Heads Up

A Weekly edition of News from around our country

January 17, 1997 #18

by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net

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

Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html

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

MORE GUN GRABS

They've got what it takes to take what you

got, folks. Congress, that is. And apparently, the

gun-grabbers found another Congressional patsy to submit

their new oppressive laws in The House. Michigan's Rep.

John Conyers has already submitted two new anti-gun

bills: HR 115 and HR 116.

The first bill is "To prohibit the transfer of a

firearm to, and the possession of a firearm by, a person

who is intoxicated." The term "intoxicated" applies to

both drugs and alcohol, and the standard is set at the

same level necessary for an impaired driving arrest.

The bill outlaws the transfer or "possession" of

a firearm to or by anyone impaired by the use of drugs or

alcohol. And, incidentally, there is no exception for

police officers.

What, exactly, is "possession" here? Ah ha!

We do not know. It could be anything the BATF says it is.

This is a rather interesting bill for an inner-city

representative to submit -- and, especially John Conyers

of Detroit. About a quarter of the Detroit police head

for the local watering hole every day after their shift.

If this bill passes, they will have to disarm themselves

first.

Yeah; sure they will!

And by the way John: The way you wrote the

bill, being high on marijuana would count too. . . .

The second bill, HR 116, is even stranger,

considering where Conyers lives within the city of

Detroit. You see, full automatic gunfire is as common as

single shots fired in the Conyers neighborhood. And,

there's quite a lot of both.

Regardless, the "Gun Safety Act" is targeted at

getting the inexpensive "Saturday Night Specials" off the

streets. Among other silliness, HR 116 states that a

pistol is a junk gun unless it can "prevent a child of

less than 7 years of age from discharging the firearm by

reason of the amount of strength, dexterity, cognitive

skill, or other ability required to cause a discharge."

One would think that Rep. Conyers would

know a little more about handguns than this. You see,

folks, one of the most popular sidearms for police

nowadays is the Glock. And, the strength necessary to

fire the Glock is probably less than any other quality

handgun -- certainly much less than the pistols Conyers

implies are "junk guns."

Therefore, we cannot help but wonder if this

was just the babbling of the uninformed, or an

intentional ploy.

The bill also says that it shall be "unlawful

for a person to transfer or possess a junk gun" beginning

"on the date that is 1 year after the date of the

enactment of this Act."

However, junk to Congress is a tool to others.

So, there is an exception for police officers and

government agencies within HR 116. The police, and

federal agents, will get to keep their hide-out (and

throw away?) guns. It's just us normal folk that might

have to give them up.

THEY BRAG ABOUT THIS

In an administration press release last week,

the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) -- a

federal agency that encourages private investment in

Russia and some 140 other developing nations and emerging

markets worldwide -- announced that: ". . . since 1971,

OPIC has supported $107.8 billion worth of investments

that will [maybe, someday] generate $52.8 billion in U.S.

exports and create more than 225,000 American jobs."

Right! And they act like they're proud of this,

too. But, as with most government programs, anytime you

run the numbers, you want to snatch their checkbook away

from them.

Figure it out: They have supported $107.8-billion

in investments for a return of 225,000 American jobs.

Damn good of 'em, isn't it! That makes the jobs worth

$479,000.00 each.

Obviously, this is not a very good return on

investment.

If you've got the stomach for it, you can find the

full report at: gopher://198.80.36.82:70/00s/current/

news/latest/97011002.wlt

TOTAL HANDGUN REGISTRATION

Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings is going after

American handguns big time. His HR 186 calls for

complete registration of all handguns in the country

within 2 years of enactment of the bill.

Failure to register any and all handguns

requires the first time scofflaw to be "imprisoned not

less than 1 year." Or, for serious violators, "the

violator shall be imprisoned not less than 12 years."

A "serious" violator is listed as anyone with "2

or more of the following conditions:" Two or more

unregistered handguns. Or, a "high caliber" handgun --

"greater than 0.22." Or, anyone previously convicted of

a felony. Or, the handgun "was readily accessible to the

violator at the time of the violation."

Later in the bill, Hastings evidently changes his

mind though. Section 3 sets the penalty for failure to

register at a fine of "not more than $250,000, imprisoned

not less than 15 years, or both." And, the court may not

suspend a sentence, or impose a probationary sentence.

Obviously, Rep. Hastings has had a rather

limited existence. This bill, were it to become law,

would make about 50% of the population of quite a few

states "serious" violators. Tell them so.

HATE GROUP FUNDING

The "Hate Group Public Funding Exclusion

Act," HR 207, presents a very interesting scenario. It

authorizes the Secretary of HUD to "make organizations

controlled by individuals who promote prejudice or bias

based on race, religion, or ethnicity ineligible for

assistance" under government programs.

So, if the bill passes, the Secretary of HUD will

have the power to cut off "any contract, grant, loan,

cooperative agreement, insurance or guarantee of a loan,

mortgage, or pool of mortgages, or other form of

financial assistance." In other words, anyone can be cut

off. Just list them as a member of a hate group.

Now, taken on face value, this isn't really a bad

idea. There are quite a few organizations receiving

government funds that quite obviously work against one or

more segments of society. So, they should be cut off

from taxpayer funding.

Great! So who gets to pick the organizations?

Not us, obviously. "The Secretary shall determine"!

Well, read between the lines here, folks. "The Secretary"

will then need to investigate all groups to determine

which could be hate groups. And, the Secretary would

also need to keep good records on such groups so as to be

able to prove the accusation in court.

As written, this bill is devoid of guidelines.

Therefore, it provides great latitude for oppressive

political mischief by the Secretary of HUD. For that

reason, it should be put in the round file.

A LETTER TO NEWT

Mister Speaker, twice recently, you have

stood up publicly and admitted that there may have been

mistakes made in the way you financed your series of

political science college classes.

The determination that those contributing

intentionally sent money for the production of that

series of lessons should be sufficient to all. The

arguments about the use of a specific funding mechanism,

however, are understandable by less than one American out

of one-hundred-thousand, and are therefore only confusing

the issue. So, enough already! End this "ethics" fiasco

going on in the House.

I found the lessons I saw to be excellent. My

only question about your political science lessons is

this: When do we actually get that type of government?

As you know, less than 30% of the American

voters trust today's federal government. There are

dozens of well-founded reasons for this mistrust.

For instance, America watched members of

the administrative branch testify before Congress last

year, and obviously lie. Yet, nothing was done. America

watched the testimony in the Waco and Ruby Ridge

hearings. Nothing was done when witnesses lied there,

either. Where was "ethics" then? Where was justice?

This is an ongoing situation. Members of

Congress regularly lie to the press and to the public.

And, members of other branches of government regularly

lie to Congress, and to the people. Why, then, should we

believe any of you? The fact is, we seldom do.

Still, most of us were quite happy to see the

Republicans take over Congress two years ago. We

expected great changes. You started out with a bang.

But, then came HR 666, HR 1710, and the others, and we

felt like we were kicked in the teeth. We looked to you

for freedom. What we ended up with was even more

oppression of our individual liberties.

The next great leader in this country will be

one who practices what you teach: Individual rights,

individual liberty. Freedom. You teach the doctrine of

the Founding Fathers. All we ask is that you also

legislate as if you were a Founding Father.

But first, exert your rightful power as Speaker

of the House and end this juvenile display of political

treachery. All of America now knows that Rep, Jim

McDermott committed a serious felony offense. Any of us

committing that crime would have already been taken away

in handcuffs. Therefore, the least you should do is to

immediately expel him from the House.

Most of America also knows that Rep. Bonior is

little more than a conniving fool. He too should be

swiftly punished. For the good of our country, you must

define the difference between freedom of speech and

public lies by an elected official -- and set strict

penalties for the latter.

Mister Speaker, it is time that you brought

your Speaker's Mace to the floor of the House of

Representatives and did a little House cleaning. For, if

those like McDermott -- obvious felons -- go without

swift punishment, how in the world can you ever expect

the average American citizen to respect either Congress

or any of its laws?

And when that simple task is accomplished,

Mister Speaker, please practice what you preach and start

on resurrecting the more difficult: Our liberty.

EX POST FACTO LAWS

It seems unbelievable that any of our

representatives in Congress would think an amendment to

the Constitution is necessary to prevent retroactive

laws, but at least one does. H.J. Res. 18 is a

"'Citizen's Tax Protection Amendment', proposing an

amendment to the Constitution of the United States to

prohibit retroactive taxation."

The proposed amendment declares: "Congress

shall pass no law increasing taxes or fees which takes

effect prior to its enactment."

This amendment is unnecessary. Our

Constitution already has an ex post facto provision.

What is apparently necessary is a law or Constitutional

amendment to immediately imprison any Member of Congress

proposing a bill that is contrary to the Constitution.

For more on retroactive laws, see the

December 20, 1996 issue (#14) of "Heads Up."

KEEPING SLICK

We certainly hope that a Member of Congress

is not trying to pave the way for the Clinton, Clinton &

Gore team to run for another term. But, one

representative may be intending just that.

Rep. Serrano introduced a joint resolution

(H.J. Res. 19) to repeal the Twenty-Second Amendment, and

"thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms

an individual may serve as President."

Yeah! That's all we need; another term for

the Slickster & Co. The Clintons already think of

themselves as the new Roosevelts. The administration

pushes socialism, loads us down with regulations, and

stresses strong federal enforcement of everything. In

fact, the Clintons even mimic the Roosevelts in their

personal lives. . . .

No, what we need is strict term limits for

everyone in government -- Congressional aids included.

Therefore, this resolution is dead on arrival.

BIG BROTHER GOES DIGITAL

Two years ago, the FBI informed Congress

that it needed equipment to tap 1,500,000 American

telephones simultaneously. That, of course, raised a few

eyebrows around the country. You see, the request for

the ability to bug one and a half million American

telephones was up just a tad from the 1993 actual

wiretaps. There were just under 1,200 wiretaps for all

police departments, in all of the United States combined,

in 1993. . . .

But Congress, being overpopulated with

ex-prosecutors and lawyers, gave the Department of

Justice a big chunk of money to develop the new spying

equipment anyway. Furthermore, Congress also mandated

that telephone companies cooperate by building into their

new digital equipment systems a means for government to

quickly tap into citizens' telephones.

In a surprise move last week, the FBI lowered

its wiretap requirements considerably. Now, they say

they want the ability to bug 60,000 American telephones

simultaneously. Towards that end, the FBI is demanding

that telephone companies quickly retrofit their new

digital equipment.

Why the change of heart? Who knows, really.

But, in practice, the FBI does not currently have the

personnel to do even a thousand standard wiretaps

simultaneously. On the other hand, the price recently

came down on some very good automated computer

equipment. And, the FBI's friends in the National

Security Agency have extensive experience using that type

of computer equipment to scan telephone conversations.

So, we can probably look for the sixty-

thousand number to rise back up to one-million (or more)

as soon as this trial run is completed.

REPAIR JOB

Georgia Rep. Bob Barr introduced a bill

(HR 26) to "provide that the firearms prohibition

applicable by reason of a domestic violence misdemeanor

conviction do not apply if the conviction occurred before

the prohibitions became law."

HR 26 is an attempt at a fix of a gun grab

Congress perpetrated on the American public in the

Domestic Confiscation gun law passed late last year.

Really though, it would have been much better to repeal

the complete law.

This "fix" presents a problem. With that

retroactive clause, the Domestic Confiscation law was

clearly unconstitutional and would have been killed by

the courts eventually. If HR 26 passes, all bets are off

for the courts knocking out the rest of the law.

A bill we should support is HR 27, the

"Citizen's Self-Defense Act of 1997." The intent of the

bill is: "To protect the right to obtain firearms for

security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family,

or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such

right."

The bill also provides for attorney's fees

and injunctive relief if a citizens rights under this

bill are violated by an agent of government. That's a

very welcome sight.

IT WASN'T LIBERAL

House Ethics Committee Special Counsel

James Cole gave his public report on Speaker Newt

Gingrich today. And what a shame it was!

Stripping the pure unadulterated gobbledygook

concerning tax exempt organizations from the report, there

was a very strong lesson for those of us working towards

a Constitutional form of government. Let's examine some

of what the Ethics Committee told us today:

First, the teaching of the history of the United

States, from the viewpoint of the Founding Fathers, is no

longer an acceptable activity for a tax exempt

organization. Second, teaching the ideals of freedom and

liberty professed by the Founding Fathers is also no

longer a practice allowable to a tax exempt organization.

Liberals, of course, freely teach their socialism

in every tax exempt college and university in the

country. So too, do tax exempt labor unions, and dozens

of far-left activist organizations. That's different!

It is the teaching of those concepts which originally

made this country great that now seem to be forbidden for

tax exempt organizations.

How in hell did this country get so far to the left that

unless you teach socialism you are attacked? For, dear

reader, that is exactly what this is all about.

What Cole said, using a few thousand words

of lawyer-speak, was: "Hey Newt! We do not like your

politics, and we do not like you teaching this Founding

Fathers stuff. So, we're taking you down." And so they

did!

And, the tax implications for the funding?

That law is so screwed-up that five different Washington

tax attorneys gave five different opinions. The IRS, by

the way, originally approved the funding scheme.

No matter if we like Speaker of the House

Newt Gingrich personally, or not. This action by the

ethics Committee is an affront to all Americans who

support our Constitution.

-- End --