HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Bilderberger Victory
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:31:30 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to dona@bilver.uucp (Don Allen):
>In article <2B03C761.5D24@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>Don Allen believes that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are
>>genuine.
>>
>>I think that just about wraps it up for Don.
>
>Don't you have something better to do..like attend your ADL meeting
>and plot how to run your drug money through the Bank of Cleveland?

If I thought you had a shred of credibility, I'd be upset at your
attempts to smear me.  As it is, I'm amused.

I note also that you do not contradict me, since I am right.

Out of curiosity: Why would you think that I, personally, attend ADL
meetings or have drug money to run?
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
                 just another elitist Usenet administrator
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,soc.culture.jewish
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Jews in Banks
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 23:07:01 GMT

In article <99cDuB7w165w@status.gen.nz> jonc@status.gen.nz (Jon Clarke) writes:
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>> Eight of the ten largest international banks in the world are Japanese.
>> There are no Jews on any of their boards.  Jews are underrepresented
>> on the boards of the major banks based in New York City, which, to my
>> knowledge, have never had a Jewish CEO.
>> 
>> To say Jews control international banking is ludicrous.  If it were
>> true, than Israel wouldn't need loan guarantees, they'd just go to
>> the Jewish international bankers with their perfect no-default record,
>> no?

> Working for one of the ten largest banks I would have to agree with
> you 100% on this Ted.

[...]

> The fact I am from a Xian family it does not upset my Muslium or
> other clients.

Several years ago, I was offered a position at a Major Prestigious NYC
Bank.  (So as not to protect the guilty, it was Morgan Guaranty.)
They were in great need of a peculiar technical skill that I had at
the time. I did not accept their offer (their reaction to my rejection
is another little story).

People who knew me and knew banking were very surprised at the offer
though I didn't understand their surprise at the time.  Apparently my
obviously Jewish appearance made this offer unusual.

Several years later, I spoke to a non-Jewish former employee of Morgan
who confirmed that they avoid hiring Jews.  They have hired Jews but
would have been careful to make sure that customers never see me.
Apparently, Morgan handles (handled?) much Arab money and these
customers _DO_ get upset about Jews working for their business
partners. 

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com              10 years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York                   have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions. standard of a failed President.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: LBJ's anti-nepotism law (was: Hillary will not...)
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:24:19 GMT

pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:

>Why can't *any* US citizen challenge the constitutionality of a Federal
>law? If the "anti-nepotism" law is unconstitutional, then it arguably
>aggrieves not only a USA President who wants to make full use of the
>talents of a highly qualified relative, but also all those US citizens
>who want the US Constitution to be the highest law of the land.

>-- Brad Pierce --

I think that one thing that will keep it out of court is the
cases and controversy clause in the Constitution. Without a real
live case or controversy, the courts do not have jurisdiction, and
until someone is affected by the law (such as Hillary), there is
no case or controversy. You (not being the relative) do not have
a sufficient interest to qualify.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Templars
From: jonc@status.gen.nz (Jon Clarke)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 17:52:41 GMT
Organization: The Z*NET Global News Gateway in Parnell New Zealand.

aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes:

> 
> In Jon Clarke's response to Jim Bowery I believe he confuses the
> Knights Templar with the Kinghst Hospitaler. The Knights of Malta,
 
 No Steve, I was not refering to the Masonic Orders nor was I refering
 to the individual orders within the Knights of Malta being those you
 have mentioned. 
 
> of which he speaks, which are organized into separate Catholic
> and British branches, are the Sovereign and Military Order of the
> Knughts of St. John of Jerusalem, otherwise known as the Knights
> Hospitaler. Lyndon LaRouche has published a fair amount on the
> Knights of Malta, including the allegation that they are associated
> with the International Red Cross. There is also some material on them
> in Baigeht, Leigh, and Lincoln's "The Messianic Legacy".
> 
 
 Sounds great Steve...
 
 Regards
 
 - JonC
From: vincent@reg.triumf.ca (pete)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Committee of 300 needs your support
Date: 17 Nov 1992 04:53 PST
Organization: dept. of theophysics and cosmogyny
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: reg.triumf.ca
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    


After carefully studying about 0.1 % of Don Allen's post,
I have come to the conclusion that if by some small chance
this is not a brilliantly conceived work of satire, then
we should all do our utmost to support the admirable goals
of this fine organization: bring back the Liverpool beat!
Crush the war on drugs. Eliminate organized religions.
Man, sign me up.

==========================================================================
Say, what's that horrible noise        :    Pete Vincent
emanating from the White House?        :
Twelve years of papers shredding!      :  Disclaimer: all I know I learned
                                       :  from reading Usenet.
From: dran@spectrx.saigon.com (Dran)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Read
Keywords: Wilson, Cat, Paranoia
Date: 15 Nov 92 03:42:34 GMT
Organization: SPECTROX SYSTEMS (408)252-1005 Silicon Valley, Ca


        You should read the book Schroedinger's Cat by Robert
Anton Wilson.  It concerns general paranoia and conspiracy.
Furthermore, as an added bonus only, it is almost incomprehenisbly
weird.
              IMMMMMMMMMM;
              : y Dran y :
              HMMMMMMMMMM<
JUST BECAUSE YOU AREN'T PARANOID DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY AREN'T
OUT TO GET YOU.............

--
dran@spectrx.saigon.com (Dran)
SPECTROX SYSTEMS +1.408.252.1005  Silicon Valley, Ca
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:12409 misc.legal:20310
From: spl@ivem.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,misc.legal
Subject: Re: 1988 National Emergencies Act (50 USC Sect. 1601)
Date: 23 Nov 92 13:53:55 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivem.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Nov23.012939.17491@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>>According to Diana Reynolds, "Domestic Consequences of the Gulf War",
>>_CovertAction Information Bulletin_, Number 37 (Summer 1991), pp. 36-41:
>>
>>     Although Congress alone retains the right to declare war, this
>>     power has become increasingly meaningless in the face of a
>>     succession of unilateral decisions by the executive to mount
>>     invasions.
>
>Isn't the main reason it has become meaningless the change in the way wars
>are fought?  The pace has picked up a bit since the late 18th century.

Yes.  I agree.  President Bush had to act and act fast when Iraq
bombed Pearl Harbor.

							spl


-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"Bosnia has no gun control."
			- random thought
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: ad626@yfn.ysu.edu (Steve Crocker)
Subject: Re: Anti-Establishment Coalition (LaRouche Contingent)
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 05:12:12 GMT


A short synopsis of this complex figure is difficult, but I'll give
it a shot. LaRouche believes that the thing which sets man apart from
the beasts is the power to create, as expressed by the creation of beauty
through great art and the continuing creation of the world through
the technologies which allow us to be economically productive and 
support an ever increasing population. He believes that the role of 
government should be to order society in such a way that each 
individual may realize his or her full creative potential - to become
in the words of Plato, a "golden soul". Economically, he is a 
Hamiltonian, believing in the use of centralized credit by sovereign 
nations to promote the development of infrastructural "great projects",
the development of manufacturing, nuclear-industrial complexes, etc.
He is a strong supporter of civil rights, in the pre-seventies sense,
but vigorously opposes the "counter culture". He is a strong supporter
of science and technology, and has called for the early colinization of 
Mars. His views on the philosophy of science follow the "continental"
school of Leibniz, Reimann, etc. and opposes Neton and the British
empiricists. He opposes euthanasia, the "right to die", abortion,
capital punishiment, Malthusianism, and the radical wing of 
environmentalism (i.e. anti-industrialism). 

How's that for starters,
-Steve
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: jeffp@netcom.com (Jeff)
Subject: Re: Bo Gritz
Organization: BeHereNow
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:38:03 GMT

In article <17477@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <BxF2Kp.M3x@mail.boi.hp.com> hypes@boi.hp.com (Gary Hypes) writes:
>
>>I suspect the truth about Gritz lies somewhere in the middle.  No doubt
>>about it, politically you would have to place Gritz somewhere to the
>>right of Herod Antipas.  On the other hand, I haven't seen anything to
>>indicate that he's the raving looney his detractors make him out to be.
>
>Well, how about the UPC bar codes being the mark of the beast?  That
>stuff was in his campaign literature!  I'd say anyone that believes
>that stuff has to be a lunatic.
>
>

Actually, if you look into implants currently used for animals, it'
s only a step further to the obvious conclusion that people will one
day be asked or forced to have microscopic implants that will allow
humans to be constanly monitored by satillite...

Put that together with the fact that Bo was one of the first to come 
right out and say, "the US government is the worlds biggest dope dealer"
and "cash in your paper for gold before the US goes cashless" and you
can see that he is quit visionary. 

I predict that it is merely a matter of time before all of the above
becomes obvious or comes to pass. Rants of anit-semitism attached to
Bo are simply trying to push the focus away from his main message.

Jeff-



Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,soc.culture.jewish
From: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Jews in Banks
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 13:30:52 GMT

In article <BxwFGL.7HB@ddsw1.mcs.com> arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes:

# In article <1992Nov16.202637.1867@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:

# >In article <1992Nov16.160701.16000@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

# >Why should Israel go to the bankers direct when generous old Uncle
# >Sam is good for the touch.  Under the Cranston amendment, Uncle
# >has also promised to help the perfect no-default record by advancing
# >money as needed to forestall any delinquency....just roll the
# >notes as need be.  This sounds like pretty powerful financial
# >clout to me, but don't give Israel all of the credit when probably
# >most of it should go to AIPAC, a lobby that seems to be well out
# >of control and working against the best interests of the American
# >people.
 
# Not sure why you would think that.  Didn't you hear that the head of
# AIPAC was forced to resign because a tape of him bragging about how
# AIPAC is in total control of Clinton's team was leaked to the media.
# Shows just what honorable folks their.

	It was all one big lie given in an attempt to boost an ego and get
more money.

# Unfortunately, the media
# chose to spike the story bucause it was deemed not newsworthy.

	The media did not spike the story.  I heard it on the news and
read it in the newspapers.

# Mighty strange when you consider that the media is totally under the 
# control of the PLO.

	Mighty strange that you still cannot get a single thing right.
--
	There are three types of people in the world.  Those that are good
at math and those that are not.

makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: hoehen@Physik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Walter Hoehenberger)
Subject: Re: FILE: Committee of 300 - Part 3
Organization: Leibniz-Rechenzentrum, Muenchen (Germany)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:46:47 GMT

dona@bilver.uucp (Don Allen) writes:


>----- Committee of 300 - Part 3 ----------------------------------------



>States and a leading Rank company, with ties directly to Queen
>Elizabeth of England's immediate family. John J. McCloy, the
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>man who attempted to wipe post-World War II Germany off the
>map and last but not least, James A. Perkins of the Carnegie
>Corporation, were also founding members of the Bilderbergers
>and the Club of Rome.

      Poor Morgenthau! Completely lost ...


>-- 
><*> Don Allen <*>             1:363/81.1 - Fidonet #1 - Homebody BBS
>dona@bilver.uucp - Internet   1:363/29.8 - Fidonet #2 - Gourmet Delight
>88:4205/1.1  - MUFON Network  1:3607/20.2  -- Odyssey - Alabama UFO Net
>NSA grep food: Aviary, Ed Dames, Los Alamos - Majestic - Jason - RIIA - UN
From: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Bo Gritz
Date: 15 Nov 92 20:49:18 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation

In article <1992Nov15.201746.632@news.ysu.edu> ad626@yfn.ysu.edu (Steve Crocker) writes:
>Ted Frank does an acceptable job of refuting what Bo Gritz didn't
>say. Gritz claimed that the owners of the Federal Reserve System

Eagerly awaiting your response to the PART report, which I recently posted.
-- 
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one.  The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare.  On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!"  -Michael O'Brien
From: spl@ivem.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Was Jonestown a CIA experiment?
Date: 23 Nov 1992 14:26:02 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivem.ucsd.edu

In article <1eqd2iINN43n@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes:
>  On his return to Indiana, Jones announced the Temple's move to Northern
>California. ...    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ hmmm.

							spl
-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"Bosnia has no gun control."
			- random thought
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Subject: "Was Jonestown a CIA experiment?"
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 07:40:49 GMT

Found in the card catalog and posted FYI only. (Disclaimer: I haven't
read the following book, hence I can't endorse or denounce it.)

Author:        Meiers, Michael.
Title:         Was Jonestown a CIA experiment? : a review of the evidence /
                 Michael Meiers. Lewiston [N.Y.] : E. Mellen Press, c1989.
Description:   vii, 575 p., [128] p. of plates : ill. ; 24 cm.

Series:        Studies in American religion ; v. 35.

Notes:         Includes index.
               Bibliography: p. 563-568.

Subjects:      Jones, Jim, 1931-1978.
               United States. Central Intelligence Agency.
               Jonestown Mass Suicide, Jonestown, Guyana, 1978.
               Brain-washing.
From: kinnema@wkuvx1.bitnet (Mark Kinney, Attorney at Chaos)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Conspiracies, Cover-ups and Crimes
Date: 23 Nov 92 01:53:23 GMT
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In article <21NOV199216062304@acad3.alaska.edu>, ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes:
> To readers of alt.conspiracy newsgroup:
> 
> 	Is anyone out there familiar with the book entitled CONSPIRACIES,
> COVER-UPS AND CRIMES by Jonathan Vankin?
> 
As it happens, I own a copy.

> 	How reliable is the information in this book?  Is the bibliography any
> good?  What essential titles are missing from it?  Is there anything in the
> book that you think is particularly misleading?
> 
Most of his stuff is through books in the bibliography and interviews
with some people involved.  Let me know what titles you consider
"essential" and I'll look into it.

> 	How reliable is the information on Lyndon LaRouche?
> 
Mostly based on interview.  As Vankin says, whether you believe or not
is up to you.

> 	I would really appreciate any information you could provide me that
> would help me to evaluate the material in this book.

It is annotated, but badly; instead of direct references, he mentions
what he was talking about, or quotes the text for short examples, then
adds the reference.  If you can get past that, it's actually not a
badly written book, IMHO.
-- 
Mark Kinney [KINNEMA@WKUVX1.(BITNET)(WKU.EDU)] | Give me Slack OR KILL ME!
PhoneNet: (502) 745-4246   (Bowling Green, KY) | K A /\ /\ I E T I
Quote of the week: "No, just *a* Zaphod Beeblebrox.  Didn't you hear I
	come in six-packs?" -- Zaphod Beeblebrox, _Restaurant at the End of
							the Universe_
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject: Re: Anti-Establishment Coalition (LaRouche Contingent)
Summary: Would the real Democratic Totalitarians please stand up. 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 09:54:00 GMT

In article <1eq7e6INN1kv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, 
>aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes...

>I happen to believe that LaRouche has the program that is right for
>America and beneficial to the people of the world, but few here seem
>willing to read and comprehend that program, even to criticize or oppose
>it. They prefer to make ignorant wisecracks, call names, and engage in
>unfounded characterizations.


I'll bite Steve, how about starting with a one paragraph synopsis of
who and what LaRouche is/about? I've never been willing to be inundated
with literature to find out myself. 

From what little I know, I'd say he's a socialist democrat, but since
they just took over the USSA ... mebe not.


{ Yes, USSA -- United Socialist States of America. <sigh> }


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: LBJ's anti-nepotism law (was: Hillary will not...)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 07:36:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.014525.853@cs.ucla.edu> pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.232131.8881@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>There are no such states to my knowledge.  There are some states, such
>>as Massachusetts, where the Supreme Court of the state may offer advisory
>>opinions on pending legislation.  One of these advisory opinions led Dukakis
>>to make his now-infamous veto of the mandatory pledge of allegiance in
>>the public schools.
>
>Why is his veto now "infamous"?

Because it helped to keep him out of the White House.

>>There's a good case to be made for not reviewing legislation until
>>someone who is actually aggrieved by the legislation challenges it.
>
>Is there also a good case for passing and signing unconstitutional
>legislation that
>
>   (1) aggrieved parties are unlikely to dare challenge
>or
>   (2) aggrieves only parties without the means to mount an effective
>       legal challenge?
>
>Why can't *any* US citizen challenge the constitutionality of a Federal
>law? 

Here's why: Congress passes the world's strongest anti-pornography law.
Jerry Falwell sues, claiming it's unconstitutional.  He mounts a weak,
weak case, and the law is declared constitutional, setting a precedent
that aggrieved parties will have difficulty overturning.

>If the "anti-nepotism" law is unconstitutional, then it arguably
>aggrieves not only a USA President who wants to make full use of the
>talents of a highly qualified relative, but also all those US citizens
>who want the US Constitution to be the highest law of the land.

The "cases and controversies" clause has been interpreted to mean that
the Article III courts can only hear claims made by people whose rights
are substantially affected.  "Any US citizen" does not qualify, partially
for this Constitutional standard, which in turn is partially based on the
reasoning above. 

Yeah, perhaps there should be a provision of standing for someone
barely aggrieved, but willing to mount a good faith challenge.  But
I'm not sure how to define the standard.  The current standing provisions
draw a clearer line at least, even if it creates situations where
no one has standing.

>Incidentally, has the War Powers Act ever been challenged?

To my knowledge, not by anyone with standing.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:12346 talk.politics.misc:60993 misc.legal:20190
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: LBJ's anti-nepotism law (was: Hillary will not...)
From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 01:45:25 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department

In article <1992Nov19.232131.8881@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>There are no such states to my knowledge.  There are some states, such
>as Massachusetts, where the Supreme Court of the state may offer advisory
>opinions on pending legislation.  One of these advisory opinions led Dukakis
>to make his now-infamous veto of the mandatory pledge of allegiance in
>the public schools.

Why is his veto now "infamous"?

>There's a good case to be made for not reviewing legislation until
>someone who is actually aggrieved by the legislation challenges it.

Is there also a good case for passing and signing unconstitutional
legislation that

   (1) aggrieved parties are unlikely to dare challenge
or
   (2) aggrieves only parties without the means to mount an effective
       legal challenge?

Why can't *any* US citizen challenge the constitutionality of a Federal
law? If the "anti-nepotism" law is unconstitutional, then it arguably
aggrieves not only a USA President who wants to make full use of the
talents of a highly qualified relative, but also all those US citizens
who want the US Constitution to be the highest law of the land.

Incidentally, has the War Powers Act ever been challenged?

-- Brad Pierce --

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.privacy,alt.religion.computers,alt.security