From: roc-owner@xmission.com To: roc-digest@xmission.com Subject: roc Digest V2 #33 Reply-To: roc@xmission.com Errors-To: roc-owner@xmission.com Precedence: roc Digest Thursday, 25 July 1996 Volume 02 : Number 033 In this issue: BOMB: TWA800 - a Stinger shootdown? (fwd) Re: (fwd) Re: CN:Rumor Mill:Multiple Stingers/ Sales Effort Persists (fwd) Re: (fwd) Re: CN:Rumor Mill:Multiple Stingers/ Sales Effort Persists (fwd) Re: MISSILE MIGHT HAVE DOWNed FLT 800 (fwd) Re: MISSILE MIGHT HAVE DOWNed FLT 800 (fwd) Citizens for Legal Reform, Dallas Texas (fwd) See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the roc or roc-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 14:21:01 -0500 (CDT) Subject: BOMB: TWA800 - a Stinger shootdown? (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 12:29:25 -0400 (EDT) From: John K. Whitley Subject: BOMB: TWA800 - a Stinger shootdown? [NOTE: we can confirm many of the statements in the extract below from our own sources. The CIA began its secret weapons deliveries to Afghanistan, via Pakistan, in January 1980. This quickly blossomed into virtually the largest CIA covert operation in 20 years, growing from US$30 million a year to US$700 million a year at its peak [1987]. But the CIA "pipeline" of ex-Soviet weapons obtained from Egypt and American Stinger missiles leaked badly; and in Peshawar, one of the most active arms bazaars in the world, the CIA lost control of it completely. The Pakistani military took what they wanted; Afghani rebel leaders sold weapons and missiles to any and all comers, if the price was right; and leaders like Hekmatyar squirrelled Stingers away to use in the final battle to control Afghanistan after the Soviets left. All of these missiles became "untraceable." At least a dozen were thus obtained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards from Yunis Khalis, a radical Muslim Afghani resistance leader: one of them was fired by Iranians at an American helicopter on patrol in the Persian Gulf on October 8th, 1987.] FROM THE DESK OF RODNEY STICH ============================= P.O. Box 5, Alamo, CA 94507; phone: 510-944-1930; FAX 510-295-1203 Author: DEFRAUDING AMERICA: A Pattern of Related Scandals UNFRIENDLY SKIES: A History of Corruption and Air Tragedies October 20, 1995 Senator Arlen Specter United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Certified: P 427 892 268 Ref: Refusal by CIA and Justice Department officials to accept the "gift" of 30-40 Stinger missiles, suggesting a hidden agenda, with possible catastrophic consequences in shooting down commercial airliners. Dear Senator Specter: My sources in the intelligence community have recently given me details of efforts by Afghani rebels to turn over to the United States, without charge, 30 to 40 Stinger missiles (SAM), with a possibility of an additional 100 missiles thereafter. Incredibly, this offer was rejected by Justice Department and Central Intelligence Agency officials. There is a strong possibility that one or more of these rejected missiles will be used to shoot down commercial airliners. If this occurs, not only will the carnage be horrendous, but it will inflict severe financial havoc upon the aviation industry and upon air travel. The following is a brief description of what has transpired: Synopsis of CIA and Justice Department Tactics Insuring That the SAM Missiles Will Be Available to Terrorists Recent information provided to me by one or more of my contacts in the CIA community describes the dates, places, and people involved in offering the missiles to the United States, and the rejection of this offer. These sources provided me with precise details of the negotiations to give the missiles to the United States, the agreement by Afghan rebel leader, General Rashid Dostom, and a CIA attorney. CIA headquarters was initially made aware of the offer through a letter sent by a former CIA agent whom I have known for about five years, and who I consider very honorable and reliable. That letter went unanswered. The agent, concerned about the consequences of commercial airlines being shot down with these missiles, then contacted another CIA employee at CIA headquarters, who then tried to force a response from high CIA officials. This latest action forced CIA officials to finally respond. Negotiations then commenced, which involved, among others, the former CIA agent who headed a major CIA proprietary in Hawaii; a CIA attorney in the Los Angeles area; an Afghani located in California; and an Afghani rebel general in Afghanistan (who had previously turned over 20 Stinger missiles to the United States). The general agreed to turn over the missiles without cost to the United States, and simply requested the release of an Afghani being held in federal prison on a drug charge arising from a possible KGB setup. At the same time that the Afghan general was offering to give these missiles to the United States, these same missiles were being sought by terrorist groups who bid large amounts of money for them. One obvious possible use for these missiles in terrorist hands would be to shoot down commercial airlines. Incredibly, CIA and Justice Department officials rejected the offer, insuring that the missiles would fall into the hands of terrorists, where some of them may be at this very moment. The Afghani initially offered to give to the CIA 30 to 40 Stinger (following an earlier return of 20 Stinger missiles), with a possibility that 100 more would be delivered thereafter. The CIA and Justice Department requested serial numbers for several of the missiles to determine that the missiles were actually available. These serial numbers were then provided, and the numbers were confirmed by U.S. authorities as authentic. After telephone contact was made with this Afghan general (General Dostom), a written agreement was signed by a Los Angeles area CIA attorney, the Afghani in California, and the former CIA agent who the Afghans were using to insure that the CIA and Justice Department kept their word. ******************** [snip}*********************** ****************************************************************** Interested in learning more about the New World Order elite's plans to suppress dissent, round up "malcontents", and cow their opponents in the U.S.? Check out THE NEW WORLD ORDER INTELLIGENCE UPDATE Web page at: http://www.inforamp.net/~jwhitley Scroll down the index page, click on the "anti-terrorism" item, and learn all about the planned FBI "Domestic Terrorism Centre." ******************************************************************* ------------------------------ From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 96 12:38:32 PST Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: CN:Rumor Mill:Multiple Stingers/ Sales Effort Persists (fwd) On Jul 24, John Curtis wrote: [snip] >So, ELF doesn't go through the Earth, it goes (very inefficiently) into the >sea water. Its hard to transmitt because the antennas are extremely long >(like Norfolk to Montreal would be a good one). I think that one bit >per second is a good guess at the baud rate. Ah, but they do! People play games bouncing the signals etc. - -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------ From: John Curtis Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 17:13:35 -0400 Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: CN:Rumor Mill:Multiple Stingers/ Sales Effort Persists (fwd) >>So, ELF doesn't go through the Earth, it goes (very inefficiently) into the >>sea water. Its hard to transmitt because the antennas are extremely long >>(like Norfolk to Montreal would be a good one). I think that one bit >>per second is a good guess at the baud rate. > >Ah, but they do! People play games bouncing the signals etc. > I stand corrected. There is one little neuron screaming about some crazy system that used long buried pipes (like water pipes for plain old water) as antennas for some low frequency system that would propagate through the ground. I can't recall details. I do recall that the speed of light is roughly a foot a nanosecond, so at 100khz one wavelength is what? approx. 100000 ft. or about 19 miles. Makes a 1/2 lambda dipole pretty damn long. I don't know how low they practically employ ELF, but I think that 100kHz is at the high end of the spectrum. Yikes! I knew a guy who used to say that the Navy was working on a neutrino communication system for subs - you could just point the damn neutrino beam anywhere on Earth and it would just shoot through the whole planet with nary a collision. Kind of hard to do the detector, though. %^). Our reply was, yeah sure, if you could do that you could just build a solar collector that collected neutrinos - it would get a neutrino flux day or night, didn't matter. A little physics humor. ciao, Jack Curtis ------------------------------ From: Joe Sylvester Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 01:42:35 -0500 Subject: Re: MISSILE MIGHT HAVE DOWNed FLT 800 (fwd) At 06:23 AM 7/24/96 -0400, you wrote: > > >3) Infrared-guided (popularly described as heat-seeking) missiles home in >on hot metal and exhaust gases from engines, and the 747 has four main >engines, two on each wing. However, most people do not realize that there >is a smaller jet engine housed in the rear of the fuselage tail section, >with an exhaust port at the very tip. This small turbine engine is the >Auxiliary Power Unit or APU. > Anybody know when the SOP for a 747 says to shut down the APU? > >5) If an IR SAM were used, wouldn't it head for the main engines? Yes, but >the hot effluent from four engines, as well as the heat from the APU port >would trail behind the target and guide the missile toward the aircraft >center. The APU is not likely to have been operating, as it provides >ground power, but the aircraft was caught on the ground for an extended >period of time, with the APU running virtually the entire time. It would >have had only something near 30 minutes to cool down before the incident >and is likely to have still been emanating IR energy. Actually the engines on a 747 are very high bypass turbofans, the exhast from these, would likely be cooler than that from the APU. I'm not sure that matters all that much though, since the IR emitted from the engine itself woud be a juicy target, but the APU, might be pretty much as good a target. A smart missile might "think" that the engines were decoys, and go for the APU. Perhaps setting off the fuel in the small tank that feeds the APU. I would think though that a shoulder fired SAM would have a hard time even blowing the tail off of a 747, but it might completely mess up the hydrolics. This of course wouldn't be instantly fatal, Aircraft have landed with no power to the tail surfaces, (and some didn't quite make it to landing, A DC-10 in Sioux City comes to mind) > > >7) My preliminary research of photos of the retrieved wreckage indicates >that the tail section separated early in the event. My first assumption >is that a bomb on board the aircraft, either in the rear lavatory or >possibly in the rear cargo hold, detonated, fatally weakening the rear >fuselage and blowing the tail off. Structural failure of this kind, >particularly with some of the blast vented out through the exit doors on >either side of the rear fuselage, could cause severe structural collapse >without venting bomb fragments or residue into the bodies of victims >seated forward of the rear lavatory. The explosive decompression which >would result from this scenario would blow shoes and other clothing off of >the victims and, indeed, we have reports of several bodies found nude and >virtually all without shoes. > >9) But IR missiles go after IR energy, common associated with heat. Why >wouldn't it go after one of the engines? It would, but if it was >approaching from the rear, it would encounter a large volume of hot gas >trailing behind the aircraft. This would be the first thing to home in >on, and it would likely be concentrated in the slipstream behind the >tail. The next thing the missile seeker might focus on is the hot metal >of the just-operated APU exhaust, so it probably would home in on the >CENTER of the aircraft. At this point, however, it would now likely be >close enough to pick up the much greater IR energy emanating from the >exhausts of the main engines. If homed in on the centerline of the aircraft >and equally influenced by two engines on either side, the missile might >not have been able to discriminate between the two similar sources and >"decide" on a course before its own self-destruct mechanism came into >play and detonated the missile toward the rear fuselage. Fragments >detonated by the "grazing fuse" (one of two, the other being a contact >fuse) would be likely to travel in a 360-degree sphere. It is unlikely that >any of these fragments would penetrate deeply enough through the lower >fuselage to impact any bodies and leave telltale signs of blast >fragments, burn marks or chemical residue. This may be one reason >why investigators are so puzzled by the condition of the bodies recovered >thus far. See above, the exhaust from a high bypass turbofan isn't all that hot, but that from an APU might be. Most of the exhaust is just cool ambient air, pushed back by the *Huge* fan of the engine. It's these fans that give modern jetliners and some military aircraft too, that whooshing buzz sort of sound, rather than the roar of earler low bypass fans or pure turbojets. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ("Doug McKay" ) Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------ From: "Donna J. Logan" Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 06:20:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: MISSILE MIGHT HAVE DOWNed FLT 800 (fwd) On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Joe Sylvester wrote: > Actually the engines on a 747 are very high bypass turbofans, the exhast > from these, would likely be cooler than that from the APU. I'm not sure that > matters all that much though, since the IR emitted from the engine itself > woud be a juicy target, but the APU, might be pretty much as good a target. > A smart missile might "think" that the engines were decoys, and go for the > APU. Perhaps setting off the fuel in the small tank that feeds the APU. I > would think though that a shoulder fired SAM would have a hard time even > blowing the tail off of a 747, but it might completely mess up the > hydrolics. This of course wouldn't be instantly fatal, Aircraft have landed > with no power to the tail surfaces, (and some didn't quite make it to > landing, A DC-10 in Sioux City comes to mind) Interestingly enough, I heard a news account that the feds are investigating the possibility that the TWA jet fell a couple of thousand feet before stabilizing and leveling off for a few seconds before the final catastrophic explosion.... ;-) ------------------------------ From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 09:08:48 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Citizens for Legal Reform, Dallas Texas (fwd) This is my invitation to anyone in the Dallas area who would like to see a real "patriot" meeting. This is an open forum where anyone can go to a open mike and speak for 5 minutes on anything. I started going off and on in the summer of 93 after hearing this man Alfred Adask on a local talk radio show. Alfred was the best speaker I had ever heard on the Constitution, founding fathers, and the abuses of law by Judges and Lawyers. I don't think he is a college educated man, he was a local construction contractor who got chewed up and spit out by the court system. He started reading and researching the law and with some local fellows who also had been pillaged by the courts and lawyers decided to start a group and do something about things. Alfred has had the surviving Branch Davidians, Lawyers, Justices, Eugene Schroder, and most of all the top "Patriot" folks as speakers as well as the founders of the "Texas Republic" movement. Alfred also publishes a magazine the "anti-Shyster" that is considered the best source of profound articles on the law, the Constitution, Common law, IRS, ect. I can not give a better recommendation for a honest man or more entertaining, thought provoking and interesting way to spend your evening than attending one of these meetings. Many of the 5 minute speakers are what I call "the salt of the earth" working stiffs who are from the stock of Americans who tamed the wild west. Regards, - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Watson, pwatson@utdallas.edu "The difference between Purchasing Department death and taxes is death The University of Texas at Dallas doesn't get worse every time DISCLAIMER: MY THOUGHTS ONLY!!! Congress meets." Will Rogers ph# 214/883-2307, fax# 214/883-2348 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 96 02:57:20 PDT From: Alfred Adask To: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: (no subject) (fwd) Citizens For Legal Reform identifies a Dallas Texas meeting that takes place on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of every month at the Dallas Park Central Hotel in north-central Dallas. Doors open at 7pm, the meeting starts at 7:30 and generally ends about 10pm. Principle activity is to listen to a series of speakers on patriot/freedom/constitutionalist issues. We typically draw 200-300 people per meeting. This is probably the single biggest regular "patriot" meeting in the USA. On alternate Tuesdays (2nd & 4th) the Texas Justice Council meets a the same time at the same Dallas Park Central Hotel. They generally draw about 200 people. Between the two meetings, there is a legal reform meeting in Dallas every Tuesday. For further information, call 214-418-8993. Sincerely, Alfred Adask - ------------------------------------- Name: Alfred Adask E-mail: Alfred Adask Date: 07/25/96 Time: 02:57:20 This message was sent by Chameleon - ------------------------------------- From timr@efn.orgWed Dec 7 08:06:51 1994 Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 20:11:13 -0600 From: Tim Richardson THE ESSENCE OF GOVERNMENT by Alfred Adask A recent TV documentary discussed how much arctic tundra had been destroyed in the former Soviet Union by irresponsible oil drilling techniques. Apparently, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of square miles of fragile arctic environment have been contaminated by crude oil spills. Who's responsible? The former Communist government of the Soviet Union. Which is to say no one is responsible. If you consider the Russian experience, you will see that the essence of government, all government, is the avoidance of personal responsibility. For example, look at the murders of Sam (age 14) and his mother Vickie Weaver up in Ruby Creek, Idaho, in 1992. Our Federal government tried Randy Weaver (Sam's father, Vickie's husband) and Kevin Harris for the killing of a government agent (they were found innocent). However, no government agent was tried for shooting the boy Sam (in the back) and his mother Vickie (in the head while she was holding a baby in her arms). It's no mystery. The names of the government's killers are known. But there will be no trials, because government refuses to accept responsibility for its actions. Government doesn't try government agents for killing civilians anymore than "Bloods" (a Los Angeles street gang) tries fellow "Bloods" for killing Crips (another L.A. street gang). The issue is not one of morality, or justice, it's one of membership. Us against them. Will government try fellow government agents for murdering two civilians? No. How 'bout Waco? About ninety people died, including four government storm troopers and over 80 Branch Davidians (many of them women and children). Our government tried eleven surviving Branch Davidians (civilians) for the murders of the four government agents, but who'll be tried for the fiery deaths of scores of civilians? Anyone? Nope. Why? Because the issue is not "justice for all", the issue is "privilege for a select few" -- membership in government. Just as the Bloods do not try fellow Bloods for killing Crips, our Federal government does not try "its own" for murdering civilians. Us..... Against..... Them. Big government's avoidance of personal responsibility goes far beyond the relatively few, but dramatic, instances of civilian murders. Who's responsible for buying $200 toilet seats for the military? $500 hammers? Who's responsible for the national deficit? Or Watergate? Who, for that matter, is responsible for killing President Kennedy? And who's responsible for the $500 BILLION Savings & Loan loss that will have to be repaid by the American taxpayers (the same folks who were robbed in the first place)? And the answer is (ta-dah!) "No One"! Ya know why? Because the responsible parties in virtually every case are government employees and officials, and the fundamental purpose of government is to avoid all personal responsibility. They call it "sovereign immunity", judicial immunity", "executive privilege" and a dozen other names. But almost always, the government refuses to be held accountable to the People. In large measure, government means the escape from personal responsibility. The escape from personal responsibility is not only available for government employees, officials, and politicians -- it's also available to private (meaning government-approved) citizens. Look at corporations: these "legal fictions" are created by government for the express purpose of allowing corporate owners and employees to act without assuming the risk of full, common law, personal responsibility. How 'bout government welfare programs? To some extent, every welfare recipient is living without the full personal responsibility of supporting himself. "Special interests" of big business and the wealthy are likewise freed by government from the onerous task of earning their living on a "level playing field" in the free market. They are "licensed" (and from Black's law dictionary we find that license means given "Permission by some competent authority to do some act which, without such permission, would be illegal.") or given special privileges that protect them from the difficulties of lawful personal responsibility. Even Congressmen specifically exempt themselves from their personal responsibility of obeying their own social legislation (like Civil Rights anti-discrimination laws). And consider our beloved "licensed" lawyers who, on average, loose 50% of their cases, but can't be held accountable for being incompetent. Again, these quasi-governmental officials are characterized by licenses and special privileges which always mean reduced personal responsibility. A CONSEQUENCE OF CENTRALIZED POWER "Power" is the ability to act effectively. As government grows, power is siphoned off from individuals and concentrated in the hands of fewer and more distant bureaucrats, officials and politicians. As government grows more powerful, the People are increasingly inhibited, restricted and tied down like Gulliver by the red tape of an army of Lilliputian bureaucrats. This inverse relationship between government power and individual power is intuitively obvious: as government grows more powerful, the people become less powerful. As individuals loose power, they not only lose the ability to act in ways that are harmful, they also lose the ability to act in ways that are beneficial -- even when they see things that should be done. As government grows more powerful, only government can act, and you, therefore cannot. If you can't act, then obviously, you can't be held responsible either. In fact, I suspect that the terms "personal power" and "personal responsibility" are virtually synonymous; you can't diminish (or increase) one without doing the same to the other. So government's growth not only reduces your personal power, it also reduces your personal responsibility. Therefore, government power is inversely proportional to personal responsibility. This inverse relationship between government power and personal responsibility offers an important insight into the essence of government and perhaps even life itself. I'm no Biblical scholar, but don't Judeo-Christian faiths ultimately advocate personal responsibility? Aren't we to be judged by God some day? Won't that judgement hinge on some measure of personal responsibility? Therefore, aren't license and avoidance of personal responsibility contrary to the fundamental Biblical precept of personal responsibility? Moreover, if personal responsibility is God's fundamental command, then what can we infer about the fundamental nature of a government that avoids personal responsibility? Is it illogical to conclude that in its usual (irresponsible) guise, government is inherently anti-religious and perhaps even predisposed to Evil? Is it possible that as government grows, so does it's propensity to do Evil? If so, is it possible that big government might be inescapably Evil? Likewise, what can we infer about the motives of a government that encourages its people to seek license and avoid personal responsibility? Isn't that government encouraging them to turn their backs on God? On the other hand, if government power and personal license tend to Evil, wouldn't Freedom and personal responsibility be the essential goals of God and the prerequisites for a strong society and nation? FREEDOM Here in the "Land of the Free", the concept of "Freedom" is confusing and seldom understood. Too often, the word "freedom" is confused with "license" (i.e., the privilege of doing that which would otherwise be illegal or immoral). If I am "free", can I drive 100 mph in a school zone? Can I drag any woman I choose off into the bushes and have my way with her? Does "freedom" mean living "for free" and never having to pay for my food or shelter (as in living on welfare)? Of course not. We know intuitively that "freedom" does not include the right to do wrong. And though that intuition sounds simple, that's a powerful insight. Why? Because if freedom does not include the right to do wrong, then what could it include? What's left after you remove all "wrong"? Nothing but "right"! Freedom, then, is the power to do that which is right! Lemme explain. If we consider our options as "free" men, we realize that to be "free" one must first be "responsible". A responsible person doesn't drive 100 mph in a school zone. A responsible person doesn't rape. A responsible person pays his bills. And more, a responsible person raises his children properly, meets his social duties and obligations, and works to support himself and his family. And remembers to floss. And helps his kids with their homework. And calls mom regularly. And helps other less fortunate than himself. And, and, and.... Damn. As a consequence of Freedom, personal responsibility is almost endless. In fact, if you stop to think about it, there's so much that each of us should do (but don't), that "freedom" begins to take on the grimly unattractive appearance of endless servitude to personal responsibility and obligation. What's the good of being "free" if I can't get drunk whenever I want, seduce my neighbor's wife, and call in sick when I wanna go fishing? With all these damn responsibilities, what's the point to being "free"? If there's no pay-off in Freedom, why not accept government slavery? (You don't like the word "slavery"? OK, we'll call it "welfare", "entitlements", benefits" or "security" instead -- how's that, you like it better now?) But why not? In the welfare state, I might not be free, but who cares if I don't have to worry about paying my rent, having a job, educating my kids, or remaining faithful to my wife? Why not kick back, relax, and be a slave (oops, "welfare recipient"), instead of some up-tight, obsessive- compulsive "do-gooder" fighting to be "free"? Answer? Consider the former Soviet Union. Perfect example. Under the Communist cradle-to-grave welfare state, the Russians seduced each other's wives, aborted even more babies than we do here in America, and drank so much vodka they had the highest alcoholism rate in the world. They weren't free, but they weren't personally responsible either. So why not? Free food, free broads, free booze, and you can't be fired? Sounds like one helluva a system, doesn't it? And yet, that "helluva" system collapsed, leaving several hundred million people impoverished, frightened, starving in some cases, and vulnerable to civil war. What went wrong? Free food, booze, broads, you can't be fired -- and they blew it! What could possible be missing? SELF-ESTEEM The dictionary defines "self-esteem" as "an objective respect for oneself". Pretty dry but technically on target. Self-esteem is a measure of one's self-respect. Some people have high self-esteem, some have a little, some have none. While we seldom notice the benefits of self-esteem, it's easy to see the adverse consequences when self-esteem is missing. Have you ever known anyone who drank too much, used drugs, slept around, committed suicide, etc., who had any self-esteem? In my experience, the absence of self-esteem is the foundation for all self-destructive behavior. That being so, I believe the presence of self-esteem is a kind of "spiritual vitamin" that is essential for the maintenance of life. How do we get self-esteem? Self-assessment. No one can claim it for you, no one else can give it to you, no one else can really take it away. Only you can grant yourself the award of self- esteem. You must respect yourself. Neither winning nor loosing (in the eyes of the world) can finally determine one's self-esteem. Win, loose, or draw, you must know in your heart that you've done your best. It's a little like Sylvester Stallone in the original Rocky movie -- he just wanted to "go the distance". He didn't have to win the fight to earn his own self-esteem, he just had to stand and not quit, to certify in his own mind that he wasn't "just another one of the neighborhood bums". Self-esteem is the reward for a successful struggle (usually against your own fears and the inhibitions against doing right, that society has placed on you). You don't have to win, but you do have to fight to the limit of your ability. YOU have to fight. YOU have to struggle. YOU have to stand up and do what you believe to be right despite your fears. If you do, you succeed in validating yourself, in proving to yourself that you are worthy of life. But there is no self-esteem without personal responsibility (YOU must do your own fighting). There is no personal responsibility without individual freedom (you must be free to choose to fight the battles your heart selects as Right). There is no freedom under the centralized power and control of big government (you are denied the opportunity to engage in a personal fight since all personal power and personal responsibility have been surrendered to the government). By taking our personal power and personal responsibility, big government deprives us of self-esteem, and leaves us as rotting flesh, corrupt, stillborn in our souls, and unless healed, sure to die without ever having lived. Put enough people like that in a society, and an entire nation will collapse. (Witness the former Soviet Union.) BEYOND FLESH AND BLOOD In the end, all that governments can promise, is to distribute material wealth. They will rob the productive, Robin-Hood style, and give it to the poor (or more likely keep it for themselves). But in either case, materialism (the supply, demand, and distribution of food, goods and services) is the philosophy that lures folks into welfare, entitlements and slavery. I don't denigrate materialism as it clearly plays a powerful, productive role in all societies (which I'll discuss another time) -- but materialism is not everything. It's only part of life. Even animals understand this. Ever heard stories of a wild lion captured, caged, cared for and well fed that nevertheless simply lays down, refuses to eat and dies? Ever heard stories of dogs that dig and chew at their cages until their claws break and their jaws shatter? It happens. Not always. Not even often, but it happens! It also happens with people. And with societies, too. We each have to earn our self-esteem and the only way that can be done, is by pulling our own plow. We must each pay the full price of our own survival. "Living free" may not avoid poverty, but "living for free" guarantees self-destruction. We are spiritually dependent on our own self-esteem. Diminish that self-esteem, and no matter how much free food, sex, booze and welfare you get, you will wither and die. Look at the black community. They sense the problem. That's why Jesse Jackson et al are chanting, "Ah'm black and ah'm proud!" They understand that the black community's "collective" self-esteem is about zero, so they try to build it up by making the blacks say they have self-esteem. Won't work -- not so long as blacks are among the principal recipients of big government "benefits". Like any other slave, blacks may be able to look the part, "talk the talk" and "dress for success", but in the end, self-esteem can only be earned, never faked. In our hearts, we each know if we've made meaningful contributions to the support of ourselves and those around us. To the extent we succeed, we feel self-esteem. To the extent we fail, we feel painful self-incrimination and seek to escape into alcohol, drugs, promiscuity, and similar forms of suicide. We are more than material beings, we are also spiritual -- and our spirits sicken and die without self-esteem. The inability to provide the governed with self-esteem is the principle weakness, the "heart of darkness" of every government; they can never feed our spirits. Never satisfy our souls. Never. ONE-TWO, ONE TWO! Everyone knows it's important to exercise our physical bodies. No matter how well we eat, if we don't exercise, we are not only weakening our bodies, we are actually shortening our lives. Scientific fact. But how many understand that we are more than merely physical beings? How many understand that we are as bound by the laws of God and nature to exercise our souls as we are by biological law to exercise our bodies? Just like muscles, our souls also atrophy by sitting back, cowed by fear, doing nothing. So how do we exercise our souls? By doing Right. Remember the arctic tundra ruined by the irresponsible Soviets? No one was accountable, no one was responsible. Why? Do you think no one wanted to be responsible? Do you think the Russians simply laughed with glee as they polluted their own land? Some probably did, but what of the Russians who wanted to do the right thing, and stop the pollution? Why didn't they act? Red tape. Government production demands. Supply bottlenecks brought on by government regulations. They knew what was Right, but they couldn't do it because big government prevented them. Big government prevented them because it was so cluttered with rules, regulations, forms, and permissions, that it had become too ponderous and too controlling to even allow immediate "personal" solutions to relatively small problems. By taking power from individuals and concentrating it in the hands of distant bureaucrats, big government stripped personal power and personal responsibility from the man on scene where the oil spilled. Unable to act, a man in the arctic sat there, helpless, watching the oil spill, unable to do what he knew was Right. His self-esteem withered and he reached for a vodka. Are you free to do what's Right in the USA? Ohh, you're "free" to watch TV and get the latest conditioning and propaganda. And you're "free" to vote for the liar of your choice. You're free to get drunk and smoke tobacco and (if you're careful) use a "controlled substance". And don't forget the "freedom" to murder you own children, provided they haven't been born yet (for as in Waco, only government can currently murder 'em after they've been born). But that's not "freedom", that license! Can you see your children? Grandchildren? Father? Mother? Can you keep enough of the money you earn to give your kids the clothes, home, parental support and education the deserve? Hmmm? Can you even take care of yourself to the degree you know is necessary and right? Hmmm? New glasses? Hmmm? Dental care? Proper food, vitamins and medical care? Hmmm? Can you travel freely, open a bank account without a social security number, talk on the phone without fear of being recorded? Hmmm? Can you raise a son without wondering if he'll be murdered in some idiotic foreign "police action"? Can your children pray in school? Can they? Can you speak out in public without fear of lawsuit and financial ruin? When you see a social injustice is there a responsive public agency to help make it stop, or is your urge to do right imprisoned within the walls of bureaucracy? How much can you do that you know to be RIGHT? That is the measure of your personal Freedom. On the other hand, to the extent that you live each day walking by one injustice after another -- closing your eyes, pretending not to see, knowing the "system" is too cumbersome and indifferent for you to act or help -- to that extent, you are a slave. Ohh, you may be a well-fed, well-housed slave, but in your gut, you know damn well your life is empty, worthless, unlived. Your company dental plan may be superb, but your spirit is toothless. Without Freedom, there is no personal responsibility, no self-esteem, nothing but an itch to self-destruction. YOUR REWARD Freedom is the capacity to do that which is Right. The reward for Freedom is self-esteem and Life. Whoever, whatever, prevents you from doing Right, saps your self- esteem, kills your soul, and condemns you to a life unlived and an early grave. Whatever stops you from doing what you know to be Right is not only your greatest mortal enemy -- it's also your greatest spiritual enemy. And who does more to deny your Freedom and self-esteem than big government? Will you live Free with the self-esteem of a man who does Right, or exist as an irresponsible "licensed" slave with nothing but intoxicants and regret? You have the right to choose, you have the responsibility to choose, you must choose. Why? Because this is the single, most fundamental choice in all of life: Freedom or slavery? But what choice can there be once you understand the difference between Freedom and slavery? Remember all the self-destructive behavior associated with low self-esteem? Despite the sales pitch about all those government "benefits" (national health care sure sounds like a nice idea, doesn't it?), big government and the consequent loss of personal responsibility and self-esteem can lead you only toward self-destruction and death. In the end, the benefits and bondage of big government are at least hazardous to your personal health, and probably fatal for the nation. We don't choose to be Free because it's easy. Freedom's hard, sometimes even painful. We don't choose to be Free because it's fun. Freedom can be exciting, exhilarating, and invigorating but it's not "fun" (at least not in the superficial sense). We choose to be Free because Freedom is the prerequisite for personal responsibility, personal responsibility is the prerequisite for self-esteem and self-esteem is the prerequisite of spiritual LIFE. We choose Freedom and personal responsibility as a first vital step to resurrecting our souls. We choose Freedom because we choose to live. In the end, the choice is not between Freedom and slavery, but between Life and death. How will you choose? How will you choose for yourself? By your example, how will you choose for your children? How will you choose for your nation? The world is watching for your decision. Waiting. And so, I suspect is God. Your life and your nation's life will depend on your choice. Choose well. - -- ------------------------------ End of roc Digest V2 #33 ************************ To subscribe to roc Digest, send the command: subscribe roc-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@xmission.com". 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-roc": subscribe roc-digest local-roc@your.domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "roc-digest" in the commands above with "roc". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from ftp.xmission.com, in pub/lists/roc/archive. These are organized by date.