Greetings from your friendly, neighborhood, TERRORIST!

"Nomen Nescio" ] wrote in
message ...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: "Dudley Henriques"

Amazing!
I used to play a fair to middling bit of guitar myself.

I never would have guessed that, but reading it, I'm not that
surprised. I've
always thought there's a certain connection between music and
aerobatics.

My good friend Scotty McCray, used music in his sailplane routine as a
professional airshow pilot, all through his career.

I've actually
been on the same stage with Arlo, Doc Watson Pat Sky, Gordo Lightfoot,
Eric Andersen, Bonnie Dobson, and a few others.

Impressive collection of names. I never really took the guitar beyond
playing
with local bands..clubs, colleges, etc.

I'm afraid their names are much more impressive than my humble back up
playing. It was fun though.

In fact, because I've lost my right hand as that applies to something
like Travis picking :-)

I never had a right hand as that applies to something like Travis
picking :-)
Fat thumb. Never could catch the A string without whacking the E. Had
to go
with a pick between the thumb and forefinger which, of course, only
left me with
3 fingers for the top end.

Doc was the best flat picker I've ever seen. Being blind didn't hinder
him a bit with his music. Then again there was Art Tatum, and George
Shearing and Lord knows how many others. I think you can make a case for
musicians actually having a more comprehensive insight into their music
through physical handicap.

I've just sold my beautiful Herringbone Martin
D28 last year. I carried that ax with me almost everywhere I went for
most of my life.

That must have stung, a little bit. I hope it went to someone
"deserving".

It was an auction. I watched it change hands, but never met the
individual.
Actually, I didn't want to. It was like watching an old friend die.
Can't explain it..won't try!



I'm afraid my guitar days are behind me now, but it's
fun to remember all those good times we had at the coffee houses
pickin
downstairs in the basement or in the back room.

Hanging with the beatniks and hippies? I never would have guessed
that, either.

You just never know about these "old" guys do you? :-)

I stil do some pickin' but my audience is normally confined to my wife
and cats.

Cats get very nervous around guitar strings you know....all that talk
about catgut and all that!!


3 weeks ago, I got in front of a "real" audience for the first time in
10 years at
the annual neighborhood block party. Dug out my old Les Paul Std. and
did the
lead to a couple of "Santana" tunes with our local band. "Samba Pa Ti"
and
"Europe", if you're interested. Actually sounded fairly good,
considering we
hadn't practiced it ahead of time...and I hadn't changed the strings
in months.
As a side note, my wife has a voice that could out Patsy Cline, "Patsy
Cline".
She's the real musical talent in the family.

Well, I'm glad at least one of us can still play. :-)

Take care,
Dudley

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:vGV6d.147341$D%.105328@attbi_s51...
I'll give you an example of something weird -- the book of mormon.
Now
THAT is weird.

It's no weirder than the Torah, the New Testament, or the Koran.
Singling
out a particular religious tract as an exemplar of weirdness strikes me
as
unfair.

Well said, Gary, and I agree 100%.

Well, the Book of the SubGenius comes pretty close. :-)

Dudley Henriques wrote:

Actually, I didn't want to. It was like watching an old friend die.
Can't explain it..won't try!

That's what I'm afraid of. My Guild just sits in the corner year after year. Should
sell it, but it won't bring enough to ease the pain much.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

In a previous article, "C J Campbell" said:
You already know how I feel about issues such as posting the ten
commandments, nativity scenes, Stars of David and crosses and the like, as
well as private schools. You think these things are public imposition of
religion and are prohibited by the Constitution. I think that prohibiting
these things violates freedom of worship guaranteed by the Constitution.
Please do not insult my intelligence by pretending that you do not know the
issues involved. We may never agree, but don't try to tell me you don't know
what we are talking about.

I know the ACLU has worked hard and long to keep people like you from
using government organizations, funds, and buildings to impose your
religious beliefs on me and my children. That is not working to "prohibit
the exercise of freedom of religion". It is working to *strengthen* my
exercise of freedom of religion.

As for ACLU's association with communism, don't be ridiculous. It was
founded by anarchists and communists and continues to be run by them today.
Some of the very earliest members included Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, who later
became chairman of the American Communist Party, and Agnes Smedly, a Soviet
agent. In every single case that I know of where the United States had a
legal issue with the Kremlin or Castro, the ACLU supported the communists,
even to the point of forcible repatriation of persons who came here looking
for political asylum.

So it was founded by people associated with communism. How has it worked
to "promote communism". Name one concrete thing.

As for "forcible repatriation", the only case I can think you're thinking
of is Elian Gonzalez, who was kidnapped by a non-parent away from a
parent. That should have been a simple child custody case, and if it
wasn't for the national border nobody would have wasted a second's thought
on coming to the conclusion that the boy should have been returned to the
parent.

Saying that the ACLU is neutral on gun control is bogus. If ACLU were
interested in protecting Constitutional rights then they would be in the
forefront of defending gun owners, especially in states like Washington,
where Constitutional protections are much stronger than in the US.

That particular constitutional ammendment has a MUCH larger organization
protecting it. Why would the ACLU waste its limited time and resources
protecting the second ammendment when the largest political organization
in the country, the NRA, is already working on the case?


ACLU also continually sides against parents on such issues as birth control,
sex education, and abortion. Apparently ACLU is able to see a clear

Again, name one case.

ACLU's attack on the Boy Scouts is legendary. Apparently ACLU does not
believe in freedom of association, either, if it involves groups that it
does not like.

ACLU attempted to prevent the Boy Scouts from discriminating against
people. Hardly an attack.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I don't see what C++ has to do with keeping people from shooting themselves
in the foot. C++ will happily load the gun, offer you a drink to steady
your nerves, and help you aim. -- Peter da Silva

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

[...]Constitutional mandate for abortion but none for the right to bear
arms.
ACLU has also taken the side of Communist states who have demanded
repatriation of children to their home countries when the parents defected
here. They have then contradicted themselves and taken the side of Cuba,
for
example, when a child staying with relatives defected to the United
States.

No child of tender years is capable of choosing his custodian under the law
of any state in this country. Or of understanding the notion of defection,
for that matter. Again, you demonstrate amusing ignorance of settled law.

When a child reaches adolescence he is capable then of telling the judge his
choice of custodians in a custody dispute, although his choice is not
dispositive.

The child you allude to had lost his mother and his father remained in Cuba.
Under the laws of every state of this country the biological parents are
presumptively the best choice for custody and care of a minor child.

Why don't you tell us how Utah territory promised to permit and encourage
due process of law in its courts as a condition of statehood and then
quietly, deviously passed a law whereby lawyers could not collect fees for
their services. Meaning, of course, that no lawyers were willing to
practice in this ugly little mormon theocracy. Oh, and tell us about
Brigham Young's many wives and nasty divorces, one of the reasons why he
hated lawyers --- because a few of his ex-wives tagged him for property
settlements and some cash money when otherwise they would have gotten
NOTHING.

Nomen Nescio wrote:

I've been wanting to take a
drive by that area, again, and see if there were any signs that were
prohibiting parking in
that area that I may not have seen, since we came in from a side
street and
not the main road. I'd hate to make a big stink over things if it
really was a prohibited area (and look REAL stupid in the process).

Nothing's wrong or stupid about a polite "Why?"

But my understanding
of fenced in areas has always been.....Inside the fence - bad,
outside the
fence - good.

That's generally the rule.

But in defense of the ANG, my wife and I had been out hiking for the
day,
I was wearing my "Treebark" camo pants, we had a scanner in the SUV
that
was tuned to the tower, and I have brown hair (now a little more gray
than brown)...brown eyes...a beard...and a fairly .dark skin.

That and references to the 60's....

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...


ACLU also continually sides against parents on such issues as birth
control,
sex education, and abortion. Apparently ACLU is able to see a clear

Again, name one case.

ACLU continues to support minors' right to an abortion without parental
permission or even the parents knowing about it. Their position is that this
is necessary in order to prevent incest.


ACLU's attack on the Boy Scouts is legendary. Apparently ACLU does not
believe in freedom of association, either, if it involves groups that it
does not like.

ACLU attempted to prevent the Boy Scouts from discriminating against
people. Hardly an attack.

Freedom to associate with whom you please means also the freedom to not
associate with some people, no matter how unpalatable that may be. The Boy
Scouts is a private organization. ACLU has no business telling a private
organization who they must accept as members and who not.

In 1931, a congressional report of the Special House Committee to
Investigate Communist Activities stated:

The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the
communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its
efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the
law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press, and free assembly;
but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is to
attempt to protect the communists in their advocacy of force and
violence to overthrow the government, replacing the American flag by a
red flag and erecting a Soviet government in place of the republican
form of government guaranteed to each state by the federal Constitution.

The House committee members had good reason to arrive at that
conclusion. The ACLU’s membership, leadership, and projects soon gave
rise to claims by critics that the organization’s acronym really stood
for Atheists, Communists, and Libertines United, or Anti-Christian
Lawyers Union. The ACLU was launched at a party given for Roger Baldwin
upon his release from prison for draft evasion in 1919. The main
attendees at the soiree were Norman Thomas, who would become the
patriarch of the Socialist Party; Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, who would
become the Communist Party’s national chairman; and Agnes Smedley, who
would become a Soviet espionage agent in China. Top Communist Party
officials who became national committee members or members of its board
of directors included Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, William Z. Foster, Louis
Budenz, Corliss Lamont, and Scott Nearing, as well as hundreds of
Communist fellow travelers.

Roger Baldwin directed the ACLU for 30 years. Earlier, he described his
own philosophy this way in his college yearbook: "I am for Socialism,
disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the State itself as an
instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of
property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of
those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." He gave no evidence of
ever having swerved from that goal. However, he did give his comrades
good advice on effective stratagems for disguising their true intent.

In 1917, Baldwin wrote to Louis Lochner of the People’s Council, a
Communist group, counseling:

Do steer away from making it [the People’s Council] look like a
Socialist enterprise. Too many people have already gotten the idea that
it is nine-tenths a Socialist movement.... We want also to look like
patriots in everything we do. We want to get a lot of good flags, talk a
good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make
of this country, and to show that we are the folks that really stand for
the spirit of our institutions.

The ACLU has perfected this masquerade, posing as the Constitution’s
guardian while working to destroy it and the morality, responsibility,
and decentralized, local governance essential to our constitutional
system. The organization defends abortion on demand, child pornography,
flag burning, homosexual "marriages" and the right of homosexuals to
adopt children, full "constitutional" rights for illegal aliens, and
legalizing prostitution, pandering, and all recreational drug usage. It
opposes private ownership of guns, voluntary school prayer, religious
displays on public property, capital punishment, prison terms for most
crimes, and tax-exemptions for churches and synagogues.

For decades, the ACLU has worked hand-in-glove with the National Lawyers
Guild, officially cited by a committee of Congress as "the foremost
legal bulwark of the Communist Party." Both of these groups have been
striving since the early 20th century to undermine all U.S. immigration
and internal security protections. The easy access across our borders
enjoyed by the 9-11 hijackers is largely a testament to the nonstop
attacks by the ACLU-NLG saboteurs upon the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, the Border Patrol, and our immigration laws.

Following the September 11th terror attacks, the ACLU and NLG activists
have continued their subversion. One of their most outrageous ongoing
campaigns has been to support members of the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a radical, Marxist branch of the PLO.
The INS had tried since 1987 to deport eight members of this terrorist
group from the U.S., but had been stymied by the continuous appeals and
legal delaying tactics of the ACLU-NLG attorneys. Working with Senator
Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Representative John Conyers of
Michigan, the ACLU-NLG radicals fashioned language to the USA PATRIOT
Act to exempt the members of the terrorist PFLP whom the INS was trying
to deport. This showed unequivocally that the ACLU has not changed its
spots. By undermining our internal security, the ACLU is actually
helping fasten federal police-state measures on the 99.99 percent of
Americans who present no terrorist threat, while protecting the small
minority of terrorists and their supporters whom law enforcement
agencies should be targeting.

By usurping the mantle of leadership of the opposition to the growing
police state, the ACLU’s current deception campaign provides a double
effect. First, it scares many conservatives familiar with the group’s
radical record into more readily accepting the Bush administration’s
dangerous measures concentrating more and more power in Washington. The
pseudo-conservative columnists and radio talk shows supporting the Bush
agenda are having a field day denouncing all opponents as liberal ACLU
dupes. On the other hand, patriotic Americans who have strong
constitutional principles, but are unfamiliar with the ACLU’s sordid
record and the role it is playing, may be tempted to join the ACLU-led
opposition parade. Both of these false alternatives must be rejected.

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in
:

In a previous article, (Teacherjh) said:
I would not bet my certificate that there would be no adverse
consequences to not obeying orders, whether these orders are legit or
not. Not in this country. Not now.

Which is about the saddest thing ever.



and maybe a terrorist is thinking twice before attempting an attack..
Because there was a brave National guardsman that saw something out of the
ordinary (assumed), stood his ground and took the un-popular step of
removing a unknown threat. Politely and with professionalism...

Regardless what we say here, Put yourselves in his shoes...on the last
watch someone got in and 3000 people paid the price. There are people still
out there that want to repeat their horror... Thank goodness hes stepping
up....

Which is the best thing ever...

Bob Fry wrote in
:

Hey folks. Just ignore Mr. FullName...he's clearly a nut-ball with
fascist, extreme right beliefs.


Thats a shout out for free speech Bob... free speech is only good for
those that you agree with, the rest are nutballs and should be ignored.

Ya Vol Kommandant...