Dear Friend, In this edition of InfoQuest*, you'll be shocked, rocked, and prayerfully locked-into taking action as soon as you finish reading this news! (1) Man Serving Life Sentence for Self Defense! (IQ* Solution Included) (U.S. Fed Legislation Alert Form Letter Enclosed) (2) Iraq To Head UN-Related Conference on Disarmament (IQ* Solution Included) (3) Is the ACLU Peddling Patriotic Propaganda? They may be shoveling more than P.P.! (4) Southern State Angry Over Lincoln Memorial! (SHOCKING Related Article & New Website!) (5) Invitation to Pennsylvania Pro-Family/Life/Constitution Event Saturday, March 29, 2003 in Harrisburg, Pa. ==================== ==================== (1) Man Serving Life Sentence for Self Defense! (IQ* Solution Included) This news is well documented in numerous news sites. http://www.crpa.org/0301pub.html http://www.itv.com/news/Front447769.html http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws0103.htm WHERE WE'RE HEADED? By Robert A. Waters - You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven." The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars. A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison. This case really happened. On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term. How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire? It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns. Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead. The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.) Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school. For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens. During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released. Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands." All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars. When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens. How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars. Sound familiar? WAKE UP AMERICA, THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION. "......it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds ......." Samuel Adams Washington proclaimed firearms to be "the people's liberty teeth." *** IQ* RELATED ARTICLES: Gun-Related Crimes Jump In Britain Despite Tough Restrictions By Robert B. Bluey CNSNews.com Staff Writer January 13, 2003 http://www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/archive/200301/FOR20030113a.html Crime Up Down Under Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45% By Jon E. Dougherty http://209.17.95.114/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 Outside Gun country http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16373 *** IQ* SOLUTIONS: http://www.getusout.org/guns/index.htm http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/police_state/index.htm Note: IQ* SOLUTIONS will only work if you, personally, go to the resource, study it, and follow the action items outlined therein. *** U.S. Federal Legislation Alert Form Letter: Dear Senator: I am shocked that the Senate has before it a bill (S. 2826) that would prohibit millions of Americans from owning a gun for self-defense. Those who would be banned present no greater risk of committing violent crimes than does the rest of the population. Are all the rest of us next? The bill would enable FBI officials to effectively stop millions of Americans from purchasing a firearm, because they were guilty in the past of committing slight misdemeanors. You might remember the Lautenberg Gun Ban which President Bill Clinton signed in 1996? Because of this ban, people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, even yelling at a family member have discovered that they can no longer own a firearm for self-defense. The McCarthy-Schumer bill would keep millions of decent, peaceful citizens from owning a firearm because of one slight offense committed in their past. The bill also reaches for a gun owning prohibition on nearly 3 million more Americans who have spent time in mental health facilities. This group has no more involvement in violent crime than does the rest of the population. But even assuming that those with (often minor and treatable) mental health histories are "bad" guys, this bill is NOT about keeping bad guys from getting guns. Bad guys will ALWAYS be able to get guns, no matter how many restrictions there are. This bill is all about control. Schumer and McCarthy want to keep pushing their agenda forward, making it impossible for more and more Americans to legally own guns! But if it is OK to ban gun ownership for certain people who have engaged in a shouting match with another family member, or who have stayed overnight in a hospital for emotional observation or who have been written a prescription for depression, then who will be next on the McCarthy-Schumer hit list? People who drink an occasional beer? People who take "mind altering" cold medicines -- Nyquil, TheraFlu, etc.? S. 2826 is a major anti-self defense bill that will only make the country safer for criminals while opening the door to invading the privacy of all Americans. A near-total gun ban on the island of Great Britain has resulted in England suffering from the highest violent crime rate of any industrialized country. Why would a less oppressive form of gun control work when an outright ban has failed to keep guns out of the wrong hands? Here is the proof: Gun-Related Crimes Jump In Britain Despite Tough Restrictions By Robert B. Bluey CNSNews.com Staff Writer January 13, 2003 http://www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/archive/200301/FOR20030113a.html Crime Up Down Under Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45% By Jon E. Dougherty http://209.17.95.114/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 Please vote against this monstrosity (also known as the Our Lady of Peace bill) if it comes to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Gun Owners of America will be using this vote for their rating of Congress. I would like to hear from you about whether you support this massive increase in gun control. Sincerely, [Enter YOUR name and address] USE this link to find the address for your representatives: http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/government.htm#CONGRESS ==================== ==================== (2) Iraq To Head UN-Related Conference on Disarmament (IQ* Solution Included) THE NEW WORLD DISORDER Iraq to chair Conference on Disarmament U.N.-related body's rotating presidency falls to Baghdad this spring http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30706 Later this year, the U.N.-established Conference on Disarmament will seat a new president: Iraq. The nation under scrutiny by the world body for weapons of mass destruction will have control - for nearly four weeks - of the agenda of a committee established in 1979 as "the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community." *** IQ* SOLUTION: http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/un/index.htm Note: IQ* SOLUTIONS will only work if you, personally, go to the resource, study it, and follow the action items outlined therein. ==================== ==================== (3) Is the ACLU Peddling Patriotic Propaganda? IQ* Note: I am waiting for a reply from Mr. Jasper regarding the Anti-Patriot Act resolutions that I reported to you in the following InfoQuest* Edition: "1) Brain Soap? 2) Local Armor! 3) News Blip" (1/2/03) Although these resolutions are good for informing local citizens to our federal tyranny, they will not stop our federal government from using our federal military and bureaucracies from enforcing the unconstitutional Patriot Act [the UN-Patriot Act!]. The boilerplate resolution is also designed to lure you into financing the ACLU. As designed by the Founding Fathers, local police would have to, and are supposed to, defend you from such unconstitutional searches, seizures, and imprisonment by federal agents. This act of local police must now stand the test of time. If you care at all about educating your local police as to their true responsibilities in defending you and your family/friends, I truly implore you to study and take action using: http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/Support_Police.htm If you choose to do nothing: "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams Being a member of the InfoQuest* family, I am counting on you to do your part as a Patriot. Bill of Rights' Implausible Defenders by William F. Jasper http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/01-27-2003/vo19no02_implausible.htm Don't look to the ACLU and its left-wing allies to defend your liberty and the Constitution against the encroaching police state. An incredible deception is underway. Ultra-leftist groups with long histories of supporting totalitarianism are posing as the chief defenders of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights against the current onslaught of police-state legislation. The Establishment media, of course, are assisting these pro-Communist poseurs, led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR). One of the more high-profile efforts in this deception campaign involves getting city governments to pass resolutions registering opposition to the police-state dangers posed by the USA PATRIOT Act, the Homeland Security Act, and other legislation and executive orders ostensibly aimed at combating terrorism. Local Bill Of Rights Defense Committees (BORDC) led by the ACLU, NLG, and CCR cadres are sponsoring these resolutions. "Nearly two dozen cities around the country have passed resolutions urging federal authorities to respect the civil rights of local citizens when fighting terrorism," the New York Times reported on December 23rd. "Efforts to pass similar measures are under way in more than 60 other places," the story continued. According to the report in the Times, most of the resolutions have passed in liberal bastions like Boulder, Colo.; Santa Fe, N.M.; Cambridge, Mass.; and California "people's republics" like Berkeley, Santa Cruz, and Oakland. But, it notes, "less ideological places have also acted, with more localities considering it, from big cities like Chicago and Tampa, Fla., to smaller ones like Fairbanks, Alaska, and Grants Pass, Ore." Controlling the Opposition The federal government's expanding police powers should certainly concern freedom-loving Americans, especially since the September 11th terrorist attacks. But the ACLU and its leftist cohorts are improbable champions to oppose this dangerous trend. They are, in fact, controlled opposition, whose goals are the opposite of their publicly professed purpose. "The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is our nation's guardian of liberty," declares the ACLU Internet home page, "working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." The organization's record, however, belies these claims. The ACLU is integrally interlocked with both the street-level revolutionaries ostensibly opposing the Homeland Security Act and the Establishment revolutionaries designing and promoting it. The most important tie-in illustrating the ACLU's dual-purpose role is its top-level connections to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the one-world power elite's principal operational front. The ACLU has pointed to the Orwellian Big Brother potential of the Homeland Security Act (HSA) to boost recruitment and raise funds. Apparently this scam is working; the organization claims that its membership has jumped to an all-time high, and funds are pouring in. What the ACLU does not point out is the close relationship of its top players to the CFR architects who gave us the HSA. The HSA and the mammoth new Homeland Security Department created by the legislation originated with the CFR-spawned Hart-Rudman Commission. Known formally as the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, the Hart-Rudman Commission was established in 1998 at the urging of President Clinton and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, both members of the CFR. The commission, co-chaired by former Senators Gary Hart (CFR) and Warren Rudman (CFR), proposed what Congress has essentially adopted and President Bush has signed. The ACLU's leadership is well represented in the CFR's membership rolls and works closely with this Insider brain trust. ACLU president Nadine Strossen is a CFR member. So is ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero, a homosexual activist attorney who previously was a top staff member at the Ford Foundation, the CFR-directed revolutionary cash cow providing funding to the ACLU. Stanley Sheinbaum, the longtime patriarch of the ACLU of Southern California, one of the organization's most influential chapters, is also a CFR member. So is Morton Halperin, the Marxist revolutionary who, for many years, ran the ACLU's project to neuter our police and security agencies. President Clinton tried to appoint Halperin to a top Defense Department post, but was prevented from doing so when this magazine and others exposed the nominee's ultra-radical, pro-Communist, pro-terrorist record. In 1996, ACLU President Nadine Strossen was one of three CFR panelists on the council's program, "Combating Terrorism: What Works? What Doesn't?" This conference, broadcast over C-SPAN, provided an even earlier trial balloon than Hart-Rudman to measure the American public's response to proposals for draconian measures to fight terrorism. Subversive Record These ACLU connections to the silk-hat revolutionaries in the CFR have never been well known, but the organization's notorious record with regard to Communist, subversive, and terrorist groups was once fairly common knowledge. Much of this has been all but forgotten, thanks to the media cartel's Orwellian memory hole. From its beginnings to the present, the ACLU has been not a champion of, but a dangerous enemy to, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. 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. ==================== ==================== (4) Southern State Angry Over Lincoln Memorial! (SHOCKING Related Article & New Website!) Lincoln's Symbolic Return to Dixie Angers Confederates' Kin By Michael L. Betsch CNSNews.com Staff Writer January 28, 2003 http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/archive/200301/CUL20030128a.html (CNSNews.com) - Efforts to permanently honor the 'Great Emancipator,' President Abraham Lincoln, in the former capital of the Confederacy have been met with outrage and protest by the kin of Southern soldiers and citizens who perished in the Civil War. Brag Bowling, Virginia Commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said the life-sized bronze statue of Lincoln is a "painful reminder of who won the war." On April 5, the United States Historical Society, Inc. (USHS), is expected to unveil the statue commemorating the visit of Lincoln and his son Tad to Richmond, Va., two days after the city fell to Union troops in 1865. The statue's permanent resting ground will be in close proximity to a local Confederate landmark. Richmond's tribute to Lincoln is not without controversy - for financial and ideological reasons. In order to raise the $675,000 needed to bring Lincoln back to Richmond, the USHS made plans to sell 750 "limited edition" bronze miniatures of the statue for $875 apiece, plus an additional $25 for shipping and handling. The National Park Service and the Virginia Historical Society, which are located in downtown Richmond, promoted the fundraiser. An investigation of the non-profit USHS by the Washington Times revealed the organization to be a fictitious appellative owned by a company named FKAO Inc., a for-profit corporation based in Richmond, according to documents obtained from the Virginia Corporation Commission. Attorney General Jerry Kilgore is reportedly looking into the alleged financial impropriety at the request of concerned citizens. "Thousands and thousands of letters from all over the South were directed at the Park Service, at the Richmond Park Service office, at all our congressmen and senators, letters to the editor in the paper," said Bowling. "It's blown into a full-blown controversy here in Richmond." Bowling said his concerns and those of more than 200,000 Virginians with Confederate ancestry have fallen on deaf ears. He fears politicians and historians are trying to rewrite history by erasing the South's Confederate past. "They're trying to portray this as Lincoln coming to Richmond in tears, you know, the compassion...it was a 'healing' thing," Bowling said. "He had virtually destroyed the South with his armies. That was the master plan." In fact, Bowling said Lincoln's Union troops used gunboats to shell the civilian centers of Charleston, S.C.; torched the Shenandoah Valley; burned the city of Columbia, S.C., to the ground and, in the process, killed thousands of innocent Southern citizens. "This is a first time, certainly in American warfare, where government policy was to attack civilians," Bowling said. "That's the reason there's not a Lincoln statue in the South." Ron Holland, a "freedom-oriented" investment writer and editor of the Dixie Daily News, said recent polls have shown that almost 70 percent of Virginians are against the Lincoln statue that stands to remind them of his four-year effort to topple the capital of the Confederacy. "If they want to put a Confederate and Yankee soldier shaking hands, that's great, that's appropriate...but not Lincoln, who spent four years trying to destroy the South and conquer Richmond," Holland said. "I think it's rubbing salt in the wounds, and it's a slap in the face of every Southerner and our history and our ancestors. It just doesn't have to be. There's a great statue of Lincoln in Gettysburg - put another one there, if they want it," he added. Holland said Lincoln should be commended for emancipating the Southern slaves, but he went about it the wrong way. "We had more than 100-something countries do away with slavery, thank goodness, but we were the only one that fought a war over it," Holland said. "You have to ask yourself, 'Why?'" Holland and a handful of Southern Heritage experts will reconsider the historical notion that Lincoln launched the Civil War to end slavery at a symposium hosted by LewRockwell.com in late March. He claims Lincoln's motivation to defeat the South was purely financial. "Lincoln was going to double tariffs, and the South paid like 70 percent of all the tariffs anyway," That's what funded the federal government - they didn't have income tax back then." Holland said the vast majority of the tariffs collected from the South were used to support the Northern states and their manufacturing interests. "The reason we had the war was, very simply, I think the eastern establishment's manufacturing interest realized very quickly that if a Confederacy was independent with low tariffs, all the imports would come through New Orleans, the Mississippi River and the southern ports," Holland said. "I think it was simply an economic war because of lost revenues for them." Holland said Lincoln and Northern historians painted the Civil War as a battle to emancipate the slaves because the loss of 600,000 soldiers could not be justified for having been fought over economics. "They had to put a different light on it, of course," Holland said. "And, since they won, they could." Maribeth Cowan, director of public relations for the Virginia Historical Society, disputed the claims of Bowling and Holland. "Lincoln was president at the time that the Civil War ended, and he visited Richmond," Cowan said. "Those are facts of history." The Virginia Historical Society will host a half-day symposium on April 5 to celebrate the unveiling of the statue. Cowan said her organization sees the "historical significance" of the statue and has supported the USHS and National Park Service's efforts to make it a permanent fixture to Richmond, regardless of any controversy it may cause. "Anything to do with the Confederacy and the Confederate cause here stirs emotions, and understandably so," Cowan said. "Our organization's mission is to represent Virginia history from a factual standpoint. We don't get into the emotional side of it." *** IQ* RELATED ARTICLE: 'The Real Lincoln' Thomas DiLorenzo deconstructs 16th president's abolitionist image with Metcalf http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27225 RELATED WEBSITE: The Real Lincoln http://www.fvp.info/reallincoln/TheRealLincoln.asp ==================== ==================== (5) Invitation to Pennsylvania Pro-Family/Life/Constitution Event Saturday, March 29, 2003 in Harrisburg, Pa. 10:00 a.m. till 4:00 p.m. at the New Love in Christ Church, Harrisburg (Further directions and accommodation information will be included with your registration confirmation.) "COMING TOGETHER TO WORK TOGETHER" A Historic Meeting of Pennsylvania Pro-Family/Life/Constitution Groups and Individuals The main purpose of this meeting is to become better networked to defend the family in Pennsylvania. The planned meeting is in direct response to the passage and subsequent signing of H.B. 1493, the hate crimes bill. See: http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/activism.htm for this history. The idea is "Coming Together to Work Together." Confirmed Speakers* Stephen Bennett -Stephen Bennett Ministries, Huntington, CT. Stephen is a Christian song artist and former homosexual. A true testimony of how God answers prayer and can change a person. Stephen will be informing us of how homosexual activists target our children - even in the public schools - and why. What are the real reasons behind the push to get so-called hate crimes laws passed? Check out his website at http://www.sbministries.org Betty Jean Wolfe -- Urban Family Council - Philadelphia Large cities in PA such as Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, and to a smaller extend Erie used to have problems that were "their own." In this technological age this is no longer the case. Problems that used to be uniquely urban - we now share. Laura Merriott - Erie Updating us on her efforts to force abortion clinics, family planning/health clinics to report rape when underage girls come in for treatment and to pursue parental notification legislation for birth control and condom distribution to minors. Dorn Checkley - Pittsburgh Coalition Against Pornography Update on the PA Supreme Court overturning the Erie Ordinance banning nude dancing and the ramifications. What other options do municipalities have to regulate sexually oriented businesses? * Please check this web page regularly for updates: http://www.afanwpa.org/AFA%20Registration.htm Access the PDF registration form directly by clicking here: http://www.afanwpa.org/AFA_Meeting_Registration.pdf You can type into the PDF and print it for mailing!