From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V10 #639 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Monday, July 16 2007 Volume 10 : Number 639 In this issue: [ONT] 'Slush fund' answers due soon Gunman kills father of two Harvard's View of the Parker Case Re Digest V10 # 634 Hydrogen Cars . . Are we still whispering? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:23:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: [ONT] 'Slush fund' answers due soon http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/236268 'Slush fund' answers due soon Auditor general report on controversial grants from province to Liberal supporters is imminent Robert Benzie Queen's Park Bureau Chief Jul 16, 2007 04:30 AM Ontarians could finally learn the truth about the so-called Liberal "slush fund" controversy when Auditor General Jim McCarter releases his probe as early as today. McCarter said in an interview last week that his report would be completed "between the 16th and the 27th" of July. It will be submitted to Premier Dalton McGuinty, who is vacationing this week but who has pledged to immediately make it public. Under pressure from the opposition and the media, McGuinty asked McCarter on May 10 to investigate how $32 million was rushed out the door to 110 groups – some with strong Liberal ties – as the past two fiscal years drew to a close. "There have been a number of questions raised. There has been innuendo and allegations – lots of them – and I think the best way for us to have conclusive findings was to refer to the auditor general," the premier said at the time. McCarter was called in three weeks after the Toronto Star exposed the unusual spending on April 18. The revelation had fuelled New Democratic and Progressive Conservative attacks against McGuinty and Citizenship and Immigration Minister Mike Colle. In May, the premier, mindful of the Oct. 10 election, said he hoped the auditor general would report back by July 1. But McCarter said he advised McGuinty such a tight deadline could not be met due to other work being done by his department, including last month's pre-election review of Ontario's finances. The auditor general was characteristically discreet when asked about his findings and what his report would be entitled. "I can't tell you. It's not going to be an overly catchy title. The substance will be in the report not the title, let me put it that way," said McCarter. Last spring, it emerged that a Bengali-Canadian group, whose directors include a Liberal party member, received a $250,000 grant. The Chinese Professionals Association of Canada, a former director of which now serves as Colle's policy adviser, also got $250,000. As well, a $200,000 grant went to the Iranian-Canadian Community Centre. Its directors at the time included Richmond Hill Liberal candidate Reza Moridi and riding association president David Mario Farmani. The Liberals have emphasized there was nothing untoward about the grants program while the Tories and New Democrats insist the governing party was rewarding its own. Nevertheless, the imbroglio paralyzed McGuinty's administration for much of the spring. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:38:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Gunman kills father of two http://www.thestar.com/News/article/236073 Gunman kills father of two Police haven't ruled out gang links in fatal shooting of 23-year-old in Lawrence Heights neighbourhood Betsy Powell Crime Reporter Jul 15, 2007 04:30 AM Homicide investigators are searching for suspects and a motive after a gunman shot Ricardo "Ricky" Francis numerous times as he hung out with a small crowd of people outside a townhouse near Lawrence Avenue W. and the Allen Expressway. The victim, a 23-year-old father of two, didn't live in the public housing complex but was known to visit the Lawrence Heights neighbourhood, homicide Det. Doug Sansom said yesterday. On Friday night just before 10:30, emergency crews and police responded to several 911 calls reporting gunshots on Edengarth Ct. They found Francis lying in front of Unit 52 with "obvious trauma to the chest," Sansom said. He died at the scene. The detective stopped short of saying a party had been in progress, but said there were many people in the area. "It was a summer evening. There should be lots of witnesses." Police haven't ruled out the possibility more than one gun was fired. Witnesses have told police either a dark blue or black Honda or Acura was seen speeding away. Francis was the city's 40th homicide victim of 2007. A year ago today there had been 41 slayings. Residents of the complex yesterday gave conflicting accounts of the atmosphere in the small, leafy court before the shooting. One said there had been a raucous party in full swing and she heard glass breaking before the shots rang out. She said Unit 52 is frequently the scene of unruly activity and some neighbours refuse to come outside unless absolutely necessary, while others instruct children to steer clear. She had been watching television and emerged to see people screaming and yelling for help. Another neighbour said she was awakened by gunfire, but that the occupants and guests of Unit 52 had never disturbed her before. "It's not a bad neighbourhood, just some of the people who live here," said one woman returning from a shopping trip. Sansom said Francis is known to the police. He did not say if police believe the killing is gang-related. Another resident complained that the Toronto Community Housing Corp. has not installed surveillance cameras. Two officials from TCHC arrived at the complex but declined to answer questions. The area has seen its share of problems. Last month, nearby Lawrence Heights Middle School was locked down for 30 minutes after a gunfight broke out in the dead-end street of Clovis Lane. The city plans to tear down all 1,208 Lawrence Heights units and replace them with mixed housing, seniors' residences, condos and commercial space. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:39:36 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: Harvard's View of the Parker Case ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization July 16, 2007 JPFO ALERT: Harvard's View of the Parker Case In March of this year, firearms owners everywhere celebrated the Parker decision, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared the D.C. gun law unconstitutional to the extent that the law prohibits all firearms possession. You can read our original analysis here: http://www.jpfo.org/alert20070312.htm . In May, the full D.C. Court refused to hear the case "en banc", paving the way for a Supreme Court decision. The Harvard Law Review recently published an article discussing the ramifications of the Parker decision, and what the Supreme Court might do if they hear the case. You can read the article at http://www.law.harvard.edu/alumni/bulletin/2007/summer/feature_3.php or http://tinyurl.com/3artc9 . Despite optimism from pro-gun circles, it doesn't look good. As the article states, "The ruling -- in Parker v. District of Columbia -- marked the first time a gun law has been found unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment, and it set up a direct conflict among the circuits. Nine federal appeals courts around the nation have adopted the view that the amendment guarantees only the collective right of organized state militias to bear arms, not an individual's right. (A 5th Circuit panel found that individuals have gun rights but upheld the regulation in question, so both sides claim that ruling as a victory.)" Former District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams is quoted as saying, "Let's take [Justice Antonin] Scalia's approach. I think the framers' intent was to see to it that [through] militias, states as sovereign entities had a right to arm themselves. To me, it's not about individuals - -- it's about groups." Harvard Professor Mark Tushnet says, "My gut feeling is that there are not five votes to say the individual-rights position is correct. [Justice Anthony] Kennedy comes from a segment of the Republican Party that is not rabidly pro-gun rights and indeed probably is sympathetic to hunters but not terribly sympathetic to handgun owners. Then the standard liberals will probably say 'collective rights.'" Even if the Supreme Court does deem firearms ownership as an individual right, we still aren't safe. Says Tushnet, "Once you recognize [gun ownership] as an individual right, then the work shifts to figuring out what type of regulation is permissible." So what's the bottom line according to one of Harvard's Constitutional experts? In a sidebar ( see http://www.law.harvard.edu/alumni/bulletin/2007/summer/feat ure_3-side1.php or http://tinyurl.com/2x79sc ), Professor Tushnet states, "Gun-control proponents have a significantly stronger case than their adversaries if we treat the question of interpreting the Second Amendment as an ordinary constitutional question and use all the interpretive tools judges ordinarily use." We encourage our readers to continue to watch the Parker case closely. You can read or download our interview with author and attorney David T. Hardy at http://www.jpfo.org/tta070531.htm , in which we discuss the case at length. - - The Liberty Crew ============================================================ JPFO mirror site: http://www.jpfo.net ============================================================ LET JPFO KEEP YOU INFORMED -- Sign up today for JPFO Alerts! Just send a blank e-mail to jpfoalerts-subscribe@jpfo.org. To unsubscribe, send a blank email to jpfoalerts-unsubscribe@jpfo.org ============================================================= Regain your freedom - download the song "Justice Day" today! http://www.rebelfirerock.com/downloadjd.html ============================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:18:08 -0400 From: Bill Subject: Re Digest V10 # 634 Hydrogen Cars . . There seems to be a number of companies working on HHO to be mixed with gasoline There's a lot of stuff on Utube.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QapY-I8tJJI Bill Organization: TechniSoft Printing & Promotional ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:11:10 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: Are we still whispering? MAKING NECESSARY NOISE By Claire Wolfe I'm coming to a conclusion I don't like at all. I've been edging toward it for several years, hating it all the way. But no matter how much I sniff around the idea, turn it upside down, examine it from all angles or peek into its dark interior, I can't say it's wrong. Increasingly, I'm convinced it may be both right and necessary -- even though it could rip apart the lives of a lot of good people. Before I get to that dangerous conclusion, let me show you one example of what brought me to it. Start with a question: How many Americans resist filing federal income tax returns? The official estimate from the IRS is five to 10 million. IRS bureaucrats admit privately the number may be as high as 35 million. Either way, a great many Americans say, "To hell with the federal government!" on April 15. And good for them. Let's take the very lowest figure: five million. Let us further assume that 80 percent of those non-filers are simply procrastinators-non-ideological folks who just don't get around to sending in the forms. That still means _one million Americans_ are risking their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor each year by consciously saying, "I refuse to submit." The actual numbers are certainly larger -- giving us an awesome force on the side of individual liberty. I often think, "That corrupt, doddering old system, simply _can't_ hold up under this resistance." But look at the real world. What has that huge, stubborn force ccomplished? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. RESISTING IN A WHISPER Oh, yes, those who consciously resist the income tax, invasive drug laws, abstruse "regulations," or other forms of arbitrary authority have accomplished a lot on a personal level. Every act of independence is beneficial to the spirit. That's important. Very. But is it enough? Five or 35 million Americans resisting tax laws...40, 50,60 or 80 million Americans resisting drug laws...and countless Americans resisting the very concept of excessive law...has had _no_ positive impact on the country as a whole. It hasn't changed _anything_ for the better. The tax system hasn't collapsed. The income tax hasn't been repealed-as it should have. In the 1920s and 30s, America's casual scorning of the Volstead Act Prohibition) caused that pointless law to be tossed in history's garbage can. But the modern Prohibition against drugs-of-choice hasn't ended because millions are resisting it. Indeed, more -- and worse -- drug laws are being passed every day. Across the country, despite our scorn, new regulations are being promulgated, more police agencies are being created, enlarged andarmed, and more innocents are dying or being terrorized in the name of "law." How can this be? How can millions of people be saying NO to bad government - -- and not being heard? Well, one reason we're not being heard is that we're whispering. RESISTING WITH A SHOUT My dangerous conclusion is this: We must not only resist bad laws with all our strength, but we must resist publicly, loudly and articulately. Some of us will be able to do this merely by advocating resistance in the abstract, as a matter of moral and historical right. Some of us will need to publicize our own, personal, principled resistance. Some of us may need to go so far as to stand in the public square and visibly disobey whatever damned law plagues us. All three of these courses could be hazardous to our health. Nevertheless, we must make noise, make news and make a bloody nuisance of ourselves. We may need to get ourselves arrested, and ultimately may have to throw ourselves in front of tanks and machine guns, if it comes to that. We need to send a message to the world so loud it can't be ignored, even if some of us must die to do it. STANDING ON PRINCIPLE We have been quiet for a very good reason: because the government, media and in many cases our family and neighbors, regard principled resistance as criminal. We fear both their opinions and the dire consequences of breaking the law. We must now turn that around. We must proclaim that resistance to bad laws is_right_. We must tell the world that we are not criminals, but fine, independent people of exactly the kind the country most needs. Others are, of course, free to disagree with our viewpoint. But we ourselves must stop buying into the criminal paradigm, even subconsciously. We must proudly claim a new paradigm. We must make it clear that resistance is a matter of principle-and that we will never yield to unjust laws no matter who threatens us, no matter how dire the threat. RESISTING THE IDEA OF PUBLIC RESISTANCE Never have I been more in conflict with myself over an issue. I've spent a whole lifetime seeking privacy. I hate the idea of making public noise. I've spent a lifetime seeking beauty and peace, and I hate the idea of being dragged off to some dismal jail, or seeing my friends dragged there. I also realize full well that what I'm proposing _is_ dangerous. In the past, I've warned readers never to trust anyone who urges them to commit criminal acts. Those arm-twisters are usually cops or informants. That goes double for anyone urging you to take the extra risk of "coming out of the closet" with public resistance. Don't trust them. Don't trust me. And certainly _never_ do anything because some writer or orator says it might be a good idea. I'm not asking to be trusted or followed; I'm just asking you to hear and decide for yourself whether my conclusion is correct. If you have an effective idea and less dangerous idea for regaining freedom, I implore you to propose it and put it into action. THE SCENARIO: ALTERING HISTORY What could happen to us if we make an issue of our resistance? We could be arrested, prosecuted, jailed, demonized, laughed at, fired from jobs, shunned, fined, and our homes and possessions could be seized even if no charges are ever brought against us. Penalties are becoming more draconian. Federal penalties are increasingly being heaped atop state punishments. "Coming out" as resisters may inspire compulsive control freaks to take special pains to "get" and punish us. Some resisters will be made examples of, in the worst way. It's bad. Let's never minimize what we might face. But the growing ruthlessness of government is all the more reason we must shout our objections. An analogy: Hitler began his persecution of the Jews with measures that, in contrast to the eventual horror, look mild. He first required Jews to wear yellow stars. They complied. He began confiscating their property. They hid possessions, sneaked them out of the country, bribed officials or simply surrendered. He walled them in ghettos. Some went; some fled. He finally herded them into boxcars to their final destination. All along, some resisted, some complied, just as we are doing now. But almost universally, whatever their actions, they remained quiet. Their "good German" (and "good" Polish and "good" other) neighbors were also silent about the outrages taking place in front of them. Some gentiles hid and helped the Jews. But they didn't speak up. No one made a public, moral cause of resistance. Of course, people were terrified of Hitler. And of course, it was unpopular to defend the Jews, who had been even more successfully demonized than tax resisters, militia members and drug users have been in modern America. The media and public institutions were firmly on the side of the Nazis, just as they are on the side of big government today. All very familiar. Had a significant minority resisted Hitler -- vehemently, adamantly, loudly resisted -- many of them would have been killed. But they might have roused the conscience of the world. They might have shown Hitler there was a barrier he could not cross. They might have prevented the far worse slaughter that their silence allowed. We don't really know what _could_ have happened, had people had the courage both to resist and speak. We only know what _did_ happen when they failed to do so. None of these hopes ever had a chance. People didn't take the risk, and the ultimate fate befell them. Silence is not safety. Silence, in fact, implies consent. Which is worse: suffering now in defense of principle, or suffering later as the citizen of a tyrannical state? HOW BAD CAN IT GET? I don't know that it will ever get so bad here that freedom-loving people will be rounded up and sent to concentration camps. It's possible. I do know the future looks bad, very bad, for freedom. What's _certain_ is that, in the words of abolitionist Frederick Douglass, "Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." Or, in the more modern words of Dilbert, "The more crap you put up with, the more crap you are going to get." Again, silence implies consent. Silence is "putting up with it" even when we silently disobey. WHY MAKE NOISE NOW? Many of us have become accustomed to living free in spite of the "law." A few years ago, even last year, I would have said, "Hell, why paint a target on your backside by going public with resistance?" But the situation has changed. In the last couple of years, Congress has laid the groundwork for the kind of totalitarian citizen-tracking systems that have been long-rumored and long dreaded. As you read this, bureaucrats are building the computer systems, sending out the forms, writing the regulations and installing the machinery that will be used to make you a slave, pure and simple. A pair of examples: * Your drivers license was turned into a de facto national ID card. (Check it out: Public Law 104-208.) * Congress passed and Donna Shalala began sending out the forms for he "New Hires" database. It's worse than it sounds. (Check it out: Public Law 104-193, then get your hands on one of the forms.) There's more. A lot more. Research for yourself and see how your life will be curtailed...will be _owned_...if you let these things happen. Silent resistance doesn't stop bad law making. It actually encourages it, as legislatures pass more and more bad laws in an attempt to curb disobedience. How many more rotten laws are we going to take before we put a stop to this pernicious escalation of tyranny? WHAT, SPECIFICALLY, SHOULD WE DO? Specifically you should do only what your own wisdom dictates. Always. I'll mention only a few places to start and some cautions to keep in mind. Frankly,some of this information is milder than what really needs to be said. But free speech protections extend only so far. * Pick one or two laws that you especially oppose. Make sure you fully understand, and can calmly, lucidly articulate, the principles behind your opposition. * Speak up every chance you get. In every forum you can find. Newspapers. Public meetings. Neighborhood gatherings. Don't just speak against the law. Speak on behalf of the right of resistance. * Creatively defy bad law. Folks who plant hemp in the courthouse garden or pay their taxes in pennies may get useful publicity. * Utilize the mainstream media where you can. But when biased reporting or no reporting is all you can expect, let it go. Put your energies elsewhere. * Find every available form of alternative media, from the Internet to the walls of public restrooms, and use it. (For instance, you can paste stickers in restroom stalls with three or four lines explaining why a law is wrong and reminding people defiance is an American tradition.) * Be flexible. Tactics must change as situations do. * If there is enough community support to make it effective, shun employees of unjust agencies. Render their lives as uncomfortable as possible. And don't let them or yourself off with the old excuse that they're just the ordinary people doing their jobs. The engineers who drove the trains to the concentration camps were "ordinary." So were the guards. We usually have no access to their masters, but we can reach the masters through the employees. When masters no longer have minions do to their bidding, how can they enforce tyranny? * Never go against your conscience, no matter what the consequences. * Make it clear to everyone that you will not yield to mere force or terror tactics. * Remember: the first and loudest to speak will become targets. This whole thing is going to work only if 1) a few people can make a big enough impression to change the conscience of the nation or 2) so many people rebel that the justice system overloads. * Realize that there is a fine line between publicizing principled resistance and foolishly blabbing private matters. You'll have to find your own place to draw that line, and even if you draw it perfectly, you're still in danger. * If you are announcing resistance to either tax or drug laws, understand that you are especially vulnerable. Under seizure laws, your property can become booty for a pirate agency; and enforcers offer cash bounties to anyone who will snitch on you. * If you have the slightest doubt about the wisdom on this strategy, or about your own willingness to walk through hell for the cause of freedom, DON'T DO IT. * Finally, remember the man who stood alone before the tank in Tienanmen Square. His "victory" was equivocal; the tank backed off, but the protesters were ultimately slaughtered. Yet his image still touches the conscience of the world. It will, ultimately, make a difference. We must never violate principles. We must never initiate violence. And we should never harm the innocent. But at some point, unless government backs off, we will have to stop being nice. I don't recommend it. I merely predict it. ONLY IDIOTS HEED CALLS TO ACTION FROM "KEYBOARD REVOLUTIONARIES." A couple of months ago, I read an essay in which some self-proclaimed "patriot," (Call him John Brown.), ranted that it was time to start "taking out" government officials. Furthermore, he raved, anybody who didn't immediately rush out and start killing feds was a coward and a hypocrite. John Brown himself, of course,wasn't about to go out and start bumping people off. Nooooo, he was much more comfortable in the role of "inspirational leader" behind his keyboard. Since no rash of fed-killings followed his exhortation, most readers must have realized old John himself was either a total fool, a hypocrite or an agent provocateur. I may be a fool. And I may be accused of a lot of other things for writing this article. But I won't be a hypocrite. Here's where I stand: I resist the income tax. Haven't filed in years. Never will, even if the IRS throws me in jail or in the gutter after taking everything I own. (They won't get much; I've made myself poor, and therefore a smaller target. If the IRS bothers me, their motive will be purely political.) And when my state passes the enabling legislation to put the Big Brother drivers license into effect here -- when government and businesses require my "verified social security number" and biometric "security features" as a condition for dealing with them -- I'll go elsewhere, thanks. Plenty of my acquaintances already refuse to get regular drivers licenses. Maybe they can teach us all a thing or two about the much more complicated problem of surviving without the national ID license. In any case, I plan to become the damnedest, finest outlaw I can be when, "Citizen! Your papers please!" becomes an American reality. Unlike John Brown, I'm not urging you to break the law. You're already breaking it just by living. If you value personal freedom, you're probably breaking laws and regulations more often than Bill Clinton breaks wind. I _am_ urging you to claim resistance as your right -- and as a necessity if we are to remain free. # # # (c) 1997 Claire Wolfe. Permission to reprint freely granted, as long as the article is reprinted in full and accompanied by this copyright statement. Claire Wolfe, the author of 101 Things To Do 'Til the Revolution, says that we're not getting the message across to the meddlers and brownshirts, and that stronger measures are needed. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V10 #639 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:akimoya@cogeco.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca FAQ list: http://www.magma.ca/~asd/cfd-faq1.html and http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html FTP Site: ftp://teapot.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/ CFDigest Archives: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/ or put the next command in an e-mail message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca get cdn-firearms-digest v04.n192 end (192 is the digest issue number and 04 is the volume) To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next five lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-alert unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".) If you find this service valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the freenet we use: Saskatoon Free-Net Assoc., P.O. Box 1342, Saskatoon SK S7K 3N9 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made possible by the efforts of countless volunteers. Permission is granted to copy and distribute this digest as long as it not altered in any way.