Heads Up A Weekly edition of News from around our country April 11, 1997 #30 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net ---------------------------------------------------------- Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html ---------------------------------------------------------- MUSING ON LIBERTY Thanks to a thought provoking letter from an author/talk show host/ journalist/Heads Up reader this week, an interesting revolution concerning liberty came to mind. We Americans do not know what Liberty is! We (those of us under 80) have never experienced real liberty in our lifetime. Oh sure, Roosevelt didn't start bringing actual socialism to the United States until after 1933. But even the adults living then did not realize the true benefits of a fully Constitutional form of government because they were living during a depression. Academically, in concept, we know what Liberty and a Constitutional form of government means. Yeah, in theory we know. But not practically. In reality, we Americans have no experience with the freedom intended by the Founding Fathers, and we have no one to tell us about it. As a country, we are missing our "institutional memory" concerning liberty and freedom. Hence, we have no real idea of exactly what we are missing, were the federal government to be operated Constitutionally. Isn't that a bummer! We have zero practical experience with liberty. We're Americans. Yet, we have never once lived under that Constitutional form of government designed for us by the Founding Fathers. Hey! No wonder we don't miss it. None of us have ever seen it. No wonder there are no riots in the streets demanding the return of Liberty. We cannot ask for the "return" of something we have never had. And no wonder the government feels free to control everything in our lives from womb to tomb. None of us are doing much complaining about it. This has been going on so long, most Americans actually think government is supposed to do things that way. The Constitution? Oh yeah; that's that old document kept under glass in Washington. The problem is, we Americans can no longer remember exactly what it was for. Just as an aside here: We at "Heads Up" would honestly like to have a shot at living under a truly Constitutional form of government. We would like to try life with all of those individual rights and liberties George Washington, James Madison and the guys at the Constitutional Convention intended for us. What do you think? A MEMORIAL TO OPPRESSION They're building a monument to socialism on the National Mall in Washington. OK, so they're not calling it that, exactly. But, nevertheless, it is. Actually, it's the FDR Memorial -- scheduled for public dedication ceremonies May 2. Yeah, the president most responsible for debasing, disobeying, ignoring, and damn near totally trashing our Constitution now gets a public memorial in Washington to celebrate his actions! Roosevelt was told numerous times that the government control programs he wanted were out an out socialism and, of course, unconstitutional. When, by knocking down a whole series of Roosevelt sponsored laws, the United States Supreme Court officially told FDR that his programs were totally unconstitutional, FDR actually attempted to reconfigure the Court itself. The Constitution be damned. Roosevelt wanted complete control of all commerce in the country. And, unfortunately, he got it. Talk about real socialism, the FDR administration had so much control over the lives of Americans they could even regulate what and how much a single small farmer could grow on his own property for personal consumption. FDR is the person most responsible for making possible those 112+ alphabet agencies in Washington. Roosevelt is the person most responsible for making possible that huge bookcase full of thick rule and regulation books. Hence, it is Roosevelt, through his total disregard for the style of government designed by the Founding Fathers, who is most responsible for the womb to tomb federal regulation of every facet of our lives! But, there's more yet. Remember Pearl Harbor? Roosevelt wanted in on World War II but Congress would not authorize it. Therefore, he allowed the Japanese Navy to attack Pearl Harbor. Sure, it's true that he did not personally steer the Japanese Navy over to Pearl Harbor. Nor did he personally ask them to attack. But, he had plenty of advance information that the Japanese were intending to attack. And what did Roosevelt do with this information? He kept it secret. He sat on it! He did not warn our American military. As a result, thousands of American Military personnel were killed at the "sneak attack" of Pearl Harbor. Dozens of American war-ships were sunk at Pearl Harbor. Why? Only because FDR refused to inform the troops that attack was imminent. Nice guy. But none of this seems important to the socialist miscreants in Washington. Instead, today's debate in Washington is whether FDR should be depicted as disabled or not. Who cares! The only honest depiction of FDR would be of him disabling the United States Constitution. The only real depiction of Roosevelt would be as a socialist. Let's get practical about this situation: As they open the a Memorial for the first American dictator, the first American socialist, in the City named for our first American President, perhaps we should stand back and think about this FDR character a bit. For instance, based on the above text, what do you think George Washington would do to FDR, were he able to get his hands on him? An FDR Memorial, indeed! Put it in Red Square. ANOTHER GUN STUDY Here they go again! Look for the leftist-liberal conspiracy in media to pump this story up soon. The New York Times reports that, "A new congressional study using data from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms shows that a handful of states, most in the South, with weak gun control laws are responsible for supplying a large percentage of the guns used in crimes in other states." The piece said that "four states -- Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas -- accounted for a quarter of all guns seized that were acquired outside the state where they were used in crimes." However, when you read down to the third paragraph, you see just how useful the data really is. The report, prepared by the staff of Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), also found that "gunrunners use major Interstate highways as their smuggling routes," especially I-95, which runs from southern Florida to points north. Now, to add a little humor this week, here's the main quote from Chuckie Schumer. But remember, Chuckie is one of the most obnoxious and prejudiced Members of Congress. In this nut's mind, anyone not living in New York is little more than excess baggage to be tolerated. He's so self-centered that, to him, the whole of the rest of the country is expected to kowtow and conform to whatever it is that New York City wants. Schumer said the report was "the first study that shows conclusively that gun control works for the simple reason that states with weak gun control laws are exporting guns to states with tough gun control laws." What a nitwit! States with "weak gun control laws" have much less crime than places like New York City. One reason for that fact is that New York has a far greater number of undomesticated street Cretans per capita than anyplace in the country -- except maybe Washington, D.C. Should this be the problem of the law-abiding people of other states? Also, as an old judge from down in the hills once related when we commented on his area's low crime rate: "People tend to not bother one another here. Everyone has a gun. It's only the visitors, the ones who don't know any better, we have to watch." Read that quote again, folks, and heed the words of a wise old man who was a sitting judge for a very long time. The real United States of America is right there, in those very few words! And so it is in many areas throughout our country. Yet, these socialist morons like Charles Schumer would make all of the country like New York City or the District of Colombia if given half the chance. Two-hundred and twelve years ago, The Founding Fathers realized full well that people and situations were different throughout the country. They knew perfectly well that one law could not and would not fit all throughout the country equally. The Constitution was designed to reflect that -- and it was further reiterated explicitly in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. It's the idiots in today's government who can't seem to understand why a strictly limited central government was intended! CRIME WAVE Anyone hear about a "crime wave" on the Internet? According to the FBI, there is one. Someplace. This week, there was a warning about the Internet's "dark side" from FBI Director Louis Freeh. And -- now get this -- he said public awareness of child pornography in cyberspace is just as important as law enforcement efforts to battle it. FBI Louie has obviously been taking lessons from Slick Willie. You know, like when Slick sees an explosion in drug trafficking during his watch, then goes after tobacco instead. . . . Speaking of Slick . . . FBI Louie has enough crime and corruption in and around the White House to keep his people busy for two or three years. Because, the fact is that his organization is the one directly responsible for allowing all of the secure documents and information to leak out of there. And that's without even mentioning the 900+ secret files his people sent over to the White House illegally. Freeh said that parents and guardians should forbid children from sending personal information over the Internet, and urged parents to become familiar with the on-line services youngsters use. Parents also shouldn't let kids meet alone with anyone they met through computer networks. See, that's why he gets the big bucks, folks! He gives us all this good, important information. "People and things are not what they seem on the Internet," FBI Louie told the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees funding of the Justice Department, the parent agency of the FBI. He got that right! Everything on the Internet is, in fact, "little e's": electrons. It's real all right, but not in the sense that you can grab it. Or, in his case, arrest it. Seriously, FBI Louie went over to talk with Congress to see if he can get "more resources." Which means, more of our tax money. He wants $10-million a year more so his guys can monitor on-line chat rooms. Really! $10-million annually to bug chat rooms. And, based on the wonderful job the FBI has been doing lately, and all that useful information FBI Louie offered parents this week, Congress will probably give it to them, plus a lot more. Remember now, the FBI has to be able to bug over 2,000,000 of our private telephone conversations simultaneously, *and* police the Internet. It takes lots of "resources" for big brother to be able to handle all that. We would bet that we could find 100 stay at home moms willing to do the job for half of the price. They would probably do a much better job of it, too. But don't tell Congress. Hiring moms to watch out for the welfare of kids makes too damn much sense. WHY THE REVOLUTION FIZZLED They started out with a bang, then ended in a whimper. One reason was that they forgot one basic premise that applies to anyone pioneering new ideals: "The Pioneers get the arrows!" It's true in every field. Attempt to change the status quo and those comfortable with the current system will protest. And if, as in this case, none of the people supporting change are accustomed to being in a position of strong leadership, the pioneering movement can expect stern and relentless criticism from the previous leaders. It's even worse in politics. But there's more to it than just that. Not only did these pioneers not prepare for the vicious attack from the far left, they even neglected to protect their core -- their rallying point. Many thousands of us -- maybe many hundreds of thousands of us -- have watched, listened to and cheered Newt Gingrich over the years. His was the one lone voice from Washington speaking of individual liberty, and freedom from government control. His was the only voice in Washington daring to recommend texts such as "The Federalist Papers" and "Democracy in America," as examples of how our government should be operated. Yes, Newt had a lot of us voters out here in "fly-over country" convinced that if we could elect just a few more Republicans to Congress, the Republican Revolution would rise up and squelch that ever-oppressive liberal leviathan we call a federal government. Newt had us convinced that, through the Republican Party, America could again return to the pre-Roosevelt style of limited federal government that made this country so great. Republicans would downsize government by firing a few federal agencies, boards and commissions. Republicans would recoup the savings from smaller government and reflect them in a lower tax burden for all Americans. Republicans would remove most of those womb to tomb regulations stymieing progress and liberty. And Americans might once again pursue their own idea of personal happiness through individual freedom and the opportunity to live their lives as they see fit. In other words, Newt promised us that, through Republican control of Congress, America would once again have the government intended by the authors of our Constitution. Then, at last, that ever-extending heavy hand of government restriction would be slapped back to where it belongs. It took Newt a few years to get enough of us to believe him. But, believe him we did. And finally, Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress. The problem was, the newly elected Republican team was not nearly as cohesive and dependable as the new leadership hoped. Consequently, when the liberal establishment's arrows started flying in the direction of the "pioneers," many of the Republicans immediately cowered, and ran for cover. Instead of protecting their core, their leader, the person most responsible for getting them there, many Republicans left Newt out front to catch the worst of the liberal's attack. Instead of launching a strong, unified counter attack in support of their ideals and their leader, most Republicans ducked and hid, leaving Newt alone to field the onslaught from the left. Instead of charging in force in support of core issues -- important issues like a reduction in oppressive regulations, an end to pork-barrel spending, a reduction of the bloated federal budget, and repeal of oppressive laws -- many of the elected Republicans groveled to the liberals with a self-indulgent "go along to get along" posture. And in so doing, they left Newt hanging in the breeze, totally unprotected. Instead of unified support, there was hardly a peep from elected Republicans when liberals charged Newt with over 500 bogus ethics violations. There was seldom a word from the elected Republicans for the three long years that the administration and the liberal press launched a coordinated attack to malign Newt's character. Nor is there support today when make-believe Republicans in the press, like William Kristol of the American Standard, go after Newt. Most of the Republican cadre are hiding, covering their butts. They're afraid that if they come to Newt's defense, take a position, or make a stand, they might risk their cushy jobs. And, in a nutshell, that's what this all amounts to. These are little more than professional politicians protecting their positions. Most have been vetted enough that we voters know that they understand what is right. For sure, they can mouth the ideals of individual freedom, liberty, smaller government and lower taxes. The problem with them is obvious: Many have neither the intestinal fortitude nor the personal integrity to actually stand up and fight for what is right. Not only are they not leaders, they are not even dependable followers. Newt launched the campaign that put the Republicans in control. Newt spearheaded the "Republican Revolution." But, as soon as the war got a little warm, as soon as the criticism from the left got a little hot, a whole cadre of cowards deserted their posts and abandoned their leader. Americans want freedom from this over oppressive federal government. We want lower taxes, less government and full disclosure of everything the government does. Newt, and only a handful of elected Republicans, still show the courage necessary to publicly profess these ideals. When duty called, the others deserted the field of honor. Indeed, they preferred to protect their personal position, rather than the American public and our United States Constitution. BIOSPHERE RESERVE CONFERENCE Report by: Barry Bright As many as four new pro-environmental, pro- property rights and pro-local control organizations were formed at the end of a four-hour Biosphere Reserve conference held in Paducah, Kentucky last weekend. The new groups, from the states of Illinois, Missouri, and Tennessee are modeled after another group named "Take Back Arkansas." These new versions of eco-wackos have different priorities than the normal earth lover; namely the love of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as envisioned by our nation's Founding Fathers. "We're for the environment," said Norman Davis. "But we want local control." Davis organized the Paducah meeting as founder of another group, the Council on Affairs of Science and Sovereignty. That group and the meeting came about because the fate of a large recreational area in Western Kentucky had come into question. For decades, an area known as the Land Between the Lakes (LBL) was controlled by the Tennessee Valley Authority. The TVA, which is a "stand alone" government agency, claims it wants to rid itself of the management of the recreational areas of LBL and stick to the creation of energy. At least that's TVA's version. Take Back Arkansas member Betty Ann Beaver spoke to the group about the success of the group she belongs to, but leavened her message with serious warnings. "We found out that we stopped the biosphere reserve temporarily, in the Arkansas highlands," Beaver said. But she went on to produce stacks of US government and United Nations publications to back up her allegations that 50% of the nation's land is slated for "rewilding." Beaver said that this program will eventually affect everyone in the country. Local control is the focus of a group from Murray, Kentucky, named Concept Zero. That name came from their opposition to a list of five concepts for the future of LBL that TVA now says it has dropped. David Nickel, whose family had owned what was then called "land between the rivers" since an ancestor earned it for service in the Revolutionary War, recounted that one of his earliest memories was of watching the neighbors houses being trucked down the road and wondering if theirs would go as well. It did. Nickel's desire is simple. He wants to find out if they can get the land back someday. Now TVA is developing the LBL, with the most recent development occurring over the past winter. "You don't do that kind of construction if you're planning to give something up," Nickel said. His efforts to gain information, have been met with requests for money for the documentation he needs from the TVA. "We've been stonewalled," Nickel said. The featured speaker partially agreed with Nickel. "His fight is with the Land Between the Lakes but there is another battle," said Henry Lamb, of the Environmental Conservation Organization. According to both the convention speakers and TVA publications, LBL was designated as a Biosphere Reserve in 1991. A total of 42,000 acres of LBL land is now under protective status. This makes the recreation area one of the most recent additions to the 40 plus Biosphere Reserves in the United States. "Since 1988 all 47 Biosphere Reserves in the United States, have adopted a regional management approach in which there is to be a core wilderness area, surrounded by a buffer zone, surrounded by a zone of cooperation. And these Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors," Lamb said. This management plan is central to the Wildlands project recently developed in the United States, according to an article Lamb quoted that was published in "Wild Earth" in 1992. Reed Knoss(sp), who wrote the article, believes that in order to protect biodiversity, at least 50 percent of the land area in North America must be set aside as Core Wilderness Area, assuming most of rest is managed as buffer zones. This would eventually create a "matrix" of wilderness surrounding islands of human habitat. This plan is endorsed by United Nations environment program written into the Convention on Biological Diversity and being implemented through a world wide system of biosphere reserves which seem to be the nucleus of this network of wilderness worldwide, according to Lamb. African and South American programs are far advanced of ours. Ingrained in this process are reams of regulations that will control what remains of private property. And ultimately: "There will no longer be private property," Lamb said. Which for many people is the core issue. "Where is this taking us?" Lamb asked. "In 1992 the UN assembled a special commission on global governance." Lamb also provided documentation for his charges in the form of official publications, some hundreds and even thousands of pages thick, published by both the United Nations and the United States Government as well as non-governmental organizations. "We must confront this with knowledge, with facts and without hysteria, it is because of our love for our Constitutional Republic that we must continue the fight," Lamb said. -- End --