Heads Up A Weekly edition of News from around our country April 4, 1997 #29 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net ---------------------------------------------------------- Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html ---------------------------------------------------------- BECAUSE PEOPLE CARE The White House was "sold for ILLEGAL FOREIGN CASH" including money from "Red China, which still considers itself a Communist country!" the letter said. "Thousands of American soldiers have lost their lives in the fight against the evil system of Communism. And now the FBI is investigating a sitting U.S. president's National Party Committee for accepting ILLEGAL FOREIGN CASH from the world's strongest remaining Communist regime!" Furthermore, the letter requests recipients to sign a "Declaration to the President" stating that "I hereby demand that President Clinton fully disclose all illegal foreign cash activities" and that he "stop selling out America to foreign nationals." Another appeal from the "far right"? Nope! Not this time folks. Those words came from a fund- raising letter that was mailed in mid-March to 240,000 potential donors. And, to date, the letter was also printed in five conservative magazines. The author of the letter, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), is Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee -- the main fund-raising body for Senate Republicans. And it looks like the Republican Party committee is breaking fund-raising records this year. Because, McConnell is right! The administration sold out, and the American people know it. So, exploiting the Democrats' campaign financing troubles is a highly successful way to go. Within two days, the letter brought in money and support from more than 22,000 people. Last week alone, over 120,000 people responded. As we have repeatedly said in this newsletter, folks, the American people are starting to pay attention. Bet on it! GUN RIGHTS Regardless of the attempts by a national alliance of socialists -- fronted primarily by Handgun Control Inc., and supported by a very misguided religious group and a whole host of major businesses -- to deprive Americans of their natural right to self defense, many states now issue concealed carry weapons permits. Crooks and miscreants, of course, do not apply for CCW permits. Honest people, those wanting to protect themselves from the crooks and miscreants, are the ones applying for the permits. The authoritarian-type control-freaks in government protest allowing honest Americans the exercise of this right, of course. Funny thing about that, too. Most of the people making the most protest noise are the very ones who, themselves, are carrying guns. Apparently, they are secure in their unfair advantage over the average citizen and want to keep it that way. In New Jersey, some police departments do not wish to issue permits. So, they don't. Libertarians filed a lawsuit to force local police departments to stop their foot-dragging, but it failed in court. The court's opinion is quite interesting, too: "in New Jersey, police do not have to issue or deny gun permits within 30 days, even though a state law requires them to do so." Typical! Kentucky's CCW permit law recently went into effect. And, like New Jersey, some Kentucky police chiefs also resent citizens carrying guns. However, they do not get a vote on the issue. CCW licenses in Kentucky are issued by an elected official, the County Sheriff. Consequently, except for the initial rush to get the license, there have been few problems. In Kentucky, applicants are "across the board" and "all ages," reports say. A State Police report issued last week said that permit-holders seem to be "staying out of trouble." The naysayers have even toned it down somewhat. Because, it is true: In every state where CCW permits are issued, crime went down and there was surprisingly little problem with citizens carrying weapons. Indeed, a politically incorrect Department of Justice report that may or may not be released clearly shows that armed off-duty police officers use their weapons inappropriately something like ten times more frequently than armed citizens. CONGRESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY "Congressional Responsibility" is almost an oxymoron. They pawn-off everything they can to boards, commissions, agencies, and what have you. To make a decision, to actually take a stand on an issue, is to loose votes. And, that could put them out of a cushy job. Professional politicians will do everything possible to stay in power. Therefore, they must pick and choose their "positions" very carefully. That is also why they do not pay much attention to that paper document known as the Constitution. To do so would not always be politically expedient. So, it's with pleasant surprise that "The Congressional Responsibility Act of 1997," (HR 1036) is gaining some attention. The purpose of the act is, as the name implies, to force Congress to comply with its Constitutional role. As Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) states in his "Freedom Watch Update" newsletter: "Article One of the Constitution limits the power to make certain laws solely to Congress. But the [current] practice has been very different. Congress has all but abdicated the real law-making authority to the alphabet soup of federal agencies. These agencies -- like the IRS, the EPA, the Department of Education, Health and Human Services, the Labor Department, etc. -- make rules which carry the full effect of law. These rules affect the minute details of the lives of individuals in every aspect of life, yet no elected official -- accountable to the voters and taxpayers -- sees the rules or has any part of the process. It's now time for this to change. These bureaucratic dictators need to be reigned in; and only Congress can do it. "This legislation will end the arbitrary rule-making authority of agencies. When an agency decides a rule is 'needed' for whatever reason, they will be required to submit that rule to the House and Senate. Those two bodies will debate the rule, just like any other piece of legislation, and then vote on it. If it passes, the rule goes into effect. If the vote fails, the rule does not go into effect." Yes! And the same thing should apply to executive orders. Congress, and no one else, is responsible for making law. It is hard enough to keep up with what the conniving socialists in Congress are doing. It is impossible for citizens to keep track of the lawmaking of thousands of control-freaks working in at least 112 different federal agencies too. Yet, each and every action of any and all of these bodies can adversely affect our lives. Worse, we are legally bound to obey all these stupid rules and regulations, even the hundred or more that contradict other agency rules and/or federal laws. This is definitely not what was intended by the Founding Fathers; and, everyone in Washington knows that. While we're at it, there is a law already on the books that Congress is skidding away from like a hot coal down an icy hill. This one is the "Congressional Review Act. The 1996 Congressional Review Act gives Congress the ability to scrutinize and expunge all new regulations, rules, policy statements, and guidelines issued by executive agencies. Except, no one in Congress has yet had the cajones to use it! To do so might require that some of them make a decision. For instance, there are at least forty Members of Congress publicly against the new (and totally ridiculous) EPA clean air regulations. But, not one Member of Congress is actually working to stop the administration's new round of oppression. Not one. A WET TACKLE It may have been a quick tackle by alert guards in Providence, RI the other day; but alas, it was too late. George "King Animal" Perry scored a wet one on the court. It must have been a wet tackle, too, cause Perry was peeing at the time. Peeing, as in urinating, that is. Right on the floor of the court! Oh . . . and perhaps we should explain that this was Federal Court. And the "guards" were federal marshals guarding the court. Twenty-two year old Perry and 6 other Latin King members, you see, were being tried for murder, drug dealing and extortion. Anyway, after about an hour of listening to the prosecutor's closing argument, Perry asked his lawyer if he could go to the bathroom. The lawyer passed a note to the judge, who then called a bench conference. While the lawyers were talking at the bench, Perry stood up, turned his back to the jury, unzipped, and let 'er rip. . . . That was when the marshals tackled him. The judge called a recess and ordered Perry banished to a cell for the rest of the trial. However, after lunch Perry apologized to the court. The judge chewed him out a little, but allowed him to stay. Defense attorneys for the other five then thought this an opportune time to ask for a mistrial. They argued that the incident had prejudiced the jury. Their motion was denied. No word on the sentences given the six yet. But, somehow we get the feeling that a little contempt of court charge added on will not make a bit of difference. PAYOLA AND PAYBACK It's kind of funny to watch the press and members of both political parties carry on the way they do. Outwardly, they are expressing horror that the Chinese may have tried to use covert campaign donations to influence American policy and political campaigns. What a bunch of hypocrites! How many countries continually meddle in our political affairs? Israel spends at least $100-million annually doing that in one form or another. Japan spends millions, too. And don't forget Taiwan. Those are the more obvious countries competing for American lawmaker's attention. Most countries are in that mix somewhere, and with some amount of money. And how has the United States been meddling in other nations' internal affairs over the years? Whew! Wouldn't that be a long list. . . . In every budget, Congress appropriates many millions of dollars in covert and overt money to use in influencing domestic politics abroad. The CIA alone spends $30 million a year supporting things like political parties, dissident movements and labor unions in dozens of countries -- including China. There's no telling how much of that is out and out bribes or political pay-offs. So, is there any surprise when the money trail leads both ways? Most foreign governments and businesses have become quite good at laundering money to "contribute" to our public officials in Washington. It's all technically illegal, of course. But, as the Democrats are so fond of saying lately: "So what! Everyone does it." And indeed, it's true. Most of them do. Because they need the money. The end justifies the means. This is politics American style. Laws? "Oh yeah. Well. . . ." But now China might have spoiled it for everyone. China didn't use enough "cut-outs," adequate layers of money laundering in between their government and our politicians, to make the money look respectable. Worse, they gave a lot of the money directly to two moles they had working in our government. One would think that the Chinese would at least be bright enough to hire a few lobbyists, and set up a couple front organizations, like other governments do. There are two other major problems, too. First, China is the only avidly Communist country attempting to effect our elections with political payola. And second, China is the only country powerful enough to sustain a war with us that is also buying influence with our politicians. These reasons alone tend to bump the Chinese contributions from the "so what" to the "serious problem" column in Washington. But the fact still remains: Many foreign governments, and many foreign business concerns, lobby Congress and the executive branch every day. Ninety- percent of them also contribute heavily to political campaigns, and whatever. Ten to one, we do it in their country too. So it's outrageous, hypocritical, and down right funny, when politicians and the media point the finger at China without so much as a mention of the other countries and their permanent Washington lobbies. Oh, and by the way, it is supposedly illegal for a foreign government to lobby our government, except through diplomatic channels. Sure it is! UNIFORMS For various reasons that need not be related here, black uniforms bother me. Uniforms are worn for one reason: Recognition. That is, the civilian police usually wear blue, brown or khaki uniforms, and the military branches wear their easily distinguished dress. And, as has been the case for over 200 years, civilians could always instantly tell the police from the military. But, today, some police wear war-suits. That is, they tend to dress in clothing which is identical to military personnel while at war. Worse, they often leave off anything identifying them as police officers. Worse yet, some local and federal police -- and military -- have begun to wear unmarked black uniforms! When meeting up with such a person, how are we to know who he is? How would you tell "friend or foe" with no markings? Clearly, a citizen cannot; and herein lies the problem. While dressed in black garb, the person cannot be, and would not be, dressed in a uniform. Black is not a police uniform. Nor is black a military uniform. What, then, is that person? A spy? A thug? Calling various police agencies did not help. None contacted admitted to authorizing use of a "black" uniform while on duty. So, our next stop was the military. For this, we asked "The Sergeant," who retired after a career in the Army. Surely, if the military allowed black uniforms, a retired First Sergeant and instructor would know about it. Below is his report. --------------------------- Today's BDU "fatigues" are the standard daily uniform worn under normal garrison duty and into combat. They are designed as a pair of trousers, woodland camouflage in color and design, which are bloused into the combat boots which today take various forms depending on geography, and occasionally MOS and command decision. These trousers are worn in conjunction with a tunic of the same color and design as the trousers, but it is not a blouse and can be called either a jacket or a tunic. It cannot be worn tucked in the trousers. The trousers consist of 6 pockets, 2 front and 2 hip as usual, but with 1 large bellows pocket on each outer lateral thigh with the top of the pocket flap beginning at the center of the Greater Trocanter, or hip joint, and ending just below the knee joint. According to Army Regulation (AR) 670-1, as updated on 1 September 1992, the only black uniform authorized in the Army is the Black Mess Uniform, which is the Army's equivalent of a civilian tuxedo. However, the Black Mess Uniform is not completely black. The blouse to be worn with it is white. I have found a few changes in uniforms since I was in the service. The BDU is not only one material now, it is made in a summer and a heavier winter variety. But the camouflage pattern is identical woodland pattern. Today, the DBDU (desert BDU) is also authorized for wear in certain western states and specified overseas posts. The only authorization I could find for wearing any uniform not specified in the Regulation was: Chapter 1, Paragraph 10, sub-paragraph g, (which is a catch-all for the Armed Forces, and similar paragraphs can be found in most all Regulations.) It states "Soldiers may wear experimental uniform items while actively engaged in an experimental uniform test program approved by HQ, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), HQ, U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC), or the Army Clothing and Equipment Board, HQDA. Experimental Items may not be worn after completion of the test unless approval is obtained from HQDA (Headquarters, Department of the Army). Other than that, no black fatigue uniforms are supposed to be authorized for our troops. One interesting aside, however. I decided to check out the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice. I found no untoward references to the uniform but, when I asked about uniform and apparel cases, I was informed by the librarian that the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, General Shalikasvili (or whatever) has ordered that the UCMJ and AR 670-1 be amended to allow for wear of other uniform items previously foreign to our soldiers, and that the UCMJ be amended to allow for prosecuting soldiers who refuse to serve under foreign officers. So far, I have no proof that this really is the case, but I have heard it before this in connection with the Michael New case. When a soldier goes into any situation wearing any except the proscribed uniform, you can bet a beer that his existence, as well as his mission, will be denied if he is killed or captured. I'll further bet you a beer that any US military person wearing a black uniform will be bereft of dogtags, ID, or any other form of identification and that, if he is overseas in conflict, an addendum was tagged to his official 201 file listing him as AWOL or a deserter (probably without his knowledge). He believes himself to be on an officially sanctioned mission but the powers that be will show that any actions taken if he is captured or killed were of his own volition. It has happened that these soldiers, if their bodies are retrieved before the enemy gets to them, will be 'recycled' in a variety of ways and their deaths usually attributed to a "training" accident. -- "The Sergeant" CHINA NO-SPEAK China is playing word games now. Beijing does not like to be criticized, so they went before the U.N. Commission to warn that any nation publicly condemning their human rights record may suffer. "If at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, there is no confrontation, then China can begin dialogues on human rights with every country," the Chinese minister told reporters. "But if there is confrontation, then I'm afraid that there will be no basis for dialogue." Got that? The Chinese foreign minister said that China will not talk about human rights at the U.N. with any other government that talks about China's human rights at the U.N. So, what does our guy do? He wimps out! This week, U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson told the U.N. Commission that Washington still wants a condemning resolution, although it preferred the Europeans to take the lead. Typical! The Democratic National Committee is short on money right now. They can't be rocking the boat with China just yet. So, Richardson wants someone else to do the dirty work for him. "In China, cases of people who criticize the government and receive legal punishment or are convicted do not exist," the minister said. "All were convicted because they engaged in certain activities that broke the relevant laws." Yeah. All eight-million of them. Christians, especially. -- End --