From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #216 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Thursday, February 18 1999 Volume 02 : Number 216 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 16:23:21 -0600 (CST) From: Paul M Watson Subject: Words for Amoral America his guy is a Professor at Yale. He survived one of the disfiguring Unibomber explosions. - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- New York Post COMMENTARY WORDS FOR AMORAL AMERICA By DAVID GELERNTER ______________________________________________________________ OUR language shows the character of our thinking, like a pond surface transmitting disturbances below. A Democratic senator announced recently that he ''didn't agree'' with some of the president's behavior (although naturally he was opposed to conviction on the impeachment charges). Now you can ''disagree'' with a proposition, but not an action. It makes no sense to say ''I agreed with the president at first, when he walked his dog; when he fell down the stairs, I disagreed with that.'' But of course it's easier to ''disagree'' with a man than disapprove of him. Disagreement is morally neutral. The judge doesn't tell the defendant ''The jury has found you guilty, and I disagree with your crimes. I therefore sentence you to ... '' The priest doesn't tell the penitent in the confessional ''I disagree with your sins, and accordingly ... '' At least I don't think he does. This senator was talking the new language of American amorality. He was a good spokesman for a society that is in steady retreat from the idea of duty. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) laid it on the line in an interview that is already passing into legend and will one day be recounted in history books. He explained that, yes, the president was guilty of impeachable crimes - but he should not be (or at any rate could not be) convicted and removed because he is popular and the economy is strong. I'm sure many other senators think the same thing but don't have the courage to admit it. Henceforth any defendant should be allowed to plead ''not guilty by reason of popularity,'' and criminal lawyers will have to study up on the Soaring Dow defense. When the murderer O.J. Simpson was acquitted and set free, most Americans assumed that the verdict was a fantastic anomaly. Many white Americans assumed also that it was a piece of ugly, vicious racism on the part of a black jury. Today they owe the Simpson jury an apology, of sorts. No less an authority than the U.S. Senate has endorsed the idea that if the facts say ''guilty!'' you are duty-bound to convict - assuming you feel up to it. Otherwise, never mind. The Simpson jury evidently reasoned: ''It doesn't matter whether this man is innocent or guilty; we don't want to convict him. Some people regard him as a hero. We hate his accusers. And we'd be unpopular with our neighbors if we voted to bring him down.'' Many congressional Democrats seem to feel the same way about the president. Of course there is a large moral difference between Clinton's crimes and Simpson's. I assume that if the president's crimes had been truly Simpsonian, even Sen. Byrd would have favored conviction. But I'm not sure where the switch-over would take place. Once you are cleared to commit obstruction of justice and perjury, what other crimes can you get away with? There's a thought to cheer a president on a rainy day. What have we learned? Where does impeachment leave us? It leaves us (speaking for southern New England) on a pale day threatening snow, with a pair of solemn mallards cruising a forest pond. I visited the pond a few days ago with my boys, and we watched contentedly for a long time as nothing happened. The outcome of the impeachment trial merely reflects (like the pond reflecting bare branches) the nation's spiritual emptiness. The president himself, having no character of his own, reflects the nation's mood like a mirror. (He is famous for reading an audience and adjusting his tone accordingly.) He has made the White House small, mean and cheap, but eventually it will recover - when the nation does. In the meantime, there is this pond reminding us of the once and future dignity of the United States of America, and preserving a small piece of it. Now is a good time for ducks and quiet. A NEWS story over the weekend made such a strange assertion, I had to read it three times to make sure I had understood it. Ultimately it's a good indication of our state of mind. The National Archives in Washington has determined that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the actual parchment originals) need new cases; otherwise they might suffer long-term damage. Fair enough. Musing on the Founding Fathers and the Declaration, the New York Times said this: ''Surely few thought that the text they wrote would survive for more than two centuries.'' Why should they have doubted that their parchment text ''would survive for more than two centuries''? Many medieval manuscripts survive today, and they were all on hand in 1776 - housed mainly in Europe; but the Founding Fathers were worldly, cultivated men. I can only guess that this news story projects onto 1776 the world-view of today's cultural leaders. Most old parchment texts are religious documents, but editors and reporters rarely think about religion, or medieval manuscripts - and they assume that the Founding Fathers approached life on the same basis. Today's cultural leaders rarely take words seriously, or choose them carefully, or expect them to last - and they can barely imagine men who did. ______________________________________________________________ MORE COMMENTARY - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Feb 99 16:07:04 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Re: Garden: CNN Poll (fwd) On Feb 13, Eugene Gross wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Hey Folks, Not that it will change the reality of what has happened, but send a message from the heartland!! Please go over to this site and VOTE!!! CNN may not like the results if the word gets out to loyal, patriotic Americans -- so, let's get over and VOTE!! May be the last vote you are free to cast! En Agape, Gene P.S. At this point, the Yes crowd is larger than the No -- so if you disagree with what the Senate did, you need to go over and vote No! rocco angelo wrote: > OK Folks, let's go to this website and vote. So far we are losing. > Thanks, > Mark > http://www.cnn.com/ > > _________________________________________________________ > DO YOU YAHOO!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:06:15 -0600 From: Ira Wilsker Subject: Re: CNN Poll (fwd) It is no longer on the MAIN CNN page - in order to vote, you MUST go to the impeachment page at: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/impeachment/ Ira Wilsker iwilsker@ih2000.net ICQ: 1641171 HEAR my radio show 10-11am Central Thurs. at 560AM or http://klvi.com Weather Page: http://www.ih2000.net/ira/bmt-wth.htm International Police Conf.: http://www.ih2000.net/ira/sharjah.htm Law Enforcement Page: http://www.ih2000.net/ira/ira.htm - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Feb 99 23:29:13 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Wyoming Legislature gives state AG power to help those attacked by anti-gun lawsuits (fwd) On Feb 13, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] State attorney to have discretion to support suits against gun makers (c) 1999 Wyoming Tribune-Eagle (Cheyenne, WY) CHEYENNE -- The state=92s attorney general is closer to being allowed to = support people or industries being sued by plaintiffs who want to outlaw gun manufacturing. Senate File 128 passed the House on a 54-3 vote Friday, with three excuse= d. If the governor signs it, the bill will give the attorney general the discre= tion to legally support Wyoming citizens and firms defending a suit against the industry. Pass it around. Kevin McGehee Fairbanks/North Pole, AK mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/ [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 99 01:12:55 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: In the Wilderness - 13 Feb 99 (fwd) On Feb 13, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] IN THE WILDERNESS (c) 1999 KEVIN McGEHEE North Pole, Alaska mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/ Permission granted to anyone wishing to forward, redistribute, or broadcast this article WITH FULL ATTRIBUTION. ================================================================ THE FIRST COMMANDMENT A middle-aged woman in Sedona, Arizona holds a crystal and meditates on Gaia, the earth goddess. A slightly deranged White House aide pauses in his whisper campaign about a "vast right-wing conspiracy" to contemplate his idea of utopia -- by perusing The Communist Manifesto. A 19th-Century American poet writes, "As man's creeds are a disease of the intellect, so are his prayers a disease of the will." An avid reader of myriad pop-science magazines argues fervently that since God can't be proven scientifically to exist, he must NOT exist. A middle-aged man in Washington, D.C. risks everything that he's worked for his entire life for an illicit sexual encounter with a girl who works for him without pay. A television executive retreats to his office to perform what he jokingly calls his "worship service" -- over a line of cocaine. The second and third verses of the 20th Chapter of Exodus contain the words of the First Commandment: "I am the Lord thy God ... thou shalt have no other gods before Me." Ultimately, any rival raised up against God is never more (though often less) than an effigy of man himself, even when labeled a goddess. In Judeo-Christian thought, man has a dual nature: part sacred, part profane. The caution embodied in the First Commandment is that man must not turn away from the divinity placed within him by his Creator. Yet so easily do we make the transition from knowing that we have a little bit of God in each of us, to conceiving that we are, therefore, God. When we look aside from the fact of duality, from the recognition that where there can be good in this world there can also be evil, we fail of the First Commandment. At that point, it is only natural -- if ridiculously Orwellian -- to convince ourselves that it is more godly to be less like God. And when are we less like God than when we know nothing but hunger, cold, and fear? Each of us passes through a time in our lives -- at least once -- when our world revolves entirely around an excruciating need to be fed, comforted, and kept safe. We neither know nor care that others around us have needs and desires and wishes of their own; they must serve us as we demand or else! Any unmet need unleashes a savage anger that is sure to distress all. God may be within us at such times, but we don't know Him. We are tiny, noisy, quivering masses of instincts and hormones and impulses. We are infants, slaves to a few basic forms of pleasure. And so it is that in a nation that was wracked thirty years ago with the tumultuous rise of the Cult of Youth, there has arisen a "leader" who panders to a superannuated version of the instincts, hormones and impulses of the infant -- and he is deemed indispensable because of this pandering, whereas rules and standards that guide and protect the mature adult are despised and cast into ruin. Normally, growth, learning, experience and wisdom eventually awaken that part of us that is like God. Maturity, if achieved, enables us to glimpse -- however fleetingly -- the selfless love that made Him bring us into existence, and to send His own son to die for us. If it is staved off, however, the self-absorption of the infant becomes in later years self-worship -- and ultimately self-destruction. Nothing comes without a price. Maturity comes at the expense of innocence. But again we have to bear in mind the duality of our nature. We were told to go forth and multiply, for example. Being mortals, we have to do certain not-very-God-like things to accomplish this. Likewise, it was only by achieving the knowledge of the difference between good and evil that we came to have free will. The question is whether we should give in to the animal side of being human and give up on the divine. If the First Commandment is any guide, the answer must be NO. Last month on TV there was an interesting movie on television called "Purgatory." Its premise was unique and probably not altogether right, but there was a line spoken that rang true: "The Creator is tough, but He ain't blind." None of us is perfect, in other words, but what matters is not whether we have sinned, but whether we have EMBRACED sin. Those who haven't -- those whose failures have not been excused or justified or exalted as making them better people -- have much less to fear. When looked at seriously, the First Commandment turns out to be the first for a good reason. It can almost stand alone, and certainly is the deepest, most fundamental of the Ten. It assures us that although we as mortals are incapable of perfection, we can be better than we might. But it also warns us that the temptation to look away from our divinity, to embrace our fallibility, will always be strong. - -30- February 13, 1999 ================================================================ **Visit the IN THE WILDERNESS archives** http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/wilderness/ The views expressed herein are entirely those of the author(s), and do not reflect those of any person or group with whom the author(s) may be affiliated, unless explicitly labelled as doing so. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 99 06:57:04 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Humor: Y-to-K Date Change Project Status Found on another list..... - -----Original Message----- From: Shirley O Carroll To: y2k chat list Date: Sunday, February 14, 1999 2:26 PM Subject: Y-to-K Date Change Project Status (joke) >Let's Chat About Y2K - http://www.lifetel.com/y2k2000.htm > >If it were only that simple! > >***** > >>Okak guks, I hope kou enjok this one! >> >>Y-to-K Date Change Project Status >>"Our staff has completed the 18 months of work on time and on budget. We >have gone through every line of code in every program in every system. We >have analyzed all databases, all data files, including backups and historic >archives, and modified all data to reflect the change. We are proud to >report that we have completed the "Y-to-K" date change mission, and have now >implemented all changes to all programs and all data to reflect your new >standards: >>Januark, Februark, March, April, Mak, June, Julk, August, September, >October, November, December >> >>As well as: >>Sundak, Mondak, Tuesdak, Wednesdak Thursdak, Fridak, Saturdak >> >>I trust that this is satisfactory, because to be honest, none of this Y to >K problem has made any sense to me. But I understand it is a global problem, >and our team is glad to help in any way possible. And what does the year >2000 have to do with it? Speaking of which, what do you think we ought to >do next year when the two digit year rolls over from 99 to 00? >> >>We'll await your direction." > >Shirley >****** >Kraig and Shirley Carroll ... in the hills of Kentucky >ICQ #26952217 >thehavens@highland.net >http://www.thehavens.com/ >606-376-3363 - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 99 14:33:24 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: unity (fwd) On Feb 15, Walter L Myers wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Dear friends, associates and activists: The following was a reply to an e-mail I received this AM. I thought you might find it of interest as well. Best wishes: Walt Myers Dear ________ We in the CNC are in general agreement with all that Col. Roberts advocates. This isn't to imply that we think he has all the answers but he certainly has some. But then, we also believe many others, including the single issue organizations focusing on a symptom of our problem, are also a part its solution. Our biggest concern is the Constitutionist movement's lack of unity. With all do respect to Col. Roberts, to David Horton and to all CRC members, I suggest that the history of the CRC and the Constitutionists' movement is clear; the "go it alone" approach ignoring the benefits of unified action has failed. Thousands of organizations going in hundreds of different directions at any given point in time hasn't provided the answer. Hopefully, unity of spirit and action will IF A WAY IS FOUND TO ACHIEVE IT! If unity is to be realized, we in the CNC think it will come via a carefully and jointly devised plan that will incorporate many essential items; not the least of which are these. 1. It will provide a mechanism that will insure every voice sharing a carefully defined goal can be heard. 2. It will insure every individual and organization retains their independence to pursue their special interests while working with others on items of mutual interest. 3. It will include a provisions that will facilitate the networking of individuals and organizations from the local level on up and which will insure that each of them have a voice and are kept aware of others current activities so they can be mutually supportive on those of mutual interest. Upon entering the movement in the early 80's, I joined many organizations (including the CRC) and began looking for what I perceived to be a comprehensive plan having the potential to solve our problem if it were supported. I found none. Ergo, the Constitution day (9-17-93) conference which resulted in the CNC. Though the CRC was invited to the conference, it, like many other organizations which were invited and are named in my book, chose not to attend. I don't know if it's because these groups are motivated by egos or money or are supporting the enemy camp by helping to keep people divided. I only know they've shown no interest in helping to develop a comprehensive and mutually acceptable plan dedicated to "returning government to within the limits prescribed by the Constitution" through UNITY of spirit and action. Most organizations have a plan saying COME JOIN US. And if everyone would join a given group, their plan might work IF they correctly identify the problem we must solve and IF they chose the proper goal. But unfortunately, this hasn't happened and I suggest it won't happen. People should - and thanfully do - show loyalty and allegiance to organizations working on their "pet peeve." So again, if unity is to be realized, we believe it will be through members of many groups networking with one another. In doing so, they will give strength to one another. It's one of several reasons that the CNC is a membership by invitation only organization. We want to work with all who share our concerns and goal. This would be impossible if we were trying to proselytize their members. We've proposed the networking be through small teams at the local level who are committed to Taking America Back to lawful government (TAB teams). When tied together via an acceptable structure and networked via an efficient and effective system of communication, these local TAB teams will become an undeniable political force. It is our prayer that others will critic the plan we have proposed and offer constructive comments for unless and until "we the concerned" zero in on a plan and begin to work together in implementing it, I suggest we will continue to lose ground. I'll sign off by saying the CNC believes that the three most important items to be agreed upon if a team capable of Taking America Back is to evolve are: 1. agreement on a set of premises. 2. agreement on a definition of the problem we must solve. 3 agreement on a clear goal. Those proposed by the CNC can be found at www.idir.net/~cnc/ I ask that you review them and if you feel they can be improved upon, please provide your suggested changes in writing. Sincerely, Walt Myers PS - If you go to our web site, please be sure to study EO 13107 which I believe is - if accepted as law - the legislation that will usher in Global governance throughout America. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 99 02:11:48 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Owen Wister on equality (fwd) On Feb 15, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] =================================== >From THE VIRGINIAN by Owen Wister (1902) from Chapter XII: Quality and Equality "All men are born equal," he now remarked slowly. "Yes," she quickly answered, with a combative flash. "Well?" "Maybe that don't include women?" he suggested. "I think it does." "Do yu' tell the kids so?" "Of course I teach them what I believe!" He pondered. "I used to have to learn about the Declaration of Independence. I hated books and truck when I was a kid." "But you don't any more." "No. I cert'nly don't. But I used to get kep' in at recess for bein' so dumb. I was most always at the tail end of the class. My brother, he'd be head sometimes." "Little George Taylor is my prize scholar," said Molly. "Knows his tasks, does he?" "Always. And Henry Dow comes next." "Who's last?" "Poor Bob Carmody. I spend more time on him than on all the rest put together." "My!" said the Virginian. "Ain't that strange!" She looked at him, puzzled by his tone. "It's not strange when you know Bob," she said. "It's very strange," drawled the Virginian. "Knowin' Bob don't help it any." "I don't think that I understand you," said Molly, stiffly. "Well it *is* mighty confusin'. George Taylor, he's your best scholar, and poor Bob, he's your worst, and there's a lot in the middle -- and you tell me we're all born equal!" Molly could only sit giggling in this trap he had so ingeniously laid for her. "I'll tell you what," pursued the cow-puncher, with slow and growing intensity, "equality is a great big bluff. It's easy called." "I didn't mean---" began Molly. "Wait, and let me say what I mean." He had made an imperious gesture with his hand. "I know a man that mostly wins at c'yards. I know a man that mostly loses. He says it is his luck. All right. Call it his luck. I know a man that works hard and he's gettin' rich, and I know another that works hard and is gettin' poor. He says it is his luck. All right. Call it his luck. I look around and I see folks movin' up or movin' down, winners or losers everywhere. All luck, of course. But since folks can be born that different in their luck, where's your equality? No, seh! call your failure luck, or call it laziness, wander around the words, prospect all yu' mind to, and yu'll come out the same old trail of inequality." He paused a moment and looked at her. "Some holds four aces," he went on, "and some holds nothin', and some poor fello' gets the aces and no show to play 'em; but a man has got to prove himself my equal before I'll believe him." =================================== from Chapter XIII: The Game and the Nation - Act First There can be no doubt of this: All America is divided into two classes -- the quality and the equality. The latter will always recognize the former when mistaken for it. Both will be with us until our women bear nothing but kings. It was through the Declaration of Independence that we Americans acknowledged the *eternal inequality* of man. For by it we abolished a cut-and-dried aristocracy. We had seen little men artificially held up in high places, and great men artificially held down in low places, and our own justice-loving hearts abhorred this violence to human nature. Therefore, we decreed that every man should thenceforth have equal liberty to find his own level. By this very decree we acknowledged and gave freedom to true aristocracy, saying, "Let the best man win, whoever he is." Let the best man win! That is America's word. =================================== Kevin McGehee Fairbanks/North Pole, AK mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/ "There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as an error which proceedeth from the ruler." Ecclesiastes 10:5 [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:08:22 -0800 From: skip Subject: [Fwd: FW: Editorial] My son sent me this one. Thought ROC-ers might appreciate it. Regards, Skip. > > * A well worded Marine reply to a San Diego editorial on noise > * complaints... > * > * San Diego Union Tribune > * February 8, 1999 > * > * Re: "Is harassment of resident the role of the military? > * (Letters, Feb > > 4): > * Responding to Maura Harvey's letter wondering if the > * Marine helicopter training flights that passed above > * her Del Mar home were simply to harass residents, I can > * say that, yes, our mission is to harass residents, > * specifically Mrs. Harvey. > * > * We do not train 24 hours a day, seven days a week to > * provide freedom and security to all residents of the > * United States. We exist only to annoy the very people > * we are sworn to protect, against all enemies, foreign > * and domestic. We spend months and years overseas, away > * from our families and loved ones, in some cases making > * less than minimum wage, choosing to live a life in > * which many qualify for food stamps, just to have the > * chance, one day, to annoy people like Mrs. Harvey. > * There is no more sought-after position in the military > * than the Maura Harvey Annoyance Task Force. As a matter > * of fact, the Marines who spent Christmas dug into > * fighting positions in northern Kuwait and their > * brothers in the sky, braving anti-aircraft missiles > * and artillery, were just training to come back to the > * States and fly missions over Mrs. Harvey's house. It > * has nothing to do with the security of the nation. It > * has no impact on our ability to carry out missions in > * Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe, and it > * has no bearing on Mrs. Harvey's ability to enjoy > * "nature and peaceful, quiet living." The "strange, > * almost science fiction war scene" she described was > * put on solely to make noise and to destroy her "scenic > * view corridors" in Del Mar Terrace. > * > * It certainly was not valuable and necessary training > * to help sustain the lives of those who ensure this > * nation's freedom, should they ever be sent into > * harm's way to do just that. Next time, Mrs. Harvey > * may want to look upon those loud machines and think > * about the men and women, who fly, ride in, and > * maintain them. Ponder the sacrifices they make in > * providing this nation with the warm blanket of > * freedom we all enjoy. Maybe she might even imagine > * how much more disturbing it would be if she were > * not sure what country the helicopters were from, > * or whether they were going to attack her beautiful > * neighborhood. But she shouldn't worry too much > * about that, because we will not let it happen. > * > * Capt. JOHN F. PETERSON, USMC > * Pacific Beach > * > * > * - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:17:26 -0600 (CST) From: Paul M Watson Subject: The real cost of government, gasoline is 35 cents I am getting quotes for un-leaded gasoline 6000 gallons While we are all loving prices at the pump of 85 cents guess what the real price is wholesale? Old enough to remember 35 cent gas or less? Well we have it today, the rest of the price is state and federal taxes. .3435 price per gallon .20 state of Texas tax .18 federal tax - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:42:37 -0800 From: skip Subject: Re: The real cost of government, gasoline is 35 cents Paul M Watson wrote: > I am getting quotes for un-leaded gasoline 6000 gallons > While we are all loving prices at the pump of 85 cents guess what the real > price is wholesale? > > Old enough to remember 35 cent gas or less? Well we have it today, the > rest of the price is state and federal taxes. > > .3435 price per gallon > .20 state of Texas tax > .18 federal tax > > - And most of those tax dollars required by law to go into state and federal highway trust funds to build and maintain infrastructure. Only one problem. Those "trust funds", like the Social Security "trust fund" exists only on paper. The money has been spent on social programs and the "trust funds" contain only IOUs. IOUs can be spent on transportation infrastructure. It takes real money, which has to come out of new tax revenues to repay the IOUs. And since the gas tax burden is "per gallon", it doesn't make any difference whether the wholesale gas price is today's $.35 or last year's $.68, we provide the same tax revenues for politicians to spend on social programs and lie to us about. Skip. - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:42:37 -0800 From: skip Subject: Re: The real cost of government, gasoline is 35 cents Paul M Watson wrote: > I am getting quotes for un-leaded gasoline 6000 gallons > While we are all loving prices at the pump of 85 cents guess what the real > price is wholesale? > > Old enough to remember 35 cent gas or less? Well we have it today, the > rest of the price is state and federal taxes. > > .3435 price per gallon > .20 state of Texas tax > .18 federal tax > > - And most of those tax dollars required by law to go into state and federal highway trust funds to build and maintain infrastructure. Only one problem. Those "trust funds", like the Social Security "trust fund" exists only on paper. The money has been spent on social programs and the "trust funds" contain only IOUs. IOUs can be spent on transportation infrastructure. It takes real money, which has to come out of new tax revenues to repay the IOUs. And since the gas tax burden is "per gallon", it doesn't make any difference whether the wholesale gas price is today's $.35 or last year's $.68, we provide the same tax revenues for politicians to spend on social programs and lie to us about. Skip. - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:03:14 -0600 (CST) From: Paul M Watson Subject: http:--www.cnn.com-ALLPOLITICS-stories-1999-02-18-war.ap- (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- CNN/AllPolitics - Storypage, with TIME and Congressional Quarterly Analysis: New battle over who can wage war -- Congress or Clinton? By WALTER R. MEARS AP Special Correspondent February 18, 1999 Web posted at: 9:47 a.m. EST (1447 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- When the United States sent a peacekeeping force to Bosnia, the House and Senate grudgingly agreed in a resolution pointedly calling it President Clinton's commitment, not theirs. That line may be drawn again should Clinton send troops to Kosovo. It is part of the unending strain between the White House and Congress over war-making, or war-risking, powers. This one isn't partisan, it is institutional. The Kosovo mission is on hold at the moment, contingent on a peace deal that would be backed by a NATO force Serbs are resisting. There is a Saturday noon deadline for them to accept or face NATO air strikes. But the debate about the U.S. role didn't wait. Nor did Clinton, who said in a radio address on Saturday that he is prepared to send nearly 4,000 American troops to join about 24,000 from other NATO nations to enforce peace between Serbs and ethnic Albanians. "Now, a final decision on troops, which I will make in close consultation with Congress, will depend upon the parties reaching a strong peace agreement," Clinton said. But any consultations will be on a commitment that already has been made. Clinton said he believes that with an agreement, there should be an American role. And while promising to work with Congress on it, the administration isn't seeking authority to send forces. Like his White House predecessors, Clinton maintains that power is inherent in his office. George Bush narrowly won congressional approval for the Persian Gulf War against Iraq just before it began, and said he welcomed the expression of support although he didn't need it to act. "This administration, like previous administrations, takes the view that the president has broad authority as commander in chief, and under his authority to conduct foreign relations, to authorize the use of force in the national interest," Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering told the House International Relations Committee a week ago. He cited as precedents the operations ordered by Republican presidents without action by Congress. "Previous constitutional violations do not justify subsequent ones," replied Republican Rep. Tom Campbell of California. While that has been argued since the end of World War II, the decisions have been made by presidents, sometimes with use of force resolutions approved by Congress, more often, without. Congress tried to change the balance 25 years ago with the War Powers Act, seeking to require congressional approval to keep U.S. forces in danger spots abroad. That hasn't worked; presidents can simply certify that the operations they order don't trigger its terms. Clinton advised congressional leaders, but did not seek consent, in ordering U.S. air strikes against Iraq on Dec. 17, the day the House was to have started debating his impeachment, which was voted two days later. Nor was there prior approval of an earlier peacekeeping mission to the Balkans, in late 1995. That was to enforce the U.S.-brokered peace settlement of ethnic wars in Bosnia, and at one point involved 22,500 Americans. There are still about 6,700 U.S. troops there. Ten days after Clinton approved the operation, Congress adopted a resolution agreeing to it, "notwithstanding reservations" about his decision. The resolution, which wasn't binding, said "the president may only fulfill his commitment" for about a year, the duration he'd set but could not keep. "We really learned a lesson in Bosnia that setting an artificial deadline doesn't work," Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said. There would be no deadline on a peacekeeping mission to Kosovo, she added. Republicans who argue that Clinton's foreign policy credibility was shaken by the impeachment charges despite his Senate acquittal say the long-missed Bosnia deadline adds to their mistrust. "We knew that wasn't quite as honest as it needed to be," said Sen. Don Nickles, the Republican whip. "And so that is affecting right now his request for troops into Kosovo." But it isn't a request. The next step is contingent on a peace deal for Kosovo, not permission from Congress. "I look forward to working with Congress in making this final decision," Clinton said. But he would make it, and he's already said what it would be. ------ EDITOR'S NOTE -- Walter R. Mears, vice president and special correspondent for The Associated Press, has reported on Washington and national politics for more than 30 years. For continuous breaking news, see AP Newstream Associated Press news material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. _________________________________________________________________ - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #216 *************************