Heads Up

A Weekly edition of News from around our country

April 11, 1997 #30

by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net

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

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

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

MUSING ON LIBERTY

Thanks to a thought provoking letter from an

author/talk show host/ journalist/Heads Up reader this

week, an interesting revolution concerning liberty came

to mind.

We Americans do not know what Liberty is! We

(those of us under 80) have never experienced real liberty

in our lifetime.

Oh sure, Roosevelt didn't start bringing actual

socialism to the United States until after 1933. But even

the adults living then did not realize the true benefits

of a fully Constitutional form of government because they

were living during a depression.

Academically, in concept, we know what Liberty

and a Constitutional form of government means. Yeah, in

theory we know. But not practically. In reality, we

Americans have no experience with the freedom intended by

the Founding Fathers, and we have no one to tell us about

it.

As a country, we are missing our "institutional

memory" concerning liberty and freedom. Hence, we have

no real idea of exactly what we are missing, were the

federal government to be operated Constitutionally.

Isn't that a bummer! We have zero practical experience

with liberty. We're Americans. Yet, we have never once

lived under that Constitutional form of government

designed for us by the Founding Fathers.

Hey! No wonder we don't miss it. None of us

have ever seen it. No wonder there are no riots in the

streets demanding the return of Liberty. We cannot ask for

the "return" of something we have never had. And no wonder

the government feels free to control everything in our

lives from womb to tomb. None of us are doing much

complaining about it.

This has been going on so long, most Americans

actually think government is supposed to do things that

way.

The Constitution? Oh yeah; that's that old

document kept under glass in Washington. The problem is,

we Americans can no longer remember exactly what it was

for.

Just as an aside here: We at "Heads Up" would

honestly like to have a shot at living under a truly

Constitutional form of government. We would like to try

life with all of those individual rights and liberties

George Washington, James Madison and the guys at the

Constitutional Convention intended for us.

What do you think?

A MEMORIAL TO OPPRESSION

They're building a monument to socialism on the

National Mall in Washington. OK, so they're not calling

it that, exactly. But, nevertheless, it is.

Actually, it's the FDR Memorial -- scheduled

for public dedication ceremonies May 2. Yeah, the

president most responsible for debasing, disobeying,

ignoring, and damn near totally trashing our Constitution

now gets a public memorial in Washington to celebrate his

actions!

Roosevelt was told numerous times that the

government control programs he wanted were out an out

socialism and, of course, unconstitutional. When, by

knocking down a whole series of Roosevelt sponsored laws,

the United States Supreme Court officially told FDR that

his programs were totally unconstitutional, FDR actually

attempted to reconfigure the Court itself.

The Constitution be damned. Roosevelt wanted

complete control of all commerce in the country. And,

unfortunately, he got it. Talk about real socialism, the

FDR administration had so much control over the lives of

Americans they could even regulate what and how much a

single small farmer could grow on his own property for

personal consumption.

FDR is the person most responsible for making

possible those 112+ alphabet agencies in Washington.

Roosevelt is the person most responsible for making

possible that huge bookcase full of thick rule and

regulation books. Hence, it is Roosevelt, through his

total disregard for the style of government designed by

the Founding Fathers, who is most responsible for the womb

to tomb federal regulation of every facet of our lives!

But, there's more yet. Remember Pearl Harbor?

Roosevelt wanted in on World War II but Congress

would not authorize it. Therefore, he allowed the

Japanese Navy to attack Pearl Harbor.

Sure, it's true that he did not personally steer

the Japanese Navy over to Pearl Harbor. Nor did he

personally ask them to attack. But, he had plenty of

advance information that the Japanese were intending to

attack. And what did Roosevelt do with this information?

He kept it secret. He sat on it! He did not warn our

American military.

As a result, thousands of American Military

personnel were killed at the "sneak attack" of Pearl

Harbor. Dozens of American war-ships were sunk at Pearl

Harbor. Why? Only because FDR refused to inform the

troops that attack was imminent.

Nice guy.

But none of this seems important to the socialist

miscreants in Washington. Instead, today's debate in

Washington is whether FDR should be depicted as disabled

or not. Who cares!

The only honest depiction of FDR would be of

him disabling the United States Constitution. The only

real depiction of Roosevelt would be as a socialist.

Let's get practical about this situation: As

they open the a Memorial for the first American dictator,

the first American socialist, in the City named for our

first American President, perhaps we should stand back

and think about this FDR character a bit. For instance,

based on the above text, what do you think George

Washington would do to FDR, were he able to get his hands

on him?

An FDR Memorial, indeed! Put it in Red Square.

ANOTHER GUN STUDY

Here they go again! Look for the leftist-liberal

conspiracy in media to pump this story up soon.

The New York Times reports that, "A new congressional

study using data from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms shows that a handful of states, most

in the South, with weak gun control laws are responsible

for supplying a large percentage of the guns used in

crimes in other states."

The piece said that "four states -- Florida,

Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas -- accounted for a

quarter of all guns seized that were acquired outside the

state where they were used in crimes."

However, when you read down to the third

paragraph, you see just how useful the data really is.

The report, prepared by the staff of Rep. Charles Schumer

(D-N.Y.), also found that "gunrunners use major Interstate

highways as their smuggling routes," especially I-95,

which runs from southern Florida to points north.

Now, to add a little humor this week, here's the

main quote from Chuckie Schumer. But remember, Chuckie

is one of the most obnoxious and prejudiced Members of

Congress. In this nut's mind, anyone not living in New

York is little more than excess baggage to be tolerated.

He's so self-centered that, to him, the whole of the rest

of the country is expected to kowtow and conform to

whatever it is that New York City wants.

Schumer said the report was "the first study

that shows conclusively that gun control works for the

simple reason that states with weak gun control laws are

exporting guns to states with tough gun control laws."

What a nitwit! States with "weak gun control laws"

have much less crime than places like New York City. One

reason for that fact is that New York has a far greater

number of undomesticated street Cretans per capita than

anyplace in the country -- except maybe Washington, D.C.

Should this be the problem of the law-abiding people of

other states?

Also, as an old judge from down in the hills

once related when we commented on his area's low crime

rate: "People tend to not bother one another here.

Everyone has a gun. It's only the visitors, the ones who

don't know any better, we have to watch."

Read that quote again, folks, and heed the words

of a wise old man who was a sitting judge for a very long

time. The real United States of America is right there,

in those very few words!

And so it is in many areas throughout our

country. Yet, these socialist morons like Charles Schumer

would make all of the country like New York City or the

District of Colombia if given half the chance.

Two-hundred and twelve years ago, The Founding

Fathers realized full well that people and situations were

different throughout the country. They knew perfectly

well that one law could not and would not fit all

throughout the country equally. The Constitution was

designed to reflect that -- and it was further reiterated

explicitly in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

It's the idiots in today's government who can't seem to

understand why a strictly limited central government was

intended!

CRIME WAVE

Anyone hear about a "crime wave" on the

Internet? According to the FBI, there is one. Someplace.

This week, there was a warning about the Internet's

"dark side" from FBI Director Louis Freeh. And -- now get

this -- he said public awareness of child pornography in

cyberspace is just as important as law enforcement efforts

to battle it.

FBI Louie has obviously been taking lessons

from Slick Willie. You know, like when Slick sees an

explosion in drug trafficking during his watch, then goes

after tobacco instead. . . .

Speaking of Slick . . . FBI Louie has enough

crime and corruption in and around the White House to

keep his people busy for two or three years. Because,

the fact is that his organization is the one directly

responsible for allowing all of the secure documents and

information to leak out of there. And that's without even

mentioning the 900+ secret files his people sent over to

the White House illegally.

Freeh said that parents and guardians should

forbid children from sending personal information over the

Internet, and urged parents to become familiar with the

on-line services youngsters use. Parents also shouldn't

let kids meet alone with anyone they met through computer

networks.

See, that's why he gets the big bucks, folks! He

gives us all this good, important information.

"People and things are not what they seem on the

Internet," FBI Louie told the Senate Appropriations

subcommittee that oversees funding of the Justice

Department, the parent agency of the FBI. He got that

right! Everything on the Internet is, in fact,

"little e's": electrons. It's real all right, but not

in the sense that you can grab it. Or, in his case,

arrest it.

Seriously, FBI Louie went over to talk with

Congress to see if he can get "more resources." Which

means, more of our tax money. He wants $10-million a

year more so his guys can monitor on-line chat rooms.

Really! $10-million annually to bug chat rooms.

And, based on the wonderful job the FBI has been

doing lately, and all that useful information FBI Louie

offered parents this week, Congress will probably give

it to them, plus a lot more.

Remember now, the FBI has to be able to bug

over 2,000,000 of our private telephone conversations

simultaneously, *and* police the Internet. It takes lots

of "resources" for big brother to be able to handle all

that.

We would bet that we could find 100 stay at

home moms willing to do the job for half of the price.

They would probably do a much better job of it, too. But

don't tell Congress. Hiring moms to watch out for the

welfare of kids makes too damn much sense.

WHY THE REVOLUTION FIZZLED

They started out with a bang, then ended in a

whimper. One reason was that they forgot one basic

premise that applies to anyone pioneering new ideals:

"The Pioneers get the arrows!"

It's true in every field. Attempt to change the

status quo and those comfortable with the current system

will protest. And if, as in this case, none of the people

supporting change are accustomed to being in a position

of strong leadership, the pioneering movement can expect

stern and relentless criticism from the previous leaders.

It's even worse in politics.

But there's more to it than just that. Not only

did these pioneers not prepare for the vicious attack from

the far left, they even neglected to protect their

core -- their rallying point.

Many thousands of us -- maybe many hundreds of

thousands of us -- have watched, listened to and cheered

Newt Gingrich over the years. His was the one lone voice

from Washington speaking of individual liberty, and

freedom from government control. His was the only voice

in Washington daring to recommend texts such as "The

Federalist Papers" and "Democracy in America," as examples

of how our government should be operated.

Yes, Newt had a lot of us voters out here in

"fly-over country" convinced that if we could elect just a

few more Republicans to Congress, the Republican

Revolution would rise up and squelch that ever-oppressive

liberal leviathan we call a federal government.

Newt had us convinced that, through the Republican

Party, America could again return to the pre-Roosevelt

style of limited federal government that made this country

so great. Republicans would downsize government by firing

a few federal agencies, boards and commissions.

Republicans would recoup the savings from smaller

government and reflect them in a lower tax burden for all

Americans. Republicans would remove most of those womb

to tomb regulations stymieing progress and liberty. And

Americans might once again pursue their own idea of

personal happiness through individual freedom and the

opportunity to live their lives as they see fit.

In other words, Newt promised us that, through

Republican control of Congress, America would once again

have the government intended by the authors of our

Constitution. Then, at last, that ever-extending heavy

hand of government restriction would be slapped back to

where it belongs.

It took Newt a few years to get enough of us to

believe him. But, believe him we did. And finally,

Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress.

The problem was, the newly elected Republican

team was not nearly as cohesive and dependable as the new

leadership hoped. Consequently, when the liberal

establishment's arrows started flying in the direction of

the "pioneers," many of the Republicans immediately

cowered, and ran for cover.

Instead of protecting their core, their leader,

the person most responsible for getting them there, many

Republicans left Newt out front to catch the worst of the

liberal's attack. Instead of launching a strong, unified

counter attack in support of their ideals and their leader,

most Republicans ducked and hid, leaving Newt alone to

field the onslaught from the left. Instead of charging in

force in support of core issues -- important issues like a

reduction in oppressive regulations, an end to pork-barrel

spending, a reduction of the bloated federal budget, and

repeal of oppressive laws -- many of the elected

Republicans groveled to the liberals with a self-indulgent

"go along to get along" posture.

And in so doing, they left Newt hanging in the

breeze, totally unprotected.

Instead of unified support, there was hardly a

peep from elected Republicans when liberals charged Newt

with over 500 bogus ethics violations. There was seldom a

word from the elected Republicans for the three long years

that the administration and the liberal press launched a

coordinated attack to malign Newt's character. Nor is

there support today when make-believe Republicans in the

press, like William Kristol of the American Standard, go

after Newt.

Most of the Republican cadre are hiding, covering

their butts. They're afraid that if they come to Newt's

defense, take a position, or make a stand, they might risk

their cushy jobs.

And, in a nutshell, that's what this all amounts to.

These are little more than professional politicians

protecting their positions. Most have been vetted enough

that we voters know that they understand what is right.

For sure, they can mouth the ideals of individual freedom,

liberty, smaller government and lower taxes. The problem

with them is obvious: Many have neither the intestinal

fortitude nor the personal integrity to actually stand up

and fight for what is right. Not only are they not

leaders, they are not even dependable followers.

Newt launched the campaign that put the

Republicans in control. Newt spearheaded the "Republican

Revolution." But, as soon as the war got a little warm,

as soon as the criticism from the left got a little hot,

a whole cadre of cowards deserted their posts and

abandoned their leader.

Americans want freedom from this over oppressive

federal government. We want lower taxes, less government

and full disclosure of everything the government does.

Newt, and only a handful of elected Republicans, still

show the courage necessary to publicly profess these

ideals.

When duty called, the others deserted the field

of honor. Indeed, they preferred to protect their

personal position, rather than the American public and our

United States Constitution.

BIOSPHERE RESERVE CONFERENCE

Report by: Barry Bright

As many as four new pro-environmental, pro-

property rights and pro-local control organizations were

formed at the end of a four-hour Biosphere Reserve

conference held in Paducah, Kentucky last weekend. The

new groups, from the states of Illinois, Missouri, and

Tennessee are modeled after another group named "Take

Back Arkansas."

These new versions of eco-wackos have different

priorities than the normal earth lover; namely the love of

life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as envisioned

by our nation's Founding Fathers.

"We're for the environment," said Norman Davis.

"But we want local control."

Davis organized the Paducah meeting as founder

of another group, the Council on Affairs of Science and

Sovereignty. That group and the meeting came about

because the fate of a large recreational area in Western

Kentucky had come into question.

For decades, an area known as the Land Between

the Lakes (LBL) was controlled by the Tennessee Valley

Authority. The TVA, which is a "stand alone" government

agency, claims it wants to rid itself of the management of

the recreational areas of LBL and stick to the creation of

energy. At least that's TVA's version.

Take Back Arkansas member Betty Ann Beaver

spoke to the group about the success of the group she

belongs to, but leavened her message with serious warnings.

"We found out that we stopped the biosphere

reserve temporarily, in the Arkansas highlands," Beaver

said. But she went on to produce stacks of US government

and United Nations publications to back up her allegations

that 50% of the nation's land is slated for "rewilding."

Beaver said that this program will eventually affect

everyone in the country.

Local control is the focus of a group from

Murray, Kentucky, named Concept Zero. That name came

from their opposition to a list of five concepts for the

future of LBL that TVA now says it has dropped.

David Nickel, whose family had owned what was

then called "land between the rivers" since an ancestor

earned it for service in the Revolutionary War, recounted

that one of his earliest memories was of watching the

neighbors houses being trucked down the road and wondering

if theirs would go as well. It did.

Nickel's desire is simple. He wants to find

out if they can get the land back someday. Now TVA is

developing the LBL, with the most recent development

occurring over the past winter.

"You don't do that kind of construction if you're

planning to give something up," Nickel said. His efforts

to gain information, have been met with requests for money

for the documentation he needs from the TVA. "We've been

stonewalled," Nickel said.

The featured speaker partially agreed with Nickel.

"His fight is with the Land Between the Lakes

but there is another battle," said Henry Lamb, of the

Environmental Conservation Organization.

According to both the convention speakers and

TVA publications, LBL was designated as a Biosphere

Reserve in 1991. A total of 42,000 acres of LBL land is

now under protective status. This makes the recreation

area one of the most recent additions to the 40 plus

Biosphere Reserves in the United States.

"Since 1988 all 47 Biosphere Reserves in the

United States, have adopted a regional management approach

in which there is to be a core wilderness area, surrounded

by a buffer zone, surrounded by a zone of cooperation.

And these Wilderness areas are to be connected by

corridors," Lamb said.

This management plan is central to the Wildlands

project recently developed in the United States, according

to an article Lamb quoted that was published in "Wild

Earth" in 1992.

Reed Knoss(sp), who wrote the article, believes

that in order to protect biodiversity, at least 50 percent

of the land area in North America must be set aside as

Core Wilderness Area, assuming most of rest is managed as

buffer zones. This would eventually create a "matrix" of

wilderness surrounding islands of human habitat.

This plan is endorsed by United Nations

environment program written into the Convention on

Biological Diversity and being implemented through a world

wide system of biosphere reserves which seem to be the

nucleus of this network of wilderness worldwide, according

to Lamb. African and South American programs are far

advanced of ours.

Ingrained in this process are reams of regulations

that will control what remains of private property. And

ultimately: "There will no longer be private property,"

Lamb said. Which for many people is the core issue.

"Where is this taking us?" Lamb asked. "In 1992

the UN assembled a special commission on global

governance."

Lamb also provided documentation for his

charges in the form of official publications, some

hundreds and even thousands of pages thick, published by

both the United Nations and the United States Government

as well as non-governmental organizations.

"We must confront this with knowledge, with

facts and without hysteria, it is because of our love for

our Constitutional Republic that we must continue the

fight," Lamb said.

-- End --