Time: Wed Oct 01 14:24:20 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA24098;
	Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:24:03 -0700 (MST)
	by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA18898;
	Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:10:17 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 14:09:46 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]

Dear America,

This is from the "We Told You So Long Ago" Department ...

Read and weep (the sooner the better).  When you have
completed your normal cycle of grieving, contact us
for further ideas to preserve our vanishing freedoms.

Chinese sushi, anybody?  Perhaps they would consider
citing their abortion factories on airport property,
instead of citing them near those obnoxious diesel-
powered cargo ships, at Long Beach Harbor.

Yes, come visit the beautiful Port of Long Beach, one of
the finest all-weather seaports in the entire world,
and dine on fine Chinese mainland delicacies.  Tour the
expired fetal suspension tank, and witness vicious shark 
feeding at its best, every hour on the hour.

[Designs by Monterey Saltine Aquaria, PC, Hong Kong.]
[Offer not available where prohibited by Law.]

"Yeeeeeez, ladiez and gentlemen, now for the latest
 hard acid rock -- brought to you by Shogun and the
 Laser Head Trips."

Spin it, Chuck E. Sukiyaki!!

/s/ Paul Mitchell

>	OCTOBER 1--The Washington Times reported yesterday that Sen.
>Charles Robb, D-VA, and Sen. Jame Inhofe, R-OK, are planning to oppose a
>measure passed in the House that would ban communist China's state-owned
>merchant marine line, COSCO, from ever operating on American shores. 
>This, of course, has to do with the embattled Long Beach facility in
>California, for which this country once used as a powerful naval base --
>now lost to the nation via a recommendation by the Base Closure
>Commission a few years ago.
>	According to Sen. Inhofe's office, the provision addressing the
>COSCO deal is in the 1998 Defense Authorization Bill, and it contains
>language written by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Ca., that Sen. Inhofe says will
>prohibit any foreign government from operating a merchant marine base on
>US shores.  And according to Sen. Robb's spokesmen, their boss backs the
>COSCO deal because even "the DoD [Department of Defense] doesn't think
>there is a security risk" in letting the huge Chinese shipping company
>set up shop in downtown America.  Sen. Robb's people also say that since
>both of California's senators, Boxer and Feinstein -- not what you would
>call 'national security experts'-- seem to think this deal is good, then
>what's the problem?  
>	Well, none, if you're an idiot who cannot or will not see the
>obvious reasons for blowing this ship out of the water.
>	Regarding Sen. Inhofe's concerns, I think I speak for many
>Americans who wouldn't care if the US never leases one square foot of
>soil to a foreign shipping company.  Hence, the language in Rep. Hunter's
>amendment is not only prudent representation, but a wise decision that
>would benefit not just his constituents, but the entire country as well.
>	As far as Sen. Robb goes, listening to the diatribe of his
>staffers as they try to spin and downplay this outrage, you have to
>wonder which intelligence briefings he was sitting in on, and which
>Department of Defense report he read to determine that there was "no
>security threat" in allowing COSCO a foothold in the 'New World'.  They
>sure couldn't have been US-chaired briefings, because if they were, then
>he missed the parts where they explicitly stated that COSCO is a Chinese
>state-owned industry with ties to the People's Liberation Army.  
>	No, I wasn't at those briefings, but judging from the public
>accounts of them made by Pentagon and US intelligence sources, I'd say it
>would be pretty easy to determine that they don't think this COSCO thing
>is a very good idea.  Besides, why does Sen. Robb need a
>military/intelligence briefing to decide this matter anyway? It doesn't
>take a Harvard degree in government to smell this stinkbait.  In fact,
>it's pretty simple.  It's a communist government-owned enterprise which
>has the capability to bring things into and out of a country, including
>intelligence.  The US spies on everybody else as it is;  is Sen. Robb
>naive enough to believe the Chinese don't spy on us, then use the
>information they collect to their advantage?  Was the John Huang episode
>not enough to convince him? 
>	For one thing, there are sensitive US military installations
>close enough to Long Beach to enable Chinese agents eavesdropping
>capabilities.  Furthermore, there have been several examples in the past
>-- 2,000 AK - 47's, anyone? -- of COSCO/Chinese goverment duplicity
>regarding US national security thus far.  These have all been reported by
>various media since the deal first made headlines earlier this year.  But
>I suppose Sen. Robb just hasn't heard any of this.  Tougher yet to
>believe is that his Leftist colleagues, Boxer & Feinstein, haven't
>either, considering they are from California.
>	To even think a legislator would see no danger in letting a
>foreign power base an operation with known ties to espionage pitch a tent
>here in this country, let alone erect a huge shipping base among
>sensitive military facilities, would have been unimaginable even 15 years
>ago.  Of course, that was long before the fevered scramble for illegal
>Chinese campaign money, of which our resident Leftists seemed to have
>helped themselves to.  
>	And many Americans still say these kinds of scandals don't hurt
>them directly.
>	I don't know if Sen. Robb is clouded by ignorance, purposeful
>deceit or money, but whatever it is, it is clear he does not stand for
>the security of the American people.  In another day and time, to even
>suggest such a preposterous thing would have elicited resounding cries of
>treason from the masses, and caused the advocate of such a plan to be
>summarily arrested, tried, and executed.
>	Politicians who place money over the interests of their
>constituencies are a dime a dozen.  But politicians who place money over
>the interests of the security of this nation are not.  For God's sake,
>let's not marginalize this thing.  It's time to draw the line against
>such notions of treachery because if we don't, we may as well just
>surrender to Peking now and get it over with.  ***
>Jon Dougherty is the associate producer of The Derry Brownfield Show, a
>nationally syndicated talk radio program, and editor of the Internet
>newspaper USA Journal Online.

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail