What's in a name? A lot sometimes. And right now, it is important to get the name correct.

Our first mistake was that we have allowed the far left to define our movement. That was Hillary. She tagged us all, in general, as the "vast right-wing." The problem is, that is not even close to being accurate for most of us. Yet, we accept it without comment.

A person on the far right would be one who advocates an oligarchical type rule, a type of reactionary government that assumes strict control of all political and economic policies in the country and restricts the power and liberty of the people. This is the type of person who strongly believes that he/she knows better than "the great unwashed" masses, and so considers himself qualified to control the lives of the people. That could include things from strict government control of the country's medical delivery system to directing all children to be raised by "the village" rather than supervised by parents.

The far right want complete control by any means. They wish to control a citizen's right to self defense, education, association, speech, liberty, and even many aspects of people's working and living arrangements.

Who, currently admitting to be part of today's vast right wing conspiracy, wants a government like that? Oh sure, we have a few control freaks on our side, too. But that's certainly not the political ideal most of us champion.

Nor are we the radical right, simply because we ask for change in government. A radical is one who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions. Most radicals wish to overthrow the established social order.

Admittedly, there is also some of that in our movement. But the term fits the administration and the Democratic Party much better than any on our side. Because, in truth, we are not true radicals. We call for that Constitutional form of government designed by the Founding Fathers. That is not "radical." Rather, that is our well established birthright as American citizens.

That said, the term "conservative" somewhat fits -- or did once, anyway. But even the tag of conservative does not work well for two reasons: First, we most certainly do not wish to "conserve" the status quo -- the type of government we now have. And second, the term no longer works well for us because we have allowed the socialists to make conservatism synonymous with "right-wing."

We have allowed the far left to debase the terms we most frequently use to define ourselves. So, too, have we allowed them to soften their own true colors. Today, many socialists call themselves "progressives." The word "progressive" may sound nicer, but they are still big government loving socialists.

Like its kissing cousin, communism, the socialist way of today's Democratic Party is nearly the direct opposite of our American Constitutional form of government. Nor is socialism compatible with our American rule of law. It oppresses our unalienable personal rights to life, liberty and property. Therefore, we should not allow socialism to exist in the United States in any form.

So what can we be properly called? If we believe in the individual rights of life, liberty and property; if we believe in a Constitutionally limited federal government; if we believe in freedom and liberty for all who do not use their freedom and liberty to bother others; we are Constitutionalists.

And, if we really are Constitutionalists, there is no need to worry about tags like "right," "left," "conservative" or "liberal." We are none of those. We need only point to our copy of the Constitution and relate how its interpretation is expanded in the Federalist Papers. An appendix to that would be James Madison's address to the House when he presented the Bill of Rights.

Being a Constitutionalist, our platform, and the arguments in defense of our platform, are easier. Everything is all spelled out for us and ready to go. We need not argue the differences between conservative and liberal, right and left. What is not tasked to the federal government by the Constitution is not allowed. That's it! The Constitution limits government, not citizens. And, as set down in the Bill of Rights, all rights belong to the people.

At one time in our history, there was another term for a Constitutionalist. The term was coined in honor of the Father of our Constitution: James Madison. The philosophy was called Madisonism. The practitioners, then, were Madisonists. Our Constitution was known, for a time, as the "Madisonian system."

So, what's in a name? A lot! The correct name can immediately separate us from the riffraff who do not honor our Constitution and the American way of life it was intended to protect.

We must not allow socialists to define us with a false tag. Because, in truth, most of us are Constitutionalists. Therefore, we should fly our correct colors.

As our State's General Assembly session comes to a close, there are a number of important questions that should be presented to each individual legislator. These questions relate to our personal rights and liberties, as well as to our American way of life. Questions such as these can be quite enlightening in an election year. So, it was suggested that some Heads Up readers may also wish to present these four simple questions to their State legislators, and even to Members of Congress. Therefore, we are making them public.

1.) There are an awful lot of laws, rules and regulations on the books. Do you agree with all those laws? If not, which ones did you work to have removed? Which laws were actually removed? Exactly when can we expect others to be repealed?

2.) The Founding Fathers intended that a wealth of unalienable rights and liberties belong to each citizen individually and are not to be interfered with by government. Generally, these include our natural and individual rights of life, liberty and property. The Founding Fathers intended it to be the expressed duty of all elected officials and bureaucrats to protect these rights and liberties. In fact, part of this duty to the people is expressed in the oath of office taken by all elected officials and public servants upon entering government service. Exactly what, then, did you do to insure the uninterrupted personal freedom of the people of our State?

3.) There were a number of bills recently submitted that would impact negatively on the freedom of the people of our State. In other words, if enacted into law, the bills will act to remove certain personal rights and liberties. Gun laws obstruct our unalienable right to protect self, family, home and community. Some laws, such as those regulating medical services and the purchase of other personal goods and services, affect our right to contract, which is a direct violation of the United States Constitution. Others, such as forfeiture and environmental laws, adversely affect our natural right to private property. Still others, such as traffic stops and stop and frisk laws, directly affect our right to move about in society and function as we please. Did you support bills that adversely impacted on the rights and liberties of the people? If so, please indicate which ones and why.

4.) Over the past decade, government has been our fastest growing industry. More government, of course, needs more tax dollars. Consequently, about 45% of the average family's household income goes directly to taxes and another 10% for hidden costs caused by spurious regulations. What did you do to help remove some of this excessive tax burden from the people of our State? Do you ever intend to roll back government to a more unintrusive level? When will this program begin?

Share-cropping became common in the United States after the Civil War. Back then, many Southern plantations had ample land, but little money to pay wages. At the same time, a large segment of the population was left impoverished, with little prospect of earning an adequate living. So, it was little surprise that the landed people -- those with the means of producing a product -- contracted with the poor, who had labor to offer, to produce a product from which both might profit. Share-croppers normally received a home, the necessary tools, farm animals, and sometimes even some education, for their labor. They also received a share in the profit -- usually, about half -- from the fruits of their labor.

This arrangement was somewhat similar to the arrangement of the serfs of England. Both groups were tied to the land owner. Both paid half of the product of their labor for the privilege of living and working on the land. And, with both, the amount of freedom allowed to the workers by the landowners was often quite arbitrary.

Usually, the land owner told them what they will do, how they are to do it and when they were expected to do it. For instance, the land owners wished to insure that everyone in the family would be available to work the fields during the growing season. To that end, they even suspended education every summer.

Today, few of us work the fields. Yet, are we less of a share-cropper? Clearly, half of all the proceeds of our labor is still paid to the ultimate landowner, the government. Unlike serfs or share-croppers, we must now purchase the land on which we live. Yet, the ultimate landowner -- the government -- still instructs us on what we may or may not do with that land.

There was a time in our common law when it was taught that "Every man's house is his castle; and even though the winds of heaven may blow through it, the King may not enter." That was, of course, to include the sheriff, the tax collector, and all other police officers, too. However, the Lords and Ladies of Congress did not find this common law maxim expedient to the expressed goals of modern government. Consequently, they created ways to totally trash the concept.

Not to be outdone by the original land-barons of old, today's government has decreed "servient estate" over our property to itself. That is, federal, state and local governments have passed laws allowing government agents easement to our private property. Consequently, not only can today's government place restrictions on the use of private property, government agents may now search and seize private property, almost at will.

You think not? Violate some incomprehensible wetland law and the Army (Corps of Engineers) comes after you. Forget to pay property tax, or what the IRS says you owe, and men with guns come to run you off of your land. And, God forbid some farmer would grow a crop that is not politically correct. . . .

A court trial is no longer usually necessary to confiscate private property. But, even if there is cause for trial, first you must relinquish possession of your property to the applicable government agency. Then, you may go to trial.

Adding insult to injury, the Supreme Court recently approved government's taking of private property by saying that forfeiture was different than punishment. This opinion gave police, and most other government agencies, cart blanche to confiscate private property for a whole host of reasons. And they do. There is great incentive for government agencies to confiscate private property. By law, they then use the proceeds from selling forfeited property to supplement the agency's budget.

So, too, with the concept of privacy. Like the land owner of old, today's government keeps very good records on its citizens. Hundreds of citizen databases exist throughout the country, containing everything from education, criminal and medical to financial records. Worse, all of these databases will soon be connected, allowing any bureaucrat to instantly compile a complete dossier on any American citizen.

Today's government schools no longer teach much about the relationship between the European serf and Master. Nor do they teach much about the tenuous relationship between the Southern share-croppers and land owners. Perhaps there is good reason for that.

I am getting very tired of the socialist- liberal viewpoint in this country, and I am about to publicly tell a number of them (journalists, this time) to come up with some hard evidence to back up what they are saying or shut the hell up!

Recently they've re-started on the danger of citizen-owned guns. These mush-mouthed, hand-ringing buttinskys keep telling America that guns are bad. Guns are making our country a very dangerous land, they say. Guns kill people, they repeat. It's like the frontier days out there all over again, one babble-breath said. Listening to these fugitives from fact, one would think that the nefarious pistol in the drawer next to me is actually lying in wait for me to open the drawer so it can jump out and shoot me.

A few years back, I published a well circulated paper detailing the difference in violent crime between the United States and four European countries where guns are closely regulated. No matter that I used "official" FBI statistics, I was immediately chastised for being politically incorrect.

Regardless, here's the basic (offending) data from the 1992 FBI Uniform Crime Report. The numbers are related in incidents per 100,000 population:

If these numbers are taken on their face value, the United States is truly more dangerous than these four European countries. However, a great deal of the crime in the United States is committed by street gang punks and other riffraff in the inner-city. The FBI did not correct for that. However, we still can get some idea of the source of the problem by using their figures for the race of the perpetrators.

All I've got to say about these numbers is that my Black friends and neighbors in Detroit intuitively knew them to be true. It's the liberal press, and of course the politicians, who don't want to hear this stuff. The FBI defines justifiable homicide as being "limited to the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty, or the killing by a private citizen of a felon during the commission of a felony." The FBI reports that, in 1995, there were a total of 383 justifiable homicides by police officers and another 286 by civilians. Most, of course, were justifiable shootings by the use of a handgun.

The FBI identified 7,071 (31.5%) White and 8,285 (36.9%) Black murders in 1995. Another 6,660 (29.7%) were of unknown race.

As politically incorrect as this information may be, these are the facts as per the FBI, an organization currently under the control of liberals. These data are posted on their web page for anyone to see. Yet, journalists and politicians never bother to look.

The FBI report positively identifies 1,157 murders by juvenile gangs alone -- and that is just the ones they know about. They identify another 1,010 murders as drug related. And so on, and so on.

The cold hard fact is that, in the States where people own and use guns the most, there are fewest murders. And it is a natural result, not a statistical anomaly, that as States begin issuing concealed carry weapons permits violent crime immediately decreases significantly. These are easily verifiable facts, available to anyone with a computer. Yet, the political nincompoops in Washington and their clueless journalist sycophants persist in fabricating and disseminating inaccurate information to the American people. Well folks, it's time we have at them -- politically speaking, of course.

I, for one, do not relish carrying around an extra two pounds of tooled steel when I go out. However, even in the beautiful foothills of Appalachia, that can sometimes be a wise thing to do. Therefore, it must always remain my option.

Towards that end, we (many of us) would like to thank the Kentucky General Assembly, which again passed a few new bills to further help secure the right of of the good people of Kentucky to protect themselves. Licensed Americans, from any State which issues concealed carry permits, may now carry a concealed weapon almost anyplace in Kentucky. To insure the practice, Kentucky State Police are to secure reciprocity agreements with all States that currently issue CCW's so that Kentucky permit holders may carry in their respective States.

The liberals complained a lot, of course. But, sometimes, things work as they should. The liberals were told to go sit down and shut up.

NOTE: For the facts about gun ownership, please visit the Gun Owners of America "Firearms Fact-Sheet" at: http://www.gunowners.org/fs9901.htm

  ** uhuh **

The President said he is reducing taxes.

uhuh.

Congress says they are balancing the budget.

uhuh. Sez who?

Web Home Page: www.uhuh.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 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.

hu178.htm. Revised 4-8-00. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.