Heads Up A Weekly edition of News from around our country February 28, 1997 #24 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net ---------------------------------------------------------- Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html ---------------------------------------------------------- SOME TRUTH FROM D.C. We have said repeatedly that the next great American leader -- the next Washington, Jefferson, Madison or Franklin -- will probably not come from our current crop of politicians. The group we have running the country today is more interested in the control of the people than the freedom of the people, more interested in keeping their over-paid positions secure than bothering to obey the Constitution. Oh sure, there are some lights that shine a little brighter than others in Washington. Senator Fred Thompson comes to mind. But, there are none championing the Constitution. Nor do we see any of them showing an interest in reinstituting those unalienable rights once guaranteed the American citizen by our Constitution. But folks, sometimes even the cynic on this end can be pleasantly surprised. In the mix, our very busy fax and e-mail line received a message from Congress. The message said to call 1 (888) 322-1414 for a "toll free Legislative Update." So, OK, why not? It was free, and who knows, it might be about something suitable for "Heads Up." Then, out of that dark maze of overpowering inequity in the Capitol Building came a message shining as bright as an over-lit one-hundred foot tall billboard at midnight. This, folks, was definitely not the type of message one normally gets from Congress! Rather, it was closer to the type of message we *dream* of hearing from Congress, but have not in our lifetimes. The recorded message was misnamed "The Coming Police State." And the word "misnamed" is used here only because the message did a very excellent job of outlining the basics of the police state that we already have. This was Texas Representative Ron Paul telling it like it is. There was no equivocation, no excuses, and no political obfuscation. Just the facts of the matter are given. Better yet, the speech was first given on the floor of the House of Representatives, and so is part of the official record. Paul's message will be available until Monday morning. Take the minute or two to listen. It is well worth the time. He will have recorded messages available 24 hours a day and, according to the tape, they will change every Monday morning. THEY LOST THEIR BOMB It's not often one misplaces a bomb. But they did. It was just a little bomb, though. Only five pounds of explosives -- hidden in one of those kitchen style plastic containers. They describe their lost bomb as "a blue top and a semiopaque white bottom, about 8 inches wide and 12 to 18 inches long." They will not say exactly what type of explosives were in the container. But on this end we're betting it was C-4. Oh. And folks, they would really like to get it back. . . . So, if any of you who flew out of, or through, Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee last week ended up with an extra little something in your baggage . . . well, there are some Sheriffs' deputies and a bomb-sniffing dog-in-training that would appreciate a call. Apparently, none of them are very well trained yet. They need the bomb returned so they can loose it again, and practice finding it -- hopefully, before a passenger leaves with it again. And just as an aside to this story: This is the second time they "lost" their bomb at that airport. Last time, the FAA report reads, they put a half-pound of C-4 in a passenger's bag for the dog to find and "forgot" to remove it. Evidently, the passenger took it home. An FAA official said that he did not know precisely how many times trainers had lost explosives at airports or on planes but that it was "extremely rare." Yeah, sure! It is extremely rare that such screw-ups get reported is probably a lot closer to the truth. Now, we don't want to get on a rant here . . . But geezzz! Some underpaid county mounty and his undertrained bomb sniffing Beagle protecting us against terrorists that we have never had by bringing their own bombs to commercial aircraft? This is stupidity personified! That's like training our Great Dane to find lost kids in the woods out back by first loosing a kid a week back there for him to try to find. Or maybe we could teach him to be a good guard dog by hiring some prowlers for him to attack? But, hey, these people are "protecting" us, folks. Sure they are. By placing explosives in our luggage. JOHN DOE TIMES As the court trials loom closer, interest is picking up in the events leading up to the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. An excellent background account -- and running commentary -- regarding the bombing can be found on the Internet in a publication called the "John Doe Times." The "John Doe Times," and a wealth of other information, can be reached though Dave Feustel's Website at: http://feustel.mixi.net/ Or, the index for the "John Doe Times" can be addressed directly at: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6784/jdtindex.htm The text is well written and easy to read. However, there is a lot of interesting material there, so plan on staying a while. WORKING MEN Those darn U-Hall trucks keep popping up all over the country. So, when the FBI released an all points bomb alert for two or more guys in a U-Hall, they were flooded with calls. It was a "terrorist threat advisory," the feds said. They had reports about two men seen in a small Texas town with a U-Haul rental truck hauling something. Uh huh, sounds criminal to us on this end too. Then -- gasp -- the men stopped to get 30 gallons of diesel fuel. Yup, for sure they must be "terrorists." Hell, there couldn't be any other use for diesel fuel out there in the country now, could there? Nope. They must be up to no good. So, whatever the men were hauling in the back of the truck suddenly got upgraded to "thousands of pounds of fertilizer." Hence, the all points bulletin for the truck. Well, heck, that could be enough material to produce a bomb similar to the one that exploded in Oklahoma City. Yup, must be terrorists. The U-Hall officials said they were cooperating with the FBI. But, as they verified, there were thousands of trucks like that on the road, and there is no telling where that particular truck might be. Then CNN picked up the story, and the FBI had to back down a notch or two. After all, all it takes is one cop with a gun playing hero to really ruin someone's day, and thousands of people fit this profile. Yet another FBI advisory spiced up the story by saying the truck might be carrying 4,500 pounds of ammonium nitrate fertilizer and 30 gallons of diesel fuel. So, news accounts reported that the prosecutors in the Oklahoma City case say that Timothy McVeigh used that combination of material to fashion the bomb that destroyed the federal building. The FBI advisory asked people with any information to call a toll-free number (888) 324-9800, and it urged the men who had been spotted to call the FBI or the local police "at once because of the possibility that the materials in the truck were meant only for innocent use." Hey! They thought of that, too. Wow, there may be some intelligent life in Washington after all. . . . "Heads Up" would really like to know exactly how they got that "4,500 pounds of ammonium nitrate" rumor out there, though. That was, to say the least, rather irresponsible on the part of federal agents. Turns out, the two men live in the area of Haltom City, outside Fort Worth, said Les Martz, ATF agent in charge of the Dallas division. Agents found the two men by canvassing U-Haul rental outlets and places throughout the Dallas-Fort Worth area where fertilizer is sold. The men "were surprised and they were cooperative," an FBI spokeswoman said. Bet on it! All those FBI and ATF guns would get anyone's attention. They were hauling "baking powder for use as an antiseptic in scrubbing floors and tiles," a federal law enforcement official in Washington said on condition of anonymity. Now, wait. . . Hold on just a darn minute here! What if they really were hauling ammonium nitrate fertilizer in that truck? So what! This is the time of year we country folk start purchasing stuff like that. And the men were, by the way, in a rural area. And what would be wrong with bringing home a few gallons of diesel fuel too? It costs more to purchase it that way, but that's their business, not the FBI's. Are all of us to be suspects when we buy fertilizer nowadays? If so, watch for another alert sometime next week -- this time on a blue Plymouth Minivan -- because it's time to get busy here, too. And, yup, we're getting some ammonium nitrate fertilizer. GOVERNMENT FOR SALE If you pay them enough money, they'll make the law you want. That's how it is in Washington these days. Remember the old song "King of the Road?" Well, instead of "trailer for sale or rent, rooms to let fifty cents," it is now 'government for sale or rent, pay Congress or the president.' The problem is that all this pay'en is going on, but it is not doing us citizens the slightest bit of good. In fact, it usually works directly against our best interest. Back in "Heads Up" #19 we exposed a little of how Congress accepts their legal pay-offs to legislate. We don't need to go over that again except to say that they're all still at it. The special interest money flows freely up on Capital Hill. They're still scooping in the money with both hands, and evidently, legislating accordingly. And so is the Slickster on the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. Old Slick Willie seems to be putting everyone in Congress to shame with his "fund raising" abilities. He raised $10,210,840, that we know about, just from renting out one bedroom. Then, he picked up another $27-million and change by having coffee with a few chosen folks from time to time. Hey, $38-million without even leaving home. What a deal! There seems to be another "first" in this administration, too. There are currently 25 FBI agents working on an espionage case tied to the White House. And, the Clinton, Clinton & Gore team is dead center in the middle of it all. A while back, the National Security Agency intercepted a communication between the communist China government and its embassy in Washington. The communication concerned how, and how much, money will be "contributed" -- stealthy, or course -- to the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee by the Government of China. There are a few Members of Congress quite interested in that communication. Hopefully, the FBI is too. On one hand, it seems very doubtful that Janet Reno would allow the Justice Department to do much about it. But on the other hand, a grand jury has already started hearing testimony concerning the administration's fund raising fraud. So, what was the quid pro quo on this? What did China buy? Most Favored Nation status, for one. Better trade relations -- relaxed regulations -- for another. We suddenly quit selling arms to Taiwan. And, we haven't said anything about all this oppression looming over the heads of the people in Hong Kong, either. Oh, and they now get access to a lot of our new technology so their missiles and military aircraft are more accurate. Special interest money talks in Washington. Meanwhile, our individual freedoms get sacrificed in favor of better population control. ANOTHER DUMMY This week, a federal mail facility near Cheverly, MD received a "suspicious package" addressed to the FBI. The offending box was 12 inch by 12 inch, and for some reason it caught the attention of one of the FBI technicians at the facility. So, they X-rayed it. Sure enough, it looked like a bomb. So the technicians left the package on the X-ray machine and called in the bomb squads from both the FBI and the Prince George's County Fire Department. Then, in the midst all the hubbub of the bomb squads and people running around looking important, someone got a bright idea: The package had a shipper's tracking number. And, the shipper said it had come from the FBI office in San Francisco. So . . . why not call the sender and ask what was really in there? Yes, said the San Francisco agent, he had sent the dummy bomb. And yes, it had also fooled someone on that end a couple of months ago. But, whoops, the agent had forgotten to follow procedures and tell headquarters it was on the way. TWICE THE SPEED Here's a deal the "Heads Up" computer can sure use: Hayes is offering consumers a free modem upgrade. If you buy one of their Accura or Optima 33.6 and 28.8 kbps by April 15, they will trade you for the new 56K. Or, if you're like us and do not now use a Hayes modem, Hayes will swap your internal or external modem for a new one for $99 -- regardless of manufacturer or speed. However, upgrades to Hayes modems other than Accuras and Optimas are offered for $89. And darn if we don't have one of the original external 300's still sitting on the shelf next to an old Z80 CPM computer. So, that's what they will be getting in trade from us: the Hayes original. They say the new modem will almost double the speed of downloading information from the Internet and will enable uplink speeds of up to 45 kbps over standard telephone lines. We'll see. It sounds good, anyway. "Heads Up" is not advertising Hayes, or any product. This just sounded like a good deal, so we decided to pass along the information. Their web site is at: www.hayes.com THE DECLINE OF LIBERTY Can the United States Supreme Court produce an unconstitutional opinion? Technically, probably not. But they certainly came very close on February 19, 1997. In the Maryland v. Jerry Lee Wilson (95-1268) opinion the Court said that: "a police officer may as a matter of course order the driver of a lawfully stopped car to exit his vehicle," and that this authority "extends to passengers as well." Maryland State Police stopped a car for driving nine miles over the limit and not having a license plate visible. There were three men in the car. And, during the pursuit, the officer noticed that "the two passengers turned to look at him several times, repeatedly ducking below sight level and then reappearing." As the officer approached the car on foot, "the driver alighted and met him halfway. The driver was trembling and appeared extremely nervous, but nonetheless produced a valid Connecticut driver's license." The officer instructed him to return to the car and retrieve more documents, and he complied. "During this encounter, the officer noticed that the front seat passenger, respondent Jerry Lee Wilson, was sweating and also appeared extremely nervous." While the driver was sitting in the driver's seat looking for the documents, the officer ordered Wilson out of the car. Now, here's where the scenario becomes unbelievable: "When Wilson exited the car, a quantity of crack cocaine fell to the ground. Wilson was then arrested and charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute." Let's see here: The three were transporting illegal drugs, got stopped by the cops, and one of the guys just happened to leave the evidence sitting right out in the open, on his lap. Get real! Perhaps we are to believe that the two passengers had been ducking down earlier so as to get all the illegal drugs up where the nice officer could find them easily? Either this guy Wilson is one of the stupidest twits walking the streets of America or the police officer illegally searched the car. Our two-bits would bet it is the latter. And now for the Court's reasoning for allowing a police officer to order everyone out of an already stopped vehicle. Check this logic: "On the public interest side of the balance, the same weighty interest in officer safety is present regardless of whether the occupant of the stopped car is a driver or passenger. Regrettably, traffic stops may be dangerous encounters. In 1994 alone, there were 5,762 officer assaults and 11 officers killed during traffic pursuits and stops. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports: Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted 71, 33 (1994). In the case of passengers, the danger of the officer's standing in the path of oncoming traffic would not be present except in the case of a passenger in the left rear seat, but the fact that there is more than one occupant of the vehicle increases the possible sources of harm to the officer. "On the personal liberty side of the balance, the case for the passengers is in one sense stronger than that for the driver. There is probable cause to believe that the driver has committed a minor vehicular offense, but there is no such reason to stop or detain the passengers. But as a practical matter, the passengers are already stopped by virtue of the stop of the vehicle. The only change in their circumstances which will result from ordering them out of the car is that they will be outside of, rather than inside of, the stopped car. Outside the car, the passengers will be denied access to any possible weapon that might be concealed in the interior of the passenger compartment. It would seem that the possibility of a violent encounter stems not from the ordinary reaction of a motorist stopped for a speeding violation, but from the fact that evidence of a more serious crime might be uncovered during the stop. And the motivation of a passenger to employ violence to prevent apprehension of such a crime is every bit as great as that of the driver." So, we are all to be suspects now? Because we exist, because a vehicle is stopped for a minor traffic violation, all concerned are to be treated as if they are suspected felons? Whew! Are the police now expected to be "proactive," too? If so, the police state is here. And, as far as the safety of the police officer is concerned, two very important points were conveniently forgotten by the Court. First, police officers are trained to make safe traffic stops. And second, the officers, by virtue of applying for and training for that position, put themselves out there on the street. The officer wanted to do that job. "In summary," the Court writes "danger to an officer from a traffic stop is likely to be greater when there are passengers in addition to the driver in the stopped car. While there is not the same basis for ordering the passengers out of the car as there is for ordering the driver out, the additional intrusion on the passenger is minimal. We therefore hold that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop." This opinion trashes our American ideal of liberty. We are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty of a crime. And a traffic violation, by the way, is not even a crime. It is a civil infraction. Therefore, no person -- not the driver, nor any passengers -- should be treated with anything less than the utmost respect by any and all police officers. Police officers are hired "to protect and to serve" the needs of the community. That does not include ordering the citizens of that community around, for any reason, except during an emergency. Hassling passengers of a vehicle because of a little traffic violation by the driver is analogous to making all customers in a restaurant stand up against the wall while the officers eat their donuts. Because, if citizens are not to be trusted in one situation, such as on the street, who is to say they can be trusted in any situation, anywhere? And folks, it looks like that is exactly where some in government want all this to lead us: To immediate, unquestioned obedience to government authority. Why? -- End --