The quote of the month (or maybe even the year or decade) comes from prior economics professor turned politician, House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R. TX). Try this as food for thought: "I have identified three groups of people who have the privilege of taking and spending other people's money. They are children, thieves and politicians, and they all need more adult supervision."

Indeed, the contemptible, impeached first liar and willing recipient of millions in illegal campaign funds was actually on television last week talking about things like morals and obeying the law. I mean, how low can these newscasters go in promoting this farce? Where's Bubba's adult supervision?

Now comes a new study conducted for the Partnership for Trust in Government (http://www.trustingov.org), a socialist group designed to "help Americans recognize government's role in their lives." Their report says that television "takes public officials and civil servants and turns them into politicians and bureaucrats who serve their own interests or special interests rather than the public interest."

Wow! No kidding? Perhaps there's a good reason for that. And it's not caused by television. In this case, TV is only a reflection of that which the American people know. The American public is totally fed up with government usurping our rights. There is no respect for government anymore, it is only tolerated. And feared.

For instance, two decades ago federal prisons held almost twice as many violent offenders as drug offenders. Today, nonviolent offenders outnumber violent convicts three to one. A 1994 survey by the Federal Judicial Center found 86 percent of federal trial judges want Congress to restore their discretion to reduce sentences; 70 percent think most mandatory sentences should be repealed. Even a Justice Department study found 36 percent of federal drug inmates are but "low-level offenders with minimal criminal histories but serve an average of almost six years in prison." Small-time drug dealers and even casual users can end up with longer prison sentences than violent criminals. Yet, not one bureaucrat associated with the CIA program of smuggling tons of cocaine for sale in our inner-cities was even arrested.

Incidentally, when Al Gore's kid got caught using drugs at a private school (in view of the Secret Service, no less), he was tossed out of the school, but not arrested. There is a greatly different set of laws for the Washington elite.

Then there's that silly little (almost) war against Serbia. A funny thing happened at NATO last week; someone almost committed a truth. As AP reported, NATO's top general says Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic could achieve his objective of driving all ethnic Albanians from Kosovo despite a massive allied air campaign aimed at stopping him.

General Klaus Naumann, who retired last Thursday as head of the alliance's military arm, also said NATO, as a coalition, is working at a disadvantage because it has had to sacrifice "surprise and overwhelming power," two key ingredients for a successful military campaign.

"President Milosevic's mass deportation campaign appears achievable," Naumann said at a final press briefing before he stepped down as chairman of the NATO Military Committee. "Our military intervention can and has slowed down the efforts of President Milosevic's instruments of ethnic cleansing ... but we cannot stop such a thing entirely from the air."

Right. Clinton's wag the dog mission failed. Miserably. In its only action in 50 years, NATO is a failure. Little Serbia trumped big bad NATO.

Anyway, as Senator Inhofe stated: "Kosovo is no more a threat to America than Haiti was to Europe. … Refugees all said they didn't have any problems until the bombing started."

Then there's all that government spying on us, and the bureaucracy's excessively oppressive means of citizen control. Jack Anderson and Jan Moller reported last week that a small agency within the FBI was quietly created by Janet Reno to be the federal authority for any national Y2K repercussions (from American citizens). They report that "the agency, The National Domestic Preparedness Office, is now up and running -- and preparing -- despite the fact they don't officially exist; Congress has yet to approve its budget." Which means, in citizen-speak, they are spending our tax dollars illegally on that activity.

The federal government is also trying to find ways to censor and tax the Internet. Last week, Al Gore said he helped in the development of an Internet tool to protect children on-line, a claim that came as a surprise to on-line computer industry officials, who say he had nothing to do with it. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a perennial buttensky, is joining what looks to be an avalanche of legislation designed to protect children from damaging thoughts and images on the net.

Note to Al and Orrin: Unsupervised children do not belong on the Internet any more than they should be allowed to hang out in a bar. Get real, guys. The World Wide Web is an adult tool, not a baby-sitter for lazy teachers and negligent parents.

Truly, the federal government is the one that needs some stern adult supervision. Most of its overbearing, obnoxious elected officials and bureaucrats should be fired. Many should be prosecuted for various violations of the Constitution. And, based upon the reports of passing military secrets to communist China, a handful should probably be executed. Yet, no bureaucrat has even been arrested for that. Nor will any ever be. The law does not usually apply to government, or government employees. Like the Russian elite in the Soviet Politburo, federal bureaucrats have given themselves immunity from prosecution for most anything they do against the American people.

And, next week, the socialists in Congress will attempt to ramrod through at least a dozen anti- Constitutional gun control bills. Recent events were but the excuse. These un-American, big government loving socialist legislators know they must disarm the American people soon because there is way, way too much dissent out here for their comfort.

At this writing, there is a draft Ron Paul for President movement slowly gaining steam. Ron Paul would help us recoup our freedom. So would electing Harry Browne (http://www.harrybrowne2000.org). If we are interested in freedom, both deserve our immediate consideration.

If I visit your city, I may or may not (depending where) be able to legally walk around town as an armed citizen with a concealed weapon. But, if I can do so legally, I have three very basic responsibilities.

First, my state has a rather liberal concealed carry weapons law. We can carry anything from a pocket knife to the world's largest handgun -- and maybe even more. Other states restrict licensed citizens to only concealed handguns. No switchblades, swords & such are allowed. So, when in that state, I must obey their laws.

Another thing is the "concealed" aspect of the license. Conventional wisdom and common law dating from the laws of feudal England state that a man may not be armed in public in such a way that it alarms the unarmed citizens around him. This means that, in an urban setting, I am not to pop into the local bank, A&P or Krogers wearing a long barrel 44 magnum visibly strapped to my side. Although legal, that would border on stupid in many urban settings. "Concealed" is the name of the game. What people do not see does not bother them.

Nor may I walk around carrying automatic assault rifles, grenades or other destructive devices in an urban setting. That is bound to attract way too much attention from the women and children -- and the local police.

And there's yet another basic maxim in our American law: All citizens must obey all laws. Which, in this case, generally means that the only people authorized to be obviously armed to the teeth in public are the uniformed police.

This stuff is no big secret to anyone. Yet, there seems to be a large segment of society having a problem with these rules. And no, this time it is not the inner-city gang-bangers. Well … it is, somewhat, but they're not the subject of this article.

It's the American military. Indeed, it's the very people who took an oath to support and defend our Constitution. And, by extension, through their Uniform Code of Military Justice, they are bound to obey all laws.

Under our law, any police officer can arrest any member of the military for cause at any time. And clearly, coming into an urban area dressed in a full war- suit, firing an assault rifle and using destructive devices, violates a few dozen laws designed to keep the peace.

Conversely, no military person has any authority over any American citizen at any time, except for Military Police when that citizen is on a military reservation -- the only exception being (possibly) if a citizen is caught with stolen military equipment.

The Pentagon doesn't seem to respect our law anymore, though. According to the Pentagon, the 21st century will be one of worldwide "chaos, crisis, and conflict" and they want in on it. That's why they are practicing to attack us. In their eyes, the American people may be the enemy of the American people they swore to defend (military logic here).

This time, Marines out of Camp Lejeune, N.C. will be attacking Richmond, Virginia June 2-15 as practice for "humanitarian and combat operations" in urban areas, the service said.

Sure. "Humanitarian" and "combat" together. That's the new military euphemism for killing with compassion, I guess.

The Marines have been training in U.S. cities since 1985, most recently in Jacksonville, Atlanta, the San Francisco Bay area, and Monterey, Calif., according to Major Ken White, a spokesman for the Corps. "We don't go to the desert without training in the desert. We don't go to the jungle without training in the jungle, and we darn sure aren't going to go to a city without making sure young Marines know how to deal with that environment," he said.

A city is "an extremely volatile and dangerous environment which by and large favors the defenders," White said.

Yeah. Damn right, Major. Put your Marines in civilian clothes and take them for a long walk through the inner-city of Detroit some hot summer Friday night to see how well you fare. If you get out, you will not go back; guaranteed. Some men will always get separated and/or lost, so they must first learn the art of protecting and evading before they learn to attack. That's proper training. That is, unless you just plan to use your Marines to indiscriminately kill off all civilians in their path and have it done with -- and don't care how many Marines you lose in the process.

But, that's not the real point here, either. Throughout the country, in each and every major city, the laws clearly ban the firing of automatic weapons and the exploding of destructive devices in public. Such actions are stupid in a populated area anyway. Totally asinine.

Furthermore, the news cycle is just dying down about the seventeen and eighteen year old boys who tried to wipe out an American high school population. There is no reason in the world for the Marines to train others in that age group to attack American citizens. Certainly not publicly, anyway. Not where thirteen and fourteen year old boys can watch.

And what if some crotchety Vietnam veteran wakes up one morning to what looks like a full scale military attack on his home area? Any experienced veteran with a 30.06 rifle could take out twenty of those inexperienced, untested Marines before they even realized where the gunfire was coming from. And if our veteran moves, covers and works the environment as we were trained back then, he could easily take out a whole lot more very quickly. Marines make that easy. They always bunch up together.

So, what do we do then, blame the veteran for doing what comes natural -- that which the military ingrained in his brain to do? Because, the fact is, no one is supposed to look like they are making war on the civilian population of the United States. Not now. Not ever. That action is just not acceptable.

From our very first law book, "Blackstone's Commentaries," to the modern law of every State and city in this nation, that is described as an illegal act. It is, against both military and civilian law and the perpetrators should be prosecuted.

Therefore, for all of the above reasons, that practice must end. Let's tell Congress so.

The Democratic Leadership Council sponsored a Third Way love-fest of international leaders, "The Third Way: Progressive Governance for the 21st Century," April 25, 1999 at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Therein, Clinton & Clinton were joined by the modern Third Way socialists British Prime Minister Tony Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Dutch Prime Minister Wim Kok, and Italian Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema,

Clinton apologist and DLC President Al From opened up the show bragging about their Third Way plans for us: "The Democratic Leadership Council is an idea action center dedicated to developing third way philosophy and a third way governing agenda. We are gratified and amazed to see similar themes cropping up all over the democratic world."

That is a very important statement. Because, at last From clearly admitted that the DLC is a socialist, or Third Way, organization. We've come a long way from the cover ups of years gone by, when the words "Third Way" were only mentioned behind closed doors. Because, in reality, today's Third Way is little more than an extension of Cecil Rhodes and the socialist training of the Rhodes Scholar program at Oxford. Both are also closely aligned with the Fabian Society, an outwardly socialist group. http://www.fabian-society.org.uk

The impeached liar Bill Clinton was first to speak and told more about the Third Way movement in jest than he did in serious conversation: "At our last luncheon one of the members made a crack that we had five members of the last politburo of the Soviet Union sitting around our table today. And another one said, 'Yes, and a lot of the rest of us should have been on the politburo, but we weren't.' (Laughter.) And it was a picture of how much the world has changed."

Clinton's Fabian friend, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, also stated his idea of the Third Way: "On the Third Way itself, I think we start from one very simple proposition: … How do you provide prosperity in this world of economic change, how do you provide stability in this world of social change?"

Blair also defined elements of the third way as to: "define a new role for government … a society that is free from prejudice but not free from rules," and added, "our belief in community … is a belief that this applies internationally as well as nationally."

Then, Tony Baloney forgot his appointed place in the script for a moment and babbled on a little: "You know, you want to -- everything's got to be, you know -- and therefore, when people come along and say, 'Well, actually, no, that's not really the context in which we're operating anymore,' people find -- you know, people find it difficult to understand. But that is precisely what we're about."

Whatever. Maybe that means something in England.

Next up was Netherlands Prime Minister Wim Kok. He spilled the beans a little talking about NATO. Kok said that NATO "will be a different, new NATO based on the same values -- rule of law, justice, against crime, against inhumanity. We will do it in another way in accordance with the new situation. … We are living in a world, an interdependent world, where change is a must."

So, OK; NATO is to be a political police department.

But they are going to have to re-write that NATO charter. Because, if that is their "rule of law," they are all lawbreakers. NATO was designed to be strictly a defensive organization, and Serbia did not attack any part of NATO. Inconvenient, that.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was next up. He asks: "is there an alternative to near liberalism on the one hand side and some kind of orthodox state socialism on the other hand? That is the reason why people have started for a third way, because both of those tracks have been discovered to be misorientations and, well, misguided ways."

Schroeder labeled "the Third Way as an open system." The problem is, we have a Constitutional republic here. Our government is well defined in the Constitution. There is no wiggle room for any other form of government. All the United States needs is a few patriot politicians to steer the ship of state back onto its correct course.

Italian Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema gave us another hint of what this socialist Third Way doctrine is about: Control of the people. I "think one of the greatest social issues in our societies and social problems in our society is how to reorganize the relationship between work and family life in a freer way, the relationship between work and time, the time we each use for our own personal life, for our family life, for the people we love, for the things we love to do, our hobbies, and the time we use for our education."

Yeah. Leave it to the Third Way socialists. They'll have every little thing in our lives all programmed for us. That's exactly what it's all about, too: A programmed population of good little worker bees, all following hundreds of laws, rules and regulations without question. Socialized medicine, "School to Work," gun control, environmental law, and "Outcome Based Education" are but the obvious beginning. This bastard child of communism called the Third Way is soon to become our way. Because, while we Americans were occupied supporting out families, busy bureaucrats were incrementally implementing the Third Way plan by phasing it in one law, rule and regulation at a time. We didn't notice. Now, it's almost too late.

See issues 63, 72 and 95 for more information. And, go to <http://www.dlcppi.org/> for the full scoop on the DLC meeting and what they have planned for us.

By Craig M. Brown

RRZH67B@prodigy.com

What do you call a man who changes his hair color almost every day?

(A) Vainglorious

(B) Dennis Rodman

(C) Indecisive

(D) Mr. President

While all of these answers are correct, if you picked D, you qualify to enter phase two of our contest.

If you have been at all attentive over the past six years, you will have noticed that practically every time President Clinton appears in public, his hair is a different color. The colors range from brown, to salt and pepper to gray to white. Also, each time the President appears in public, he either is about to do or has just done something. Realizing this, the renowned sociologist, Corky Sashoon, is in the process of completing a study based upon his theory that the President's activity for any given day can be determined by observing the hair color the President has chosen.

Using this theory, we now ask you to match the presidential hair color with the activity he is about to or has just engaged in.

The choices are: brown, gray, salt & pepper, white, and black (with bangs).

Now for our question:

"If the President's hair color is _____, he is about to or has just ____."

And, the activities are:

Make a speech at the UN

Make a speech at a high school

Veto a military spending bill

Dodge the draft

Order an air strike on someone or something

Rape an intern

Lie to a Grand Jury

Sign an executive order

Rape the wife of a cabinet secretary

Accept money from a Chinese "partner" Lie to cute and perky Katie Curic on national TV (Other, in your own words)

Winners will be chosen according to the most correct matches, and will be given a free lifetime subscription to "Heads Up" and the unlisted home phone numbers (when available) for Janet Reno, Carol Browner and Monica Lewinsky.

The announcement of the winners will be made when I feel like it.

By Debra McKim-Brown

DebMcB@worldnet.att.net

Suppose with me, for just a minute, that you are a family counselor. You don't have any training, you say? It doesn't matter. All you really need is a little common sense and compassion to understand this case study.

You have been presented with a dysfunctional family that needs your help resolving their dilemma.

The father is a violent sexual predator who has achieved a high level government office. Between his sexual exploits and the time spent working on other family's problems, he has little time for his own children. He sometimes resorts to violence to resolve conflicts. He is a congenital liar and cannot be taken at his word.

The mother is a control freak and classic enabler. She tolerates her husband's philandering in exchange for position and power. She, too, is so involved in the problems of everyone else that she is seldom available when her children are in need. She spends most of her time pursuing her own agenda and has little left over to nurture her own family. Recently she acted a spokesperson for a group accepting foster children for shelter and care while at the same time some of her children were wandering the streets homeless.

This is a very large family so there are many children. Collectively they are a good bunch, but lacking appropriate parental guidance there are many problems. Some, emulating their father, are inclined to turn to violence in an effort to resolve conflicts and gain his attention. Some are depressed and suicidal. Many have undergone recent traumatic events, leaving them homeless and destitute. Others are industrious and work two or more jobs to support their own families, but that leaves their children alone and repeats the cycle of under-supervised children.

What is your advice? Would you advise the father to spend less time publicly intervening in other family conflicts? To quit resorting to violence in an attempt to force other family heads to conform to his image of a proper family structure? Would you advise him to get professional help for his sexual aggression problems? Would you remove his children from his immediate influence until he gets help?

What would you advise the mother? Is she a good role model? Does standing by a husband who has publicly and privately humiliated her help her family? Should she continue to pursue her own career or spend more time nurturing her family? Should the children be removed from her immediate sphere of influence until she has received counseling and can be trusted to not abandon them in their time of need?

And finally, what of the children? Would they not be better of if they were all placed under the guidance and care of more stable family members?

Should you, as a responsible counselor, petition the court to remove the children from the custody this dysfunctional pair?

I am, of course, speaking of the American family. Our family head has proven himself unfit for the job. Enabled by his wife, our family is becoming a dysfunctional one. Isn't it time to intervene and petition them to voluntarily step-down and seek help for themselves, before it is too late?

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.

hu134.htm. Revised 10-19-02. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.