Heads Up
A Weekly edition of News from around our country
April 4, 1997 #29
by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net
----------------------------------------------------------
Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html
----------------------------------------------------------
BECAUSE PEOPLE CARE
The White House was "sold for ILLEGAL
FOREIGN CASH" including money from "Red China, which
still considers itself a Communist country!" the letter
said. "Thousands of American soldiers have lost their
lives in the fight against the evil system of Communism.
And now the FBI is investigating a sitting U.S.
president's National Party Committee for accepting
ILLEGAL FOREIGN CASH from the world's strongest
remaining Communist regime!"
Furthermore, the letter requests recipients
to sign a "Declaration to the President" stating that "I
hereby demand that President Clinton fully disclose all
illegal foreign cash activities" and that he "stop
selling out America to foreign nationals."
Another appeal from the "far right"? Nope!
Not this time folks. Those words came from a fund-
raising letter that was mailed in mid-March to 240,000
potential donors. And, to date, the letter was also
printed in five conservative magazines.
The author of the letter, Senator Mitch
McConnell (R-KY), is Chairman of the National Republican
Senatorial Committee -- the main fund-raising body for
Senate Republicans. And it looks like the Republican
Party committee is breaking fund-raising records this
year.
Because, McConnell is right! The
administration sold out, and the American people know
it. So, exploiting the Democrats' campaign financing
troubles is a highly successful way to go.
Within two days, the letter brought in money
and support from more than 22,000 people. Last week
alone, over 120,000 people responded.
As we have repeatedly said in this newsletter,
folks, the American people are starting to pay attention.
Bet on it!
GUN RIGHTS
Regardless of the attempts by a national
alliance of socialists -- fronted primarily by Handgun
Control Inc., and supported by a very misguided religious
group and a whole host of major businesses -- to deprive
Americans of their natural right to self defense, many
states now issue concealed carry weapons permits.
Crooks and miscreants, of course, do not
apply for CCW permits. Honest people, those wanting to
protect themselves from the crooks and miscreants, are
the ones applying for the permits.
The authoritarian-type control-freaks in
government protest allowing honest Americans the exercise
of this right, of course. Funny thing about that, too.
Most of the people making the most protest noise are the
very ones who, themselves, are carrying guns.
Apparently, they are secure in their unfair advantage
over the average citizen and want to keep it that way.
In New Jersey, some police departments do
not wish to issue permits. So, they don't. Libertarians
filed a lawsuit to force local police departments to stop
their foot-dragging, but it failed in court. The court's
opinion is quite interesting, too: "in New Jersey, police
do not have to issue or deny gun permits within 30 days,
even though a state law requires them to do so." Typical!
Kentucky's CCW permit law recently went
into effect. And, like New Jersey, some Kentucky police
chiefs also resent citizens carrying guns. However, they
do not get a vote on the issue. CCW licenses in Kentucky
are issued by an elected official, the County Sheriff.
Consequently, except for the initial rush to get the
license, there have been few problems.
In Kentucky, applicants are "across the
board" and "all ages," reports say. A State Police
report issued last week said that permit-holders seem to
be "staying out of trouble." The naysayers have even
toned it down somewhat.
Because, it is true: In every state where
CCW permits are issued, crime went down and there was
surprisingly little problem with citizens carrying
weapons. Indeed, a politically incorrect Department of
Justice report that may or may not be released clearly
shows that armed off-duty police officers use their
weapons inappropriately something like ten times more
frequently than armed citizens.
CONGRESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
"Congressional Responsibility" is almost an
oxymoron. They pawn-off everything they can to boards,
commissions, agencies, and what have you. To make a
decision, to actually take a stand on an issue, is to
loose votes. And, that could put them out of a cushy job.
Professional politicians will do everything
possible to stay in power. Therefore, they must pick
and choose their "positions" very carefully. That is
also why they do not pay much attention to that paper
document known as the Constitution. To do so would not
always be politically expedient.
So, it's with pleasant surprise that "The
Congressional Responsibility Act of 1997," (HR 1036) is
gaining some attention. The purpose of the act is, as
the name implies, to force Congress to comply with its
Constitutional role. As Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) states in
his "Freedom Watch Update" newsletter:
"Article One of the Constitution limits the
power to make certain laws solely to Congress. But the
[current] practice has been very different. Congress has
all but abdicated the real law-making authority to the
alphabet soup of federal agencies. These agencies -- like
the IRS, the EPA, the Department of Education, Health and
Human Services, the Labor Department, etc. -- make rules
which carry the full effect of law. These rules affect
the minute details of the lives of individuals in every
aspect of life, yet no elected official -- accountable to
the voters and taxpayers -- sees the rules or has any
part of the process. It's now time for this to change.
These bureaucratic dictators need to be reigned in; and
only Congress can do it.
"This legislation will end the arbitrary
rule-making authority of agencies. When an agency
decides a rule is 'needed' for whatever reason, they will
be required to submit that rule to the House and Senate.
Those two bodies will debate the rule, just like any
other piece of legislation, and then vote on it. If it
passes, the rule goes into effect. If the vote fails,
the rule does not go into effect."
Yes!
And the same thing should apply to executive
orders. Congress, and no one else, is responsible for
making law. It is hard enough to keep up with what the
conniving socialists in Congress are doing. It is
impossible for citizens to keep track of the lawmaking of
thousands of control-freaks working in at least 112
different federal agencies too. Yet, each and every
action of any and all of these bodies can adversely
affect our lives.
Worse, we are legally bound to obey all
these stupid rules and regulations, even the hundred or
more that contradict other agency rules and/or federal
laws.
This is definitely not what was intended by
the Founding Fathers; and, everyone in Washington knows
that.
While we're at it, there is a law already on
the books that Congress is skidding away from like a hot
coal down an icy hill. This one is the "Congressional
Review Act.
The 1996 Congressional Review Act gives
Congress the ability to scrutinize and expunge all new
regulations, rules, policy statements, and guidelines
issued by executive agencies. Except, no one in Congress
has yet had the cajones to use it! To do so might
require that some of them make a decision.
For instance, there are at least forty
Members of Congress publicly against the new (and totally
ridiculous) EPA clean air regulations. But, not one
Member of Congress is actually working to stop the
administration's new round of oppression.
Not one.
A WET TACKLE
It may have been a quick tackle by alert
guards in Providence, RI the other day; but alas, it was
too late. George "King Animal" Perry scored a wet one on
the court.
It must have been a wet tackle, too, cause
Perry was peeing at the time. Peeing, as in urinating,
that is. Right on the floor of the court!
Oh . . . and perhaps we should explain that
this was Federal Court. And the "guards" were federal
marshals guarding the court.
Twenty-two year old Perry and 6 other Latin
King members, you see, were being tried for murder, drug
dealing and extortion.
Anyway, after about an hour of listening to
the prosecutor's closing argument, Perry asked his lawyer
if he could go to the bathroom. The lawyer passed a note
to the judge, who then called a bench conference.
While the lawyers were talking at the bench,
Perry stood up, turned his back to the jury, unzipped,
and let 'er rip. . . . That was when the marshals
tackled him.
The judge called a recess and ordered Perry
banished to a cell for the rest of the trial. However,
after lunch Perry apologized to the court. The judge
chewed him out a little, but allowed him to stay.
Defense attorneys for the other five then thought this
an opportune time to ask for a mistrial. They argued that
the incident had prejudiced the jury. Their motion was
denied.
No word on the sentences given the six yet.
But, somehow we get the feeling that a little contempt of
court charge added on will not make a bit of difference.
PAYOLA AND PAYBACK
It's kind of funny to watch the press and
members of both political parties carry on the way they
do. Outwardly, they are expressing horror that the
Chinese may have tried to use covert campaign donations
to influence American policy and political campaigns.
What a bunch of hypocrites!
How many countries continually meddle in our
political affairs? Israel spends at least $100-million
annually doing that in one form or another. Japan spends
millions, too. And don't forget Taiwan.
Those are the more obvious countries competing
for American lawmaker's attention. Most countries are in
that mix somewhere, and with some amount of money.
And how has the United States been meddling in
other nations' internal affairs over the years? Whew!
Wouldn't that be a long list. . . .
In every budget, Congress appropriates many
millions of dollars in covert and overt money to use in
influencing domestic politics abroad. The CIA alone
spends $30 million a year supporting things like political
parties, dissident movements and labor unions in dozens
of countries -- including China. There's no telling how
much of that is out and out bribes or political pay-offs.
So, is there any surprise when the money trail leads
both ways? Most foreign governments and businesses have
become quite good at laundering money to "contribute" to
our public officials in Washington. It's all technically
illegal, of course. But, as the Democrats are so fond of
saying lately: "So what! Everyone does it."
And indeed, it's true. Most of them do. Because
they need the money. The end justifies the means. This
is politics American style. Laws? "Oh yeah. Well. . . ."
But now China might have spoiled it for
everyone. China didn't use enough "cut-outs," adequate
layers of money laundering in between their government
and our politicians, to make the money look respectable.
Worse, they gave a lot of the money directly to two moles
they had working in our government. One would think
that the Chinese would at least be bright enough to hire
a few lobbyists, and set up a couple front organizations,
like other governments do.
There are two other major problems, too.
First, China is the only avidly Communist country
attempting to effect our elections with political payola.
And second, China is the only country powerful enough to
sustain a war with us that is also buying influence with
our politicians. These reasons alone tend to bump the
Chinese contributions from the "so what" to the "serious
problem" column in Washington.
But the fact still remains: Many foreign
governments, and many foreign business concerns, lobby
Congress and the executive branch every day. Ninety-
percent of them also contribute heavily to political
campaigns, and whatever. Ten to one, we do it in their
country too.
So it's outrageous, hypocritical, and down
right funny, when politicians and the media point the
finger at China without so much as a mention of the other
countries and their permanent Washington lobbies.
Oh, and by the way, it is supposedly illegal
for a foreign government to lobby our government,
except through diplomatic channels.
Sure it is!
UNIFORMS
For various reasons that need not be related
here, black uniforms bother me.
Uniforms are worn for one reason: Recognition.
That is, the civilian police usually wear blue, brown or
khaki uniforms, and the military branches wear their
easily distinguished dress. And, as has been the case
for over 200 years, civilians could always instantly tell
the police from the military.
But, today, some police wear war-suits. That is,
they tend to dress in clothing which is identical to
military personnel while at war. Worse, they often leave
off anything identifying them as police officers.
Worse yet, some local and federal police -- and
military -- have begun to wear unmarked black uniforms!
When meeting up with such a person, how are
we to know who he is? How would you tell "friend or foe"
with no markings? Clearly, a citizen cannot; and herein
lies the problem. While dressed in black garb, the
person cannot be, and would not be, dressed in a uniform.
Black is not a police uniform. Nor is black a military
uniform. What, then, is that person? A spy? A thug?
Calling various police agencies did not help.
None contacted admitted to authorizing use of a "black"
uniform while on duty. So, our next stop was the military.
For this, we asked "The Sergeant," who retired
after a career in the Army. Surely, if the military
allowed black uniforms, a retired First Sergeant and
instructor would know about it. Below is his report.
---------------------------
Today's BDU "fatigues" are the standard daily
uniform worn under normal garrison duty and into combat.
They are designed as a pair of trousers, woodland
camouflage in color and design, which are bloused into the
combat boots which today take various forms depending on
geography, and occasionally MOS and command decision.
These trousers are worn in conjunction with a tunic of
the same color and design as the trousers, but it is not
a blouse and can be called either a jacket or a tunic.
It cannot be worn tucked in the trousers. The trousers
consist of 6 pockets, 2 front and 2 hip as usual, but
with 1 large bellows pocket on each outer lateral thigh
with the top of the pocket flap beginning at the center
of the Greater Trocanter, or hip joint, and ending just
below the knee joint.
According to Army Regulation (AR) 670-1, as
updated on 1 September 1992, the only black uniform
authorized in the Army is the Black Mess Uniform, which
is the Army's equivalent of a civilian tuxedo. However,
the Black Mess Uniform is not completely black. The
blouse to be worn with it is white.
I have found a few changes in uniforms
since I was in the service. The BDU is not only one
material now, it is made in a summer and a heavier winter
variety. But the camouflage pattern is identical
woodland pattern. Today, the DBDU (desert BDU) is also
authorized for wear in certain western states and
specified overseas posts.
The only authorization I could find for wearing
any uniform not specified in the Regulation was:
Chapter 1, Paragraph 10, sub-paragraph g, (which is a
catch-all for the Armed Forces, and similar paragraphs
can be found in most all Regulations.)
It states "Soldiers may wear experimental
uniform items while actively engaged in an experimental
uniform test program approved by HQ, U.S. Army Training
and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), HQ, U.S. Army Materiel
Command (AMC), or the Army Clothing and Equipment Board,
HQDA. Experimental Items may not be worn after completion
of the test unless approval is obtained from HQDA
(Headquarters, Department of the Army). Other than that,
no black fatigue uniforms are supposed to be authorized
for our troops.
One interesting aside, however. I decided to check
out the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice. I found
no untoward references to the uniform but, when I asked
about uniform and apparel cases, I was informed by the
librarian that the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces,
General Shalikasvili (or whatever) has ordered that the
UCMJ and AR 670-1 be amended to allow for wear of other
uniform items previously foreign to our soldiers, and
that the UCMJ be amended to allow for prosecuting
soldiers who refuse to serve under foreign officers.
So far, I have no proof that this really is the
case, but I have heard it before this in connection with
the Michael New case.
When a soldier goes into any situation wearing
any except the proscribed uniform, you can bet a beer
that his existence, as well as his mission, will be denied
if he is killed or captured.
I'll further bet you a beer that any US military
person wearing a black uniform will be bereft of dogtags,
ID, or any other form of identification and that, if he
is overseas in conflict, an addendum was tagged to his
official 201 file listing him as AWOL or a deserter
(probably without his knowledge).
He believes himself to be on an officially
sanctioned mission but the powers that be will show that
any actions taken if he is captured or killed were of his
own volition. It has happened that these soldiers, if
their bodies are retrieved before the enemy gets to them,
will be 'recycled' in a variety of ways and their deaths
usually attributed to a "training" accident.
-- "The Sergeant"
CHINA NO-SPEAK
China is playing word games now. Beijing
does not like to be criticized, so they went before the
U.N. Commission to warn that any nation publicly
condemning their human rights record may suffer.
"If at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights,
there is no confrontation, then China can begin dialogues
on human rights with every country," the Chinese minister
told reporters. "But if there is confrontation, then I'm
afraid that there will be no basis for dialogue."
Got that? The Chinese foreign minister said
that China will not talk about human rights at the U.N.
with any other government that talks about China's human
rights at the U.N.
So, what does our guy do? He wimps out!
This week, U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson
told the U.N. Commission that Washington still wants a
condemning resolution, although it preferred the
Europeans to take the lead.
Typical! The Democratic National Committee
is short on money right now. They can't be rocking the
boat with China just yet. So, Richardson wants someone
else to do the dirty work for him.
"In China, cases of people who criticize the
government and receive legal punishment or are convicted
do not exist," the minister said. "All were convicted
because they engaged in certain activities that broke the
relevant laws."
Yeah. All eight-million of them.
Christians, especially.
-- End --