Heads Up

A Weekly edition of News from around our country

November 16, 1997
Issue #59

by: Doug Fiedor

Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html


It appears that we may have been a little hasty in not taking the impeachment resolution presented in the House by Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) seriously last week. That was because, as we reported, it currently has only 17 cosponsors.

A few readers took us to task for that. We were also informed that a few thousand Americans replied to Barr's web page (http://www.house.gov/barr), and a few thousand more voters called and wrote their respective Representatives requesting that they sign on to the impeachment resolution. We did too, as a matter of fact.

In part, we (somewhat humorously) wrote our Republican Congressman:

"Let's face it, the impeachment process is serious business and should not be taken lightly. On the other hand, how many laws do Clinton and Gore have to break before the process begins? If I violated any one of those campaign finance laws -- just by a paltry quarter-million bucks or so -- I would soon be wearing stainless-steel bracelets and the Federal Government would be carting me off to some cold, dark Federal stockade. I would then be deprived of cable TV, the Internet, beer, multiple trips to the refrigerator, and other such necessities. Yet, Clinton and Gore cheated the matching funds account by $43-million and laundered millions more through the unions with impunity. Instead of the stainless-steel bracelets, they still have taxpayer paid servants. Where's the 'fairness' here?

"Then there's the China connection. We could write a book about that one! I know that the Justice Department refuses to give the whole story on that to Congress. It doesn't matter. There is more than enough good, strong information available publicly for any grand jury in the country to indict. And that's all the House of Representatives would be doing: Indicting.

"Of course, you would have to indict Al Gore at the same time. He was a major participant in it all.

"And just think of the benefit to the United States. Newt would be President for the next three years. Immediately, he could cancel those stupid new clean air regulations. That would be like adding another $250-billion into the economy. Republicans could get rid of the Departments of Education and Commerce, too. Heck, you might even be able to balance the Federal budget the old fashioned way -- without using the new math.

"Really, there's so much corruption and sleaze in this administration that just about every Republican in the House could pick their own favorite subject to research and present to the impeachment hearings. The process would probably never even need to get to the Senate for trial because, this way, you would embarrass Clinton and Gore into quitting.

"C-SPAN would, of course, cover the hearings. They would be watched in churches, schools, restaurants, bars and private homes all over the country. Republicans would be heroes. The economy would grow. At least the appearance of the Rule of Law would be returned to the country. And, barring the approval of any more strange treaties sending more American jobs overseas, the Republicans would do fantastically well in the next two elections.

"Look at the PR value here: If Republicans get rid of Clinton, Clinton & Gore -- and the IRS -- in the same year, nothing will be able stop the party from winning for many years to come. Throw in a resurgence of Constitutional liberty too and you'll have it made for two generations.

"You would be giving us part of what we want: More spendable money. A Federal Government that stays in Washington and leaves us alone. And a return to something resembling freedom. What's not to like about this?

"This action will show the world that it's the Republicans, not the Social-Democrats, who aggressively support honor in government, freedom and liberty for the people, and the (original) American way.

"All that from supporting the resolution of the Gentleman from Georgia. . . ."

Certainly, I had a little fun with the letter. You should too. The subject is serious. But let's face it, this administration is a joke, both here and around the world. Worse yet, this administration is an embarrassment to everything that we were taught to be the American way. These people are corrupt socialists -- and worse.

But this puts the burden of action squarely upon us, the people. If approached properly, many in Congress will act. But they're waiting for something in return: A strong indication of your support. That is, your support in this matter should be expressed with a letter, and then a telephone call to the local office backing it up.

It is nice, but unnecessary, to copy your letter to Congressmen Bob Barr and the Republican leadership. Ultimately though, it is your Representative who must act by co-sponsoring and supporting the resolution. Even if your Representative is a Democrat, and a Clinton supporter, the letters and calls still count (and are counted). Eventually, this count will be presented to the White House as a warning.

It's time for all groups to act, and to encourage their friends and neighbors to act. This is our opportunity to legally cause this administration every bit as much trouble as it has caused us these past five years. To not collectively avail ourselves to that opportunity would be a damn shame.


Even if you do not contribute big bucks to campaigns, your letters and calls to Members of Congress can still make a difference. For instance, here's part of a letter we received from Congressman Jim Bunning this week:

"Thank you for letting me know about your support for legislation to repeal the Internal Revenue Code.

"I agree with you and I have signed on as a cosponsor to legislation that would do just this. Right now I do not expect that Congress is going to consider a bill to repeal the tax code until public support for the idea grows, but I do believe it is an issue we should continue to get folks to talk about."

And that's it in a nutshell, folks: "Until public support for the idea grows." Need this be any clearer? We are the public. They want to know that we will support this action. Our job, then, is to tell them to get it done.

There are only three ways we can express that "public support." One way is to tell them face to face. But that is not always practical for everyone. The most important way to express your support on any position is to write a short letter (not e-mail) to their Washington office, or their local office if they are on vacation again. And, of course, your position should always be backed up with a telephone call to the local office a few days after personal contact or sending the letter.

If you want the IRS mess cleaned up, tell them so. Most in Congress are on the fence about this. Push them off!

If you want more action on the campaign finance hearings, tell them so. If enough Democrats get letters and calls we will see the tone of those hearings change immediately. Remember, there's an election next year, and they want to keep their seats.

And if you, like us, would like to watch what looks like it could be a very interesting impeachment hearing . . . Well . . . you get the idea.


"Mr. Speaker, China's President is in America. President Jiang told the press China will not tolerate any interference by the U.S. Government. In fact, President Jiang sent over a list of irritant subjects he will not even discuss.

"No. 1: He will not even talk about trade, even though it is going to hit $60 billion. No. 2: No, he will not talk about human rights. No. 3: He does not even want to hear about the last Presidential election. Do not mention John Huang, Charlie Trie. Stay out, Uncle Sam. And guess what? The White House said, 'Don't worry, this is no big deal.'

"Beam me up! The White House will not wise up until there is a full-blown rice paddy on the east lawn of the White House. Somebody is smoking dope."

-- Rep. Jim Traficant, addressing the House on October 28, 1997


According to the Clinton crowd, we Americans are no longer to be trusted with teaching our children. They're going to indoctrinate them for us. We Americans are teaching our kids "hate," the president says. And that's bad.

"Children have to be taught hate," Clinton said at a White House conference on hate crimes. "We want to teach them a different way." So, according to the Washington Times, he called for colleges and schools from kindergarten through 12th grade to implement diversity programs to provide tolerance education the administration fears is lacking in American homes.

And just to make sure the federal government gets its mitts into every segment of society, President Clinton called for expanding the definition of hate crimes that fall under federal jurisdiction to include "all hate crimes that cause physical harm," including those against women, the disabled and homosexuals.

"Anybody who thinks ... that he or she can hide from the kind of poison that we see in various places in our country is living in a dream world,'' Clinton said. "Whether we like it or not, our futures are bound together, and it is time we acted like it.''

Of course, the White House wants to count and categorize all these so called "hate crimes" too. So, the plan also includes better (mandatory?) reporting of hate crimes to the FBI. Also, an additional 50 FBI agents and federal prosecutors will be hired to enforce hate-crime laws, and a "National Hate Crimes Network" formed to marshal the resources of federal, state and local enforcement as well as educators and other local groups.

This is an amazingly blatant assault on the separation of powers doctrine, and a very unconstitutional proposal. It is little more than an attempt to federalize assault and battery laws, an area of law which has always been the jurisdiction of the States.

Not said is what they plan to teach the children about hate. Are we now to be required to accept everyone as they are, no exceptions? That can never work.

For instance, one of the guys from my old neighborhood is an activist queer from the group Queer Nation. He would stop by the house every few months unannounced, but he always knew there were some ground-rules to be observed. Simply put, I did not want to hear about their queer activist activities. And so I did not. Was that hate? I think not.

Same with the little punks on the street: Mouth off, get smacked. That's the deal, the only correct way to handle many of these people. Is that hate? Of course not. It may be now, though -- if the smackee is a different race, sex or national origin than the smacker.

Before government got involved we had Polish neighborhoods, Italian neighborhoods, and German, Russian, Jewish, Black, Mexican and Arabic neighborhoods. It wasn't exactly as totally compartmentalized as it sounds. But, generally, people tended to move into areas with like people. The neighborhoods blended over a lot, and generally we shared churches, schools and whatnot in a (relative to today) trouble-free environment.

Then, one day government agents came and told us we were allowed to move anywhere we wished. The problem was, no one wanted to move. A couple years later the government agents came back. They said we needed to live in "diversified" neighborhoods. We didn't catch on right away, and still hardly anyone moved.

So, government came back and bought up most of the empty lots, built some inexpensive homes -- even for that working class neighborhood -- and proceeded to show us what "diversified" really meant.

Turns out they had been doing that all over the city. Our old neighborhood remained stable, and it is still a good place to live. There have been major riots in most other areas of the city, though. And much of Detroit now looks like a burned out war zone -- complete with many thousands of bullet holes.

Government stirred that pot. In less than twenty years, the people went from a "live and let live" attitude to what we see today in most urban areas: Violent crime, corruption, drugs, and debauchery. Now, it appears, this administration wishes to complete the process of pitting American against American.

In short, it was the constant interference of government that begot much of the "hate." Because, clearly, in many cities the small slum areas of the 1960s were both nicer and safer than major sections of the cities are today. It took the power of the federal government to pull that off. That is the true legacy of the meddling Social-Democrats.


When government becomes militant, when government starts ripping away the rights of the citizen, it is the duty of every citizen to remain well armed.

It should be understood that we are not armed to threaten government. We are not armed to harm those citizens who work in government. Nor are we armed to bother other citizens. We must remain skillfully armed only so as to let every department of government know that We the People are the ultimate sovereigns of this nation, and that there is some ground on which government must not tread. Our being armed, then, should be considered a subtle hint to government, rather than a blatant warning.

But, even as fundamentally American as that statement sounds, there still are problems with it in today's political world. Today, there is no popular consensus identifying that ground on which government may not tread. Worse, most Americans do not even know how many of their unalienable rights have recently been snatched by those ever-stretching tentacles of the federal bureaucracy. That is, citizens do not know until that legal process catches them in violation of some strange new rule, regulation or law no one ever heard of previously.

Only after there is strong popular agreement on exactly what the limits to government shall be, and only after all political means of action have been tried, and failed, may we citizens even consider our arms as a method of recouping liberty. Unfortunately, to date, there has been little popular consensus on the limits of government. It's been just the opposite, in fact. These past 50 years, we citizens have allowed the federal government do exactly as it wishes.

That is now starting to change. Americans are seeing their friends and neighbors adversely affected by any number of federal rules, regulations and laws. And when they look to their Constitution for the federal government's authority to pass such restrictions on human existence, they find there is none.

Not yet realized by the American public is a fact well known by many government officials: If every federal rule, regulation and law now on the books were suddenly enforced completely and equally throughout the country, Americans would quickly dismantle the federal government.

So the law is not applied equally. It is applied selectively. And, interestingly enough, that is one reason the American people are noticing. The appearance, from the view many Americans, is of selective tyranny.

Some of these problems, such as with the IRS, are just now beginning to be discussed publicly by elected officials. Others, such as FEMA and the declaration of national emergencies via executive orders, even Members of Congress fear to discuss openly.

So, we Americans must keep our personal arms. Not because we have plans to use them anytime soon. But because there is a definite bright line over which the federal government must not cross. And although there may not yet be a strong popular consciences as to exactly where that line is, most Americans nonetheless realize that the federal government is approaching it quickly.


Here's a quote we just could not resist using. Apparently, it was from the Alert Team of the California chapter of Women Against Gun Control (WAGC): "If Comrade Sarah thought the NRA was a bitch to beat in Washington state, well, she just ain't seen Women Against Gun Control yet."

We do not yet know a lot about the group Women Against Gun Control, but we do see that they're getting busy and getting heard. Go to their web page (http://www.wagc.com/) and you are greeted with such slogans as: "Women Helped Take Guns Away. Now, Finally, Women Can Help Get Guns Back." And, "Women Against Gun Control: Gunning for Your Right to Defend Yourself."

Most interesting is their immediate "Hot Pink Action Alert." So, take note guys, cause these women are aiming for results, and we think they know how to hit the target:

"Women Against Gun Control urges its members and gun rights supporters everywhere to participate in a world-wide boycott of Sara Lee products, to begin November 14th, 1997.

"The boycott is to protest Sara Lee's presentation, November 6th, of its 'Humanities' award to Sarah Brady, as well as its donation of $50,000 to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.

"The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence is chaired by a person who has repeatedly called for bans on the private ownership of defensive weapons. Such measures are not only violations of the Constitution but also disarm law-abiding citizens, making them easy targets for criminals. Please do what you can to help spread the word about this important citizen initiative.

"Stop buying products distributed by Sara Lee or it's subsidiaries (Sara Lee, Ball Park, Hillshire Farm, Jimmy Dean, Aoste, Douwe Egberts, Hanes, Hanes Her Way, L'eggs, Bali, Playtex, Champion, Coach, Dim, Sanex and Kiwi). Let your friends know about the boycott. Let Sara Lee know that you disapprove of its efforts to undermine your second amendment rights. Call, write, fax, or email Sara Lee today!"

We applaud the action of Women Against Gun Control. If we all join in this boycott for the remainder of the year, this is one company that will see the error of their ways right in their pocketbook. That way, maybe many corporations like Sara Lee will take notice and stick to marketing products, rather than supporting groups with un-American ideas.

And, check out their web page. The organizational skills of the WAGC group seem to be excellent, and we'll all benefit by helping them out with this boycott.

-- End --