A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia
March 29, 1998 #78
by: Doug Fiedor
E-mail to: email@example.com
Copyright © 1998 by Doug Fiedor, all rights reserved
This text may be copied and distributed freely
but only in its entirety, and with no changes
FOR A MORE PERFECT POLICE STATE
For those of us interested in the growth of police powers and how they are used by government to achieve strict social and political control, authoritative information is now available. We were recently provided a very enlightening report titled: "An Appraisal of Technologies of Political Control."
The report discusses some very sensitive topics, such as the growth of policing powers, militarization of the police, worldwide convergence of nearly all technologies of political control, new arrest and restraint methods, surveillance devices, and human recognition and tracking devices. There is also a very interesting section on the chemical, kinetic and electrical devices used for crowd control. And, rounding out the report is a section on the use of more powerful restraint, torture, killing and execution, and the role of privatized enterprise in promoting it.
This is very scary stuff! Unfortunately though, an American reader will quickly realize this is not science fiction, but rather that most of it represents the present "state of the art" law enforcement practice within the United States.
The report is published by the European Parliament, Directorate General for Research, Directorate B, The STOA (Scientific and Technological Options Assessment) Programme, and is directed to Members of the European Parliament. But, don't let that fool you. Most of the equipment and techniques described in the report were developed right here, in the United States. Much of this stuff was developed via military contract, by direction of our Department of Justice. One major benefit of this report is that it identifies the exact origin of all equipment and techniques described, as well as their effectiveness in actual field use.
Below is the official abstract of the report. British spelling was not changed. We should also note that the words "political control," as used herein, mean people control by the use of force:
The objectives of this report are fourfold:(i) to provide Members of the European Parliament with a guide to recent advances in the technology of political control;
(ii) to identify, analyse and describe the current state of the art of the most salient developments;
(iii) to present members with an account of current trends, both in Europe and Worldwide; and
(iv) to develop policy recommendations covering regulatory strategies for their management and future control.
The report contains seven substantive sections which cover respectively:(i) The role and function of the technology of political control;
(ii) Recent trends and innovations (including the implications of globalisation, militarisation of police equipment, convergence of control systems deployed worldwide and the implications of increasing technology and decision drift);
(iii) Developments in surveillance technology (including the emergence of new forms of local, national and international communications interceptions networks and the creation of human recognition and tracking devices);
(iv) Innovations in crowd control weapons (including the evolution of a 2nd. generation of so called 'less-lethal weapons' from nuclear labs in the USA).
(v) The emergence of prisoner control as a privatized industry, whilst state prisons face increasing pressure to substitute technology for staff in cost cutting exercises and the social and political implications of replacing policies of rehabilitation with strategies of human warehousing.
(v) The use of science and technology to devise new efficient mark-free interrogation and torture technologies and their proliferation from the US & Europe.
(vi) The implications of vertical and horizontal proliferation of this technology and the need for an adequate political response by the EU, to ensure it neither threatens civil liberties in Europe, nor reaches the hands of tyrants.
The report makes a series of policy recommendations including the need for appropriate codes of practice. It ends by proposing specific areas where further research is needed to make such regulatory controls effective. The report includes a comprehensive bibliographical survey of some of the most relevant literature.
Taken as a whole, the report accurately describes a phenomena we find throughout the United States: the proliferation of paramilitary assault teams used for everyday police work. "It is argued that one impact of this process is the militarization of the police and the para-militarization of the army as their roles, equipment and procedures begin to overlap," the report states. And, as rogue segments of our U.S. Army practice live-fire attacks on our civilian population, we see that to be exactly true.
Furthermore, they found that 46% of American SWAT team members are prior military. We might also add that many others received military training after joining SWAT teams. SWAT teams are, therefore, military assault teams-albeit, not usually active, on-duty members of the armed forces, per se.
This report is must reading for anyone still believing in our United States Constitution, the rule of law, and those things we once called the "American way" of life. Because, if we do not quickly put a stop to this "political control" of the people by brute force of arms, all freedom is lost. We will have developed into little more than a very efficient police state.
The full report can be found at:
Here come the sniveling socialists, like Chuck Schumer, out of the woodwork to again blame a class of inanimate objects for the actions of amoral humans. What they conveniently discount is how the actions of their ilk have worked to pollute the minds of some of America's young.
When I was young, there were gunfights in movies and (later) on television. It just took the drama of half of the program to set it up. Nowadays, they sometimes kill off 20 people in the advertisement of a movie or TV program. How did all this carnage become acceptable as entertainment? Unfortunately, I remember all too well how it started becoming acceptable.
When I was discharged from the Army, I was unbelievably overjoyed about getting back to the real world. I was also happy to get home with all my body parts still attached, as I knew a few who were not quite so lucky.
Big man that I was, I thought I was shockproof back then. We saw it all, I thought. Nothing would bother me again; and so on, and so on, and so on. . . .
I was so very, very wrong!
One day, a couple weeks after doing all the family and friends tour, drinking up a storm, and otherwise carrying on, I started settling down. And, with that, I caught a bit of television.
There they were. My comrades in arms. Right there, on the damn television! Then, I saw that the NBC cameraman was doing his best to show dead, mangled and otherwise damaged American military personal. Right there! On my new 21 inch color television. Right on the evening news! For all to see, at dinnertime.
I was stunned! Outraged! And I damn near shot my new television.
As I later learned, this had been going on for quite some time. And, it continued for a few more years. Dead and damaged people, body counts (all lies), every night at dinnertime. Not just NBC, but ABC and CBS, too.
America was not necessarily traumatized from that. Rather, a whole segment of America became desensitized, and used to seeing it every night at dinnertime. Mothers, fathers and children watched napalm and other bombs in action. They learned the body counts, saw the dead bodies and the wounded, and they all continued right on eating dinner.
Those children are now today's parents. And still today, the evening news producers attempt to show the worst possible carnage they can find anywhere in the world, in living color, at dinnertime, even though they know the kids are watching. They cannot say that people were killed without showing dead bodies-the more the better. And it's no surprise that many of today's parents have no compulsion about allowing their children to watch this stuff on the evening news; they grew up with worse.
Many of today's parents would not want their child to view an attractive human body that was unclothed. But for some reason, allowing youngsters to see humans mangled and/or killed by unnatural acts seems to be acceptable news programming.
There is a point to all this, and it is a very simple point: We (all of us) have allowed the progressive-socialists among us to dictate much of what we see and hear as acceptable. Natural acts should be acceptable, even though all natural acts should not be dwelled upon by youngsters. However, murder, maiming, assault and battery, and other crimes against people, should never be depicted as normal behavior to our young.
So, OK, the news media does not show crimes against people as acceptable. They do, however, purposely depict all the gory details as common, everyday sights. Night after night, for the past 30 years, the news media has consistently played all the blood and guts it could get. The children of 30 years ago saw it every night, and so do the children of today. And, that's just on the news at dinnertime. Forget the movies and the music videos.
Children are continuously in a learning mode. They try new things, which normally tries the nerves of adults. When children try a dangerous or disrespectful thing, it requires swift correction from an adult. Liberals, however, try to tell us that youngsters are to find their own way by trial and error. Well, if you're a parent, think about that for a while. That's stupid!
For instance, I have trained dozens of children on the proper care and use of firearms. And, there was never any doubt by any child that, if they ever pointed a weapon in an inappropriate manner, they would quickly get smacked by me. Some got smacked, but never more than twice.
To teach shooting requires a lot more than just how to hit a target. As we see by the news, a few of today's young people think that anything that moves is a good target. Including people. They were taught to shoot. But, they didn't learn respect. Now, instead of getting smacked up side the head a couple times, they'll get prison.
This presents a problem in today's world.
Liberals do not wish us to discipline children anymore. Therefore, some schools border on anarchy. The "board of education" is no longer applied where appropriate. Hence, we often see the results of a lack of respect and a decline of honor.
Was the killing of children and teachers the fault of the guns the amoral kids in Arkansas ripped off from grampa? No! Of course not. It does, however, relate to our desensitized outlook on carnage. And it most certainly is related to our propensity for treating young adults as if they were well trained adults.
In the United States, a gun is a mode of self defense. Any person using it differently (hunting game excepted), should receive a significant "smack" upside the head by anyone around. Not teaching young people the proper respect for both the tool in hand and the people nearby is purely and simply negligence.
No person in the United States has a license to shoot humans. If they think they do, they are no better than these kids in Arkansas: amoral killers. And, that is exactly why Ruby Ridge and Waco must be revisited by the justice system-as soon as we get one that works.
The weekly column, "Texas Straight Talk," by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) cannot be published during the campaign season. However, as we indicated earlier, because we neither know Rep. Paul nor live in his district, that rule does not apply to us.
Had the "Texas Straight Talk" been able to publish, the text below would have been included in the March 23, 1998 issue.
It's not often that Members of Congress have the opportunity to take a vote which clearly states the intent of the Congress to either follow or not follow the Constitution. A vote which is not tethered to pork-barrel spending, special-interest giveaways or political land mines. Such a vote came up last week.
Of course, when one sees the results of such a vote -- when it finally comes around -- it is enough to make a decent American blush, and then get very angry at the immorality of our elected officials.
Casting votes on the basis of constitutionality is not about a political ideology, it is about basic morality. The moral choice is between following the rule of law or the whims of man. The rule of law gives us liberty, freedom and civilized society, while the whims of man gives us holocausts, confiscatory economic policies and pointless wars.
Sadly, though, our representatives and senators, and our presidents, seem intent on following something other than the rule of law. They hide behind pragmatism, behind political expediency, behind the claim to be doing the "will of the people." But the rule of law is about doing what is right and moral, not about what the mob -- even if it is a mob of one with the government guns behind it-might desire at the moment.
Of course, the law-the Constitution-is inconvenient for those who want to use taxpayer dollars to expand their pet causes or political ambitions. The politics of unconstitutionality knows no partisan boundaries in Washington, which accounts for the continuing upward trend of taxes, regulations, spending and, of course, pork.
And so last week there came before Congress legislation stating that Congress and Congress alone has the power to declare war and commit troops into situations of hostility -- as defined and clearly stated in the Constitution. It further stated that if troops are to remain in Bosnia, then Congress should take a vote declaring a state of war. Absent a declaration of war, according to this legislation if it had passed, the troops should be home in 60 days.
This was a vote on whether or not this Congress, was going to vote in support of what the Constitution specifically mandates on the issue of military action and commitment of American troops to hostile environments. No policies would change, just a statement of principle upholding the Constitution.
The Constitution is very clear on this and every other subject. The Constitution, the highest law of the land, defines what the federal government, and the three branches of the federal government, can and cannot do. Everything else, according to the law, the Constitution, is "reserved" to the states and the people.
At the core, every vote is a constitutional vote. US Representative and, later, Texas Alamo hero David Crockett, once quoted a constituent, saying, "The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people."
Sadly, 225 Members of Congress chose to ignore the Constitution and forfeit their constitutional-required role in foreign affairs. They had the opportunity to vote in accordance with the most basic, most clearly defined section of the Constitution to which they pledged an oath to uphold, and yet 225 of the 435 representatives chose to not follow the rule of law, but to allow the whims of man to prevail.
When Congress so clearly votes against the Constitution a dangerous precedent is indeed set, and as Mr. Crockett warned, nothing is safe from the grasp of the politicians.
Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas in the United States House. He can be contacted at his Washington office, 203 Cannon HOB, Washington, DC 20515, or at his web site (http://www.house.gov/paul).
It appears that Ron Paul is about to have another tough race. Not because the people don't like him. They do. It's the political establishment that is lining up against him. Simply put, most politicians do not want a Member of Congress who supports our Constitution.
Do you? If so, do something.
We have all heard of many problems with NAFTA. Yet, the administration and most of their sycophants in the national media keep telling us the agreement is just great for business. And, NAFTA may actually be good for business. But, only if you happen to be a multi-billion dollar milti-national business. The problem is, most American businesses do not fall into that catagory.
So, it was with great interest that we read the "findings" section of a new bill titled the "NAFTA Accountability Act"-HR-978. The bill was introduced in the House by Rep Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) and currently has 91 cosponsors.
Sec. 2. Findings.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) EXPANDED MARKETS- One of the purposes of NAFTA, as stated in its preamble, is to 'create an expanded and secure market' for United States goods and services. Instead, NAFTA has resulted in an enormous increase in imports to the United States from Mexico and Canada and a spiraling trade deficit with Mexico and Canada that has exceeded $30,000,000,000 in both 1995 and 1996. Before NAFTA, the United States had a $1,700,000,000 trade surplus with Mexico. Rather than harmonious development and expansion in all 3 NAFTA countries as envisioned, NAFTA has resulted in United States trade deficits which are draining $2,500,000,000 a month from the United States economy and causing greater economic instability in Mexico.
(2) CURRENCY STABILITY- One of the purposes of NAFTA, as stated in its preamble, is to 'ensure a predictable commercial framework for business planning and investment'. However, NAFTA contains no safeguards to minimize the negative economic impacts of severe shifts in currency exchange rates among the NAFTA Parties. Mexico's sudden devaluation of its peso in December 1994 has more than offset tariff reductions and other trade benefits the United States expected to achieve from the agreement. The dollar-peso exchange rate when NAFTA passed was 1:3.5. It is now approximately 1:8 and is not expected to return to its previous value. Indeed, economic experts are stating that conditions are building for another severe Mexican currency crisis.
(3) JOBS, WAGES, AND LIVING STANDARDS - One of the purposes of NAFTA, as stated in its preamble, is to 'create new employment opportunities and improve working conditions and living standards' in the respective territories of the NAFTA Parties. Instead, there has been a substantial loss of a half million high paying jobs in the United States. A survey of United States companies conducted 3 years after the implementation of NAFTA found that 90 percent of the companies that had anticipated creating United States jobs through NAFTA have, in fact, not created jobs because of NAFTA. In the first 3 years of NAFTA's implementation, United States workers have seen steady drops in real hourly wages. In Mexico employment in the border Maquiladora zone has increased by more than 46 percent under NAFTA. However, Mexico has seen much greater job losses in the agricultural, small retail, and small industrial sectors. Thus, more than 2,000,000 workers have become unemployed in Mexico since the implementation of NAFTA, and real wages of Mexican workers have been slashed 50 percent.
(4) MANUFACTURING BASE- One of the purposes of NAFTA is to enhance the competitiveness of firms in the global market. However, rather than increase the ability of the manufacturing sector in the United States to compete in the world market, NAFTA has facilitated the movement of United States manufacturing facilities and jobs to Mexico. NAFTA has contributed to a net loss of approximately 400,000 manufacturing jobs in the United States and an unprecedented flood of imports of manufactured goods into the United States.
(5) HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT- Other purposes of NAFTA, as stated in its preamble, are 'to safeguard the public welfare' and 'to strengthen the development and enforcement of environmental laws and regulations'. Yet, since the implementation of NAFTA, the public welfare has been undermined by increased imports of food products that do not meet United States health standards. In addition, NAFTA has accelerated the relocation of United States manufacturing facilities to the United States-Mexico border zone. Without adequate environmental safeguards, the uncontrolled industrial and population growth in the border zone has aggravated pollution and health hazards, increasing the incidence of infectious diseases and human exposure to toxins.
We cannot find anything to disagree with there. We can, however, add a couple things. For instance, about half of those thousands of large trucks entering the United States every day from Mexico do not even come close to meeting our safety standards -- nor do many of the drivers. How many Americans need get killed on our highways before that is changed?
Few of the trucks entering the United States from Mexico are inspected for anything, let alone safety. So, Mexico's largest industry is now illegal drugs. Illegal drugs which, of course, are all shipped here for sale on our streets.
Note: This report reveals the very real danger facing all people.
Forest Glen Durland
You are encouraged to read author Doug Fiedor's newsletters.
His newsletters are passed along to many.
Selected essays are on this web site at
You will find all of his sage disclosures at
A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia
by: Doug Fiedor firstname.lastname@example.org
Back to the Heads Up Contents Page
Back to the uhuh opening Title Page
Back the Money Is Unreal Contents Page
Back to the uhuh home page.
Back to the top of this page.
** uhuh **
The President said he is reducing taxes.
Congress says they are balancing the budget.
uhuh. Sez who?
and Force Congress to
Kick the Debt & Taxes Habit with
$$ Money System Honesty for Us People. $$
We demand the whole truth with an honest viewpoint.
Don't send money. Call Jo(e) Congress and send letters.
Forest Glen Durland, CEO. 14675 1/2 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, CA 95070-6081
Voice: (408) 867-4410; Fax: (408)868-9446; Click here for email.
Web Home Page: www.uhuh.com
Back to the top of this page