According to the Propaganda President, we Americans are no longer to be trusted with teaching our children. They're going to indoctrinate them for us. We Americans are teaching our kids "hate," the Philander-in- Chief with the X-rated cigar tricks says. And that's bad.

"Children have to be taught hate," the nation's first elected president to ever be impeached said at a White House conference on hate crimes. "We want to teach them a different way." So he called for colleges and schools from kindergarten through 12th grade to implement diversity programs to provide the tolerance education the Chief Obstructer of Justice fears is lacking in American homes.

And just to make sure the federal government gets its mitts into every segment of society, the Compulsive Prevaricator called for expanding the definition of hate crimes that fall under federal jurisdiction to include "all hate crimes that cause physical harm," including those against women, the disabled and homosexuals.

"Anybody who thinks ... that he or she can hide from the kind of poison that we see in various places in our country is living in a dream world," the admitted Perjurer said. "Whether we like it or not, our futures are bound together, and it is time we acted like it."

Of course, the White House wants to count and categorize all these so called "hate crimes" too. So, the plan also includes better (mandatory?) reporting of hate crimes to the FBI. Also, an additional 50 FBI agents and federal prosecutors were hired to enforce hate-crime laws, and a "National Hate Crimes Network" formed to marshal the resources of federal, state and local enforcement as well as educators and other local groups.

We couldn't make stuff up this good, folks! That lying, cheating, Third Way socialist, obstructer of justice in the White House is going to put the goons who produced and directed the Waco massacre in charge of investigating hate crimes. Then they wonder why no one trusts the federal government for anything anymore.

Actually, this is an amazingly blatant assault on the separation of powers doctrine, and a very unconstitutional proposal. It is little more than an attempt to federalize assault and battery laws, an area of law which has always been the jurisdiction of the States.

Not said is what they plan to teach the children about hate. Are we now to be required to accept everyone as they are, no exceptions?

That can never work.

For instance, one of the guys from my old neighborhood is an activist queer from the group Queer Nation. He would stop by the house every few months unannounced, but he always knew there were some ground- rules to be observed. Simply put, I did not want to hear about their queer activist activities. And so I did not.

Was that hate? I think not. No matter what these jerks in the central government think, I chose to discriminate. Simply put, there are unethical people walking this earth who I will not associate with and no amount of silly, unconstitutional "laws" will ever change that.

Same with the little punks on the street: Mouth off, get smacked. That's the deal, the only correct way to handle many of these kids. Is that hate? Of course not. It may be now, though -- if the smackee is a different race, sex or national origin than the smacker.

Before government got involved we had Polish neighborhoods, Italian neighborhoods, and German, Russian, Jewish, Black, Mexican and Arabic neighborhoods. It wasn't exactly as totally compartmentalized as it sounds here. But, generally, people tended to move into areas with like people. The neighborhoods blended over a lot, and generally we shared churches, schools and whatnot in a (relative to today) trouble-free environment.

Then, one day government agents came and told us we were allowed to move anywhere we wished. But, no one wanted to move. A couple years later the government agents came back. They said we needed to live in "diversified" neighborhoods. We didn't catch on right away, and still hardly anyone moved.

So, government came back and bought up most of the vacant lots, built some inexpensive homes -- even for that working class neighborhood -- and proceeded to show us what "diversified" really meant.

Turns out they had been doing that all over the city. Our old neighborhood remained stable, and it is still a good place to live. There have been major riots in most other areas of the city, though. And much of Detroit now looks like a burned out war zone -- complete with hundreds of thousands of bullet holes.

Government stirred that pot. In less than twenty years, the people went from a "live and let live" attitude to what we see today in most urban areas: Violent crime, corruption, drugs, and debauchery. Now, it appears, this administration wishes to complete the process of pitting American against American.

In short, it was the constant interference of government that begot much of the "hate." Because, clearly, in many cities the small "slum" areas of the 1960s were both nicer and safer than major sections of the cities are today. It took the power of the federal government to pull that off. That is the true legacy of the meddling Social-Democrats.

When government becomes militant, when government starts ripping away the rights of the citizen, it is the duty of every citizen to remain well armed.

It should be understood that we are not armed to threaten government. We are not armed to harm those citizens who work in government. Nor are we armed to bother other citizens. We must remain skillfully armed only so as to let every department of government know that We the People are the ultimate sovereigns of this nation, and that there is some ground on which government must not tread. Our being armed, then, should be considered a subtle hint to government, rather than a blatant warning.

But, even as fundamentally American as that statement sounds, there still are problems with it in today's political world. Today, there is no popular consensus identifying that ground on which government may not tread. Worse, most Americans do not even know how many of their unalienable rights have recently been snatched by those ever-stretching tentacles of the federal bureaucracy. That is, citizens do not know until that legal process catches them in violation of some strange new rule, regulation or law no one ever heard of previously.

Only after there is strong popular agreement on exactly what the limits to government shall be, and only after all political means of action have been tried, and failed, may we citizens even consider our arms as a method of recouping liberty. Unfortunately, to date, there has been little popular consensus on the limits of government. It's been just the opposite, in fact. These past 50 years, we citizens have allowed the federal government to do exactly as it wished.

That is now starting to change. Americans are seeing their friends and neighbors adversely affected by any number of federal laws, rules and regulations. And when they look to their Constitution for the federal government's authority to pass such restrictions on human existence, they find there is none.

Not yet realized by the American public is a fact well known by many government officials: If every federal law, rule and regulation now on the books were suddenly enforced completely and equally throughout the country, Americans would quickly rise up and dismantle the federal government.

So the law is not applied equally. It is applied selectively. And, interestingly enough, that is one reason the American people are noticing. The appearance, from the view of many Americans, is of selective tyranny.

Some of these problems, such as with the IRS, are just now beginning to be discussed publicly by elected officials. Others, such as the real potential for a FEMA takeover and the declaration of national emergencies via executive orders, even Members of Congress fear to discuss yet.

So, we Americans must keep our personal arms, not because we have plans to use them anytime soon, but because there is a definite bright line over which the federal government must not cross. And although there may not yet be a strong popular consensus as to exactly where that line is, most Americans nonetheless realize that the federal government is briskly marching towards it.

Today, few Americans trust anything about the federal government. They have regulated away most of our rights, plugged the loopholes of liberty, taxed away half of our incomes, and are now beginning to restrict all of our property.

For instance, according to Rep. James Traficant (D-OH), "the Gettysburg Address is 286 words. The Declaration of Independence is 1,322 words. Government regulations on the sale of cabbage is 27,000 words." And all these stupid federal "regulations cost taxpayers $400- billion a year, $4,000 per every family each and every year, year in and year out." Still, the socialists in society say government has not done enough yet.

Half of the American voters do not even vote anymore, simply because they are totally and completely disgusted with everything about the central government. They ask only for their natural right "to be let alone," but are not.

That must change. Soon.

Back in Issue #197 we reported that there has been a major decrease in violent crime in the United States over the past few years. Part of that decrease is due to the fact that more criminals are now locked up for longer periods of time. However, it just so happens that the decrease in violent crime also correlates perfectly with the increase of citizens around the country carrying concealed weapons.

In Issue #192, we reported that new data from The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1) showed that firearms deaths dropped 22% between 1994 and 1998, as more States began issuing concealed carry weapons permits. Clearly, when even a few good citizens are armed, the bad guys become more careful.

"Overall, 30,708 people died of firearms in 1998, a 5-percent drop from 1997 and a 22-percent drop from the high of 39,595 in 1993. The age-adjusted death rate from firearms was 11.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 1998, a 7.4-percent drop from 12.2 in 1997 and down sharply from the high of 15.6 in 1993."

Now that 31 States issue concealed weapons carry permits, the trend is noticeable nationally. Because, lets face it folks, crooks don't want to mess with people who can shoot back.

No matter though, the "progressives" in society (progressive is the new name the socialists gave themselves) want us disarmed, anyway. We can't tell exactly what their agenda is. Perhaps they want "normal" Americans to be sitting ducks for every street punk in the country. Or, maybe they want us disarmed so we cannot resist a socialist takeover. Regardless, they are now clearly admitting that their immediate goal is a general ban on handguns, and later, all guns.

And this from a newspaper operating in the worst run city in the country -- murder city U.S.A. -- Washington, D.C.

In an editorial last September 10, the Washington Post wrote:

"The 106th Congress, nearing adjournment, has failed to pass a single gun control measure of any consequence. The thousands of mothers and their families who gathered four months ago to try to jolt legislators into action are still waiting for a response. America's sad global leadership in gun violence, both criminal and accidental, remains unchallenged. And the list of sensible gun safety measures that deserve attention lies on the table untouched."

The Washington Post, apparently, actually thinks real Americans will seriously believe a few overpaid morons demonstrating in Washington? How silly! Half of the far-left organizations in the country kicked in money for that stupid demonstration and it still was a flop. They got plenty of support by the lefties in the media, but zilch from the American people.

The Post continues:

"For starters, Congress ought to establish minimum standards for licensing of handgun owners and registration of the handguns. It also should limit handgun purchases to one per month. Some states have enacted such a restriction, which any law-abiding gun user could live with. But without any national system, gun traffickers continue to make huge purchases in certain states for sale in illegal markets everywhere. States that attempt to set some sensible limits are undermined by those that don't."

They call any gun rights we have left loopholes. So, buying a gun at a gun show, where there is a wide variety from which to chose and many experts with whom to discuss which is the best tool for the intended use -- becomes a "gun show loophole" that Congress failed to close.

But, it wasn't until the very last paragraph that the Post admitted their nefarious agenda: "Most effective would be a ban on the general sale of handguns, but that clearly is not in the legislative cards this year."

What these media socialists do not realize is that they are building a good case for regulation of the press. The Second Amendment is every bit as important as the First. So, if our personal arms can be regulated, so can the press.

Perhaps it's about time some restrictions be put on what these anti-Constitutionalists in the media are allowed to publish. It seems as though people who scheme to deprive others of their rights should be deprived of theirs for a while as punishment.

Therefore, it is time that those who write about law and government be required to pass a test on Constitutional law every year and be licensed. Then, anytime they publish this type of unconstitutional propaganda, we can suspend their license and shut them down for a while.

Because, if the media, hiding behind their Constitutional right of a free press, uses that right to a free press to limit other's Constitutional rights, it is most certainly fair to take stern action against the misuse of the right of a free press.

(1) http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/crime21.html

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html

Last July (Issue #190), we wrote: " This little newsletter has been published continuously for nearly four years under the name 'Heads Up.' But, there is now a problem with that name and it's time for a change." We asked for suggestions for the new name and received literally hundreds of replies.

First, I must say that a few readers came up with some very pointed (and humorously politically incorrect) names that, in another setting, would most definitely be considered. These are the type of names that would instantly aggravate liberals to no end! I wish I could include some of them here. But, alas, this publication is distributed by a couple of churches and we certainly do not want to offend those good readers. Suffice it to say, we really enjoyed the humor. . . .

Anyway, since I first asked for suggestions in Issue #190, and suggestions kept coming for three solid weeks, I decided to wait until issue #200 to make any significant changes. And, this is it.

Readers often write to ask why I format the newsletter and do not use the whole page width. The reason is simple: Most people subscribing from me send the newsletter to friends. This often adds those nauseating little ">>" characters on the left of the text, which would break up the lines and make any full page text jagged. By cutting the line width down to about 60 characters per line, it usually keeps the retransmitted text looking neat.

Other problems include hypertext, font type and such. This newsletter goes to many different types of systems around the country. So, every time I vary even slightly from the plane text format, someone's system receives garbage rather than text. The newsletter needs to be compatible with UNIX and even COBOL mainframes, plus those old IBM monsters. Some people are still using those old Apple boxes for e-mail, too.

The point is, even though we have all the latest software on this end, we cannot use any of the slick bells and whistles for the newsletter. We have to wait until all the old-time systems wear out and get replaced with systems that can accept and display graphic based e-mail -- which, at the rate things are going, may not happen for another decade.

So, hypertext is out of the question for a while. On the other hand, we do plan some changes that may make the text easier to read. Instead of inserting URLs in with the text, we will try the time-tested footnote approach for a while. That will also help to keep the text more even.

Because, that's the whole point, after all: making the text quick and easy to read. Interesting would be a good quality, too. We're continually working on that part.

The suggestion most often submitted for the new name was simply "The Fiedor Report." However, two readers were a bit more descriptive and caught what our intent is for writing the newsletter. That suggestion was "The Fiedor Report on the News."

Playing with that suggestion a little, we decided on "Fiedor Report on the News." In a rush, that boils down to the silly (albeit distinctive) little acronym "FRON." And, let's face it, we doubt very much that anyone, anywhere will be using that name or anagram -- in English, anyway.

Over the next few weeks we will phase out the "Heads Up" title at the top of the newsletter but start now running "Fiedor Report on the News" immediately under that. I really hate to give up the "A view from the foothills of Appalachia" slug under that because, early on, some readers actually thought the newsletter was coming from Washington. And we really are, geographically anyway, in the foothills of Appalachia. We just never felt the need to say exactly where.

Let it be known right now that there is only one reason we would consider a move to Washington: That is, there will be three important positions opening up if GW Bush wins the Presidency. They will be on the United States Supreme Court.

So, there may come a time when you find this scribbler standing out in front of the White House with his hand up, trying to get noticed for the position. Under the law, I am perfectly qualified. A Justice need not be an attorney, just have a working knowledge of the Constitution and the law. Besides, there are some pompous asses on that Senate Committee with whom I would very much love having a public Constitutional debate.

But, wouldn't that be a hoot and a half. . . . Put a Constitutionalist on the Supreme Court. What a concept! It won't happen, of course. But, it would be fun to make some real noise about. Because, if that ever started to catch on, just a little, it would make the new Bush administration pay a lot closer attention to who they eventually did pick.

Ahem, well . . . anyway . . . Meanwhile, we'll try to write a more effective newsletter and consider working on a supplemental "news Page" web site that would keep up with the many, many daily abuses of power by those in the central government.

And, as always, anyone wishing to distribute the newsletter to friends may subscribe directly from me anytime. All we ask is that no changes, additions or subtractions are made to the newsletter by anyone along the line.

  ** uhuh **

The President said he is reducing taxes.

uhuh.

Congress says they are balancing the budget.

uhuh. Sez who?

Web Home Page: www.uhuh.com

---

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh and GR Force, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 1996 by Forest Glen Durland.

fron200.htm. Revised 9-23-00. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.