ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n006

Internet Message Format | 1996-09-02 | 55KB

From:      [e-mail]
To:        [e-mail]
Subject:   utah-firearms Digest V2 #6
Reply-To:  [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence:


utah-firearms Digest     Tuesday, 3 September 1996     Volume 02 : Number 006

In this issue:

    [[e-mail]: FWD: ACLU siding with gun-trader]
    tobacco and guns
    Re: tobacco and guns
    A HOPE FOR JUSTICE?
    Dole Campaign Stop
    Dole Campaign Stop -Reply
    Re: Dole Campaign Stop
    Your enemy: California Wellness Foundation/Health Net 2/2
    Your enemy: California Wellness Foundation/Health Net 1/2

See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the utah-firearms
or utah-firearms-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues.

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 08:51:59 -0600
Subject: [[e-mail]: FWD: ACLU siding with gun-trader]

This may be of interest to those of you who are contenplating getting
a State issued CCW permit.  Last time I looked at the application
there was a space on it for your SS#.  I questioned the DPS about this
and they acknowledged that they could not legally require your SS#
because a gun permit has nothing to do with social security.  They
said they would not deny an application if the SS# was left blank, but
they would "just get the number from elsewhere."  Perhaps someone
thinking of applying for a permit in the near future should contact
the local ACLU and see if they would like to follow suite.

- ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

Like I say: If you're going to give up your right to privacy to get
permission to exercise your right to keep and bear arms, you might as
well give them your weapons too.

Forwarded with credit to the ACLU Newsfeed:

- ------Forwarded Text Begins ------

ACLU of Arkansas Challenge Ordinance Requiring Social Security Numbers of Gun
Traders and Others

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, August 28, 1996

LITTLE ROCK -- The ACLU of Arkansas filed a lawsuit today in U.S. District
Court of Western District of Arkansas on behalf of Anthony Zuckert, a man who
enjoys gun-trading.

Mr. Zuckert and his wife, Jeanne, object to a Harrison ordinance requiring
that "itinerate" salespeople wishing to participate in trade shows provide to
the show-operator their social security numbers.

Federal law already requires that regular gun-traders obtain a federal
firearms license that lasts for three years.  In order to obtain such a
license, social security numbers and other information is provided by the
applicant so that a criminal background check can be performed by
authorities:  Mr. Zuckert already has a current license.

The ACLU claims that the Harrison ordinance unduly burdens Mr. Zuckert's
right to engage in commercial speech by demanding he provide his social
security number, because no legitimate government interest can be
demonstrated for making such a request: this, we claim, violates the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Second, we believe that the ordinance is "impermissibly vague," by providing
"no ascertainable standards for determining whether any salesperson is
'itinerate' [sic] or any location is 'transitory,'" and is also vague
regarding the supposed exceptions for "farm products" "garage sales" and
"trade shows."

We further believe the plaintiff's right to due process has been violated for
all the above reasons.  Lastly, we believe that the ordinance violates the
federal Privacy Act by requiring the use of social security numbers.

"Once upon a time, social security numbers were supposed to be used only for
the management of social security benefits," says ACLU Executive Director
Rita Spillenger.  "These days, everyone from your doctor to your mechanic
thinks they have the right to get and use that number.

"People who object to this common practice of using the number for
identification are within their rights, but they fight an increasingly uphill
battle with every request," Spillenger added.

"Most people are unaware that you can refuse to provide your social security
number in many situations, like obtaining a driver's license," Spillenger
said. "We are happy to help the Zuckerts stand up for their right not to hand
over their number to every government official that asks for it."

The ACLU attorney who is representing the Zuckerts, Charles Kester of Rogers,
added, "The City of Harrison placed Mr. Zuckert in the unfortunate position
of having to choose whether to give up his right to privacy and his social
security number or give up his right to engage in commercial speech.
 Fortunately, the Constitution and the federal Privacy Act forbid such a
Hobson's choice."

The suit asks for the ordinance to be found unconstitutional and to be not
enforced.  A gun show is scheduled in Harrison for Labor Day, and the
Zuckerts would like to participate.  They did not participate in the last
show because of this ordinance.

- ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

- --

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]> | If my employer has an opinion on
          [phone]   | these topics, I'm sure I'm not
                                  | the one he would have express it.

Would YOU be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it
meant never paying another dime in federal income taxes?  Check out
<http://www.harrybrowne96.org> or call 800-682-1776.

"No man is competent unless he can stalk alone and armed in the
 wilderness." -- Townsend Whelen

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 09:39:11 -0600
Subject: tobacco and guns

I've seen the question of nicotine and guns on some of the other lists
and thought I would pass it along here just out of curiosity.  Has
nicotine been declared a controlled substance?  Or just addictive?
Medical difference?  What if caffiene is ever declared addictive?

- ---BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE---

The form 4473 you fill out when buying a firearm from a gun dealer
asks the question:

    Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana,
    or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any
    other controlled substance ?

If you answer Yes you cannot buy any firearm.

- ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

- --

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]> | If my employer has an opinion on
          [phone]   | these topics, I'm sure I'm not
                                  | the one he would have express it.

Would YOU be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it
meant never paying another dime in federal income taxes?  Check out
<http://www.harrybrowne96.org> or call 800-682-1776.

"A cardinal rule of bureaucracy is that it is better to extend an error
 than to admit a mistake." -- Colin Greenwood

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 09:59:03 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re: tobacco and guns

On Fri, 30 Aug 1996, [e-mail] (Charles Hardy) wrote:
>
>I've seen the question of nicotine and guns on some of the other lists
>and thought I would pass it along here just out of curiosity.  Has
>nicotine been declared a controlled substance?  Or just addictive?
>Medical difference?  What if caffiene is ever declared addictive?
>
>---BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE---
>
>The form 4473 you fill out when buying a firearm from a gun dealer
>asks the question:
>
>    Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana,
>    or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any
>    other controlled substance ?
>
>If you answer Yes you cannot buy any firearm.

Charles,

You're quite correct that this is hopelessly vague in its wording.
"Unlawful user of" is clear enough.  If you're using an illegal substance, or
using a legal substance illegally, then you cannot buy a firearm.

Lawful user is also fairly clear.  You're using a substance lawfully whether
it's tobacco which is legal (until they make it a controlled substance anyway!),
or narcotics prescribed by a physician.  (I do NOT however advocate actually
going shooting while under the short-term influence of a narcotic!)

The problem is with the term addiction.  It's a vague term with pejorative
connotations.  For example a war vet may be dependent on narcotics to control
the pain from a war injury, but that's not the same as an addiction, although
the words are used synonymously by most people.  Likewise a person with
attention deficit disorder may be dependent on stimulants, but not be an addict.

To further confuse things, I suppose I should go turn in my gun since I'm
suffering (and that IS the correct word!) from "acute nicotine withdrawal"
which is an official and diagnosable mental disorder, and definitely am
addicted! <g>

The law needs to be rewritten by someone who understands substance abuse and
mental disorders.  I'm not holding my breath though.... I'm addicted to
oxygen!<g>

Sarah

Sarah Thompson, M.D.            Dedicated to ALL Civil Liberties
The Righter                The Demo-Cans have betrayed us!
PO Box 271231                Vote Libertarian!
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231        Harry Browne for President
801-966-7278 - fax & voice mail
[e-mail]
Director for Women's Affairs, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research
Communications Director, Utah Libertarian Party
http://www.aros.net/~righter/welcome.html
PGP key available on request.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 18:29:19 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: A HOPE FOR JUSTICE?

>>From: Harvey Wysong <[e-mail]>
>>Subject: A HOPE FOR JUSTICE?
>>
>>MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS
>>
>>Dear M R,
>>        Hope springs eternal. Just a few weeks ago I was installed as a
>>"Member in Good Standing" of the Society of Intransigent Cynics (SIC). Then
>>the article below appeared in the Atlanta newspaper. I wavered,
>>reconsidering all my unkind remarks about the Atlanta Newspapers, Inc.
>>        Then I recalled how they served as the shill for the FBI & BATF in
>>the Richard Jewell case. Remember him? -- the security guard who went from
>>"Hero" to "Villain" faster than you can eat a hot dog? He discovered sack of
>>bombs and began clearing the area. He was a hero. But the feds were in a
>>pressure cooker; they had to solve the crime NOW. They had over 30,000 "law
>>enforcement" agents in Atlanta. The entire region was under martial law.
>>Even then, a bomb went off in the most heavily populated spot in town:
>>Centennial Olympic Park. They had to furnish a villain to halt the clamor.
>>So they furnished Richard Jewell -- "Unabubba."
>>        The Atlanta newspapers -- in cooperation with the FBI & BATF -- ran
>>an Extra! to announce that the suspect was Richard Jewell. ("We'll put the
>>heat on the boy.")
>>        Well, no one with a three-digit IQ suspects him of being a bomber
>>any more. But they do suspect that he'll soon be a plaintiff. I wonder what
>>kind of bass boat the ol' boy wants.
>>        Well, when an article such as the one below appears in a
>>government-front newspaper, you know that the government's case is
>>micron-thin. This is good news for the militia guys.
>>
>>-- Harvey
>>
>>
>>
>>The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
>>Tuesday, August 20, 1996
>>
>>Dave Kindred
>>At Large
>>
>>Taking a 2nd look at Georgia Militia
>>
>>        It makes no sense.
>>        But the questions ought to be asked.
>>        What if the Georgia Republic Militia is even a little bit right?
>>        What if the boys playing soldier in the Crawford County woods were
>>not arming themselves, building bombs and otherwise preparing to go to war
>>against the federal government?
>>        What if they were just good ol' boys playing soldier in the woods
>>and cussin' out Uncle Sam between beers?
>>        We know that agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
>>arrested leaders of the militia in April on evidence produced by two
>>informants who had infiltrated the organization.
>>        But what if the informants were rogues who took their act further
>>than they should have? What if the informants planted the evidence that was
>>then used to have the militiamen arrested?
>>        Informants are not sworn police officers. They're mercenaries used
>>by the police to do dirty work. So they're hired hands looking to please the
>>boss, in this case the ATF. Not only is there no guarantee these mercenaries
>>will be honest, upright, law-abiding citizens, chances are they like the
>>thrill of the chase as much as the honor of the law.
>>        So the question ought to be asked; What if the Georgia Republic
>>Militia is even a little bit right when it claims the informants didn't just
>>report what they saw but invented something to report?
>>        That question comes up because a federal agent has testified in open
>>court, under oath, that the founder of the Georgia Republic Militia was not
>>present when pipe bomb components were buried on his property by an informant.
>>        The agent also testified that a second militia member had said, "I
>>don't want to know anything about it," and walked away when the government's
>>informant talked about building bombs.
>>        Yet both men were arrested. Robert Edward Starr III and William
>>James McCranie now await a Sept. 3 trial date on charges of conspiring to
>>possess unregistered explosive devices.
>>        Their lawyer, Nancy Lord, said at a preliminary hearing, "This is
>>beyond entrapment. It is manufactured evidence." She called the informants
>>"agent provocateurs."
>>        No one wants to believe that. We don't want to believe our
>>government works that way. Whether or not it does, we may find out soon.
>>        And we certainly don't want to believe the militiamen when they take
>>their argument another step forward. They move from citing sworn testimony
>>to speculating a theory of the Centennial Olympic Park bombing that could
>>pass for a first draft of an Oliver Stone exercise in paranoia.
>>        They suggest this because the park bomb was similar in construction
>>to the components buried in Macon.
>>        The first week of May, the militiamen say, they answered an FBI
>>request for information about the ATF informants, including photographs.
>>        Two days after the park bombing on July 27, militia spokesman J.J.
>>Johnson issued a written statement saying the organization had called the
>>FBI, Atlanta police and Olympic federal security agency "and told them that
>>we were aware of suspects who know about and have made pipe bombs."
>>        He also wrote, "Based on news reports concerning a pipe bomb made of
>>galvanized steel with nails attached and a white male with a soft Southern
>>accent, we became concerned that the tragedy might be linked to individuals
>>who we learned of through our investigation on the Macon case..."
>>        Meanwhile, an Alabama militia group, the Gadsden Minutemen, has
>>named the two ATF informants and distributed photographs of them. Neither
>>man, it might be noted, bears a resemblance to Richard Jewell.
>>    ****************************************************
>>"...It is a matter of common observation, that judges and lawyers, even the
>>most upright, able and learned, are sometimes too much influenced by
>>technical rules; and that those judges who are...occupied in the
>>administration of criminal justice are apt, not only to grow severe in their
>>sentences, but to decide questions of law too unfavorably to the accused."
>>--Justice Gray (Sparf v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51 @ 174 in 1894)
>>    ****************************************************
>>    Harvey Wysong, National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Assn.
>>    701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A.
>>    [e-mail]        [phone]

Sarah Thompson, M.D.            Dedicated to ALL Civil Liberties
The Righter                The Demo-Cans have betrayed us!
PO Box 271231                Vote Libertarian!
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231        Harry Browne for President
801-966-7278 - fax & voice mail
[e-mail]
Director for Women's Affairs, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research
Communications Director, Utah Libertarian Party
http://www.aros.net/~righter/welcome.html
PGP key available on request.

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

From: [e-mail] (Gavin Wallace)
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 11:25:40 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Dole Campaign Stop

Republican Presidential Candidate Bob Dole will be making a campaign stop in
Salt Lake City on Monday, September 2nd at 3:30PM at the Executive Terminal
of the Salt Lake Airport.  Free tickets are available by calling [phone].

Gavin Wallace([e-mail])

The Utah Shooting Sports Council
PO Box 711819 - Salt Lake City, Utah  84171-1819
Phone(801)575-USSC FAX [phone] Internet E-Mail: [e-mail]
Internet Web Site: http://members.aol.com/USSCINFO


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

From: Mike Thompson <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 1996 11:45:17 -0600
Subject: Dole Campaign Stop -Reply

Hi Gavin,

I haven't bumped into you in a long while.  I believe the last time
was at a Salt Palace gun show (where else?), you were with Scott
Engin.  I was very sorry that Scott found it necessary to resign his
position with the USSC, he did one heck of a job for the RKBA
cause in Utah.  Are you still getting up to the Holladay Gun Club
on a regular basis to squeeze off a few?  I'm usually up there on
most Sundays.

It's good to see that you're still around.  Say hello to Scott for me
next time you see him.

Mike Thompson
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 01:09:08 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re: Dole Campaign Stop

On Sun, 1 Sep 1996, [e-mail] (Gavin Wallace) wrote:
>Republican Presidential Candidate Bob Dole will be making a campaign stop in
>Salt Lake City on Monday, September 2nd at 3:30PM at the Executive Terminal
>of the Salt Lake Airport.  Free tickets are available by calling [phone].
>
>Gavin Wallace([e-mail])
>
>The Utah Shooting Sports Council
>PO Box 711819 - Salt Lake City, Utah  84171-1819
>Phone(801)575-USSC FAX [phone] Internet E-Mail: [e-mail]
>Internet Web Site: http://members.aol.com/USSCINFO

Uh, I'm confused.....
Is this an endorsement of the turncoat who now says repealing Brady is
irrelevant?
Or is this an invitation to "take a shot" at Dole before he sells out any
more of our rights?
There IS a candidate who fully supports our right to keep and bear arms.
For more information, check out http://www.rahul.net/browne/

Sarah

Sarah Thompson, M.D.            Dedicated to ALL Civil Liberties
The Righter                The Demo-Cans have betrayed us!
PO Box 271231                Vote Libertarian!
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231        Harry Browne for President
801-966-7278 - fax & voice mail
[e-mail]
Director for Women's Affairs, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research
Communications Director, Utah Libertarian Party
http://www.aros.net/~righter/welcome.html
PGP key available on request.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 03:43:31 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Your enemy: California Wellness Foundation/Health Net 2/2

This is part 2/2.
Sarah

<---- Begin Forwarded Message ---->
Return-Path: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 04:02:51 -0400
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail] (nobanlist), [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], S...
Subject: Your enemy: California Wellness Foundation/Health Net 2/2


The obsession with guns explains CWF's mission completely, and it also says a
great deal about modern-day liberalism. CWF and politicians like President
Clinton focus on issues like gun control and cigarettes because they do not
have the answers to the broader problems afflicting society. Thirty years
ago, liberals thought they had the answer: massive government spending and
regulation. But that didn't work; as the president said in his State of the
Union Address earlier this year, 'the era of trig government is over."
Intellectually exhausted and unable to win popular support for big new
statist schemes, those seeking to score political points have found that guns
and tobacco companies provide easy targets. It is no surprise that the
president has tried to make so much of his opponent's assertion that
cigarettes are not necessarily addictive for everyone. Likewise, CWF and
other foundation have no solutions to the social issues confounding America.
So they rail against guns and cigarettes.


The Teenage Pregnancy and Birth Prevention Initiative


While the lion's share of CWF activity to date has focused on the gun
"epidemic," it appears that the foundation has even bigger plans for its
teenage pregnancy initiativethat is if money allocation is any indication of
intent.

Until this year the Initiative received comparatively little funding but that
has suddenly changed. CWF plans to award .860 million over ten years. Only
two grants were listed in the 1995 annual report, though they were sizable:

* $570,000 to the California Public Health Foundation to support the
organizing and implementation of planning and advisory groups meetings.

* $3.5 million to the Public Media Center "to design and implement the first
phase of a public education campaign."

More recently, the April 18 Chronicle of Philanthropy listed nine newly
awarded grants totaling $6.14 million for this Initiative. Of that, $5
million is to be paid over four years to the California Family Planning
Council based in Los Angeles, "to implement a clinical-services and
prevention model I or pregnant teenagers at family planning organizations in
high-risk areas." Also listed in the Chronicle  as a spectral grant on
Reproductive Health and not as part of the Initiative, is $50,000 to the
Washington- based National Advisory Board 011 Ethics in Reproduction for
"administrative support and . . . ethical review and analysis of
reproductive-policy issues."

The VPI is a cover for promoting public acceptance of gun-control. Is the
teenage pregnancy initiative just camouflage for pushing abortion as a public
health measure'? While the word abortion is never mentioned in CWF
literature, the original title-"Teenage Pregnancy and Birth Prevention
Initiative"- presents unclear euphemisms that make one wonder what the
program envisions. The 1994 annual report admits part of the program will
include finding out what has been learned about preventing pregnancies and
births among teenagers." Sex education and family planning. we're told, "are
not enough" (emphasis in original). CWF seems to be planning programs far
beyond condom distribution and birth control pills.

The rationale for doing something. anything, about teenage pregnancy is
presented in terms sure to appeal to overburdened taxpayers. Most teenage
girls who have babies are poor and go on welfare, and they and their children
are caught in a descending spiral of poverty and welfare dependence which
costs tax dollars. Perhaps it's just an oversight, but CWF does not seem at
all concerned about illegitimacy and focuses attention on teenage pregnancy
per se- which could include young married couples. That is, as CWF presents
the issue, the problem is not so much girls having babies out of wedlock, but
girls having babies.

One can appreciate concern about welfare and other costs to the taxpayer. But
is there another, more pressing consideration? A lull- term birth in a
hospital runs anywhere from $2,000 to over $5,000-plus prenatal and
post-delivery care. However, an elective abortion costs only a couple of
hundred dollars.

Health Net, CWF's parent, is in stiff competition with other HMOs for MediCal
(California's Medicaid program) contracts. Under capitation, the government
pays an HMO so much per member. The more MediCal members are assigned to it,
is it more cost efficient to "educate" teenagers and their families to agree
to abortion when there's an "unplanned" pregnancy, rather than giving birth,
keeping the child or placing it for adoption'? A cynical observation'?
Perhaps. But Health Net has the reputation among health care professionals as
being the most cost-conscious of all the HMOs. And one of the biggest
criticisms of managed care in general is that too much attention is paid to
costs at the expense of care.



A Tragic Allocation of Funds

With its vast resources and connection to a major HMO, CWF could do truly
wonderful things in the field of biomedical research. In a January 22
article, Time detailed how HMOs are swelling their coffers through increased
memberships, only to renege when IL comes to paying for expected medical
care. Time reported several cases of women being denied hone-marrow
transplant therapy for breast cancer-a last-ditch, though not extraordinary
procedure which might have saved their lives, or at least relieved their
suffering.

Time explained that Health Net won't cover any treatment it deems
experimental or investigative, and considers bone marrow transplants such,
yet like other HMOs, "it spends nothing on research to hunt for new
treatments for disease.. .[I]t feels bound by law and competition to avoid
such research." According to Time, Health Net recently rejected a proposal to
allocate money to research ovarian cancer, fearing that under the Americans
with Disabilities Act the company would be held liable for discrimination
against people with other forms of cancer and other diseases.

But if an HMO itself can't or won't pay for research, would it not be a true
benefit to humanity for its foundation to do so'' Rather than orchestrating
propaganda campaigns against unapproved behaviors and attempting to strip us
of our right to self-defense, why doesn't CWF underwrite the research
necessary to discover the cause and cure of cancer, AIDS, stroke, and other
diseases to which humans are prone?

The tendency of foundations such as the California Wellness Foundation to
support strategies for social and political control on individual behavior in
the name of "prevention" is one of the oddities of contemporary liberalism -
Once defenders of individual freedom, they have become prim overseers of
personal deportment.



<----  End Forwarded Message  ---->

Sarah Thompson, M.D.            Dedicated to ALL Civil Liberties
The Righter                The Demo-Cans have betrayed us!
PO Box 271231                Vote Libertarian!
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231        Harry Browne for President
801-966-7278 - fax & voice mail
[e-mail]
Director for Women's Affairs, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research
Communications Director, Utah Libertarian Party
http://www.aros.net/~righter/welcome.html
PGP key available on request.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 03:45:03 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Your enemy: California Wellness Foundation/Health Net 1/2

This is part 1/2
Sarah

<---- Begin Forwarded Message ---->
Return-Path: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 04:02:38 -0400
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail] (nobanlist), [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail] (gunnutesq'slist),
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail] (charleseichhorn), [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail] (--h.taylorbuckner), [e-mail]
(amybern)
Subject: Your enemy: California Wellness Foundation/Health Net 1/2

Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR) has focused on how public
money -- _your_ money -- has been used to subvert your inherent, irrevocable
rights through the use of politicized "science."  Virtually every level of
government uses your tax money to propagandize restrictive gun laws and other
fundamental tenets of authoritarian control, of collectivism, of socialism
(sometimes eumphemistically "liberalism").  Increasingly it has become
apparent to us that consumers' money -- _your_ money -- has also been used to
subvert your inherent, irrevocable rights.  Your health care dollars, whether
being paid directly by you or indirectly by you through your employer or
union, are being funneled into health care insurance companies that are
increasingly funding "non-profit educational foundations" that propagandize
for the end of our constitutional republic.  Currently, with resources
approaching $1 BILLION,  California Wellness Foundation is the deepest of
these "pockets," but increasing numbers of health insurance companies are
becoming so involved. [We expect to report on the activities of Kaiser
Foundation/Permanente Medical Group in the future].  Ms. Sarah Foster
conducted an extensive investigation of California Wellness Foundation and
has written the following article.  If you read this article and are angered
or frightened by the activities of California Wellness Foundation, recall
that Health Net fathered this bastard child.  If you have Health Net
insurance coverage, let your views be known -- to your insurance agent, your
employer, your union, _and_ the executives of Health Net and California
Wellness Foundation.  Do not let your money be used against you and your
family for generations to come.  Let your legislators know that, despite its
pleasing sounding name and mission, California Wellness Foundation is an
enemy of our rights and of our constitutional republic.  Ms. Foster's report
refers to issues other than gun bans in which California Wellness Foundation
is active.  Please distribute her report to people, organizations, and
newsgroups with interest in those other issues.  Please support Capital
Research Center that has made this and other important reports available.

Edgar A. Suter MD
National Chair, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research
********************************************

Organization Trends

New Health Foundation Writes
Prescription for Big Government
California Group Advances Liberalism
in the Name of Wellness

The author, Sarah Foster, is a researcher and writer residing in Sacramento,
California.

Editor
Robert V. Pambianco

Publisher
Terrence Scanlon
Copyright 1996 Capital Research Center
727 15th Street NW/Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005
[phone]
Permission to distribute granted providing full attribution is given.

Liberals no longer call themselves liberals: they prefer to be known as
"moderates." Now a recently established California foundation has come Up
with a fresh way to market discredited liberal ideas of munificent
government. The California Wellness Foundation (CWF) is using the expansive
concept of "wellness" to advance a broad-based policy agenda that is hostile
to individual liberty and responsibility.

Created by the privatization of a major nonprofit Health Maintenance
Organization (HMO), the foundation is emerging as a grantmaking behemoth.
With a multi-million dollar budget and nearly a billion dollars in assets, it
has already become a major player in the nation's largest state

CWF has taken on a cornucopia of concerns: gun ownership. smoking,
consumption of alcoholic beverages, teenage pregnancy, to name a few. In FY
1994-95 CWF awarded 129 grants totaling nearly $40 million to institutions.
organizations and individuals to tackle these and other issues that
constitute what CWF has defined as "prevention" and "wellness."

Wellness is the latest buzz-phrase among hip grantmakers Sufficiently vague,
this all- encompassing term appeals to foundation professionals who believe
that specific missions and mandates hinder their creative grantmaking
talents. Like the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, wellness
provides the imaginative foundation officer with limitless possibilities.

CWF's stated goal is "to improve the health of the residents of California"
and "foster healthful lifestyles, behaviors, and values.'` To CWF, health or
illness is defined not as the absence or presence of disease. "but by a
complex web of conditions in [the] physical and social environment," and CWF'
has determined its grantmaking must address 'the multiple barriers to
healthful living-from personal behavior to social and economic influences
such as poverty, unemployment, inadequate schools and racism." In other
words, wellness means whatever CWF wants it to mean. Sound familiar? Such a
program is simply an updated version of the root-causes rationale used to
justify the 1960s War on Poverty.

Grants are awarded in five program areas: Community Health: Population
Health; Worksite Health Improvement; Violence Prevention: and Teenage
Pregnancy and Birth Prevention. Each of these creates a theater of operation
for government intervention. CWF's first project, the Violence Prevention
Initiative, is fully developed and being expanded. The ominous-sounding
Teenage Pregnancy and Birth Prevention Initiative is still in the formative
state.

Although a grantmaking foundation obligated to foster a public charitable
interest, CWF is a recent offspring of a commercial enterprise. CWF's
"parent" is Health Net, the second largest health maintenance organization
(HMO) in California, with 1.3 million commercial and Medicare HMO members,
many of them subscribers with CalPERS (the state Public Employees Retirement
System). CWF benefits from the considerable cachet associated with its
parent's former status as a nonprofit insurer.

In 1990 the previously nonprofit Health Net became a for-profit corporation.
Because California law requires nonprofits that privatize to leave their
assets in the non- profit sector, Health Net created CWF in 1991, funding it
in 1992 to the tune of $300 million ($75 million cash, $225 million in a long
term, interest-bearing note), plus 25.7 million shares of Class B nonvoting
stock, which convert to Class A voting shares when sold. ILs most recent
Annual Report (1995) posts assets of $851.8 million.

In January 1994. Health NcL merged with QualMed. a Colorado-based HMO, to
form Health Systems International, which has been actively acquiring smaller
HMOs. mostly in the Northeast. Health Net-today a subsidiary of HSI-is
actively pursuing the Medicare and small-group market, moves that have
interesting implications for CWF and its work.

As a new foundation, CWF's Board of Directors (then headed by Roger Greaves,
founder, president and CEO of Health Net) was free to set priorities
"unencumbered by past funding commitments" (as the 1993 annual report put it)
or, for that matter, unencumbered by earlier ideological baggage. Unlike such
organizations as the Pew Charitable Trusts or the Ford Foundation, which had
left-wing agendas thrust upon them, CWF has been "progressive" from the
start.


Education for Regulation

CWF's central organizing concept is "prevention." In today's political
lexicon, that means far more than immunization programs for kids, X-ray
screening for TB or breast cancer, or providing physical exams and dental
work for the poor. The new "prevention" includes these, but also much more:
it aims for total elimination of "risk behaviors" and anything "bad" in that
"complex web of conditions." A report funded by CWF- for the Washington-based
Partnership for Prevention (of which Health Net is a member) puts it this
way:

"Imagine a new drug that would cure an epidemic... a new surgery that would
correct . . . heart disease... a new prenatal therapy that would help over
100,000 low-birth- weight babies survive.... Let's go one step further.
Imagine a way to prevent the epidemic; to prevent the heart disease: to
prevent the low birth weight" (emphasis in original text).

Desirable as that may sound, full realization of such goals would require
constant government intervention in people's lives, with every behavior added
to the lists of targets for modification. CWF gives few details on how this
is to be accomplished. What is clear, however, is that CWF's prevention
paradigm is a model for a major expansion of the nanny state.

CWF is not a membership organization. and as a nonprofit with an IRS
501(c)(3) status it is not permitted to lobby on specific legislation. But it
does engage in "effecting policy change through public education." In
practice, this means convincing the public to accept and demand the laws,
ordinances, and regulations CWF believes are necessary for public health and
"wellness."

Like other foundations, CWF is a money machine; it funnels grants to
community- based nonprofits and individuals eager to make demands for
government action, and sponsors university research to bolster "progressive"
policy initiatives. But more importantly, CWF is a modern, high-tech
foundation that recognizes the value of getting out the message-especially in
California, a big state with expensive media- driven politics and a tradition
of creating policy by means of ballot initiative. Thus, CWF recruits
experienced consulting firms that develop and implement campaigns even to the
point of serious involvement in state ballot measures and national
legislation. Examples listed in the 1995 annual report include:

* $500,000 to Public Media Center "to support a public education project on
health impacts of proposed federal budget cuts on children and families in
California." "The campaign joined advocates from a wide range of
organizations, bringing a unified voice to the debate."

Public Media Center is a nonprofit, public interest advertising firm based in
San Francisco, which-as the Wall Street Journal/ puts it "Goes for l the I
Jugular to Push Causes." The 20-year-old PMC places more than $1 million in
newspaper ads a year in major papers on behalf of clients such as Planned
Parenthood, Sierra Club, and Handgun Control Inc., according to the Journal.
Last year, it placed fear-inducing ads opposing the Contract With America.
The Contract "guarantees drastic losses for children," warned one such
hyperbolic ad. which delineated a parade of horribles that would plague the
nation if the Republican agenda were enacted, e.g., "neglected and brutalized
children will not be protected. '

* $363,000 to the Marin Institute, "to build the capacity of live target
California cities to effectively address the role of alcohol marketing and
availability in the economic development of these communities." This
nonprofit research firm in the North San Francisco Bay Area is hostile to
both tobacco and alcohol consumption, and explores ways of "empowering" local
communities to restrict access to them through ordinances limiting or banning
advertising, sales, and consumption. The Institute grew out of the famous
Buck Trust controversy and was established with funds from the Trust.

* $4 million to Public Media Center "to develop and implement a campaign to
increase [public] awareness about... Proposition 188." This was a 1994
California ballot initiative, sponsored by tobacco companies. that sought to
curb the ability of local communities to enact anti-smoking ordinances that
were more stringent than slate law. PMC "used print, radio and television ads
to inform Californians about the threat to the public's health." CWF reports
that surveys at the start showed Californians in support of the proposition.
After the emotionally charged propaganda blitz by PMC, voters rejected it (
1995 annual report).



Currying Favor with the State?

Organization Trends has previously documented how foundations establish a
financial relationship with state and local governments as a shortcut to
achieving their policy goals, e.g., a new health care plan or education
reform. Often these programs have little public support-hence, lawmakers are
unlikely to provide funding-so the foundation gives the state money to run a
pilot program. The state legislators are often hardly aware that state
agencies are relying on outside grantmakers for policy direction. Yet the
program becomes entrenched. Eventually the government takes over the funding
- -and the public gets stuck with something it never wanted. It's an easy way
to avoid the sticky problems associated with democratic self government.

Like other large philanthropies. CWF gives money to selected government
institutions and agencies, local and state, for start-up costs of
scholarships, fellowships? and research projects. Some examples:

* $775,000 to UC Berkeley in 1995 to support the Schools Wellness Project,
"a...model aimed at transforming 11 K-12 Bay Area schools into centers of
community health promotion."

* $30,000 to the L.A. Unified School District in 1995 "to create a program to
identify, track, and assist pregnant teens."

* $15,()()(:) to UC Berkeley, School of Public Health, in 1994 "to conduct
research on the politics of prevention in health care reform and to assess
the influence of the work supported by [CWF]."

Commenting on this connection to government, former CWF president and CEO
Howard Kahn wrote: "Recognizing the central role of government in the lives
of all Californians, we have not shied away from involvement with government
and public policy issues. Instead. we have embraced opportunities to affect
public policy and leverage public funds." (Leverage is the key word; the
foundation provides $100, and soon the government is spending $10 million on
a statewide prevention program.)

This means, Kahn explained, "evaluation of government-sponsored social and
health service programs," and "partnering" with government "to attempt to
influence the shape of new or existing public programs" and to ensure that
"prevention assumes a central role . . . in . . . efforts [of health care
reform| within California."

To those who would raise an eyebrow over a possible conflict of interest
between a foundation established by a major HMO that is aggressively pursuing
Medicare and other government contracts et the same time that it gives money
to government agencies and attempts to "influence . . . public health
programs": Be advised that such activity is not only condoned, it's applauded
as a fine example of "partnering."



The Violence Prevention Initiative

Although millions of dollars have been awarded for projects in all five
program areas (cited above), CWF's top priority has been the Violence
Prevention Initiative (VPI). In just four short years CWF has positioned
itself in the vanguard of the gun control crusade. IL has committed $30
million to this project, with other foundations kicking in an additional $10
million.

Basically this is a gun-control campaign. It has drawn nationwide public
attention and has endeared the fledgling foundation to a sympathetic media.
Consistent with its organizing principles, CWF claims to have been the first
organization to make gun control a public health issue. "The Initiative
breaks with tradition by putting the issue . . . in a public health
perspective that centers on prevention." says CWF literature.

Yes, prevention. What good is it, asks CWF, for a man to receive a clean bill
of health at the local clinic, if he is killed by gunshot on his way home'?
The solution)' Get rid of firearms. After all, if a public health department
can order the capping of a contaminated water source to stem cholera or order
restaurants to stop selling tainted hamburgers, it can surely halt an
"epidemic" of gun-related in juries and deaths.

Not surprisingly, many challenge this view. Edgar Suter, M.D., of Doctors for
Integrity in Policy Research, a nonprofit organization in San Ramon, Calif.,
has analyzed such allegations. In a report titled Targeting Deceit, Suter
observes that "The chief strategists of the gun ban lobby have attempted to
reframe the debate as a 'public health' issue rather than a crime issue
precisely because they have recognized . . . that two decades of
criminological research has shown the bankruptcy of the claim that gun
control reduces crime or violence."

By using FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Suter points out that drug
dealers and drug users are "overwhelmingly and disproportionately the
perpetrators and victims of  violence....[F]ar from being 'innocent
children,' an alarming two-thirds of gun homicides are of teens and young
adults in the drug trade."

Such facts make little if any impression on the anti-gun advocates, and they
are confident of ultimate success. "This is the beginning of a long journey,"
Dr. Michael Rodriguez, Research Director of the CWF-funded Pacific Center for
Violence Prevention, told a Sacramento anti-gun group last June. As reported
by the Sacramento Bee Rodriguez warned his audience that they would face "i
formidable obstacles, much like the pioneers of the anti-smoking crusade."

"Twenty years ago, people were able to light up wherever they wanted,"
Rodriguez is quoted as saying. Indeed. And CWF is determined that just as the
public was eventually conditioned to demand local ordinances and state laws
to ban smoking in restaurants, work sites, and  government buildings,
"education" by CWF will provide the changes in public opinion and policy that
will cause citizens to surrender their guns. Here's how some of CWF's grant
money is being spent on its anti-gun initiatives.

* $650,000 every other year to fund two- year fellowships for ten community
activists scattered throughout the state. Also three annual $25,000 "Peace
Awards" to selected community leaders.

* $400,000 each to 17 community organizations "to implement violence
prevention projects."

* $200,000 to the Center for Investigative Reporting in San Francisco to
produce and distribute a national televised documentary on the firearms
industry.

* $40,000 to the San Francisco-based Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV)
for a resource manual, Addressing GUn Violence e through Local Ordinances a
how-to book for anti-gun activists and attorneys. It explains how to enact
municipal ordinances that outlaw "Saturday night specials" and banish dealers
from residential and other "sensitive" areas. It offers advice on how
activists can build public support for so-called "rational gun regulation,"
and how to resist legal challenges to already enacted anti-gun ordinances and
regulations.

In 1992 a major grant of $1.3 million (part of an eventual total of $7.5
million) was allocated to establish Rodriguez's Pacific Center for Violence
Prevention. The money went to the Trauma Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy
group based in San Francisco's General Hospital. The Trauma Foundation has
long assaulted gun ownership going so far as to run full-page ads in major
newspapers to promote anti-gun legislation.

CWF's 1993 Annual Report detailed the work of the new Center: ''[L]inking
several leading activist organizations, the Pacific Center is helping train
those involved with the [Violence Prevention] Initiative in order to create a
statewide network of advocates who can educate the media, public officials
and other leaders on the public health perspective for violence prevention."

One such "linking" was with LCAV to produce the resource manual on passing
local ordinances. Pacific Center provided staff assistance, while Policy
Director David Farrar contributed his expertise. The LCAV project also
borrowed anti-smoking activist Mark Pertschuk, son of former FTC Chairman
Michael Pertschuk, of the California Preemption Education Project (a joint
project of Western Consortium for Public Health and Americans for Nonsmokers
Rights), which receives funding from CWF.



Playing the Child Card

Of all CWF activities, the one generating the most publicity has been the
Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence Against Kids. Begun in 1993, it uses TV
ads, public service announcements and direct mailings "to mobilize citizen
action." CWF shamelessly plays the child card. This tried-and-true tactic
originated with Marian Wright Edelman and her Children's Defense Fund. It
entails a three- step process: First, define an issue (e.g., health care, gun
control, poverty) as a children's problem. Second, propose a government
solution. Third, attack those who disagree with the specific policy as anti-
children. Thus, "There are too many handguns, too many gun dealers and too
many kids losing their lives to this epidemic, and it needs to stop,"
foundation President Gary Yates told the L.A. Times in April.

The TV ads, narrated by veteran Hollywood leftist Ed Asner, told Californians
the "number one killer of kids . . . is handguns." A second ad shows guns on
an assembly line, with a voice-over: "Business is booming, a handgun is
produced every 20 seconds and they're put to use on our kids. Ten kids are
killed every day. A kid commits suicide with a handgun every X hours. It's an
epidemic." Suter notes that a "kid" includes anyone up to age 18-even young
thugs involved in drug trafficking.

Viewers could call a toll-free number and receive a Citizen involvement Kit,
a brochure containing the names of community organizations to contact (most
of them funded by CWF), names and addresses of elected officials, and a list
of meaningless 'facts" with which to confront officials, e.g., "There are l 8
times more gun dealers than McDonald's in California." The kit also contained
three postcards to send to legislators asking: What are you doing to prevent
handgun violence against California kids'?

Behind the scenes of this endeavor has been the private political consulting
firm of Martin & Glantz. Based in Marin County, it lists among its clients
The Nature Conservancy, and the Ford Foundation. Partners Angie Martin and
Gina Glantz (no relation to anti- tobacco enthusiast Stanton Glantz) have
earned a reputation for the skill with which they manage advocacy campaigns.
They received over $2 million through 1994, and in 1995 were awarded an
additional $6 million over three years "to continue and expand the multimedia
public education campaign."

A highlight of this campaign to date was a statewide, 90-minute
teleconference titled "First Aid for What's Killing Our Kids: A Prescription
for Prevention," which "joined the public and policy makers in Washington,
D.C. and 18 conference sites in an unprecedented discussion of specific
policy options for reducing violence." The teleconference, held in February
1995. featured pre-recorded appearances by Donna Shalala, secretary of Health
and Human Services, and U.S. Senators Bill Bradley (D- NJ) and Barbara Boxer
(D-CA). The 1,6()() participants made the following predictable policy
recommendations:

* Banning so-called Saturday night specials

* "Home rule" for handgun regulation (the preemption tactic)

* Regulation of handguns as a consumer product

* Increasing the penalty on carrying a concealed handgun

The 1995 annual report describes "the groundbreaking video-conference" in
glowing terms as "an important tool for |CWF's ] policy goal of developing
long term public awareness and support for preventive solutions to handgun
violence." Ironically, these recommendations would result in greater
violence. Since criminals ignore gun laws, disarming innocent citizens is a
policy that costs snore, not fewer, lives.

[continued]



<----  End Forwarded Message  ---->

Sarah Thompson, M.D.            Dedicated to ALL Civil Liberties
The Righter                The Demo-Cans have betrayed us!
PO Box 271231                Vote Libertarian!
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231        Harry Browne for President
801-966-7278 - fax & voice mail
[e-mail]
Director for Women's Affairs, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research
Communications Director, Utah Libertarian Party
http://www.aros.net/~righter/welcome.html
PGP key available on request.

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

End of utah-firearms Digest V2 #6
*********************************

To subscribe to utah-firearms Digest, send the command:

    subscribe utah-firearms-digest

in the body of a message to "[e-mail]".  If you want to
subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such
as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the
"subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-utah-firearms":

    subscribe utah-firearms-digest [e-mail]

A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "utah-firearms-digest"
in the commands above with "utah-firearms".

Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from ftp.xmission.com, in
pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive.  These are organized by date.