Hide the newspapers and turn off the televisions. There's a lesson being taught in the current news and it is most definitely not something we want American youngsters to learn.

This lesson pertains to morals, honor, truth, justice, and what we once called "The American Way." That's why, running true to form, the far-left have it totally backwards.

Liberals would have us believe that the worst part of American society are those among us who work towards a Constitutional form of government. We're actually called "extremists" for wanting that which was intended by the Founding Fathers and not embracing socialism. From the left's point of view, anyone not immediately kowtowing to the expediency of big government is wrong. Even when we're specifically correct, we're wrong, according to the far left.

For instance, in a September 1 New York Times piece by Jim Yardley, some of the new information concerning Waco was adequately related. But, rather than admit that the fine efforts of Michael McNulty and David Hardy were at last bearing fruit and receiving the attention they most definitely deserve, Yardley quotes two far-left big-government apologists who obviously know little or nothing of the topic:

"It's really unfortunate," said Mark Potok, a spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that monitors the militia movement and other anti-government groups. "This has given credence to the rest of McNulty's views, which are unsupported."

Then, Yardley quotes Mark Pitcavage, who recently graduated from school. While a student, Pitcavage set up a web page called The Militia Watchdog, which apparently makes him an expert to the New York Times.

"The Waco documentary was highly publicized, but the inaccuracies were not," Pitcavage said. "I don't think the McNulty Waco documentary could even remotely be considered objective."

Maybe so. But, objectivity is not necessary when "truth" is the criterion. And, McNulty is 99% correct.

Contrast those on the far left with the opinion of someone who actually knows what he is talking about and you get a totally different picture:

"Mike and Dave deserve the lion's share of the credit for coming up with the evidence," said Joe Phillips, a lawyer for the Branch Davidian families in a wrongful death lawsuit, scheduled to go to trial in federal court in Waco on Oct. 18. "They've been working on this for years."

But, it gets better yet. Socialists, it seems are to get a free pass, but average Americans do not.

President Clinton -- who has invited a steady stream of terrorists, illegal arms merchants, drug dealers, money launderers, socialists, and communists to the White House -- now wants to pardon 16 Puerto Rican terrorists.

Most of these 16 are from the FALN, a guerrilla group. This is no rag-tag group of disgruntles, either. The Armed Forces of National Liberation, known by its Spanish initials, FALN, is a clandestine revolutionary organization orchestrated by the Cuban government and a member of Socialist International. Like its sister group, the Macheteros, FALN believes in the use of terrorist warfare to bring about political change.

The FALN group was Founded in 1974 by members of three earlier guerrilla groups. The earlier groups were credited with trying to assassinate President Truman in 1950 and a 1954 shooting attack on the U.S. House of Representatives that wounded five Representatives. FALN was responsible for a series of 130 bomb attacks on U.S. political and military targets between 1974 and 1983.

Most notably, FALN is known for bombing the Newark, NJ police headquarters and City Hall, the firebombings of five New York banks and the bombing of New York City's Fraunces Tavern -- which killed four people and wounded 60.

Two of the prisoners were convicted in a $7.5 million armored-truck robbery in West Hartford, Conn. That 1983 robbery was to finance the separatist group Los Macheteros, or "Cane Cutters," which attacked U.S. government installations in Puerto Rico. At least two others were arrested while constructing bombs.

Among other changes, the group was convicted of conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government.

Defenders of this terrorist group now tell us that none was convicted of actually causing violence (except for the robbery), yet all of the bombings suddenly stopped. They received an average sentence of 70 years, so apparently the Court wanted the terrorist activity to stay stopped.

But, alas, these are socialists. So, every left wing socialist group in the country wants Clinton to pardon them. So, 11 of these terrorists get out this weekend.

And therein lies our lesson from the American media: Outstanding American citizens peacefully working for a Constitutional form of government are "right wing extremists." Socialist fanatics who bomb innocent people deserve mercy.

Except in an emergency, it is a violation of civil rights for government agents to enter a home without a search warrant when not invited in. So says at least one U.S. Court of Appeals.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case, Calabretta v. Floyd (9715385), "involves whether a social worker and a police officer were entitled to qualified immunity, for a coerced entry into a home to investigate suspected child abuse, interrogation of a child, and strip search of a child, conducted without a search warrant and without a special exigency."

 The facts of the case are simple: Some neighbor called Social Services with a complaint that they heard the Calabretta's youngest child crying something like "No, no, no daddy" one night. Evidently, that's all it takes in California.

The social worker, Floyd, went to the home to investigate but, as was her right, Mrs. Calabretta would not allow Floyd in. So, Floyd went to the office and made a report. Then, Floyd went on a two week vacation.

Somewhere along the line, Floyd learned that the Calabrettas were a very religious family and home schooled their children. That being a red flag in the face of government social workers and teachers, Floyd called for police assistance in visiting the family. And, this is where things get a little uncomfortable:

Many police officers follow the law and would not enter the Calabretta's home without either being invited in or having a warrant. Some police officers will bully their way in, via intimidation. Others will do anything it takes, including shooting, to get in. This police officer used intimidation.

Well, social worker and police officer claimed they have something called "qualified immunity" for what they did and therefore are protected against any civil or criminal action -- even though they obviously violated the Calabretta's Fourth Amendment rights. Their theory was that an administrative search to protect the welfare of children does not carry the requirement that they first secure a warrant. The Court, however, did not agree. And now things get very interesting.

The court said that "the facts in this case are noteworthy for the absence of emergency." No one was in distress. "The police officer was there to back up the social worker's insistence on entry against the mother's will, not because he perceived any imminent danger of harm." And he should have known better. Furthermore, "had the information been more alarming, had the social worker or police officer been alarmed, had there been reason to fear imminent harm to a child, this would be a different case, one to which we have no occasion to speak. A reasonable official would understand that they could not enter the home without consent or a search warrant."

And now the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals defines the law: "In our circuit, a reasonable official would have known that the law barred this entry. Any government official can be held to know that their office does not give them an unrestricted right to enter peoples' homes at will. We held in White v. Pierce County (797 F.2d 812 (9th Cir. 1986)), a child welfare investigation case, that 'it was settled constitutional law that, absent exigent circumstances, police could not enter a dwelling without a warrant even under statutory authority where probable cause existed.' The principle that government officials cannot coerce entry into people's houses without a search warrant or applicability of an established exception to the requirement of a search warrant is so well established that any reasonable officer would know it. Under White, appellants' claim, that 'a search warrant is not required for home investigatory visits by social workers,' is simply not the law.

The Court continues later: "The Fourth Amendment preserves the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses . . . ' without limiting that right to one kind of government official. It is not as though all reasonable people thought any government official could enter private houses against the occupants' will, without search warrant or special exigency, and then White said that police officers could not, without speaking about social workers. Rather, everyone knew that the government could not so enter houses, and White said that principle was well established, in the context of a child abuse investigation."

 And there we have it: "Any government official can be held to know that their office does not give them an unrestricted right to enter peoples' homes at will. . . . The principle that government officials cannot coerce entry into people's houses without a search warrant or applicability of an established exception to the requirement of a search warrant is so well established that any reasonable officer would know it. . . . The Fourth Amendment preserves the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses . . . ' without limiting that right to one kind of government official. "

 In other words, just say no. "A social worker is not entitled to sacrifice a family's privacy and dignity to her own personal views on how parents ought to discipline their children."

The Courts reasoning for this ruling was simple and straightforward: "The reasonable expectation of privacy of individuals in their homes includes the interests of both parents and children in not having government officials coerce entry in violation of the Fourth Amendment and humiliate the parents in front of the children. An essential aspect of the privacy of the home is the parent's and the child's interest in the privacy of their relationship with each other."

Read the complete opinion at http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9715385.html

Operation Showtime was perhaps one of the best armed "police action" operations in American history. From the newest in spy aircraft and listening devices to the best armored vehicles available, no expense was sparred.

Fully automatic assault rifles, and ammunition, were plentiful -- many equipped with flash and noise suppressers. Many hundreds of assorted grenades and pyrotechnic devices were also available, as were at least four methods of delivering debilitating gasses.

Any and all of these things can start a fire. Yet, government officials still maintain, with a straight face no less, that they were not responsible for the resultant fire at Waco.

There were huge floodlights used in the operation, yet the Texas Rangers also found flares that were apparently fired by federal agents. Some of these flares were of the type favored by the FBI to intentionally start building fires.

Evidence logs showed many such spent flares were recovered in the weeks after the Davidian compound burned following the FBI/Special Forces siege. Previous Congressional hearings on the Waco disaster learned nothing of any of these devices because those testifying from the FBI, the Justice Department and the Army covered it up. The fact is, they lied to Congress. They intentionally committed perjury. Repeatedly and continuously.

Now there is proof that quite a number of Special Forces personnel were there. So many, in fact, they were even rotating through their British Army counterparts, as if they were proud of themselves, or something. Did the British help kill Americans?

The FBI says it did not shoot into the building that last day. However, there is proof that at least two people were spraying automatic gunfire into the back of the building during the fire. Perhaps FBI plans to point the finger of blame at the Army. But, if that happens, yet another inconvenient question pops up: Who was in charge?

Rep. Asa Hutchinson said of a new round of Congressional investigations, "We need to review first of all the cause of the fire."

Sure. But before that there is that little matter of perjury before the first Congressional hearings. Then, we need to know exactly how many Army personnel were aiding the ATF attack and who gave the reinforcement order for the military to back up the FBI.

The question of who started the fire will be answered with the FBI/Army's own films. Whoever was firing those flares from grenade launchers at the rear of the building started the fire. And no matter who that may have been, we are certain it was not the Branch Davidians.

Experts were driving those tanks and Bradleys. That is evident to anyone who has ever been at the controls of one of those beasts. FBI agents did not drive the tanks. Which means, simply, Army personnel assaulted American citizens.

Yes, there are quite a few questions to be answered, Rep. Hutchinson. But the question of who started the fire will be answered by the evidence withheld from the first round of Congressional hearings.

When the above simple questions are answered, Congress must then be prepared to immediately charge half of those testifying before previous Waco hearings with both contempt of Congress and perjury. The American people will demand at least that.

Now comes Attorney General Janet Reno's offer to former Senator John Claggett Danforth of Missouri to head an independent inquiry. Before entering the Senate (in 1976), he served as attorney general in Missouri for eight years. Evidently, that makes Danforth a skilled law enforcement officer to those in Washington.

Generally speaking, Danforth was a middle of the road liberal who supported big government in many ways. His two "conservative" strengths were his tendency to vote for lower taxes and strong national security. However, "independent" from the bowels of government he is not. He is a Washington insider and can be expected to conduct the investigation in a way that will not cause many waves. On the other hand, John Danforth is known by many to be an honest man.

The basic problem, as we see it, is that the "independent investigation" will be no more independent than Janet Reno wishes it to be. And, if Janet Reno wanted that information out, it would have been made public years ago.

Danforth will be reporting to Eric Holder at Justice -- big government personified. Holder is expected to try to block as much public disclosure as possible. Therefore, if we see grand jury testimony, rather than public hearings, we will know a typical Washington cover-up is in progress.

Right now, the best that we can hope for is that the outside "investigation" and the Congressional hearings feed on each other. That is, that they start different lines of inquiry early on and then share information and make it public. To insure this, we should start putting pressure on our Members of Congress immediately.

Look for Holder to cover up everything possible and block Danforth as much as he can. Because, if all the evidence ever leaks out, many in government will be out of work and some will be heading for prison.

That will probably not be allowed. Not unless we force it.

On September 3, 1999 at 8:06 p.m. ET, CNN ran this segment for the American public as "news."

-----------------------------

JIM MORET, CNN ANCHOR: Militia groups have long voiced conspiracy theories about the government's intentions at Waco. With the release of the FBI tapes, those theories and the militia movement are seeing a revival on the Internet.

CHARLES BIERBAUER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Waco became a warning cry for the militia. Many believed then it was a government conspiracy to wipe out a non-conformist sect. Now, they have the FBI tapes.

DEVIN BURGHART, CENTER FOR NEW COMMUNITY: A kind of propaganda victory, if you will. They're able to say, look, we were right all along about the situation, and it fuels their conspiracies about the federal government.

BIERBAUER: Militia Web sites reflect that.

The militia of Montana: "What do you want to bet the tactical uplink was being heard other than in the FBI headquarters, like in the White House situation room?"

Free Republic: "The whole truth needs to come out, including the crushed kids, and this continues to be covered up."

The news the FBI used potentially flammable grenades and some agents knew all along it had used them sustains the militia belief in other theories, Delta Force troops and armed helicopters.

<snip>

-----------------------------

Two things are very interesting with this report: First, millions of good Americans nationwide, who may or may not be part of a "Militia," were exactly correct all along. They were correct because they have abilities, and a logical thinking process, much more advanced than the big government proponents and apologists in the national media. This includes many Americans who have never even met a member of a Militia.

Second, we found it rather interesting that CNN mistakenly included Free Republic in with Militia groups. In fact, we found that comment so funny that we called Jim Robinson, the owner and operator of Free Republic, on the telephone.

Jim wasn't upset at all. Rather he, like us, just considered the source.

Jim's first comment resonated clearly: "I don't think I have ever even met someone in the Militia," he laughed.

And even if he had, what's the point? The truth is still the truth. That does not change, just because the national media is only now catching on to the Waco cover up and seems to be upset they got snookered.

With this and other stories, the national media let the American people down. That's the way it is. The national media has become complacent, part of the government system; and hence, part of the problem.

In matters of government, many in the national media are slow and uninformed. They are but "repeaters," not reporters. There are very few actual "journalists" left in this country. Most who claim the title are but purveyors of socialist propaganda.

Millions of Americans are beginning to realize that, with few exceptions, what is called news today is either a repeat of the liberal government line or what we called "entertainment" just a few years ago.

Nonetheless, this CNN report requires some clarification. The Free Republic web site provides a great service for those interested in reading and commenting on the news of the day. Waco is but one topic addressed there.

So, we asked Jim if he would like to "explain" the premise behind some of the comments on his Free Republic web site for Heads Up readers.

Below is Jim's written reply:

-----------------------------

Free Republic is a pro-Constitution and anti-corruption web site. We feel that, over the last century and a half, the federal government has illegally usurped power from the states and the people. The Constitution clearly enumerates the powers of the federal government and leaves all remaining powers with the states and in the hands of the people.

The framers feared an over-powering central government and so designed a system with three separate, but equal, branches with checks and balances to prevent usurpation and corruption. The Founders then left most of the responsibility and power for legislating and enforcing criminal law with the states.

The Waco tragedy is a prime example of an out- of-control government at its worst.

First of all, Congress has no power to infringe on the people's right to bear arms, or to assemble peaceably to practice their religion.

Second, the federal gun laws are unconstitutional, as are the federal tobacco and drug laws. The Constitution was not intended to give the federal government the power to write laws restricting the people's use of arms, tobacco and drugs; much less the power to maintain an armed police agency such as the BATF.

[NOTE: When the federal government wanted to prohibit intoxicating liquors, in 1918, they did it the correct way: by passing an Amendment to the Constitution authorizing federal regulation. No such Constitutional Amendment yet exists for federal regulation of personal firearms, tobacco or drugs. Therefore, the federal government has no such authority-- ed.]

Third, using the military in the enforcement of civilian law is also prohibited.

Thus, the illegal warrant should never have been written or approved, a federal police force should never have been used to serve it, the military should never have been used to enforce it and the federal government has no Constitutional power to legislate or enforce laws of this nature in the state of Texas.

Had the government simply abided by the Constitution, these innocent men, women and children would not have been burned and/or shot to death and American citizens would not be living in fear of our own government today.

We "right-wing wackos" on the Internet have known all this for years and we are trying to get the word out to the people that the government and their wholly owned propaganda arm (otherwise known as the major media) have been brainwashing the American people for years. Every agency of the government uses propaganda to justify and expand their illegal powers and control over us and to cover-up their own influence peddling, crime and corruption.

The FBI/BATF's crimes and resulting cover-up of the Waco massacre is certainly no surprise to us. Our interest has not been revived nor opinions vindicated with recently published Waco information. We have never lost sight of the truth.

What we are now is more determined than ever to get these illegal powers, laws and agencies repealed, abolished, rescinded and/or shut down forever -- and to restore our Liberty and faith in our Constitutional form of government.

-----------------------------

Wander over to Free Republic and look around. The site can be a bit overwhelming at first. But, as a repository for current information from many sources, it is unprecedented. The well written "help" section will walk you through any problems you may have maneuvering in the web site. http://www.freerepublic.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, GR Force and FRON, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 2003 by Forest Glen Durland, subject to Fiedor's rights.

hu151.htm. Revised 5-20-03. uhuh, GR Force and FRON are non-profit.