1996-12-02 - Re: denial of service and government rights

Header Data

From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
To: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Message Hash: 12257daa4c8b768761ea1a302ad9e9999e2a4e67f245d99c63a2130c4a03e7b7
Message ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.961201200504.5120Z-100000@polaris>
Reply To: <32A1C811.244@gte.net>
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-02 01:12:17 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:12:17 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:12:17 -0800 (PST)
To: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Subject: Re: denial of service and government rights
In-Reply-To: <32A1C811.244@gte.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.961201200504.5120Z-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:

> Black Unicorn wrote: 
> > On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:

> > > > Example:  George Bush's old pal at the Wash. DC P.R. firm hires the
> > > > niece(?) of a Kuwaiti official to testify in front of Congress in full
> > > > view of the American people on television, that the Iraquis were throwing
> > > > babies out of incubators in Kuwait, thereby securing the necessary votes
> > > > in Congress to prosecute the Gulf War.
> > At that time the country was already at war and if you read the war powers
> > act and look at the dates, you'll find that he probably could have
> > prosecuted it without congress.
> Fraud is fraud.  It's illegal under *some* statute, I'm sure.

Point to it.

> > 60 minutes did a nice piece on this, BTW, and even they admitted that the
> > wool might have been pulled over the eyes of the Bush Staff.
> > > > When it was discovered (after the "war") that the Incubator Baby Scandal
> > > > was a lie, nobody was prosecuted.
> > Prosecuted for what?
> Fraud.  See above.

Give me a cite.

Fraud is an excellent answer because it is a meaningless answer.  Fraud is
traditionally used to prosecutue those not-quite-a-crime cases because the
definition essentially comes down to : "That guy did something we don't

> > > > Further, in blatant violation of the
> > > > U.S. Constitution, Bush and Schwartzkopf were knighted by Queen Elizabeth
> > > > II of England.
> > Careful.  The knighthoods in question (Knight's Cross of the Victorian
> > Order if I recall) do not infringe on foreign decorations restrictions
> > when they are granted in an honorary context, as both were - again if my
> > recall is correct.
> > Several American citizens have been inducted into foreign orders of merit
> > and some have been inducted into badge and even sash orders.
> > One noteable was even inducted into the Order of the Bath (extra points
> > for the name of said citizen).
> According to the Constitution, "No title of nobility shall be granted by
> the United States, and no person holding any office of profit or trust
> under them shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any
> present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatsoever, from any
> king, prince, or foreign state."

Honorary Knighthoods simply do not fall into this catagory.  There are
three or four cases on this point which I will dig up if enough people

In addition, I believe congressional approval was granted regardless for

Note that unlike your previous assertion, there is no rule regulating
these awards for the day to day citizen.

Playing loosey goosey with the facts seems to be a habit with you.

Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key   Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist         Switzerland