REPOSTS ON: 10-19-AD2005 Archived at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LLNews5
Out:07:04am
Join and check http://groups.yahoo.com/group/govtwatch4 for the BEST in the
latest headlines and news!
HTML Copies of this newsletter are in LLNews5 and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldcom
To be cut from more mai lings just email me back at this address
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since Yahoo ID's are sometimes DELETED, USE ABOVE EMAIL ADDRESS TO CORRESPOND
^ ^
SCIENTIST REVEALS: NASA VIDEO OF FOAM HITTING COLUMBIA LEFT WING WAS HOAXED...
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/Final_Evidence.html
Let's see if this one bounces at A-O-Hell
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 5:18 PM
Subject: AOL ALLOWS DHS SURVEILLANCE OF CUSTOMERS
http://interactive.usc.edu/
AOL Users Beware!
Posted by kellee , Friday, October 14, 2005 at 11:38
quoted from TBRNews.org via The Randi Rhodes Show
The American-based internet giant, AOL, wholly-owned by Time-Warner, has formed
a working partnership with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to permit
unlimited surveillance of the millions of AOL online members, according to a
report from the U.S. Department of Commerce.
AOL works closely with the DHS to supply information on any AOL customer and
allows agents from these entities free and unfettered access to AOL Hq at
Dulles, VA for the purpose of watching over and keeping surveillance on the
millions of AOL customers, according to the report.
The legal basis for this is the recently Congress-approved Patriot Act which
permits warrantless searches of persons and property. While information gleaned
from delving into personal computer messages is supposed to be kept
confidential, it appears that the DHS has exceeded their brief and obtained
what appears to be strictly personal information which is then circulated to
entities outside the DHS.
The Department of Commerce report also states that news of this surveillance
has leaked out and is causing serious concern in the American, and European,
business communities who are fearful that trade secrets may be given to other
business entities, considered as friendly to the Bush Administration.
---------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/govtwatch4/message/11725
Subject: Are we going to war with Iran? = Looks like the only hope is Military
MUTINY!!!
[Screeching Monkey Sentinel Network]
Stalking the SILENT PREDATORS.
Thousands of Colonials Gave Up their Tomorrows
so we could have ours as a Free People.
Shall we shame ourselves, by letting
all that we hold dear slip from us
without doing everything within our power to stop
the Planned Destruction of America? ~ Devy Kidd
From: http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd126.htm
"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote;
a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority;
the political function of rights is precisely
- to protect minorities from oppression by majorities
(and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)." ~ Ayn Rand
They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting
to die for one's country. But in modern war,
there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying.
You will die like a dog for no good reason: ~ Ernest Hemmingway
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§Â
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5312146-107865,00.html
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§Â
Are we going to war with Iran?
Dan Plesch evaluates the evidence pointing towards
a new conflict in the Middle East
Dan Plesch
Tuesday October 18, 2005
Guardian Unlimited
The Sunday Telegraph warned last weekend that the UN had a last
chance to avert war with Iran and, at a meeting in London last week,
the US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, expressed his regret
that any failure by the UN security council to deal with Iran
would damage the security council's relevance,
implying that the US would solve the problem on its own.
Only days before, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, had dismissed
military action as "Inconceivable" while both the American president
and his secretary of state had insisted war talk was not on the agenda.
The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have found
that Iran has not, so far, broken its commitments under the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty, although it has concealed activities before.
It appears that the UK and US have decided to raise the stakes
in the confrontation with Iran. The two countries persuaded
the IAEA board - including India - to overrule its inspectors,
declare Iran in breach of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT)
and say that Iran's activities could be examined
by the UN security council.
Critics of this political process point to the fact
that India itself has developed nuclear weapons
and refused to join the NPT, but has still voted
that Iran is acting illegitimately. On the Iranian side
there is also much belligerent talk and pop music
now proudly speaks of the nuclear contribution to Iranian security.
The timing of the recent allegations about Iranian intervention
in Iraq also appears to be significant. Ever since the US
refused to control Iraq's borders in April 2003,
Iranian backed militia have dominated the south and,
with under 10,000 soldiers amongst a population of millions,
the British army had little option but to go along.
No fuss was made until now.
As for the bombings of British soldiers, some sources familiar
with the US army engineers report that these supposedly
sophisticated devices have been manufactured inside Iraq
for many months and do not need to be imported.
But is the war talk for real or is it just sabre rattling?
The conventional wisdom is that for both military and political
reasons it would be impossible for Israel and the UK/US to attack
and that, in any event, after the politically damaging Iraq war,
neither Tony Blair nor George Bush would be able
to gather political support for another attack.
(REMEMBER that the ENTIRE 101st Airborn division has ALREADY been
pre-positioned just as military had been pre-positioned BEFORE 911 and the
attack on Iraq. EXPECT another 'terrorist' incident to justify their new
MURDERS!)
But in Washington, Tel Aviv and Downing Street,
if not the Foreign Office, Iran is regarded as a critical threat.
The regime in Tehran continues to demand the destruction
of the state of Israel and to support anti-Israeli forces.
In what appeared to be coordinated releases of intelligence
assessments, Israeli and US intelligence briefed earlier this year,
that while Iran was years from a nuclear weapons capability,
the technological point of no return was now imminent.
Shortly after the US elections, the vice-president,
Dick Cheney, warned that Israel might attack Iran.
Israel has the capability to attack Iranian targets with aircraft
and long-range cruise missiles launched from submarines,
while Iranian air defences are still mostly based
on 25-year-old equipment purchased in the time of the Shah.
A US attack might be portrayed as a more reasonable option
than a renewed Israeli-Islamic confrontation.
The US army and marines are heavily committed in Iraq,
but soldiers could be found if the Bush administration
were intent on invasion. Donald Rumsfeld has been reorganising
the army to increase front-line forces by a third.
More importantly, naval and air force firepower has barely been used
in Iraq. Just 120 B52 and stealth bombers could target 5,000 points
in Iran with satellite-guided bombs in just one mission.
It is for this reason that John Pike of globalsecurity.org
thinks that a US attack could come with no warning at all.
US action is often portrayed as impossible, not only
because of the alleged lack of firepower, but because
Iranian facilities are too hard to target.
In a strategic logic not lost on Washington,
the conclusion then is that if you cannot guarantee
to destroy all the alleged weapons, then it must be necessary
to remove the regime that wants them, and regime change
has been the official policy in Washington for many years.
For political-military planners, precision strikes on a few
facilities have drawbacks beyond leaving the regime intact.
They allow the regime too many retaliatory options.
Certainly, Iran's neighbours in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
who are worried about the growth of Iranian Shia influence in Iraq
would want any attack to be decisive.
>From this logic grows the idea of destroying the political-military
infrastructure of the clerical regime and perhaps encouraging
separatist Kurdish and Azeri risings in the north-west.
Some Washington planners have hopes of the Sunnis
of oil-rich Khuzestan breaking away too.
A New War may not be as politically disastrous in Washington
as many believe. Scott Ritter, the whistleblowing former
UN weapons inspector, points out that few in the Democratic party
will stand in the way of the destruction of those who conducted
the infamous Tehran embassy siege that ended Jimmy Carter's presidency.
Mr Ritter is one of the US analysts,
along with Seymour Hersh, who have led the allegations
that Washington is going to war with Iran.
For an embattled President Bush, combating the mullahs of Tehran
may be a useful means of diverting attention from Iraq
and reestablishing control of the Republican party
prior to next year's congressional elections.
>From this perspective, even an escalating conflict
would rally the nation behind a war president.
As for the succession to President Bush,
Bob Woodward has named Mr Cheney as a likely candidate,
a step that would be easier in a wartime atmosphere.
Mr Cheney would doubtless point out that US military spending,
while huge compared to other nations, is at a far lower percentage
of gross domestic product than during the Reagan years.
With regard to Mr Blair's position, it would be helpful to know
whether he has committed Britain to preventing an Iranian bomb
"come what may" as he did with Iraq.
· Dan Plesch is the author of The Beauty Queen's Guide to World Peace.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers
---------------------------------
From: Iron_Clay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 1 Iron & Clay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 5:45 PM
Subject: Russia queries 'political' motives of British newspaper report on
missiles
Followup to the story Subject: Lines now drawn ... Iran war next move.
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:28 ... From: Iron_Clay
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Now if Russia has actually sold or provided long-distance missile
technology to Iran, (that would also put Moscow within range) why would
they now be coming back with this very nice reply to the Sunday
Telegraph and people of UK and US ?
Doesn't it seem to be the type or reply that an innocent party would
produce?
Could it be that an upstanding news paper like the Sunday Telegraph
would sink so low as to deliberately propagate war?
Could this be an act of "International Terrorism" by the editors of this
Sunday Telegraph news paper?
I can tell you right now that according to the counter terrorist laws
this does constitute "Terrorism" by the editor of Sunday Telegraph.
Neal
Russia queries 'political' motives of British newspaper report on
missiles
By: AFP on: 18.10.2005
The ministry asked whether "the Sunday Telegraph article was not
politically commissioned. In that case, there is a clear question: who
commissioned it and who paid? The British newspaper should respond."
MOSCOW (AFP) Oct 18, 2005
Moscow angrily suggested Tuesday that a British newspaper report on
alleged Russian transfers of long-distance missile technology to Iran
may have been "politically commissioned."
The foreign ministry said in a statement that The Sunday Telegraph's
article quoting unnamed Western intelligence officers "aimed only at
creating a false impression in British and international society about
Russian policy in the area of missile non-proliferation."
Similar articles "unfortunately appear quite regularly in the Western
media."
The ministry asked whether "the Sunday Telegraph article was not
politically commissioned. In that case, there is a clear question: who
commissioned it and who paid? The British newspaper should respond."
This was the second high-level reaction to the article, which was
published Sunday, a day after US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
feuded openly with her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in Moscow over
Iran's nuclear programme.
On Monday, Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov called the article "delirium,
nonsense."
The article quoted unnamed sources as saying that the Russians were
middlemen in a multi-million-dollar (-euro) deal on secret missile
technology negotiated between Iran and North Korea in 2003.
"It has enabled Teheran to receive regular clandestine shipments of
top-secret missile technology, believed to be channelled through
Russia," the newspaper reported in a front-page article.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16102522.1129664064.Q1VOQMOa9dUAABVzUlg&manuel_call_cat=18&manuel_call_prod=63765&manuel_call_mod=afp&modele=jdc_inter
--
Visit my Website at ...
http://iron-clay.cloudnine.net.nz/one_world_government.html
See my "Why Come Out" page here ...
http://iron-clay.cloudnine.net.nz/why_come_out.html
But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet
to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of
them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold
the watchman accountable for his blood." - Eze 33:6
To be added to future mailings place "Please add" in the subject line.
To be removed from future mailings place "REMOVE" in the subject line.
and email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 1:34 PM
Subject: Fitzgerald Indictments against Cheney (Cheney's office) could come
tomorrow (please post widely)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/10/18/wash-post-cheneys-offic_n_9073.html
Check out the last two pages of posts via the following URL:
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=38213&start=50
---------------------------------
News Updates from Citizens for Legitimate Government
18 October 2005
http://www.legitgov.org/
http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news
Cheney resignation rumors fly 18 Oct 2005 Sparked by today's Washington Post
story that suggests Vice pResident Cheney's office is involved in the Plame-CIA
spy link investigation, government officials and advisers passed around rumors
that the vice pResident might step aside and that President [sic] Bush would
elevate Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Cheney Office Is Focus in Probe --Sources Cite Role of Feud With CIA 18 Oct
2005 As the investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's name hurtles to an
apparent conclusion, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has zeroed in on
the role of Vice pResident Cheney's office, according to lawyers familiar with
the case and government officials. The prosecutor has assembled evidence that
suggests Cheney's long-standing tensions with the CIA contributed to the
unmasking of operative Valerie Plame.
Address to receive newsletter: http://www.legitgov.org/#subscribe_clg
Please write to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] for inquiries. lrp/mdr
CLG Newsletter editor: Lori Price, General Manager. Copyright © 2005, Citizens
For Legitimate Government ® All rights reserved. CLG Founder and Chair is
Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D.
---------------------------------
(The TIMING of this thing could lead to events happening on the OCCULT holiday
of 'HALLOWEEN'!! Backing SATANISTS like Bush and Cheney into a corner, you
have to EXPECT them to pull every dirty trick to avoid JUSTICE!)
Freedom America NOW E-List - News and Views >From New Babylon
The beast is loose in Bethlehem and the rats are in the corn.
Look up... for your redemption draweth nigh!
++++++Jesus Christ is the Answer, Check it out.++++++
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/19/politics/19leak.html?hp&ex=1129694400&en=adcf3adabff56617&ei=5094&partner=homepage
No Final Report Seen in Inquiry on C.I.A. Leak
WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 - The special counsel in the C.I.A. leak case has told
associates he has no plans to issue a final report about the results of the
investigation, heightening the expectation that he intends to bring
indictments, lawyers in the case and law enforcement officials say.
The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, is not expected to take any action in
the case this week, government officials said. A spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald,
Randall Samborn, declined to comment.
A final report had long been considered an option for Mr. Fitzgerald if he
decided not to accuse anyone of wrongdoing, although Justice Department
officials have been dubious about his legal authority to issue such a report.
By signaling that he had no plans to issue the grand jury's findings in such
detail, Mr. Fitzgerald appeared to narrow his options either to indictments or
closing his investigation with no public disclosure of his findings, a choice
that would set off a political firestorm.
With the term of the grand jury expiring Oct. 28, lawyers in the case said they
assumed Mr. Fitzgerald was in the final stages of his inquiry.
The focus of Mr. Fitzgerald's inquiry has remained fixed on two senior White
House aides, Karl Rove, who is President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief
of staff, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., who is Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of
staff. Both had conversations with reporters about a C.I.A. officer whose name
was later publicly disclosed.
It is not clear whether Mr. Fitzgerald has learned who first identified the
C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, to the syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak in
July 2003.
Some of the lawyers in the case say Mr. Fitzgerald seems to be wrestling with
decisions about how to proceed, leaning toward indictments but continuing to
weigh thousands of pages of documents and testimony he has compiled during the
nearly two-year inquiry.
In recent days, Mr. Fitzgerald has repeatedly told lawyers in the case that he
has not made up his mind about criminal charges.
Mr. Fitzgerald has been investigating whether administration officials
deliberately disclosed Ms. Wilson's identity - she is also known by her maiden
name, Valerie Plame - in response to criticism by her husband, Joseph C. Wilson
IV, of the administration's use of intelligence about Iraq's weapons programs
before the invasion.
Some lawyers in the case had expressed hope that a final report would provide
Mr. Fitzgerald with a vehicle to disclose his investigative findings even if he
absolved anyone of wrongdoing. Democrats in Congress had also expressed a
desire for such a report, apparently hoping it would offer fresh details about
the administration's actions.
(This is CRAP! They KNOW what their actions have been and SUPPORT THEM!)
Any decision will be announced in Washington and not in Chicago, where Mr.
Fitzgerald is the United States attorney, Justice Department officials said.
In his daily news briefing, Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary,
said Tuesday that a successful completion to the inquiry would be one in which
Mr. Fitzgerald would "determine the facts and then outline those facts for the
American people."
Asked if that meant the White House would favor a public report if there were
no indictments, Mr. McClellan said that the decision was Mr. Fitzgerald's, but
that "we would all like to know what the facts are."
Such a report could not only show where evidence failed to result in criminal
charges, but also make recommendations for changes in law, disciplinary actions
or criticize the conduct of public officials whose actions did not rise to the
level of criminal behavior.
Given the political ramifications attached to Mr. Fitzgerald's decisions,
officials at the White House have begun discussing what would happen if Mr.
Rove was indicted.
Among the names being discussed to take some of Mr. Rove's responsibilities
should he have to step aside, an outside adviser to the White House said, are
Dan Bartlett, currently Mr. Bush's counselor; Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the
Republican National Committee; and Robert M. Kimmitt, the deputy Treasury
secretary.
Under Justice Department regulations, it is not clear whether Mr. Fitzgerald
has the authority to issue a final report, even if he wanted to, although he
has operated under a broad delegation of authority, issued in a pair of letters
by James B. Comey, the former deputy attorney general. Those directives gave
Mr. Fitzgerald virtually the same power as the attorney general to conduct
criminal inquiries.
But even the attorney general is restricted in what information he can release
publicly or present to Congress when it has been obtained, as Mr. Fitzgerald
has gathered it, through extensive use of a grand jury, whose proceedings are
secret. Even so, some lawyers have argued that Mr. Fitzgerald could issue such
a report and have said there is general authority to report his findings if
they are requested by Congress.
Without a report, it seems likely that questions about the case may remain
unanswered and that a complete account of the administration's activities might
never be known, including the details of testimony by the scores of
administration officials who were interviewed in the inquiry.
The likelihood that crucial details might be kept secret would be increased if
Mr. Fitzgerald brings charges that are narrowly focused on perjury, false
statement or obstruction of justice counts involving misstatements by officials
in their testimony. But he has also examined broader potential violations,
among them whether there was an illegal effort, directed by senior officials,
to disclose Ms. Wilson's identity.
Officials who testified or were questioned by investigators also included John
Hannah, Mr. Cheney's principal deputy national security adviser.
____________________________________________________________
"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel
alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law."
...Frederic Bastiat
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
...A general introduction to psychoanalysis: by Prof. Sigmund Freud
"The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head.
Put it in his hand and it's good-bye to the Bill of Rights."
...H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) American Journalist
"We're completely surrounded. That simplifies the problem."
...Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller, USMC
"Lock And Load!" ...Southeast Asia - 1967
MOLON LABE
---------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gun Owners of America" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 2:02 PM
Subject: Trigger Locks: Here They Come Again
> URGENT! URGENT! URGENT!
>
> Change In Status Of Gun Bill
> -- Immediate calls needed to your Representative
>
> Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
> 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
> Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
> http://www.gunowners.org
>
> Monday, October 17, 2005
>
>
> Last week, a bill containing a mandatory trigger lock requirement
> looked to be dormant on Capitol Hill. The prevailing wisdom was that
> the bill was dead for the year.
>
> However, given the mercurial nature of legislation and legislative
> bodies, one can never be certain of what is going to happen as long
> as Congress is in session. One event that can always shake up the
> legislative calendar is experiencing a leadership change -- such as
> when pro-gun House Majority Leader Tom DeLay stepped down from his
> position recently.
>
> What we do know at this point is that the bill is before the Rules
> Committee today, and will most likely reach the House floor sometime
> this week.
>
> The underlying bill would help protect the firearms industry from
> frivolous lawsuits brought by cities, municipalities, and radical
> anti-gun interest groups.
>
> Unfortunately, the bill was amended on the Senate floor in July by
> anti-gun Democrat Senator Herb Kohl (WI), who added language
> requiring licensed gun dealers to supply a trigger lock device with
> every handgun sold.
>
> House leadership is now being pressured to quickly adopt the Senate
> version of the bill instead of taking up its own bill, which contains
> no gun control.
>
> While it is imperative that the Congress pass legislation to protect
> the firearms industry, this bill should not be used as a vehicle for
> a misguided gun control proposal.
>
> The Kohl amendment would effectively impose a "gun tax" on all
> handgun purchases.
>
> Worse, the amendment leads gun owners to the verge of mandatory
> trigger lock usage, which would actually endanger lives by rendering
> self-defense firearms useless. While the amendment does not require
> that gun owners use trigger locks at this point, it is easy to see
> how trigger locks, like automobile seatbelts or motorcycle helmets,
> can quickly become compulsory.
>
> Mandatory trigger locks has long been part of the agenda of anti-gun
> zealots. Though masquerading as a modest step, the amendment will
> inevitably serve as a stepping-stone to more onerous legislation.
>
> The House bill, introduced by Florida Congressman Cliff Stearns,
> could potentially help protect the gun industry, but it would do so
> without saddling American gun owners with yet another gun control
> law.
>
> H.R. 800, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, garnered
> well over 250 cosponsors and would pass the House easily if the
> leadership would bring up this bill rather than its Senate
> counterpart. In that case, the bill would either go to a joint
> House-Senate conference, where the different bills would be
> reconciled, or back to the Senate, forcing that chamber to either
> pass a clean bill or explain to voters their refusal to protect the
> beleaguered gun industry.
>
> ACTION: Please ask your Representative to urge the House leadership
> to take up H.R. 800, which contains no gun control proposals, rather
> than its Senate counterpart. As GOA is the only national gun lobby
> insisting on a completely clean bill, it would be very helpful if
> you would circulate this alert widely throughout the pro-gun
> community.
>
> You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
> http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative a
> pre-written e-mail message such as the one below.
>
> Or, you can call your Representative toll-free at 877-762-8762.
>
>
> --- Pre-written letter ---
>
> Dear Representative:
>
> I am saddened that the House is on the verge of passing gun control
> in the name of protecting the gun industry. The House should ditch
> S. 397 and use its own bill, H.R. 800, instead.
>
> H.R. 800, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, garnered
> well over 250 cosponsors and would pass the House easily if the
> leadership would bring up this bill rather than its Senate
> counterpart.
>
> But S. 397 is gun control pure and simple. The Kohl trigger lock
> amendment would effectively impose a "gun tax" on all handgun
> purchases. Worse, the amendment leads gun owners to the verge of
> mandatory trigger lock usage, which would actually endanger lives by
> rendering self-defense firearms useless.
>
> While the amendment does not require that gun owners use trigger
> locks at this point, it is easy to see how trigger locks, like
> automobile seatbelts or motorcycle helmets, can quickly become
> compulsory.
>
> Mandatory trigger locks has long been part of the agenda of anti-gun
> zealots. Though masquerading as a modest step, the amendment will
> inevitably serve as a stepping-stone to more onerous legislation.
>
> Please tell the Speaker and the Majority Leader of the House that S.
> 397 is unacceptable to gun owners. Instead, send H.R. 800 to the
> Senate or tack it on as an amendment to some "must pass"
> legislation.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> ****************************
>
> Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will
> bounce back as undeliverable.
>
> To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to
> http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail
> address may also be made at that location.
>
> To unsubscribe send a message to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in
> the subject line or use the url below.
>
> Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] is at your disposal. Please do not add that
> address to distribution lists sending more than ten messages per
> week or lists associated with issues other than gun rights.
>
> ---
> If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please visit
> http://capwiz.com/gunowners/lmx/u/?jobid=60773107.
---------------------------------
EVERY CHRISTIAN & EVERY CONSERVATIVE SHOULD DROP AOL NOW !!!
Note: to reconstitute address below put 3 W's on front & replace ~ with a period
~tbrnews~org/Archives/a1902~htm#002
AOL Descending into Darkness
DHS and AOL: An Unholy Alliance
October 3, 2005
by Martin McKinney
The Financial Reporter (U.K.)
Washington- The American-based internet giant, AOL, wholly-owned by
Time-Warner, has formed a working partnership with the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security to permit unlimited surveillance of the millions of AOL
online members, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Commerce.
AOL works 'closely with the DHS' to supply information on any AOL customer and
allows agents from these entities 'free and unfettered' access to AOL Hq at
Dulles, VA for the purpose of 'watching over and keeping surveillance' 'on the
millions of AOL customers,' according to the report.
The legal basis for this is the recently C ongress-approved Patriot Act which
permits warrantless searches of persons and property. While information gleaned
from delving into personal computer messages is supposed to be kept
confidential, it appears that the DHS has exceeded their brief and obtained
what appears to be strictly personal information which is then circulated to
entities outside the DHS.
The Department of Commerce report also states that news of this surveillance
has leaked out and is causing serious concern in the American, and European,
business communities who are fearful that trade secrets may be given to other
business entities, considered as ?friendly? to the Bush Administration.
+++
AOL Madness (Warn Your Friends)
AOL is at it again. This time, it's reading *inside* its members'
emails, and preemptively blocking any messages that contain links to
sites that AOL doesn't want you to see.
Note: I'm *not* talking about simple mail blocks, where a mail is
discarded if it originates from a "forbidden" address. No: AOL is
parsing the content of its members' emails and blocking them even if
they merely *mention* a site that AOL disapproves of.
This happened to my last newsletter issue, when I mentioned a perfectly
valid and inoffensive link: ~codeproject~com . It turns out
that last summer, in July, AOL put that site on its naughty list for
some unexplained reason, and ever since has blocked all emails that even
contain a link to that address.
When my list-host noticed huge numbers of AOL
emails bouncing back, they preemptively sought to find out why, and the
folks at AOL then removed the block--- on that one address.
AOL's mail system is just this side of insane. Not only does it read
inside member emails for links that AOL doesn't like, but--- as we've
reported before--- if AOL members get a little lazy and block a
newsletter like this one, instead of unsubscribing, AOL keeps track of
the blocks. Last time I looked, if as few as 10 readers took the lazy
way out of stopping a mailing, AOL would assume that the mail in
question was spam. In my case, if just 10 AOL users out of 160,000
readers--- that's 0.00006 of my readers--- took the lazy way off the
list, all AOL subscribers would have their legitimate issues blocked for
some time thereafter.
AOL's user-level mail filters are nearly useless because the master
filters discard emails before they ever make it to the users' mailboxes
and the local filters there. That means AOL members can white-list
senders to their heart's content but it will have no effect at all on
the pre-filtering that's done by AOL before their mail ever gets
delivered. AOL's user-level mail controls are a little like those fake
thermostats you sometimes see in office buildings that are meant to give
occupants the illusion of local control, when in reality, a central
system is making all the real decisions.
Noted tech writer Brian Livingston also has been struggling with this,
as he reported. Just look at the jaw-dropping failure rates he found:
I've written many times that Internet service providers (ISPs)
are mishandling the growing menace of spam by imposing crude
"junk-mail filters" that delete legitimate messages without
notifying the intended recipients of that fact.
...AOL "bounced" about 88% of the newsletters that had been
sent to subscribers who use aol.com e-mail addresses. The
problem was also severe at subsidiaries owned by AOL,
including cs.com (which bounced 88%) and netscape.net (96%).
...[AOL's] filter simply deletes huge quantities of mail
without ever delivering it...
(click link above for full article)
If you have friends on AOL, you may wish to tell them about this so they'll
know why their email is
so unreliable. Of course, there's no guarantee they'll see your email,
just as there's no guarantee that legitimate subscribers to this
newsletter on AOL will get this issue....
But there's a glimmer of hope: For the first time ever, AOL's
membership has started to shrink significantly. Users are finally
realizing they can get better service at lower costs from other ISPs.
Perhaps if enough members vote with their dollars, AOL will wake up
and meaningfully change its Big Brother-ish ways.
+++++++
AOL settles deceptive business practice probe by Eliot Spitzer's office
Internet service provider pays $1.25 million over questionable customer service
practices
August. 24, 2005
AP
ALBANY, N.Y. - America Online Inc., the world's largest Internet service
provider, will pay $1.25 million in penalties and costs and reform some of its
customer service practices to settle an investigation by Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer's office.
Around 300 consumers had filed complaints with Spitzer's office accusing AOL, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Time Warner Inc., of ignoring demands to cancel
service and stop billing.
The company, with 21 million subscribers nationally, rewarded employees who
were able to retain subscribers who called to cancel their Internet service.
For years, AOL had minimum retention or "save" percentages customer service
personnel were expected to meet, investigators said.
The employees could earn tens of tho usands of dollars in bonuses if they were
able to dissuade half of their callers from ending service.
That led many employees to make it difficult for consumers to cancel service or
simply ignore such requests, Spitzer spokesman Brad Maione said.
As part of the settlement, Dulles, Va.-based AOL agreed to eliminate any
requirements that its customer service representatives maintain a minimum
number of "saves" in order to earn a bonus, a policy in place at "various times
since 2000" and record all service cancellation requests. It will verify the
cancellation through a third-party monitor, investigators said.
"This agreement helps ensure that AOL will strive to keep its customers through
quality service, not stealth retention programs," Spitzer said in a statement.
AOL, which cooperated with Spitzer's office, did not admit to any wrongdoing in
the settlement.
The company also agreed to provide up to four months of refunds to all New York
consumers who claim their cancellation requests were ignored. AOL has 1.9
million subscribers in New York.
New York consumers seeking refunds can obtain a claim form from the attorney
general's Web site.
"AOL is pleased to have reached an agreement with the state of New York on
customer care practices that will increase quality assurance, and assist with
the verification of certain member intentions online," said AOL spokesman
Nicholas Graham.
The company in April agreed to pay $75,000 for costs and make refunds to a
"small number" of customers in Ohio after reaching a settlement with that
state's attorney general, Graham said.
In September 2003, America Online agreed to improve the way it deals with
customers who want to cancel their Internet service to resolve federal
allegations that the company used unfair billing practices. The Federal Trade
Commission settlement also required AOL and its subsidiary, CompuServe
Interactive Services Inc., to keep promises for delivering rebates for online
services.
+++
Why AOL EMail Stinks
October 6, 2005
by Blanche Evans
Realtors using AOL aren't getting the service they deserve.
In order to enjoy the numerous features of America Online, one of the largest
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the world, many Realtors have chosen AOL
as their ISP for business use as well as personal use. Enticed by such lures as
free trials, chat rooms, and Web centers, including a large real estate center
powered by Realtor.com, Realtors are justifiably attracted to such a
feature-rich, easy-to-use ISP.
Internet trainers such as Michael Russer, Allen F. Hainge and Saul Klein, among
others, routinely advise Realtors to avoid using AOL email for business
purposes
According to Russer and Hainge, the problem lies in the functionality of the
email software. Russer has stated numerous times in training seminars across
the country that AOL is not a business ISP. Hainge agrees. "AOL is not a
businessperson's email ," he says. "in that it is too limited in what it can do
from a marketing standpoint (signatures, filters, separate mailboxes, etc.).
You need an ISP, not AOL, for your email."
Klein, who operates a large ListServe called InternetCrusade, says that AOL has
problems specifically with email management. Over the past 5 months
InternetCrusade has documented over 30 cases where long time RealTalk members
have failed to receive the RealTalk-Digest.
Repeated attempt to correct the disappearing digests through the AOL postmaster
have yielded no results, says Klein. "AOL insists the problem is on YOUR end."
He quotes the AOL Postmaster reply "the end user has obviously made changes in
their preferences to block the email."
"Their reasoning is that if some of us are getting the Digest, then all of us
should be getting the digest unless 'we' made a change," says a frustrated
Klein.
"AOL's mail manager is primitive," he says. "When you go to mailbox, I ha ve to
click on it and open the email. That takes a couple of seconds. And if that
doesn't sound like much, and I am sending out a lot of emails, the time adds up
if your are sending or receiving and you have to open every one. It has email
limitations, attachment size limitations, attachment problems, multiple
attachment issues on pre-4.0 versions, and an AOL return address even if you
own your own domain.
"AOL is an "edutainment" Internet ISP," Outlining the problems, Klein
continues, "I can tell you that as far as problems with email size limitations,
that the allowed size isn't very big. AOL will turn "big" emails into an
attachment. It is one thing to download an attachment when somebody sends you
an email or with a document attached to it...it's another thing and frustrating
when you send an email and you don't attach anything and AOL makes it an
attachment. You'll get an email that requires extra steps to read it.
"Another problem is that some emails se nt to AOL addresses aren't ever
received. We have 7,000 Realtors on our email ListServes. Certain of those
people, including my wife, have been mysteriously not receiving email. What
they have in common is that they are all American Online users."
Scott Davis, a partner and Webmaster with Realty Times, has noticed a similar
pattern of email failure with agents who have signed up to receive Daily
Headlines. He says there are a number of reasons why an email could fail to be
delivered. "A mailbox could be full, the server could be busy, or the server
could be down. You have to look at the error messages and see if the problem is
on your end or AOL's end. The problem we are seeing is that the AOL servers
seem to be accepting the mail from the sender, but the intended recipient never
just receives it. This appears to be a problem on AOL's end. What makes this
problem so bad is that the sender gets no indication that their email was not
received."
Klein says, "The y (AOL) have told us that our Real Talk subscribers may have
changed their settings and that is why they aren't receiving the ListServe. But
my wife and I didn't change any settings and I stopped receiving my own email
on my own account!"
"As a Realtor, I have to wonder, if AOL rejects that mail, what other mail is
it rejecting? I would be concerned if I were depending on AOL for my business
communications," warns Klein.
Klein believes another problem exists in the communication AOL has with other
servers. "If I wanted to send a word document and I'm not on AOL, when you try
to open the attachment it will be unintelligible. Encryption is the problem and
that is because AOL has its own protocols, so people receive attachments that
they can't read.
>From a marketing standpoint, Klein believes using AOL is a mistake for
>Realtors. AOL doesn't provide an email forwarding service and any email I send
>from AOL will always have an AOL return address. So you ca n't personalize the
>email.
AOL is a big part of the market and can't be ignored. About 60% of Real Talk's
subscribers are on AOL. Davis estimates about 20% of Realty Times subscribers
are. So what are the alternatives?
Davis explains you have to sign up with another ISP in order to get a POP based
email account. POP stands for Post Office Protocol, the Internet standard email
protocol. POP accounts can be accessed from almost any email client software,
including Microsoft Outlook Express and Netscape Communicator. Some ISPs also
offer Web access to your email account. An email address comes with these
accounts, but most ISPs will allow you to forward your email and allow you to
set up your own domain name and use it for your new account.
"The most important thing is no long distance charges. Get an ISP with local
numbers all over the country."
Klein adds, "By adding a POP account from another ISP and keeping your AOL
account, you (and perhaps your family) can enjoy the functionality and
community of AOL and have more flexibility in managing your electronic business
communications. I like Outlook Express. It is free with your Internet Explorer
browser. The Netscape browser package is also free."
> [Original Message]
> From: rhipmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:>
> Date: 10/14/2005 7:54:15 PM
> Subject: ALERT!!!!!!: DHS and AOL: An Unholly Alliance - PLEASE CIRCULATE!
> IMPORTANT!
>
>
> >> Subject: ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!: DHS and AOL: An
> >> Unholly Alliance - PLEASE CIRCULATE! IMPORTANT!
> >>
> >> It will be interesting to see if this goes through
> >> to people on my list who
> >> have AOL. Usually items with something pertaining
> >> to AOL or anything they
> >> choose to censor bounces back to me and there is no
> >> wa y for me to get it
> >> through to them.
> >>
> >>
> >> DHS and AOL: An Unholy Alliance
> >> Washington- The American-based internet giant, AOL,
> >> wholly-owned by
> >> Time-Warner, has formed a working partnership with
> >> the U.S. Department of
> >> Homeland Security to permit unlimited surveillance
> >> of the millions of AOL
> >> online members, according to a report from the U.S.
> >> Department of Commerce.
> >> Posted Oct 12, 2005 08:02 AM PST
> >> Category: DICTATORSHIP
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> TBRNews.org
> >>
> >>
> >> DHS and AOL: An Unholy Alliance
> >>
> >> October 3, 2005
> >> by Martin McKinney
> >> The Financial Reporter (U.K.)
> >>
> >> Wash ington- The American-based internet giant, AOL,
> >> wholly-owned by
> >> Time-Warner, has formed a working partnership with
> >> the U.S. Department of
> >> Homeland Security to permit unlimited surveillance
> >> of the millions of AOL
> >> online members, according to a report from the U.S.
> >> Department of Commerce.
> >>
> >> AOL works closely with the DHSb to supply
> >> information on any AOL
> >> customer and allows agents from these entities
> >> free and unfettered
> >> access to AOL Hq at Dulles, VA for the purpose of
> >> watching over and
> >> keeping surveillance on the millions of AOL
> >> customers, according to
> >> the report.
> >>
> >> The legal basis for this is the recently
> >> Congress-approved Patriot A ct which
> >> permits warrantless searches of persons and
> >> property. While information
> >> gleaned from delving into personal computer messages
> >> is supposed to be kept
> >> confidential, it appears that the DHS has exceeded
> >> their brief and obtained
> >> what appears to be strictly personal information
> >> which is then circulated to
> >> entities outside the DHS.
> >>
> >> The Department of Commerce report also states that
> >> news of this surveillance
> >> has leaked out and is causing serious concern in the
> >> American, and European,
> >> business communities who are fearful that trade
> >> secrets may be given to
> >> other business entities, considered as friendly
> >> to the Bush
> >> Administration.
> >>
> > ;>
> >>
> >
> >
> > * * * * * *
> > "People seldom do what they believe in.
> > They do what is convenient, then repent."
> > - Bob Dylan
> > * * * * * *
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
(These are 'FEAR TACTICS' to keep the sheep quivering in FEAR and BOWING to the
tyrants in charge.)
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 2:40 PM
Subject: To Serve And Protect - Ohio Police Arrest Woman For $1 In Unpaid Taxes
Freedom America NOW E-List - News and Views >From New Babylon
The beast is loose in Bethlehem and the rats are in the corn.
Look up... for your redemption draweth nigh!
++++++Jesus Christ is the Answer, Check it out.++++++
Ohio Cops Ruthlessly Stamp Out Crime!
"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel
alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law."
...Frederic Bastiat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One sheriff approached my car with his hand on his gun," she said. "Another
from the other side of the car leaned in and said, 'Are you Deborah Combs?'
He said, 'We have a warrant for your arrest.' I was absolutely shocked."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.local6.com/money/5093711/detail.html
Ohio Police Arrest Woman For $1 In Unpaid Taxes
UNPAID TAX BILL
Video: Police Arrest Woman Over $1 In Unpaid Taxes
Unfiled City Tax Forms Also Cited In Case
POSTED: 9:59 am EDT October 13, 2005
UPDATED: 12:09 pm EDT October 13, 2005
LOVELAND, Ohio -- An Ohio woman was arrested after she didn't pay just more
than $1 that she owed in income taxes, WLWT-TV in Cincinnati reported.
Deborah Combs owed the city of Loveland $1.16 last year, but she also hadn't
filed her city income tax forms in five years, the television station said.
She said officers pulled her over and acted as though she were a violent
criminal.
"One sheriff approached my car with his hand on his gun," she said. "Another
from the other side of the car leaned in and said, 'Are you Deborah Combs?' He
said, 'We have a warrant for your arrest.' I was absolutely shocked."
Combs said she thinks the arrest and charges are over-the-top for the amount
she owed.
"What they've spent in stamps is more than what I owe," she said.
She could also end up paying hundreds of dollars in fines for the unfiled tax
forms, the television station reported.
Loveland City Manager Fred Enderle said the amount Combs owes isn't the real
issue.
"Whether it's $1 they owe us or $1,000, it's not fair to the rest of the public
to not pursue that person," he said. "There is some expense involved, but it
goes back to the principle. We have laws. The laws have to be complied with. At
what cost do you stop enforcing the law?"
Combs is scheduled to appear in court Oct. 20.
____________________________________________________________
"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel
alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law."
...Frederic Bastiat
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
...A general introduction to psychoanalysis: by Prof. Sigmund Freud
"The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head.
Put it in his hand and it's good-bye to the Bill of Rights."
...H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) American Journalist
"We're completely surrounded. That simplifies the problem."
...Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller, USMC
"Lock And Load!" ...Southeast Asia - 1967
MOLON LABE!
---------------------------------
Woman With $1.16 Tax Bill Faces Jail Time
LOVELAND, Ohio (Oct. 17) - A woman who hasn't paid a $1.16 income tax bill to
this Cincinnati suburb faces a stiff penalty - up to 18 months in jail and
$4,000 in fines.
City officials say Deborah Combs hasn't filed city income tax returns for five
years. Combs says she has been mostly unemployed since 2000 and didn't realize
she had to file the returns until the city notified her in February about the
violation.
By that time, Combs owed $200 in late fees - $50 for each year she didn't file
a return.
"I don't know how they could charge me the fees if I didn't owe anything,"
Combs said.
Loveland officials say everyone is required to file an annual return,
regardless of income level.
"This is a flagrant offender," said City Manager Frederick Enderle. "She's been
given ample opportunity and ample warning to file those returns and she chose
to ignore them."
Combs agreed to a tax liability for $1.16 for 2003, but she hasn't been able to
pay the late fees, she said. She was charged with four first-degree
misdemeanors and has an Oct. 20 hearing in Loveland Mayor's Court.
10/17/05 09:43 EDT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/VpgUKB/pzNLAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
