the next century and next millenium be like? *** DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Abortion Industry Conspiracy.
-Caveat Lector-
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 00:13:32 EST
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [prolife-l] Reo v. Wade Report '99, Issue 2
R O E V. W A D E R E P O R T
Sponsored by Roe v. Wade: 26 Years of Life Denied
http://www.prolife.org/rvw
Permission to forward granted provided this document remains intact.
--
DATELINE 1.6.99 -- 16 days until 26 Years of
Roe v. Wade becomes official.
In this issue we look at some common questions some have about abortion before
and after the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that allowed for abortion on
demand.
DIDN'T ILLEGAL ABORTIONS KILL THOUSANDS OF WOMEN?
Dr. Bernard Nathanson -- who was one of the original leaders of the American
pro-abortion movement and co-founder of N.A.R.A.L. (National Abortion Rights
Action League), and who has since become pro-life -- admits that he and others
in the abortion rights movement intentionally fabricated the number of women
who allegedly died as a result of illegal abortions.
"How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In
N.A.R.A.L. we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the
mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always "5,000 to
10,000 deaths a year." I confess that I knew the figures were totally false,
and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the
"morality" of the revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why
go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics. The overriding concern
was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason which had to be
done was permissible." [Source: Bernard Nathanson, M.D., Aborting America (New
York: Doubleday, 1979), 193.]
WHAT HAPPENED TO JANE ROE?
Norma McCorvey and Sandra Cano, the women whose Supreme Court cases (Roe vs.
Wade and Doe vs. Bolton respectively) made abortion legal on demand in the
U.S., both now oppose abortion.
In an interview on 8/10/95 with WBAP radio in Dallas, McCorvey announced, "I'm
pro-life. I think I've always been pro-life, I just didn't know it" (Reaves,
DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 8/11/95). McCorvey, claimed before Roe that she had been
raped, was 21 and pregnant when approached by attorney Sarah Weddington about
suing for the right to have an abortion. McCorvey never had an abortion,
because the decision came too late. She carried the baby to term and gave her
up for adoption. McCorvey later admitted that she had not been raped (ibid.,
8/11). ABC's "World News Tonight" and "Nightline" featured exclusive
interviews with McCorvey, in which she renounced her role in the abortion
advocacy movement and declared that "abortion is wrong."
"I think abortion is wrong. I think what I did with Roe vs. Wade was wrong,
and I just have to take a pro-life position on [abortion]" ("World News
Tonight," 8/10/95).
McCorvey spent time assisted the pro-abortion movement after the case by was
treated poorly by pro-abortion leaders and haunted by simple things like empty
swings in a playground." McCorvey: "They were swinging back and forth but they
were all empty. And I just totally lost it, and I thought 'Oh my God. are
empty because there's no children, because they've all been aborted'" ("World
News Tonight," 8/10/95).
From Norma McCorvey: "Abortion has been founded on lies and deception from the
very beginning. All I did was lie about how I got pregnant. I was having an
affair. It all started out as a little lie. I said what I needed to say. But,
my little lie grew and grew and became more horrible with each telling. Sarah
and Linda's (the pro-abortion attorneys in Roe) eyes seemed blinded to my
obvious inability to tell the same story twice. It was good for the cause. It
read well in the newspapers. With the help of willing media the credibility of
well-known columnists, the lie became known as the truth these past 25 years."
"I did not go to the Supreme Court on behalf of a class of women. I wasn't
pursuing any legal remedy to my unwanted pregnancy. I did not go to the
federal courts for relief. I went to Sarah Weddington asking her if she knew
how I could obtain an abortion. She and Linda Coffey said they didn't know
where to get one. They lied to me just like I lied to them. Sarah already had
an abortion. She knew where to get one. Sarah and Linda were just looking for
somebody, anybody, to further their own
agenda. I was their willing dupe. For this, I will forever be ashamed."
"But, my life has been restored to me, and I now have the privilege of
speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves." (Ibid.)
Cano: "I am against abortion. I never sought an abortion. I never had an
abortion. Abortion is murder. For over 20 years, and against my will, my name
has been synonymous with abortion. The Doe vs. Bolton case is based on deceit
and fraud. I never participated in this case. The
[CTRL] Totem and Taboo in Canada.
-Caveat Lector- Consistent with my earlier messages on "How I learned to love the hate laws and stop worrying" I don't think these hate laws go far enough. There should be plain language renditions of "Totem and Taboo" in Canada. Wry humour aside every society has a code of totem and taboo. Let's be very open on this one to the benefit of the entire global village. Who is at the top of Canada's totem? Who is at the bottom? Who cannot be criticized? Who can be criticized with impunity? Indeed is there a scapegoat class which is targeted by criticism and more (loss of career, employment, freedom etc.) with the encouragement of the government? And how shall we rehabilitate hate criminals given that truth is not a defense for a hate crime as the National Post article notes? Such a restriction plays havoc with cognitive therapies. How about conditioning therapies using cages of rats like those in Orwell's 1984? FWP. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 17:34:19 -0500 From: C-FAR [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FREE SPEECH UPDATE -- NATIONAL POST EDITORIAL -- "CAN WE TALK?" Can we talk? | Lead Editorial National Post | January 04, 1999 Is Canada ceasing to be a country in which people can speak their minds? In the last 10 years, political censorship has become solidly ensconced in our legal institutions. It has reached the point that many judges and academics have come to identify the censorship of offensive ideas as a human right of those they offend. This ideological drift toward enforced orthodoxy took clear form in 1990 when the Supreme Court of Canada decided R. v. Keegstra. In that case, the court upheld a federal hate speech law mandating imprisonment for certain individuals who "wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable minority group." Although the court conceded that the law was prima facie unconstitutional under the guarantee of freedom of expression in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it was deemed acceptable because it served such overarching government objectives as promoting Canada's multicultural identity and demonstrating society's disdain for hate mongering. In 1996, the Supreme Court took the campaign for ideological conformity to a higher level, with its decision in Attis v. Board of School Trustees. The case centred on the activities of Malcolm Ross, a New Brunswick school teacher who had authored various anti-Semitic publications. Despite an evidentiary fishing expedition that went back several decades, investigators found no evidence that Ross had conveyed his views to any of his students. Still, a New Brunswick Board of Inquiry concluded that Ross had indirectly produced a "poisoned environment" in the school; and it imposed a slew of remedial measures, including the extraordinary requirement that Ross be prevented from publishing any controversial material on pain of losing the non-teaching position to which he would now be relegated. Canada's highest court duly affirmed the finding of discrimination. The combined effect of these two decisions is profound. In defiance of a western free speech tradition that extends from John Stuart Mill's On Liberty through George Orwell's 1984, the court has handed government the right to suppress unpopular opinions. The Attis decision was particularly disturbing. Under this precedent, protection from hateful views is now conceived as a garden variety human right -- to be read into the plethora of generic non-discrimination provisions in our statute books at every level of government. Naturally, provincial human rights commissions have been eager to give teeth to this new orthodoxy. Their most recent victim was Fredericton mayor Brad Woodside, who was forced against his will to proclaim municipal recognition of a Gay Pride Weekend that, in the mayor's view, would arouse among his constituents neither pride nor gaiety. The board of inquiry that sat in judgment of Mr. Woodside, incidentally, was composed of one man -- Brian D. Bruce -- the same one man who produced the original Attis judgment in 1991. Is all of this censorship really necessary to stem the spread of hate in our society? American experience suggests it is not. In the last decade, American courts have struck down numerous university speech codes and municipal ordinances that enforced the strictures of political correctness. In the United States, people are now equally free to burn flags and crosses (though few choose to burn either). This does not mean Americans are less hostile to hate mongering than Canadians. It simply means they embrace free speech, the marketplace of ideas, and the belief that evil ideas are more likely to flourish under censorship and suppression than when exposed to the light of day. Unfortunately, in Canada, which is already a society saturated in public conformity, the trend is in the direction of more censorship. A November report indicates federal justice officials are contemplating a
