Sept. 29, 2000
 

CAVING TO PRESSURE FROM THE FEMINISTS AND THE
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, the House of Representatives voted on
Sept. 26th to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
The $3.8 billion reauthorization bill now awaits action in the Senate.
VAWA, which originally passed in 1994, is based on false and
dishonest statistics and is primarily a device to put feminist activists
on the federal payroll.

Please send thank-you letters to the Reps. Helen Chenoweth-Hage
(ID), John Hostettler (IN), and Mark Sanford (SC), who stood for
principle by opposing this feminist pork program. (For details on
VAWA, see the Eagle Forum Alert.) Despite the overwhelming vote
to reauthorize VAWA, constituents need to know that even some
very conservative Members caved to the feminists.

The following day, Rush Limbaugh spent some time criticizing the
VAWA vote. He seems to be the only man courageous enough to
criticize the feminists. Rush suggested that a memorable phone
number for the new toll-free VAWA "hot line" would be
1-800-JUANITA.
 

FINAL CHAPTER IN RUBY RIDGE. One of the most shocking
examples of outrageous dictatorial behavior by the Federal
Government came to a conclusion on Sept. 22 when the Government
paid $380,000 to Kevin Harris, who was wounded by an FBI sniper in
1992 at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. The Government also paid Randy Weaver
$3.1 million in 1995 because an FBI sniper killed Weaver's wife Vicki
and his son Samuel at Ruby Ridge. Vicki was standing in her own
cabin holding her baby when she was shot. The FBI sniper, Lon
Horiuchi, was protected by the FBI and the courts and will not have
to stand trial. (Horiuchi, who boasted of the accuracy of his shooting
abilities, was also present at the Waco disaster on April 19, 1993.)
The FBI supervisor, E. Michael Kahoe, who pled guilty to obstruction
of justice in destroying evidence about the case, was allowed to retire
on a very large government pension.
 

SENATE DEMOCRATS SABOTAGE HEARING ON MEDIA
VIOLENCE TO PROTEST JUDICIARY COMMITTEE'S "INACTIVITY"
ON CONFIRMING JUDGES. Eagle Forum's "No More Clinton
Judges" campaign seems to be having an impact. On Sept. 18,
Eagle Forum Court Watch Chairman Dr. Virginia Armstrong reported
that "Grassroots activism does work concerning judicial
nominations." As of that day, an Iowa newspaper quoted Judiciary
Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) as saying the nomination of
Bonnie Campbell was "effectively dead," and that "I don't think there
will be [any more judges confirmed] before the end of the year." Mrs.
Armstrong wrote, "Our grassroots effort must intensify in the
remaining weeks of the session."

The reports of Hatch's remarks apparently so enraged Senate
Democrats that on Sept. 20, according to the Washington Times
(9-21-00), they invoked a "little-used rule" that stopped all Senate
hearings. The rule allows one senator to object to a routine request to
allow senators to conduct business off the Senate floor two hours
after the daily session has begun. Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and
Charles Robb (D-VA) objected; and entertainment moguls such as
Jack Valenti of the Motion Picture Association of America, Hilary
Rosen of the Recording Industry Association of America, and Doug
Lowenstein of the Interactive Digital Software Association, who were
on hand to face questioning from the Judiciary Committee about the
effects of violent entertainment on children, were excused. One of the
judges awaiting confirmation, Judge Helene White, is married to
Senator Levin's cousin. "Democrats would rather play politics than do
what's right, " Senator Hatch commented. Lori Cole, Executive
Director of the Washington office, said Eagles should continue
contacting their senators as well as Chairman Hatch and Majority
Leader Trent Lott on this matter.
 

GENDER GAP BETWEEN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES IS
ACTUALLY A MARRIAGE GAP. The New York Times reported Sept.
20 that its joint poll with CBS News shows Al Gore leading George
W. Bush by 11 points among women, while Bush leads among men.
However, although most women support Gore, Bush leads among
women under 50 with children still at home. The Times quotes
Democratic pollster Celinda Lake as saying, "The marriage gap is
even more dramatic than the gender gap." Married women preferred
Bob Dole over Bill Clinton by two points; but George W. Bush leads
Gore 45% to 37% among married women. Rush Limbaugh discussed
this data on his program Sept. 20, and attributed the difference to the
fact that single women want the government in effect to serve as their
husband. Or, as Gore's pollster, Stanley Greenberg, puts it, "People
who are single are more vulnerable to changes in the economy and
are more in need of government services."

On the male side of the equation, the two candidates are tied among
married men over 50; but white men who make less than $50,000 a
year and have not attended college are "shifting toward Gore,"
according to the Times. This is a voting bloc of social conservatives
which has formerly voted Republican.
 

FIVE INCUMBENT LEGISLATORS LOSE VERMONT PRIMARY
OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ISSUE. Pete Brownell, a former
Burlington mayor and a four-year member of the state Senate, is one
of five incumbent Republicans who were ousted in Vermont's primary
election September 12. All had voted for the controversial law which
legalized "civil unions" between persons of the same sex. Vermont is
the only state in which any homosexual couple can be legally joined
in a union which is virtually identical to marriage under state law. In
the 6 « months since the law was passed, 656 such couples have
been recognized, 474 traveling from other states to do so. Opponents
of the bill had launched a "Take Back Vermont" campaign during the
election season, aimed at ousting the lawmakers who supported it. A
spokesman for the effort said that 50% of the incumbents targeted
were defeated. The legislators argued that they were acting under a
judicial mandate; since the Vermont Supreme Court had ordered the
action - a clear example of judicial legislation and a violation of the
principle of separation of powers. New York Times News Service,
9-16-00
 

"SPENDING FLOODGATES OPEN ON HILL" was the page one
Washington Post headline September 27, in its story describing
Congress' move toward "the biggest spending increase for domestic
programs since the Republicans took control in 1995, adding billions
more to the budget for everything from local harbor dredging and
bridge construction to hospital funding, science research projects
and school aid." As a result of even greater budget surpluses than
expected [or, in other words, even greater over-taxation of the
citizens], the spending binge "is setting off alarms among fiscal
conservatives and threatens to absorb a chunk of the future surplus
that the presidential candidates want to use for tax cuts and
spending programs of their own."

Sen. John McCain noted, "The deficit used to have some modest
breaking influence, but now that that's not there, it's just a free-for-all.
They're all equal opportunity pork-barrelers...This is the worst ever."

As if this were not enough, Human Events (9-29-00) estimates that
the spending and new entitlement programs promised by presidential
candidate Al Gore would add $1.6 trillion to the federal budget in the
next ten years.
 

NOW CHAPTER ENDORSES BUSH FOR PRESIDENT. Many will
recall the dissident Reston, VA chapter of the National Organization
for Women, which protested its national organization's gentle
treatment of President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
The rogue chapter is in the news again. It released a statement on
Sept. 7, citing the "failures," "wasted opportunities," "divisive
strategies," "pervasive and orchestrated lying," and "perceptions of
entrenched corruption" which characterize the Clinton-Gore
administration. It concludes, "Longtime Democrat voters, Dulles
NOW activists therefore support the candidacy of Governor Bush
unconditionally."
 

REPUBLICAN-TURNED-DEMOCRAT CONGRESSMAN LOSES IN
PRIMARY. Long Island Rep. Michael P. Forbes of New York's 1st
Congressional District angered his fellow Republicans by voting
against the impeachment of President Clinton, and then switched
parties and became a Democrat. Despite his $1.4 million reelection
war chest, some of which was brought in by a fund-raiser featuring
President Clinton, Forbes was defeated in the Sept. 12 primary by a
71-year old former librarian who spent about $40,000. Since the
district is considered a safe GOP seat, with Republicans
outnumbering Democrats two to one, the expected victory of GOP
candidate Felix Grucci raises to eight the number of seats the
Democrats must turn over in order to take control of the U.S. House
of Representatives. Conservative News Service, 9-21-00

Listen to Phyllis Schlafly Live on the internet! Phyllis Schlafly Live
may be heard every Saturday from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon (central)
on the USA Radio Network: www.usaradio.com/studio.htm

Listen September 30: All over the country, parents are insisting that
schools ask for their written consent before their children are required
to answer nosy, non-academic questionnaires. Do you know what
your parental rights are?
 
 
 
 

**************
Congress Missed the Biggie in Campaign Finance Reform

July 12, 2000                             by:  Phyllis Schlafly

While Americans are watching fireworks to celebrate Independence
Day, the 10,000+ representatives of the country's most powerful
political pressure group, the National Education Association (NEA),
are meeting in the Windy City to approve their usual radical policies
and resolutions. But the real NEA fireworks are being exploded in
Washington, D.C., where the Landmark Legal Foundation has filed
complaints with the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal
Election Commission.

Both Houses of Congress just passed a law to require full
disclosure of the notorious Section 527 funds, which allow
tax-exempt unreported funds to be spent for political activities in
campaigns. But 527 monies are a drop in the bucket compared to
the massive unreported tax-exempt political money spent by the
NEA.

Landmark's legal complaints, copiously documented with dozens of
exhibits from the NEA's own publications, charge that "the NEA is
spending substantial general operating funds on taxable political
activities, which it has not reported on its tax returns for the last
several years." The NEA's Forms 990 show that, at least since 1994,
the NEA has entered a big zero in answer to question 81a
demanding "the amount of political expenditures, direct or indirect."

Form 990 instructions make clear that "a political expenditure is one
intended to influence the selection, nomination, election, or
appointment" of any public official. "Expenditure" includes not only
direct contributions, but loans, in-kind support, "or anything of value"
such as personnel, equipment or supplies.

The other exhibits filed by Landmark consist of NEA publications that
effectively prove that, out of its general association dues, the NEA
has been doing all of the above to elect its chosen candidates, but
not reporting its expenditures as the law requires. The NEA has two
powerful incentives to avoid filling in line 81a: monies reported on this
line are taxable, and NEA members (who may be up to half
Republican) would find out that their dues money is being spent to
elect Clinton-Gore-type candidates and would demand a refund,
which they are entitled to under the Supreme Court's Beck decision.

This expenditure of NEA membership money on politics is in addition
to the declared political money spent by the NEA's Political Action
Committee, NEA-PAC, one of the largest and most powerful PACs
operating today, with a budget in excess of $6 million. The NEA also
has dozens of state and local PACs.

Landmark's exhibits include the NEA's series of "how to" handbooks
to train its members in "practical politics." The NEA's political action
manual instructs members how to "elect pro-education candidates at
the local, state and national levels" so they can "more easily pass or
defeat legislative proposals."

The NEA handbook instructs members in "integrating the structure"
of the NEA with its various PACs by making sure that all the PACs
have a majority of NEA board members to control how funds are
spent.

Landmark's exhibits include the NEA's "Strategic Plan and Budget."
This document reveals the extraordinary sums of money spent
annually on politics from NEA dues: $350,000 for "cyberspace
advocacy systems ... in support of ... candidates at the state and
federal level," $386,000 for "partnerships with political parties,
campaign committees, and political organizations," $540,000 for
"candidate recruitment ... early voting, and vote-by-mail programs in
order to strengthen support for pro-public education candidates,"
$350,000 for "training programs ... to support the election of
pro-public education candidates," $872,000 to elect "pro-education
candidates," $530,000 for "political data systems" to assist state
political programs.

Much of the NEA's political spending is concealed under
euphemisms: $2,517,701 was spent on "Government Relations
programs assistance to state affiliates" for "candidate recruitment
and recommendation; campaign staff and support." An additional
$792,422 was spent to "secure member support for
Association-endorsed candidates."

The NEA's UniServ program, with a budget of a whopping $76.4
million for 1999-2000, enables the NEA to select, train and fund at
least one employee of each NEA affiliate, called a UniServ director, in
every congressional district and linked to the NEA's 13,000 local
affiliates. This UniServ director manages the NEA staff dispatched to
assist with phone banks, door-to-door canvassing, absentee vote
programs, media development, and polling and consulting services to
elect NEA-endorsed candidates.

This NEA army of paid political organizers and lobbyists far exceeds
the combined staff of the Republican and Democratic national
committees. In addition, the NEA exercises uncommon leverage over
the Democratic Party, controlling at least ten percent of the
delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

At last year's NEA convention, NEA president Bob Chase
congratulated NEA members for their role in congressional elections.
"We supported pro-public education stalwarts in the Democratic
Party -- the folks who have helped Bill Clinton," he said.

Chase made no secret of the NEA's special campaign to defeat
Senators Al D'Amato (R-NY) and Lauch Faircloth (R-NC). Chase
boasted, "Jesse Helms, you're next!"

"Campaign finance reform" is a sham unless it deals with the
unreported politicking of the NEA.

                                      Phyllis Schlafly column 7-12-00

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 

Congressman Ron Paul

Paul Named "Taxpayers Best Friend for" for '99
Washington, D.C. - On Wednesday, the independent, nonpartisan
National Taxpayers Union, once again, named Congressman Ron Paul as the 1999
"Taxpayers Best Friend" in the House of Representatives. The NTU gave Paul
the highest rating of any member in the House for his votes on issues
concerning fiscal policy. Paul has received the honor in the past, but said
he was honored to be recognized again.
Paul said, "It is truly an honor to be recognized by the NTU for my
dedication to lower taxes and promotion of local control over tax dollars.
During my tenure in Congress, I have worked hard to put the taxpayer first.
It is refreshing to see that my efforts have not gone unnoticed."
Paul received an 89% "Taxpayer Score" for his commitment to reducing
federal spending, taxes, debt and regulation. NTU President John Berthoud
said more members of Congress would have to join Paul in fighting for
taxpayers if we are to avoid a major economic downturn.....

N E W S   &   N O T E S
 
 
 

                           Human Chop Shops Exposed
By Phyllis Schlafly
 
                   Have you ever wanted to buy the brain of an eight-week-old baby? You can,
                   for $999. Did you ever think you'd want a baby's eyes or liver or gonads?
                   Yours, for $75, $150 or $550 respectively.

                   Does that seem like a sick joke posted on eBay? Sadly, it's not funny; it's the
                   tip of the iceberg of a newly uncovered industry specializing in the trafficking
                   of body parts and organs taken from aborted babies.

                   The U.S. House of Representatives held a hearing on March 9 about the
                   sale and purchase of baby body parts. Life Dynamics Inc., a pro-life group
                   based in Texas, exposed this body-parts industry as the result of undercover
                   work by lab technicians.

                   In addition to a body-parts price list that can turn one's stomach, the
                   undercover investigators turned up page after page of orders from prominent
                   research universities and pharmaceutical companies. Even the federal
                   government's own National Institutes of Health has been ordering baby body
                   parts.

                   The order forms specify which body parts the researchers desire. Here are
                   some direct quotes: "Whole Eyes, 13-20 wks," "Brain, 8-24 weeks," "whole
                   intact Leg, include ENTIRE HIP JOINT, 22-23(-) weeks gest. ... Age of fetus
                   must be determined and noted.***indicate foot pad measurement." "Note Age,
                   Race, Sex."

                   Most order forms come with specific directions, e.g., "Dissect lungs intact
                   from 17 to 24 week fetal cadaver." "Dissect by cutting through symphysis
                   pubis and include WHOLE Ilium. To be removed from fetal cadaver within 10
                   minutes."

                   When an order calls for fetal tissue retrieval to be completed within 10
                   minutes, a live birth is highly likely. When an order stipulates something like
                   "no anomalies" or "no congenital abnormalities," those abortions are probably
                   being done on healthy late-term babies.

                   The order forms also include specific shipping instructions. "Ship on fresh wet
                   ice. Next day." "Ship on dry ice." "Ship next day. Federal Express."

                   The buyers and sellers of these parts obviously don't believe that aborted
                   babies are just "blobs of tissue." We wonder if the mothers would go ahead
                   with their abortions if they knew that others were cutting up and selling their
                   babies.

                   One of Bill Clinton's first executive orders in 1993 lifted the ban on federal
                   funding for so-called "fetal tissue research" that involved using the organs and
                   tissue obtained from aborted babies. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and
                   Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) then codified this executive order by
                   shepherding through the then-Democratic Congress the National Institutes of
                   Health Revitalization Act (Public Law 103-43), which Clinton signed on June
                   10, 1993.

                   This law specifically forbids any person to "knowingly acquire, receive, or
                   otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the
                   transfer affects interstate commerce." But it left a big loophole: it allows
                   "reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation,
                   processing, preservation, quality control or storage of human fetal tissue."

                   That's the loophole which the body-parts harvesting industries have been
                   exploiting. The brochure of one of these body-parts companies, called
                   "Opening Lines," states that it "... was formed to maximize the utilization of
                   fresh fetal tissue we process. Our daily average case volume exceeds
                   1500...."

                   Opening Lines weasels around the federal restrictions on buying human body
                   parts by leasing space in abortion clinics "to perform the harvesting and
                   distribution" and telling the clinic managers they can use the rent payments
                   "to offset your clinic's overhead." Opening Lines advertises that it can "train
                   your staff to harvest and process" the babies and, "based on your volume we
                   will reimburse part or all of your employee's salary, thereby reducing your
                   overhead."

                   Last October 21 and 22, Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) took to the Senate floor
                   to tell Americans about these human chop shops in abortion clinics around
                   the country. Although C-Span coverage resulted in hundreds of phone calls to
                   the Capitol, the Senate voted 51 to 46 against Smith's amendment
                   designed to monitor the legal loopholes currently used to circumvent the law.

                   On November 9, the House by voice vote passed H.Res. 350 calling on
                   Congress to "exercise oversight responsibilities and conduct hearings and
                   take appropriate steps if necessary concerning private companies that are
                   involved in the trafficking of baby body parts for profit." The sponsors were
                   Representatives Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Joseph Pitts
                   (R-PA).

                   Thanks to Commerce Committee Chairman Tom Bliley (R-VA), the March 9
                   hearing should lay out the paper trail that documents this whole ghoulish
                   business.
 

                                        **************************************8
 

How to achieve a workable consensus within time limits

The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the
opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face.
"In Educating for the New World Order" by Bev Eakman, the reader finds
reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that
there is lay, or community, participation in the decision making
process, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out.
A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers and is
called the "Alinsky Method."

The setting or group is, however, immaterial. The point is that
people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display
certain identifiable characteristic (known as group dynamics).  This
allows for a special application of a basic technique.

The change agent, or facilitator, goes through the motions of acting
as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit
expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in
question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms task forces,
urges everyone to make lists and so on. While she is doing this, the
facilitator learns something about each member of the target group.
He/she identifies the leaders, the loud mouths, as well as those who
frequently turn sides during the argument-the weak or non-committal.
Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes the devils advocate. He/she
dons his professional agitator hat.

Using the divide and conquer technique, he/she manipulates one group
opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those
who are out of step to appear ridiculous, unknowledgeable,
inarticulate, or dogmatic. He/she wants certain members of the group
to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The
facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. She/he is
able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in
opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.

The method works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school
children, and any community group. The targets rarely, if ever, know
that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect this is happening,
they do not know how to end the process. The desired result is for
group polarization, and for the facilitator to become accepted as a
member of the group and group process. He/she will then throw the
desired idea on the table and ask for opinions during discussion.
Very soon his/her associates from the divided group begin to adopt
the idea as if it were their own, and pressure the entire group to accept
the proposition.

The technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a
controversial topic in group settings. It requires well trained
professionals who deliberately escalate tension among group members,
pitting one faction against the other, so as to make one viewpoint
appear ridiculous so the other becomes sensible whether such is
warranted or not.

Disrupting the Delphi
by Lynn M Stuter

The Delphi Technique is being used at all levels of government to
move meetings to pre-set conclusions. For the purposes of this
dissertation, facilitator references anyone who has been trained in
the use of the Delphi Technique and who is running a meeting.
There are three steps to diffusing the Delphi Technique when
facilitators want to steer a group in a specific direction.

1. Always be charming. Smile. Be pleasant. Be Courteous. Moderate
your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.
2. Stay focused. If at all possible, write your question down to help
you stay focused.
Facilitators, when asked questions they don't want to answer, often
digress from the issue raised and try to work the conversation around
to where they can make the individual asking the question look
foolish, feel foolish, appear belligerent of aggressive.
The goal is to put the one asking the question on the defensive. Do
not fall for this tactic.
Always be charming, thus deflecting any insinuation, innuendo, etc.
that may be thrown at you in their attempt to put you on the
defensive, but bring them back to the question asked. If they
rephrase your question into an accusatory statement (a favorite
tactic) simply state, "That is not what I stated. What I asked
was...(repeat your question)."
3. Be persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn't work,
facilitators often resort to long, drawn out dissertations on some
off the wall and usually unrelated or vaguely related subject that
drags on for several minutes. During that time, the crowd or group
usually loses focus on the question asked (which is the intent). Let
them finish with their dissertation or expose. Then nicely with focus
and persistence, state, "But you didn't answer my question. My
question is-and repeat your question.
Always be charming, stay focused and be persistent.
Never, under any circumstance, become angry. Anger directed at the
facilitator will immediately make the facilitator the victim. This
defeats the purpose which is to make you the victim. The goal of the
facilitator is to make those they are facilitating like them, alienating
anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda
(people with fixed belief systems, who know what they believe
and stand on what they believe are obvious threats).
If the participant becomes the victim, the facilitator loses face and
favor with the crowd. This is why crowds are broken up into groups of
seven or eight, why objections are written on cards, not voiced aloud
where they are open to public discussion and public debate. It's
called crowd control.

It is always good to have someone else, or two or three others who
know the Delphi Technique dispersed throughout the crowd who, when
the facilitator digresses from the question, will stand up and say
nicely, "But you didn't answer that lady's/gentleman's question."
The facilitator, even if suspecting you are together, certainly will
not want to alienate the crowd by making that accusation. Sometimes
it only takes one occurrence of this type for the crowd to figure out
what is going on. Sometimes it takes more than one.
If you have an organized group, meet before the meeting to
strategize.  Everyone should know their part. Meet after the meeting
to analyze what went right, what went wrong and why, and what needs
to happen the next time around. Never meet during the meeting. One of
the favorite tactics of the facilitator if the meeting is not going the way
they want and they are meeting measurable resistance, is to call a recess.
During the recess, the facilitator and his/her spotters (people who wander
the room during the course of the meeting) watch the crowd to see who
congregates where, especially those who have offered measurable
resistance. If the resistors congregate in one place, a spotter will usually
gravitate to that group to join in the conversation and will report
back to the facilitator. When the meeting resumes, the facilitator
will steer clear of those who are resistors. Do not congregate. Hang
loose and work the crowd. Move to where the facilitators or spotters
are. Listen to what they have to say, but do not gravitate to where
another member of your team is.
This strategy also works in a face to face, one on one, meeting with
anyone who has been trained in how to use the Delphi Technique.

From a representative republic to a participatory democracy

With the advent of education reform, the ensuing turmoil among the
citizenry, and the grassroots research that has been sparked
therefrom, a consistent pattern with respect to public participation
and input has emerged, giving cause for alarm among people who
cherish the form of government established by our founding fathers.
Recent events, both inside and outside education, have brought the
emerging picture into focus.

In the not too distant past the hiring of a consultant by the City of
Spokane to the tune of $47,000 to facilitate the direction of city
government brought a hue and cry from the populace at large. Eerily,
this scenario held great similarity to what has been happening in
education reform.
The final link came in the form of an editorial comment made by Chris
Peck regarding the "Pizza papers." The editorial talked about how
groups of disenfranchised citizens were brought together to enter
into a discussion of what they felt (as opposed to know) needed to be
changed at the local level. The outcome of the compilation of those
discussions influenced the writing of the city/county charter.
Sounds innocuous enough. But lets examine this a little closer. Let's
walk through the scenario that occurs in these facilitated meetings.

First, about the facilitator.
The facilitator is hired to facilitate the meeting. While his/her job
is supposedly non-directive, neutral, non-judgmental, the opposite is
actually true. The facilitator is there to move the meeting to a preset
conclusion. This is done through a process known as the Delphi
Technique, developed by the RAND Corporation for the U.S.
Department of Defense as a psychological warfare weapon in the 50s
and 60s. Comforting, no doubt. With this established, lets move on
to the semantics of the meeting.
It is imperative to the success of the agenda that the participants
like the facilitator. Therefore, the facilitator first works the crowd to
cause dis-equilibrium-establishing a bad guy/good guy scenario.
Anyone who might not agree with the facilitator must be seen by the
participants as the bad guy, the facilitator the good guy. This is
done by seeking out those who might not agree with the facilitator
and making them look foolish, inept, or aggressive, sending a clear
message to the audience that if they don't want the same treatment to
keep quiet.
The facilitator is well trained in how to recognize and exploit many
different psychological truisms to do this. At the point the opposition
has been identified and alienated, the facilitator becomes
the good guy-a friend-and the agenda and direction of the meeting is
established without the audience ever being aware of it.
Next, the attendees are broken up into smaller groups-usually of
seven or eight people-each group with a facilitator. Discussion
ensues wherein the participants are encouraged to discuss preset
issues, the group facilitator employing the same tactics as the lead
facilitator. Usually participants are encouraged to put on paper
their ideas and disagreements, these to be later complied by others.
Herein lies a very large problem. Who compiles what is written on the
sheets of paper, note cards, etc.? When you ask the participants, you
usually get,
"Well, they compiled the results."
Who is "they?"
"Well, those running the meeting."
Oh-h! The next question: How do you know that what you wrote on
your sheet of paper was incorporated into the final outcome?  The
answer you usually get is, "Well, you know, I've wondered about that,
because what I wrote doesn't seem to be reflected here. I guess my
viewpoint was in the minority."

And there you have the crux of the situation. If you have fifty people
in a room, each writes his/her ideas and dislikes on a sheet of
paper, to be compiled later into a final outcome, each individual
has no idea of what any other individual wrote. How do you know
that the final outcome reflects anyone's input? The answer is that
you don't.
The same scenario holds when there is a facilitator recording your
comments on paper. But the participants usually don't question this,
figuring instead that their viewpoint was in the minority and thus
not reflected.
So why have the meetings at all if the outcome is already
established?
Because it is imperative to the continued well being of the agenda
that the people be facilitated into ownership of the preset outcome.
If people believe the idea is theirs, they support it; if the people
believe the idea is being foisted on them, they will resist.
Likewise, it is imperative to the continued well being of the agenda
that the people perceive that their input counts.
This scenario is being used very effectively to move meetings to
preset conclusions, effectively changing our form of government from
a representative form of government in which individuals are elected
to represent the people to a "participatory democracy" in which
citizens, selected at large, are facilitated into ownership of preset
outcomes, perceiving that their input resulted therein.
The reality is the outcome was already established by others, but
this is not apparent to the citizen participants.
 
 
 

COMPARABLE WORTH REARS ITS HEAD AGAIN. The feminists' campaign for "comparable worth" that was defeated in the 1980s has
surfaced again in Kentucky. It's still a bad idea: Comparable Worth is
feminist code language for wage control. It means raising the pay of
women while freezing the pay of men. It's based on a lot of myths
and phony statistics. If this surfaces in your state legislature,
Kentucky Eagle Forum state president Shirley Daniel has an
excellent folder with good articles you can use to inform your state
legislators.
 

The Republican caucus also passed a resolution recognizing "the primary role of parents, through medical, religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccination requirements, in order to exercise
informed consent rights in regard to any medical procedures carrying the risk of injury or death."

On the Judicial Watch Report of Mar. 18, David Schippers, former lead counsel for theHouse Judiciary Committee, gave his opinion: "I am disappointed that we weren't able to get into Filegate and I'll tell you why . . . I am convinced that one of the reasons we were not able to get our trial in the Senate was because some of the material in
Filegate was used . . . shall we say . . . to coerce some of the members [of Congress]." For more, visit the Judicial Watch web site at http://www.judicialwatch.org

CENSUS BUREAU WON'T PROSECUTE INCOMPLETE FILERS.
The Washington Times reported March 19 that the Census Bureau was receiving a flood of complaints about the intrusive nature of the numerous questions on the long form of the 2000 census. People were particularly offended by questions as to whether they had had "physical, mental or emotional conditions," and ones asking their race, how much money they earn, and how much their home is worth. One of every six households received the long form. The law states that a citizen may be fined $100 for not answering every question, and $500 for giving a false answer.

However, in an exclusive interview March 22 with WorldNetDaily.com, a Census 2000 spokesman said there are no plans to collect such fines. "The Census Bureau is not an enforcement agency," he said, adding that the judicial system would have to initiate any
enforcement. He indicated that lack of compliance would be handled on a case-by-case basis, but the Bureau will not seek prosecution for incomplete forms. "We don't want to intimidate people," he said. He defended the racial questions as needed for making sure
congressional districts are "racially diverse," and questions on how long it takes one to get to work as needed for transportation planning. The Libertarian Party is urging its members to answer only the question of the number of persons in the household, since the Constitution mentions only an enumeration.
 

SCHOOL VOUCHER PLAN LOSES ROUND ONE IN  FLORIDA.
State Judge L. Ralph Smith, Jr. of Leon County's Circuit Court ruled
March 14 that Florida's Opportunity Scholarship program violates the
state constitution and must cease. "Tax dollars may not be used to
send the children of this state to private schools with taxpayer
dollars," wrote Judge Smith, who heard no testimony. Florida's is the
first statewide program in the nation to use taxpayer funds to send
children in certified-failing public schools to private schools. Bob
Chase, president of the National Education Association commented,
"This ruling puts a stake in the heart of the voucher movement."
However, lawyers say the case will be appealed to the state's First
District Court of Appeals, and may quickly pass to the state
Supreme Court. Florida Governor Jeb Bush said, "This is the first
inning of a long, drawn-out legal battle," and promised a "vigorous
fight" in the appellate courts. Washington Times, 3-15-00
 

TRADITIONAL VALUES COALITION (TVC) OFFERS A WAY TO SUPPORT DR. LAURA. Radical homosexual agenda groups arepressuring Paramount Television to halt the plans for Dr. Laura
Schlessinger's television show. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance claims
they are generating thousands of E-mails to attack and censor the
popular, pro-family radio personality and keep her off television.
Those wishing to support Dr. Laura may go to
http://www.onedemocracy.com/supportdrlaura and express their
views.

Get US out of the WTO!
On March 6, 2000 Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced H. J. RES. 90, a
resolution to withdraw the United States from the World Trade Organization.  The
passage of this Resolution will be a major victory for American Sovereignty.

On the floor of the House Rep. Paul related why the WTO is bad for America.  He
recounted a report that detailed how the U.S. recently suffered a defeat in a
tax dispute with the European Union.  This unelected international board that
issued the judgment ruled that $2.2 billion of U.S. tax reductions for American
business violates the WTO's rules and therefore these tax cuts must be abolished
by October of 2000.  Ron Paul declared:

By what authority does the World Trade Organization assume jurisdiction over the
United States Federal tax policy?

"Taxation without representation was a predominant reason for America's fight
for independence during the American Revolution.  Yet, now we face an
unconstitutional delegation of taxing authority to an unelected body of
international bureaucrats."  (to read the full text of Rep. Paul's comments, go
to www.house.gov/paul/conrec/congrec2000/cr030100wto.htm)

Under the 1994 legislation that approved U.S. membership in the WTO, any member
of Congress could file a resolution demanding U.S. withdrawal after five years.
This law guarantees a vote within 90 days from the time the resolution is
submitted-it cannot be bottled up in committee!  It is also important to note
that the vote can happen at any time from now until May 24, 2000.  We must
contact our Congressmen NOW!

"The U.S. should be part of a global economy - but not part of global
government."

***ACTION TO TAKE***

1.  Join Rep. Paul's electronic march on Washington in support of H.J. Res. 90.
Visit www.StopWTO.org.  By going to this web site you can see if your
Representative is currently a cosponsor and if not, you may send them an email
through this site urging their support.

2.  Call your Congressman and request that he/she cosponsors and votes for H.J.
Res. 90 which would withdraw the approval of the United States from the
Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization.  Capitol Hill Switchboard
(202) 225-3121.

CHINA ESCALATES THREATS TO TAIWAN & U.S.

The Washington Times reported Feb. 29 that on the previous day China's official military newspaper, the Liberation Army Daily, published a warning that China would fire long-range nuclear missiles at the United States if it defends Taiwan. "It is not a wise move to be at war with a country such as China, a point which the U.S. policy-makers
know fairly well also," the paper stated. The Times reports, "China's nuclear arsenal currently includes about 24 CSS-4 long-range missiles that are capable of hitting most of the United States with warheads of up to 5 megatons - the equivalent of 5 million tons of
TNT. It is building two other road-mobile ICBMs and a new class of strategic missile submarines." The Pentagon confirms that several ships from the carrier battle group USS Kitty Hawk began conducting exercises in the Pacific two days after Beijing's recent warning that it would use force against Taiwan if it continues to delay "reunification."

The day after the latest threat was published, House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R, TX) commented, "It's going to be tougher and tougher to get the votes [for pending legislation increasing trade between China and the United States] if China doesn't quit threatening Taiwan." Washington Times, 3-1-00

"RETURN WITH HONOR." If you haven't seen this amazing, thrilling new documentary about our POWs who endured years of captivity during the Vietnam War, please don't miss it, now playing in movie theaters across the country. This is not a Hollywood movie re-creation with actors. It is a remarkable production with real documentary footage, drawings of what went on in the "Hanoi Hilton," and interviews with Admiral Jerry Denton, Admiral James Stockdale, Rep. Sam Johnson and a dozen others who endured years in captivity, and with some of their wives. This is a "must see" featuring brave men who did "return with honor."
 

WHAT DO YOU THINK CONGRESS'S THREE BIG GOALS SHOULD BE? House Republican leaders announced that their three top issues for this year are: (1) Free trade with Africa and the Caribbean to allow their products to enter the U.S. with no quotas or duties, (2) "Soundly defeat" legislaton to withdraw U.S. support from the World Trade Organization (WTO), and (3) Give Communist China permanent Most Favored Nation trade status. House Speaker Denny Hastert said he planned to work with Clinton to pass this trade agenda. Associated Press, 2-15-00. If these are not your priorities, tell your Congressman.
 

WHAT'S THAT ABOUT A PRO-LIFE LITMUS TEST? Hillary Clinton says that, if she is elected to the Senate, she would vote against anti-abortion judges who are nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. "I cannot imagine I would vote to confirm such a nominee," she said in an interview with the Associated Press (2-8-00). If a litmus test is OK for Hillary, why isn't it OK for Republican Senators to say they will vote against pro-abortion judges?

COMMUNIST CHINA THREATENS TAIWAN. Now that China has both Hong Kong and Macao back in its totalitarian clutches, it covets Taiwan more than ever. On Feb. 21, a month before Taiwan is to hold a presidential election, the government of Communist China issued a
white paper warning that it might attack the island if Taiwanese leaders refuse to talk about "unification." It stated that, if Taiwan refuses to pursue the "settlement of cross-Straits reunification
through negotiations, then the Chinese government will only be forced to adopt all drastic measures possible, including the use of force, to safeguard China's Sovereignty and territorial integrity."

The Clinton administration responded with a statement expressing "grave concern" over the threat, which took the U.S. State Department by surprise. (Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott
had spent two days in Beijing the previous week urging the Chinese Communist government to show restraint during the Taiwanese election campaign.) Some in Congress are unhappy with the weak response. Rep. Benjamin A. Gilman, Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, called it "a clear example of how the Clinton administration has led Beijing to believe the United States will not stand behind its moral and security commitments to Taiwan."New York Times News Service, 2-22-00 and Washington Times,2-23-00.

OVER-MEDICATING OF CHILDREN EXPOSED. The mainstream media have recently discovered the problem of over-prescribing mind-altering drugs such as Ritalin to younger and younger children in the United States. The Washington Post ran an article Feb. 2 by
behavioral pediatrician Lawrence Diller of Walnut Creek, CA, who  writes, "Quietly yet steadily, the trend to use multiple psychiatric drugs on children has grown...about 4 million children younger than 18 take one of the stimulants Ritalin, Dexedrine or Adderall. Probably more than a million, mostly teenagers, have used Prozac or one of its sister drugs, Soloft and Paxil. The rate for children younger than 9 taking antidepressants has soared twelvefold in half a decade." A Medicaid survey in Michigan found 223 toddlers, 3 or younger, were prescribed psychiatric drugs in the state, and 44 of them were taking two or more drugs simultaneously. Dr. Diller notes that many of the children in question have "extremely tense or chaotic family lives...." While he is not opposed to using medication for children, he believes in the rule "First do no harm."

Idaho Observer-Standards  If you don't quite understand the problem with "Exiting Standards," this is a great evaluation of what they are, and where "Exiting Standards" will take us.

 
Medical Records and Your Privacy At Risk   Shalala pulls plug on public comment.  No faxes allowed, e-mail restricted on proposed medical privacy rules.   2000 WorldNetDaily.com
 
 
THE GRASSHOPPER AND THE ANT

TRUE AMERICAN VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house
and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool
and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is
warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in
the cold.

MODERN AMERICAN VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house
and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool
and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands
to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others
are cold and starving. CBS, NBC and ABC show up to provide pictures of the
shivering grasshopper next to video of the ant in his comfortable home with
a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can
it be that, in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to
suffer so? Then a representative of the NAGB (The National Association of
Green Bugs) shows up on Nightline and charges the ant with green bias, and
makes the case that the grasshopper is the victim of 30 million years of
greenism. Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and
everybody cries when he sings "It's not easy being green." Bill and Hillary
Clinton make a special guest appearance on the CBS Evening News to tell a
concerned Dan Rather that they will do everything they can for the
grasshopper who has been denied the prosperity he deserves by those who
benefited unfairly during the Reagan summers. Richard Gephardt exclaims in
an interview with Peter Jennings that the ant has gotten rich off the back
of the grasshopper, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make
him pay his "fair share." Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and
Anti-Greenism Act" Retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is
fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having
nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the
government. Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a
defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of
federal hearing officers that Bill pointed from a list of single-parent
welfare moms who can only hear cases on Thursday's between 1:30 and 3PM. The
ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the
ant's food while the government house he's in, which just happens to be the
ant's old house, crumbles around him since he doesn't know how to maintain
it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. And on the TV, which the
grasshopper bought by selling most of the ant's food, they are showing Bill
Clinton standing before a wildly applauding group of Democrats announcing
that a new era of "fairness" has dawned in America.

God Bless America