No - this is not SPAM :)

I've set up an online bookstore and online mall to benefit LPVA. Anything
(as in 100%) of what I make will be donated to the party.

The bookstore is at http://www.calypso.com/lpva/lpva.chtml
The "mall" is at http://www.calypso.com/lpva/mall.chtml

I'm taking suggestions for books to add to the store, but even your just
buying the latest John Grisham novel click through to Barnes & Noble via our
mall page and the state party will get 5% of what you spend. The mall page
also features links to bigstar.com for videos, barewalls.com for art and
posters, and a few other vendors too. Anything you buy through our pages
will generate a commission for the state party.

Chris, LPVA.com Webmaster and  general shopkeeper :)
--------------------------------------------------
Chris & Michelle O'Donnell
http://www.odonnellweb.com
--------------------------------------------------

I was referring to FICA only...

----- Original Message -----
From: Carl S. Milsted Jr. <milsted@...>
To: <lpva-forum@egroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 7:43 PM
Subject: [LPVA-Forum] Re: Needs-based liberty


| Hmmm, I find that hard to believe.
|
| Besides, the Medicare tax and FICA tax are both income taxes -- at
| least for those whose incomes consist
| of wages. Throw them in and the tax code is considerably flatter.
|
| Establish that in people's minds, and a national sales tax to replace
| the IRS becomes politically thinkable.
|
| We also remove the entitlement aspect from SS for the young, since
| their contributions will no longer be
| traceable. Means testing can follow...
|
|
| >During the Clinton administration we have finally reached a point when
| about
| >50% of the population is paying virtually zero income tax. We are at a
| point
| >when the majority - who is consuming the vast majority of government
| >services, is in effect not paying for them. They have what they think
| is
| >complete security - a government that claims to take care of just
| about
| >every major need and they don't (in their view) have to pay for it. I
| >predict its only going to get worse. The net tax consuming majority
| has no
| >reason to vote for smaller government, no reason to vote for liberty -
|  they
| >think the nanny state is a great thing.
| >
| >By the time they realize the folly of the ways it will be way to late.
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| To discuss abortion: lpva-discuss-abortion-subscribe@egroups.com.
| -----------------------------------------------------
| More info: LPVA, Po Box 28263, Richmond VA 23228, 703-715-6230 voice, FAX
540-389-4881, info@...
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| You have a voice mail message waiting for you at iHello.com:
| http://click.egroups.com/1/2130/4/_/394086/_/952216877/
|
| -- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
| -- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/lpva-forum/?m=1
|
|
|

Hmmm, I find that hard to believe.

Besides, the Medicare tax and FICA tax are both income taxes -- at
least for those whose incomes consist
of wages. Throw them in and the tax code is considerably flatter.

Establish that in people's minds, and a national sales tax to replace
the IRS becomes politically thinkable.

We also remove the entitlement aspect from SS for the young, since
their contributions will no longer be
traceable. Means testing can follow...


>During the Clinton administration we have finally reached a point when
about
>50% of the population is paying virtually zero income tax. We are at a
point
>when the majority - who is consuming the vast majority of government
>services, is in effect not paying for them. They have what they think
is
>complete security - a government that claims to take care of just
about
>every major need and they don't (in their view) have to pay for it. I
>predict its only going to get worse. The net tax consuming majority
has no
>reason to vote for smaller government, no reason to vote for liberty -
  they
>think the nanny state is a great thing.
>
>By the time they realize the folly of the ways it will be way to late.

> I have the same pesonal feelings about HOA's that you do.

What I don't understand is, I've talked to lots of people.  The
majority of people I know DESPISE HOA's and their meddling.  I know
people who are attempting to sell their dream houses because they
can't stand the HOA.

That being the case, why do they proliferate like this?  The answer
may have to do with the "Property Owners' Association Act"... and to
be honest, I've read through some of it... and the one clause that
really bothers me is the one that says that if the government attempts
to claim your property using Eminent Domain and your HOA chooses not
to fight it, *you can't fight it as an individual*.

Basically, if all the HOA ever did was things like establish quiet
hours, local parking regulations, handle trash service contracting,
and other things which affect how the community will interact, that's
fine. Whether I choose to paint my house white, off white, eggshell
white, antique white, dover white, or whatever shade of white I choose
is my own business.  If I choose to change the front of my house from
aluminum siding to stone face, that's my business.  Telling me that I
can't rebuild a car in my driveway/garage is wrong.  What if that's my
hobby?  (This happened to one of my coworkers who happens to race
cars. He's since moved to Oakton and no longer has an HOA.)

> However, discreet
> communites of people certaintly have the right to cluster together in
> neighborhoods and live under what draconion self-imposed rule sets that they
> choose. As long as its not government setting the home color standards there
> really isn't a issue.

Very true... but I dare you to find a new housing development around
Northern Virginia that doesn't have one.

I got lucky in that I found one in Broad Run Farms.  I don't exactly
have a postage stamp for a plot of land, either. :)

--Joe

--
"There's no point in growing up if you can't be childish sometimes." The Doctor

Joe Ogulin   ogulinj@...
DoD# 3229.   http://members.tripod.com/wench_baiter
Rogue #252 - "I know how to hold my liquor" - Field Sergeant.
RenMerc.  Bard #009.

The Kilted Knight of Clan McArgh
"And Hersheys thinks they have chocolate kisses."

THERE franchise #75666 co-owner; opportunities available; inquire within.

This message is made of 100% recycled electrons.
Disclaimer:  I'm responsible for the content of this message.  Nobody else is.

Ahh, but you see, saving the next six year old who finds a gun is not the
point of gun legislation...disarming the citizenry to better control the
flock is what Clinton and the leftists have in mind. An unarmed citizen is
100% dependent on government for protection - kind of like how the mob used
(still does?) operate...

| And there are people out there, otherwise intelligent, who really believe
| that if the feds made me register my guns (assuming I had any, of course)
| that the little boy's uncle would thereby have been prevented from leaving
a
| stolen gun lying around for him to find and use.  I know, I work with some
of
| them....  Really Scary.
| Carol
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| To discuss abortion: lpva-discuss-abortion-subscribe@egroups.com.
| -----------------------------------------------------
| More info: LPVA, Po Box 28263, Richmond VA 23228, 703-715-6230 voice, FAX
540-389-4881, info@...
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| eGroups eLerts!
| It's easy. It's fun. Best of all, it's free.
| http://click.egroups.com/1/2072/4/_/394086/_/952129892/
|
| -- Talk to your group with your own voice!
| -- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=lpva-forum&m=1
|
|
|

| > Do you really need to make your house an eyesore by painting it pink
with
| > purple bunnies
|
| You do realize that most of the HOA covenants around here have all
| kinds of clauses in them about how, despite your buying the house and
| paying the property taxes on it, your neighbors can nix your ability
| to paint your house to make it look better because you've "chosen the
| wrong color."
|

I have the same pesonal feelings about HOA's that you do. However, discreet
communites of people certaintly have the right to cluster together in
neighborhoods and live under what draconion self-imposed rule sets that they
choose. As long as its not government setting the home color standards there
really isn't a issue.

|
| I keep hearing -- "Why should we wait until damage is done before we try
to set controls in place." Why
| don't I hear that about controlling government action anymore?
|
| When did up become down?
|
| When did liberty become a needs-based question?
|

During the Clinton administration we have finally reached a point when about
50% of the population is paying virtually zero income tax. We are at a point
when the majority - who is consuming the vast majority of government
services, is in effect not paying for them. They have what they think is
complete security - a government that claims to take care of just about
every major need and they don't (in their view) have to pay for it. I
predict its only going to get worse. The net tax consuming majority has no
reason to vote for smaller government, no reason to vote for liberty - they
think the nanny state is a great thing.

By the time they realize the folly of the ways it will be way to late.

And there are people out there, otherwise intelligent, who really believe
that if the feds made me register my guns (assuming I had any, of course)
that the little boy's uncle would thereby have been prevented from leaving a
stolen gun lying around for him to find and use.  I know, I work with some of
them....  Really Scary.
Carol

Ah, Joe, you're not thinking like a good collectivist. You're investing in the future of America's children, and the IRS grants you this wonderful opportunity FREE OF USER FEES  <warm-fuzzy.> unlike those mean ole' private sector stock market services that tempt the Rich (boo hiss) to channel money away from <teary eye> our children! Seems like you need some re-educating, comrade. You see, a village is one big family, and it's not charity to invest in your family's future; it's an obligation. (No, I never worked as a DNC spin doctor).

<<But if I rent, then I am forever in debt.>>

You are anyway -- you forever owe society, and owning a home makes it harder for you to pay down your fair share of the collective American Dream -- including those county property taxes that go to the local government that lacks the wisdom to use it. Gotta prioritize those debts, you know.

<<(Ah ha! The thinking behind campaign finance reform!)>>
<<Circular logic will only make you dizzy.>>

John McCain is dizzy? Well, it's his fault, he's the one who's spinning.

--
Sean Oberle, Falls Church, VA
Power is the angel dust of the state

> The people cannot be trusted to act responsibly, so we entrust their
> responsibility to a government drawn
> from the people who cannot be trusted to act responsibly. How can we
> trust the responsibility to elect
> responsible people without rules devised by the government elected
> by the people who cannot be trusted to
> elect responsibly? (Ah ha! The thinking behind campaign finance reform!)

Circular logic will only make you dizzy.

> My, my, my, what a mystical thing that makes an irresponsible
> citizen a responsible regulator. It's a
> miracle! He gained his vision on the road to the capital!

Actually, he took a detour via Utopia.

> Do you really need to own a house? You could rent for far less money
> and be better able to contribute
> your fair share in the collective American Dream through the
> investment services provided to you every
> April 15 by the IRS.

But if I rent, then I am forever in debt.

Investment services?  Don't you mean the charitable donation services?

--Joe

--
"There's no point in growing up if you can't be childish sometimes." The Doctor

Joe Ogulin   ogulinj@...
DoD# 3229.   http://members.tripod.com/wench_baiter
Rogue #252 - "I know how to hold my liquor" - Field Sergeant.
RenMerc.  Bard #009.

The Kilted Knight of Clan McArgh
"And Hersheys thinks they have chocolate kisses."

THERE franchise #75666 co-owner; opportunities available; inquire within.

This message is made of 100% recycled electrons.
Disclaimer:  I'm responsible for the content of this message.  Nobody else is.

The people cannot be trusted to act responsibly, so we entrust their responsibility to a government drawn from the people who cannot be trusted to act responsibly. How can we trust the responsibility to elect responsible people without rules devised by the government elected by the people who cannot be trusted to elect responsibly? (Ah ha! The thinking behind campaign finance reform!)

My, my, my, what a mystical thing that makes an irresponsible citizen a responsible regulator. It's a miracle! He gained his vision on the road to the capital! "Amazing grace, how sweet..."

<<I thought part of the "American Dream" was to be able to buy a house and make it your
own.  It's not happening with these Reston/Ashburn-like-restrictive HOAs.>>

Do you really need to own a house? You could rent for far less money and be better able to contribute your fair share in the collective American Dream through the investment services provided to you every April 15 by the IRS.

--
Sean Oberle, Falls Church, VA
It takes a village to stone a witch.

> Do you really need to make your house an eyesore by painting it pink with
> purple bunnies

You do realize that most of the HOA covenants around here have all
kinds of clauses in them about how, despite your buying the house and
paying the property taxes on it, your neighbors can nix your ability
to paint your house to make it look better because you've "chosen the
wrong color."

That's part of the reason that when I went house hunting, I
specifically told my realtor that I did not want an HOA.  Far too many
of them have either such restrictive clauses in their covenants which
make it like I didn't really buy the house (my inability to beautify
the outside without getting HOA board approval first, install a
swimming pool "because we have a community center with one," etc.),
or will eventually have them because someone will get elected to the
board who has this burr up his (or her) butt about how everything in
the neighborhood should conform to some standard.  I thought part of
the "American Dream" was to be able to buy a house and make it your
own.  It's not happening with these Reston/Ashburn-like-restrictive
HOAs.

> I keep hearing -- "Why should we wait until damage is done before
> we try to set controls in place." Why
> don't I hear that about controlling government action anymore?

Because the government can't do anything wrong... didn't you know
that?

> When did up become down?

When the government told us...

> When did liberty become a needs-based question?

Because we need to protect the children...

Because we have to force everyone to conform...

Because we aren't responsible for our own actions and have to make
sure that we legislate common sense...


Pardon me while I go locate some <sarcasm> tags. :)

--Joe

--
"There's no point in growing up if you can't be childish sometimes." The Doctor

Joe Ogulin   ogulinj@...
DoD# 3229.   http://members.tripod.com/wench_baiter
Rogue #252 - "I know how to hold my liquor" - Field Sergeant.
RenMerc.  Bard #009.

The Kilted Knight of Clan McArgh
"And Hersheys thinks they have chocolate kisses."

THERE franchise #75666 co-owner; opportunities available; inquire within.

This message is made of 100% recycled electrons.
Disclaimer:  I'm responsible for the content of this message.  Nobody else is.

When do we get to the War on Having Wars on Things, and when do we declare war on that?

What I want to know is at what point did we fully step through the looking glass? When did the roles between government and people flip? When did we stop asking the government "Do you really need to do that?" and start thinking it was OK to be forced to answer that question ourselves?

Do you really need to own that type of gun? Do you really need an abortion today; can't it wait a day? Do you really need to build a factory there? Do you really need to cut down that tree on your property? Do you really need to have that much money in your bank account? Do you really need to "burden society" with that much of a tax break? Do you really need to make your house an eyesore by painting it pink with purple bunnies and letting your grass grow wild -- but if you do cut that grass do you really need a gasoline mower, and on second thought, do you really need to cut it that often?

I keep hearing -- "Why should we wait until damage is done before we try to set controls in place." Why don't I hear that about controlling government action anymore?

When did up become down?

When did liberty become a needs-based question?

--
Sean Oberle, Falls Church, VA
Regulate the regulators! Liberate liberty!

It seems that Sean Oberle is nothing but
a no good peacenick!  We need to have lots of wars.

WAR on Poverty

WAR on Drugs

WAR on Division of Yugoslavia

WAR on Illiteracy (the Public Schools!)

WAR on Haiti

WAR on "Big" Tobacco

so why not a WAR on guns.

         The trouble is that the capitalistic (private)
sector is now growing faster than the ability of the
Government to suck it all up - so the Government needs some
more WARS.  Don't question the constitutionality of the
issue - after all, we are at WAR.

          The next holy jihad after the WAR on Guns will
be the WAR on Political "Corruption" (a.k.a. dissent) led
by Al "Buddhist Temple" Gore.  The Supreme Court already
said it is constitutional to regulate political speech
because it is corrupting ** .  If we speak about a candidate
within 60 days of an election - for example, an e-mail such
as this one mentioning Al "Buddhist Temple" Gore or George
"70 million buck" Bush, this is illegal speech and is thus
corrupt!  Ah, poor John Adams and the Sedition Acts of 1798 -
he should have labeled them the "Political Corruption Acts"
and then thrown all the Jeffersonians in jail.

         Like the old WAR in Vietnam, the WAR never fails - we
just need more and more troops and less negativistic dissent.
There are 10,000 murders each year with guns and each murder
can sponsor its own GUN LAW.  We can soon have more gun laws
than zip codes and a few hundred thousand Janet Reno led
Gun Law Enforcers to track down all the illegal gun peddlers
that caused this 6 year old ........ yada yada yada .....

=========

**  As we know, what is truly corrupting is the Government
messing in every phase of the economy.  Most "contributions"
to politicians are the equivalent of "protection money" given
to Mafiosi to leave them alone.

OK, let's see if I've got this straight. The little 6-year-old who shot
a classmate lived in a house where both crack cocaine and guns were
trafficked. I assume that if he had given the little girl a vial of
crack and she had died of an overdose, we'd be seeing calls for more
action on the "crack problem" rather than the "gun problem."

We've pumped billions of dollars over the last 30 years into the
criminalizing aspect of the War on Drugs. Meanwhile we've seen slight
ups and downs in drug use, but no real change -- Golly, 15% have used
xyz drug this year rather than 20% or 10%. In the process we've
overcrowded our prisons to the point where truly dangerous murderers,
rapists, etc. are let out early to make room for more drug users, we've
eroded civil liberties to points that would have been unacceptable just
10 or 20 years ago, and we're ready to accept even more police power.

Guns are as easy if not easier to traffic as are drugs. Even if, by some
miracle, we totally cut off the supply of new guns, there are hundreds
of millions of existing guns out there. What makes us think that a "War
on Guns" will be any different than the "War on Drugs"?

--
Sean Oberle, Falls Church, VA

The Scouts should be able to determine
their own membership.  Rick Sincere and others should
be able to put as much non-coercive pressure as they want
on the Scouts to open up their membership.

         I think the argument that the Scouts receive
some nominal government benefit (what - I don't know although
they do have a tax exemption) is a dangerous argument.
That argument could go:

(1)  The libertarian party breathes air regulated by the EPA
(2)  Therefore the libertarian party receives a government benefit
(3)  Therefore the libertarian party should allow Socialists to
         run the party.

         I don't think that because you go backpacking in
a "National Park", you lose your freedoms.  This concept to
turning every individual and group into a "place of public
access" is anethema.  In fact, the first Amendment was specifically
written with the idea of privacy in mind.  E.G. the Catholic Church
has the right to be Catholic, Labobvitch Jews have the right to
their faith, etc. - so to make the claim that some token government
benefit [ like protecting us all from Slobodon Milosovic's Serbian
hordes ] turns us into "public utilities" is a dangerous argument.
The Scouts may be anti-gay and the Amish may be anti-21st-Century
but I fail to see that these opinions of private groups affect me
other than I may wish to use non-coercive means to convince them
of their errors.

         If the Scouts or the Unitarian Church or whatever is
receiving SPECIAL government benefits, those benefits should stop
regardless of whether or not the Scouts allow Gays or left-handed-
people or whatever into their organization.  It is not up to the
government to grant special favors to private groups.

With tongue only partially in cheek:

Which of course brings up Clinton's appearing on the Today Show today calling
for "licensing of gun
owners the same way we license drivers" and admonishing Congress for not acting
on it. Given his
relationship with the truth and history of equivocation, it's entirely possible
that he's calling for the
*easing* of gun restrictions or, conversely, the federalization of property
restrictions beyond guns.
Applying "Clinton-speak" standards, I get these plausible translations:

Easing gun restrictions
Driver's licenses and automobile registrations are *NOT* required to *OWN* cars.
They are required to
*USE* them on public property. States *ALREADY* have similar provisions for
using guns on public property
-- hunting licenses and carry permits. Some jurisdictions (New York, Chicago,
DC) however go beyond the
automobile model of regulating *USE* on *PUBLIC* property and limit *POSESSION*
on *PRIVATE* property. To
bring gun laws and automobile laws in line, one option is to ease gun laws, not
only by getting rid of
ownership laws, but by easing age requirements (16-year-olds can buy cars, but
not guns) and interstate
commerce laws (you can buy a car out of state, but not a gun)...and so on. 
Perhaps Slick even is a
"shall issue" proponent.

Federalizing  property laws
On the other hand, your other option is to *increase* automobile ownership laws
-- which kind of makes
sense from a regulator's perspective. Most people -- outside farmers -- cannot
use their cars on private
property anyway, so why would anyone complain? It certainly would increase the
tax revenue from all those
"fix it up" cars sitting in people's garages out range of the "public sight
nuisance" laws applied to
junk cars sitting in view of the public roads. Note that Clinton is asking
*Congress* to act on bringing
driver and gun owner laws in line -- federalize the issue. Both car use laws and
gun ownership laws have
been state and local issues -- but we are getting increasing calls for
federalization, even if it is the
"withholding federal funds unless you pass a law" stick so often used by
Washington. I can just see Slick
saying, "What I meant by bringing gun laws and car laws in line was car
*ownership* licensing. After all
cars kill more people than guns."

Yes, yes, I know facts and logic don't matter here (does it ever with gun
controllers?) -- this is simply
a deceitful way to make people think guns are less regulated than they really
are-- that's my point. Once
again, we're being lied to. I don't know what's more depressing -- the
politician's lies, the
propagan-tertainment industry's ("news") complicity or the public's disinterest
in becoming informed.

Thanks for the forum to rant.

--
Sean Oberle, Falls Church, VA
Keep your laws off her body AND my gun

Larry Pratt's weekly talk radio show can be heard at
http://www.gunowners.org/radio.htm on the Internet.  You can listen
live at 11:30 AM Eastern Saturdays and call in to the show toll free
at 1-800-773 TALK (8255).  The show is archived for 60 days and can
be heard that way 24 hours a day, seven days a week by going to the
same URL.

And while we are at it:

Single males should be allowed to be girl scout masters.

Vote Libertine.


>Fellow friends of Liberty,
>
>Just a follow-up on this--many of the challenges to the BSA policy are
based
>on the federal and/or state funding and special charter or treatment
>received by BSA and individual Chapters, Posts, and Ships.
>
>Of course, the answer that the government should get out of the
business of
>funding or supporting specific youth organizations would solve the
problem
>and I would have no objection to the BSA policy--but while they do,
the Bill
>of Rights principles of equal treatment under the law and freedom of
>association, to me, are clearly in conflict.
>
>--Pete Thomas, Eagle Scout Class of 1988, BSA
>

Fellow friends of Liberty,

Just a follow-up on this--many of the challenges to the BSA policy are based
on the federal and/or state funding and special charter or treatment
received by BSA and individual Chapters, Posts, and Ships.

Of course, the answer that the government should get out of the business of
funding or supporting specific youth organizations would solve the problem
and I would have no objection to the BSA policy--but while they do, the Bill
of Rights principles of equal treatment under the law and freedom of
association, to me, are clearly in conflict.

--Pete Thomas, Eagle Scout Class of 1988, BSA





-----Original Message-----
From: Delegate49@... [mailto:Delegate49@...]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 7:22 PM
To: lpva-forum@egroups.com
Subject: [LPVA-Forum] FYI: Gay Organization Files Brief Favoring Boy
Scouts


NEWS FROM
GAYS AND LESBIANS FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
P.O.Box 65743
Washington, DC  20035
Phone (202) 903-5555
URL:  http://www.gayliberty.org

CONTACT:  Richard Sincere
202-903-5555 or
804-245-8426


Gay Organization Files Brief Favoring Boy Scouts
"Freedom of Association Applies Even to Those We Dislike," GLIL Tells
Supreme
Court

(WASHINGTON, D.C., February 28, 2000) --- Gays and Lesbians for Individual
Liberty (GLIL) today filed an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief
with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Boy Scouts of America have a
constitutional right to set their own standards for membership and
leadership
positions, even if that means the Boy Scouts may exclude openly gay Scout
leaders from participation in the organization.

     The brief was filed in the case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale,
which was appealed to the nation’s highest court after the New Jersey
Supreme
Court ruled last August that the Boy Scouts may not exclude gay men from
leadership positions.

     "Our brief emphasizes our disagreement with the Boy Scouts’ policy of
excluding gay members and leaders," said Richard Sincere, president of GLIL
and a former Boy Scout.  "But if government forces the Boy Scouts to change
that policy, the constitutional rights of all of us -- not just the Scouts,
but everyone, gay or straight -- will be diminished.  Freedom does not
belong
only to those with whom we agree.  Gay men and lesbians have suffered when
freedom of association has not been respected.  We benefit when freedom of
speech and freedom of association are vigorously protected.  A Supreme Court

ruling against the Boy Scouts will have the perverse effect of hurting gay
and lesbian Americans."

     GLIL’s brief before the Supreme Court was prepared by the Institute for
Justice, a Washington, D.C.-based public-interest law firm.  Attorneys from
the Institute for Justice are available for media interviews to discuss
GLIL’s point of view and reasoning in the case.  Please call John Kramer of
the Institute for Justice at 202-955-1300 for more information.

     A summary of GLIL’s brief is attached to this news release.  The full
text of the brief will soon be available on-line at
http://www.gayliberty.org.

     For further information or to arrange interviews with GLIL members about

the amicus brief, please telephone Richard Sincere at 202-903-5555 or
804-245-8426.

     Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty was founded in February 1991 to

advance the ideas of economic and personal freedom and individual
responsibility.  It has members across the United States and in several
foreign countries.

(one-page attachment of summary follows)

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL) is a non-partisan
organization founded in 1991 to advance the principles of the free market,
individual responsibility, and non-interference by government in the private

lives of all citizens.  GLIL seeks to educate members of the gay and lesbian

community about these principles, while at the same time promoting tolerance

and acceptance of homosexuals among members of the wider society.  GLIL is
based in Washington, D.C., with members across the United States and in
several foreign countries.  To achieve its goals, GLIL sponsors lectures,
debates, panel discussions, fundraisers for charitable organizations, and
social events.  GLIL also publishes a newsletter and utilizes a website to
express its views, while its members contribute articles to various
publications.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision restricting the ability of the Boy
Scouts of America (BSA) to choose its own leaders and define its own
membership criteria dangerously erodes the freedom of all Americans,
including gay Americans, and should be reversed.  Freedom of association is
one of the core liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.  See, e.g.,
Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984).  In particular, this
Court has consistently recognized that the First Amendment protects the
freedom of expressive association, which it has described as the "freedom to

engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas."  NAACP v.
Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 460 (1958).

While a robust protection for the freedom of association is important to all

Americans, it holds a special significance for gay and lesbian Americans.
Throughout this nation's history, gays have suffered in a variety of
contexts
when freedom of association has not been respected and governments have been

allowed to trample on the rights of citizens to freely gather together.

An organization's decision to associate with or to exclude openly gay
individuals conveys a powerful message -- either one of openness and
tolerance, or one of exclusion and disapproval.  Either way, a message is
sent.  It is therefore troublesome, from a First Amendment perspective, when

a well-intentioned law prohibiting discrimination is applied in a way to
stifle such communication.

The BSA's ability to communicate its disapproval of homosexuality, for
instance, is undoubtedly undermined when the State of New Jersey requires
the
organization to allow openly gay individuals to become Scoutmasters,
individuals who are supposed to serve as role models to young Scouts.

The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision here is especially pernicious for it

places the government in the intolerable position of second-guessing a
private organization's interpretation of its own rules and articulation of
its own message.  If this litigation has made one thing clear, it is that
the
leadership of the BSA disapproves of homosexuality and wishes to communicate

this in some form to its membership and to the outside world.

An organization's freedom of expressive association cannot depend upon the
degree to which it may choose to emphasize certain aspects of its message at

certain times.  Such a rule, in fact, works perversely to the detriment of
gay Americans.  Under the test adopted by the New Jersey Supreme Court,
which
accords protection only to forcefully stated messages, groups such as the
Boy
Scouts will be encouraged to stress their anti-gay views so that they may
retain their freedom of expressive association.

GLIL strongly disapproves of the BSA's moral views with respect to
homosexuality and wishes the organization would voluntarily end its policy
of
excluding gays from serving as Scoutmasters.  Nevertheless, the First
Amendment protects the freedom of the BSA to maintain this misguided policy
if it so desires.  To deny the BSA's right to express its moral views
through
its decisions to associate with or exclude certain people endangers the
rights of all Americans, including gay Americans.

-30-

------------------------------------------------------------------------
To discuss abortion: lpva-discuss-abortion-subscribe@egroups.com.

-----------------------------------------------------

More info: LPVA, Po Box 28263, Richmond VA 23228, 703-715-6230 voice, FAX
540-389-4881, info@...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FREE ADVICE FROM REAL PEOPLE!  Xpertsite has thousands of experts who
are willing to answer your questions for FREE.  Go to Xpertsite today and
put your mind to rest.
http://click.egroups.com/1/1404/4/_/394086/_/951858629/

-- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
-- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/lpva-forum/?m=1

NEWS FROM
GAYS AND LESBIANS FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
P.O.Box 65743
Washington, DC  20035
Phone (202) 903-5555
URL:  http://www.gayliberty.org

CONTACT:  Richard Sincere
202-903-5555 or
804-245-8426


Gay Organization Files Brief Favoring Boy Scouts
"Freedom of Association Applies Even to Those We Dislike," GLIL Tells Supreme
Court

(WASHINGTON, D.C., February 28, 2000) --- Gays and Lesbians for Individual
Liberty (GLIL) today filed an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief
with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Boy Scouts of America have a
constitutional right to set their own standards for membership and leadership
positions, even if that means the Boy Scouts may exclude openly gay Scout
leaders from participation in the organization.

     The brief was filed in the case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale,
which was appealed to the nation’s highest court after the New Jersey Supreme
Court ruled last August that the Boy Scouts may not exclude gay men from
leadership positions.

     "Our brief emphasizes our disagreement with the Boy Scouts’ policy of
excluding gay members and leaders," said Richard Sincere, president of GLIL
and a former Boy Scout.  "But if government forces the Boy Scouts to change
that policy, the constitutional rights of all of us -- not just the Scouts,
but everyone, gay or straight -- will be diminished.  Freedom does not belong
only to those with whom we agree.  Gay men and lesbians have suffered when
freedom of association has not been respected.  We benefit when freedom of
speech and freedom of association are vigorously protected.  A Supreme Court
ruling against the Boy Scouts will have the perverse effect of hurting gay
and lesbian Americans."

     GLIL’s brief before the Supreme Court was prepared by the Institute for
Justice, a Washington, D.C.-based public-interest law firm.  Attorneys from
the Institute for Justice are available for media interviews to discuss
GLIL’s point of view and reasoning in the case.  Please call John Kramer of
the Institute for Justice at 202-955-1300 for more information.

     A summary of GLIL’s brief is attached to this news release.  The full
text of the brief will soon be available on-line at http://www.gayliberty.org.

     For further information or to arrange interviews with GLIL members about
the amicus brief, please telephone Richard Sincere at 202-903-5555 or
804-245-8426.

     Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty was founded in February 1991 to
advance the ideas of economic and personal freedom and individual
responsibility.  It has members across the United States and in several
foreign countries.

(one-page attachment of summary follows)

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL) is a non-partisan
organization founded in 1991 to advance the principles of the free market,
individual responsibility, and non-interference by government in the private
lives of all citizens.  GLIL seeks to educate members of the gay and lesbian
community about these principles, while at the same time promoting tolerance
and acceptance of homosexuals among members of the wider society.  GLIL is
based in Washington, D.C., with members across the United States and in
several foreign countries.  To achieve its goals, GLIL sponsors lectures,
debates, panel discussions, fundraisers for charitable organizations, and
social events.  GLIL also publishes a newsletter and utilizes a website to
express its views, while its members contribute articles to various
publications.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision restricting the ability of the Boy
Scouts of America (BSA) to choose its own leaders and define its own
membership criteria dangerously erodes the freedom of all Americans,
including gay Americans, and should be reversed.  Freedom of association is
one of the core liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.  See, e.g.,
Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984).  In particular, this
Court has consistently recognized that the First Amendment protects the
freedom of expressive association, which it has described as the "freedom to
engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas."  NAACP v.
Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 460 (1958).

While a robust protection for the freedom of association is important to all
Americans, it holds a special significance for gay and lesbian Americans.
Throughout this nation's history, gays have suffered in a variety of contexts
when freedom of association has not been respected and governments have been
allowed to trample on the rights of citizens to freely gather together.

An organization's decision to associate with or to exclude openly gay
individuals conveys a powerful message -- either one of openness and
tolerance, or one of exclusion and disapproval.  Either way, a message is
sent.  It is therefore troublesome, from a First Amendment perspective, when
a well-intentioned law prohibiting discrimination is applied in a way to
stifle such communication.

The BSA's ability to communicate its disapproval of homosexuality, for
instance, is undoubtedly undermined when the State of New Jersey requires the
organization to allow openly gay individuals to become Scoutmasters,
individuals who are supposed to serve as role models to young Scouts.

The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision here is especially pernicious for it
places the government in the intolerable position of second-guessing a
private organization's interpretation of its own rules and articulation of
its own message.  If this litigation has made one thing clear, it is that the
leadership of the BSA disapproves of homosexuality and wishes to communicate
this in some form to its membership and to the outside world.

An organization's freedom of expressive association cannot depend upon the
degree to which it may choose to emphasize certain aspects of its message at
certain times.  Such a rule, in fact, works perversely to the detriment of
gay Americans.  Under the test adopted by the New Jersey Supreme Court, which
accords protection only to forcefully stated messages, groups such as the Boy
Scouts will be encouraged to stress their anti-gay views so that they may
retain their freedom of expressive association.

GLIL strongly disapproves of the BSA's moral views with respect to
homosexuality and wishes the organization would voluntarily end its policy of
excluding gays from serving as Scoutmasters.  Nevertheless, the First
Amendment protects the freedom of the BSA to maintain this misguided policy
if it so desires.  To deny the BSA's right to express its moral views through
its decisions to associate with or exclude certain people endangers the
rights of all Americans, including gay Americans.

-30-

My Cimmerian genes do not apologize for their pillaging. They are proud
of their accomplishments.
In fact they call me to ethnic cleanse myself. Time to look in the
Yellow Pages under holistic services...

The Atlantians and the Hyperboreans.  The people of Mu, however, owe you nothing -- unless you and they have had some quarrels in the subterranean world that the rest of us don't know about.

--
Sean Oberle, Falls Church, Va.
 

Who is going to apologize to my part which is Tuatha de Denaan?  Hmmmm?

Tatyanna Patten
TLPatten@...

I'm glad you're at peace with yourself, now, Sean.  I'd hate to see you
attempting to commit ethnic cleansing on yourself.  The worst part of that would
be that the Klintons would ask NATO to bomb the hell out of you to make the
strongest part of you stop hurting the rest.

-- Marc Montoni


At 12:37 PM 02/25/2000 -0500, Sean Oberle wrote:
>As a descendant of the Celtic people, I hereby issue an apology to any
>remaining descendants of the Picts of Scotland, Prymri of Wales or
>Firbolg of Ireland whose civilizations my ancestors destroyed.
>

[remainder of amusing post deleted]

As a descendant of the Celtic people, I hereby issue an apology to any
remaining descendants of the Picts of Scotland, Prymri of Wales or
Firbolg of Ireland whose civilizations my ancestors destroyed.

As a descendant of the Celtic people, I hereby accept the apologies of
any members of the Viking, Roman, Germanic or Norman people whose
ancestors did the same to my ancestors.

As a descendant of both the Germanic and Norman people, I hereby
apologize to my Celtic part and my Celtic part hereby accepts my
Germanic/Norman apologies. In as much as I may have Firbolg roots too, I
accept my Celtic apology, though my Celtic part tells my possible
Firbolg part to examine whether the Firbolg didn't displace some earlier
people in Ireland and get back to us all if need be. Meanwhile, my
Germanic part tells my Celtic part that "Hey! You did it to us first."
So my Celtic part apologizes for that too and my Germanic part accepts.
My Norman part now is eyeing my Germanic part suspiciously, so I tell
both to apologize to each other and leave it at that.

I now will treat myself to a Snickers in reparation and tell my Germanic
part that I can't do anything about all those Roman raids along the Elbe
as much as I would like to. Though my Germanic part does apologize to
the Romans for that unfortunate Goth, Visigoth and Vandal
misunderstanding.

--
Sean Oberle, Falls Church, Va.
I'm exploring whether to study appointing a committee to discuss the
need for research on that

> Speaking of posting 10 commandments, I've come up 10 that ought to be
> posted in every townhall, statehouse and both chambers of the Capitol,
> recited as The Pledge of Responsibility every morning, hand on heart,
> while facing the "Don't Tread on Me" flag, and followed by a moment of
> silence ;^)
> [ list deleted ]

Impressive... there's only one problem.  You're asking the politicians
to take some responsibility instead of doing the standard, "Check the
polls and have a knee-jerk reaction to whatever is going on right now."

Imagine... politicians actually taking some responsibility.

Yes, I know there are a few out there who do that.  It's unfortunate
that the few who do are overshadowed by the many who don't.

--Joe

--
"There's no point in growing up if you can't be childish sometimes." The Doctor

Joe Ogulin   ogulinj@...
DoD# 3229.   http://members.tripod.com/wench_baiter
Rogue #252 - "I know how to hold my liquor" - Field Sergeant.
RenMerc.  Bard #009.

The Kilted Knight of Clan McArgh
"And Hersheys thinks they have chocolate kisses."

THERE franchise #75666 co-owner; opportunities available; inquire within.

This message is made of 100% recycled electrons.
Disclaimer:  I'm responsible for the content of this message.  Nobody else is.

I shall demonstrate that the problem really exists and that I have identified the real cause
I shall demonstrate that my proposal will really fix this problem and not cause other problems
I shall demonstrate that I am granted specific power to act on this problem
I shall demonstrate that my proposal violates neither enumerated nor unwritten rights
I shall not misuse the word right to describe solutions or states of well-being
I shall examine whether nongovernment forces can fix the problem equally well or better
I shall examine whether less drastic steps or different actions will suffice
I shall honestly examine my conscience as to whether I am simply forcing my morality on others
I shall honestly examine my conscience as to whether I am simply pandering to greed or fear
I shall not make law in violation of these responsibilities and oppose those who do

Yeah, I know, lawmakers would loophole these unto swiss cheese and twist them unto pretzels.

--
Sean Oberle, Falls Church, Va.
"Why do you need to do that" is not a question the people need answer but the government must

Perhaps some of you have seen this and I
apologize to them but this is a pretty good post:

The following was written by State Representative Mitchell Kaye from
Cobb County, GA. (so they say)

We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help
everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more
riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the
blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great
grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some
common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden
delusional and other liberal, bed-wetters.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of
people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim
that they require a Bill of No Rights.

ARTICLE I:
You do not have the right to a new car, big screen
TV or any other form of wealth.  More power to you if you can
legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II:
You do not have the right to never be offended.
This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom
for everyone - not just you!  You may leave the room, turn
the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world
is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III:
You do not have the right to be free from harm.
If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more
careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you
and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV:
You do not have the right to free food and
housing.  Americans are the most charitable people to be
found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are
quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after
generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve
nothing more than the creation of another generation of
professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V:
You do not have the right to free health care.
That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing,
we're just not interested in health care.

ARTICLE VI:
You do not have the right to physically harm
other people.  If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill
someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you
fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII:
You do not have the right to the possessions
of others.  If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or
services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us
get together and lock you away in a place where you still
won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of
leisure.

ARTICLE VIII:
You don't have the right to demand that our
children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching
conscience.  We hate oppressive governments and won't lift
a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like.  However,
we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want
to spend so much of our time battling each and every little
tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX:
You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure
want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in
hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the
opportunities of education and vocational training laid before
you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X:
You do not have the right to happiness.  Being
an American means that you have the right to pursue
happiness - which by the way, is a lot easier if you are
unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created
by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

It would be interesting to find out if Citibank is including in these notices US
government accounts -- after all, it is the largest single arms
dealer/owner/thief/criminal-activity-user.

It is so obvious what's happening behind the scenes here that it's pathetic. 
The Clintonistas are digging up all of those old regulation books and going to
businesses that deal with the firearms manufacturers and saying OK, we have here
violations of xyz obscure regulation and we're going to slap you with a ten
billion dollar fine... or you can just do this little thing ...

First the shippers got blackmailed; now it's banks -- both HEAVILY regulated
industries.  Anyone wanna bet a fifty spot on which one it will be next?  Public
utilities that allow manufacturers/dealers to buy water & sewage service?  Power
utilities that alow the factories to run?

It's a squeeze that will mean the death of the US firearms industry; and when
it's sucessful, it will mean the birth of a new Prohibition -- complete with
smuggling, high prices, and another crime wave.  Your tax dollars at work.

-- Marc Montoni


>From: Angela Richardson <elan@...>
>Subject: Breaking News
>
>CITIBANK SHUTS DOWN WEAPONS-RELATED BUSINESS ACCOUNTS
>by Angela Hunter Richardson
>
>A letter’s text flowed across my screen and shocked me to my boot soles.
>>From the local Citibank branch to Nevada Pistol Academy, it read:
>
>"Your Citibank checking account will be closed ten calendar days from
>the date of this notice. This action is necessary due to Citibank not
>maintaining accounts for businesses that deal in weapons."
>
>This can’t be true, I thought. This is a paranoid rumor, like so many
>you find on the Web. So I called Citibank and was transferred to the
>company’s Business and Professional TeleSales Dept. I read the letter’s
>text to Senior Business Officer Lynn Mackey and asked if this was a
>local branch policy or, unbelievably, a Citibank policy. She replied,
>“It’s a Citibank policy: I don’t know when it was implemented or why,
>but we have three basic industries that we do not target market; that’s
>one of them. The other two are political and pornography.”
>
>Okay, I said, I can understand not target marketing certain businesses,
>but why are you closing down existing accounts? How long has this policy
>been in effect? She didn’t know, and wouldn’t say how long she had been
>with the company, promising instead to find and give me an address later
>through which I could discuss this matter with the company’s legal
>department.
>
>She did say, “[The Nevada Pistol Academy’s] account number is one of a
>series of accounts that had been around for a long time; I do not know
>who is sending these accounts to be closed or why. The information I
>just gave you is part of our training material, and I am not in a
>position to know why it was made a policy.”
>
>My question: Does this fall under the “We reserve the right to refuse
>service” convention? If so, and if it’s legal, is it right? And if so –
>why is Citibank lumping weapons sales and training, which are rights
>indirectly guaranteed under the Second Amendment, to pornography and
>that other flesh-bartering, secret-deals business, politics?
>
>This is a free market society. For Citibank loftily to hold up its nose
>and politely brush the dirt of pornmongerers and lie merchants from its
>lily-white hands is one thing. I strongly resent, however, their
>including in that distasteful group those people who sell -- and train
>others to use -- the tools that bought this country its freedom.
>
>Stay tuned for more on this breaking story.
>###