Heads Up

A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia

January 11, 1998
Issue #67

by: Doug Fiedor

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


It's almost time for the President's annual State of the Union address to Congress. Unfortunately, Clinton still holds the office of President. That means that we can expect to hear proposals for even more big government socialism -- an increase of entitlement programs like medical care, government paid babysitters, Internet for the poor and children who cannot even read yet, welfare for illegal aliens, education and employment stipends for the "specially" protected, and a fast-track increase in the welfare-to-bureaucrat programs.

In other words, Clinton's State of the Union show will be little more than the glorification of big government and all of it's unconstitutional programs. In it, he will take a few minutes to chastise the Republicans for not "fixing" the campaign laws he so blatantly (gleefully?) violated. He will also call for stricter controls on the American people as part of the war on drugs and protection against terrorism. Then he will label those of us who want a return to a Constitutionally limited federal government as committing "hate speech."

So . . . we thought we might offer a meaningful response. . . .

We talked with a few people in government, pulled a few files, studied a few laws, rules and regulations, and took a few dozen pages of notes. In the process, we were able to identify the how and why of many of the more egregious discrepancies between the central government we see today and that Constitutionally limited Federal Government intended by the authors of our Constitution.

The discrepancies are quite substantial. And, when we Americans understand what our personal rights were intended to be, the corresponding loss of freedom to the individual American citizen becomes self evident.

Therefore, we feel that this report is a more legitimate "State of the Union" than any President dares deliver. That is because it more accurately reflects the true impact of the central government on the lives of the American people. The corruption of specific officials in government was not addressed. Rather, this report identifies the systemic corruption of the central government and some of the corresponding laws most adversely affecting the freedom of the American people. It also attempts to identify how many of the administrative departments were formed and allowed to operate with total disregard for the Bill of Rights.

Every attempt was made to correctly reference important points so that readers having access to a good library may easily continue researching subjects of special interest to them.

One problem is that the text is heavily formatted and quite long. It cannot be delivered by e-mail. An HTML formatted file will probably exceed 300k, but we will make the text available that way to any Heads Up reader who wishes to read the text in their browser.

The "View from the foothills of Appalachia 1998 State of the Union" report is intended for college students. Faculty and students from various institutions have already volunteered to make copies for distribution in their respective areas. Any Heads Up reader associated with a school and desiring a copy need only ask. The file will be sent via e-mail attachment in Microsoft Word for Windows format, ready to print.

This text will carry a copyright. That is because it may well end up as the core of a book proposal, and publishers can get rather particular about how writing they are buying has been used. Blasting bits and pieces of the report all over the Internet is, therefore, verboten. But, passing on the text in its entirety, with no changes, is encouraged.

In summary, this text attempts to provide a two-fold lesson to students: First, that the government in Washington has greatly deviated from the intent of the Founding Fathers. And second, that the right of political dissent is still available to Americans, and students should feel free to exercise that right.

Let the dissent began. . . .


By Craig M. Brown (for Heads Up)

Now that the gong has rung in Kyoto, our representatives to the UN have returned, proudly bearing the most god-awful treaty proposal we have ever seen. If ratified, the sovereignty of the citizens of the United States, as well as our very livelihood, will be surrendered to the tender mercies of the UN.

If the UN wants to rid us of all coal burning capabilities in power plants and even in our own homes there will be nothing we can do about it. The same for regulating our automobiles, trucks, airplanes and the industries that support them. If the Kyoto treaty is ratified, the UN will actually gain the power to regulate Americans.

As it stands now the intrusions by federal regulators have often been stymied in states that stand up to them, challenging their authority to regulate the lives of the citizens. Our United States Supreme Court has held the Constitution close to its bosom, handing down a series of decisions that strip the federal regulators of many of their imagined powers, underscoring the rights of states and individual citizens.

In fact, we may now be in the midst of an awakening. The American people are starting to take back the freedoms guaranteed to us by our Constitution. The highest Court in the land is urging us on and, in fact, helping.

But this can all stop dead in its tracks if the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty is passed. Forget about citizens groups, state legislators demanding our rights, or the Constitution itself. Our freedoms will be what our "friends" in the United Nations decide they are. The UN will regulate America.

President Clinton has put his finger to the wind and decided not to push for ratification of the Kyoto Treaty just yet. He needs to wait until the propaganda machine does its work, softening up the American people until he decides the time is right to ram it through as quietly as possible. Now we come to the reason why Mr. Clinton is so desperate to have fast track authority for such treaties. No debate, no muss, no fuss. Just wham-bam, thank you ma'am and the Global Warming Treaty becomes the law of the land. Then we must submit to both EPA and UN environmental regulations.

And this is why fast track authority, especially in the hands of a man like Bill Clinton, is a dagger at our throats. It's happened before. In midnight sessions, the Senate has been known to ram through bills and resolutions without the embarrassment of public scrutiny.

With fast track authority, Americans are likely to wake up one morning to see signs planted in their front yards that read, "under new management." >From such seeds, insurrections are born. . . .

It's time for some action on our part. Let's make the calls and send some letters to the Senate. Kill Kyoto.


Handgun Control go home! You data is as silly as your leadership. Not that we haven't said this a few times already . . . but it's kind of nice to see many authoritative reports coming out to validate our opinion.

This week the validation comes from Morgan O. Reynolds and H. Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis with a report titled, "No Smoking Gun With Concealed Weapons Laws." Investor's Business Daily (a good read) published the report on January 8.

Reynolds and Burnett report that data from the 31 states now allowing people to carry concealed weapons show that murder and assault rates have declined. They quote a report by University of Chicago researchers John Lott and David Mustard showing that concealed handgun laws reduced murder by 8.5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent from 1977 to 1992. Then, they extrapolate a little, figuring that, "had 'right-to-carry' laws been in effect throughout the country, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders and 60,000 fewer assaults every year."

And, they point to the self evident: "Vermont, which has long had the least restrictive [concealed carry] laws, also has among the lowest violent crime numbers in the country." In 1980, when murders and robberies had soared to 10 and 251 per 100,000 people, respectively, Vermont's murder rate was only 22 percent of the national average and its robbery rate was just 15 percent.

There are 10 million violent crimes committed in the U.S. every year. Potential victims use handguns about 1.9 million times in self-defense, estimates Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck. The unarmed, evidently, are the ones to get hurt.

Dade County, Florida, now has 21,000 carry- permit holders, yet there have been no reported incidents of a permit holder injuring an innocent person in the six years since records have been kept. Data from Virginia and Kentucky are similar.

Nation-wide, there are said to be about 30 mistaken shootings by civilians every year. Police officers, however, mistakenly pop a cap on three times that many annually -- and there are one heck of a lot more legally armed civilians than police officers.

But, along with the good news comes a bit of liberal foolishness. The Associated Press reports that Philadelphia Mayor Edward G. Rendell put together a team of lawyers and researchers last summer to explore the idea of court action against gun makers. The lawsuit is intended to accuse the gun industry of creating a public nuisance through firearms used by criminals. If this silliness goes to court, it would be a first by a government against the firearms industry. Apparently, the city is considering demanding millions of dollars from gun manufacturers to pay the costs stemming from illegal gun use -- including overtime for the cops.

The Mayor of Philadelphia evidently does not know much about police work. Cops walking the streets stop crime. Sticking the officers now behind desks on the streets, and getting the ones who are supposed to be on the streets out of the donut shops, makes a big difference everywhere it is tried.

Arming honest citizens is also an excellent deterrent. In fact, it sounds like that may be a necessity there. That is, unless the City of Philadelphia can guarantee instant response by the police to every crime in progress.


Evidently, some issues of Heads Up have ended up in some very strange places. And, someone from one very "strange" place felt compelled to reply.

Anyway, it appears there are some real, honest to goodness, international communists who sometimes receive this newsletter. One of them, a person of rank in his organization, has been writing to me. So, I often reply.

At first, the man took umbrage to my calling the eco-wackos watermelons (green on the outside, red inside). I didn't. But had I thought of it I would have. So, I admitted to it. Next, he did not like a crack (I don't remember that, either) about the involvement of communist agents of influence within the environmental wacko community. I replied that I most definitely believe that to be true, especially in this country.

The guy never told me exactly who he was. But, not being completely devoid of sources, I checked. Apparently, he learned of that action and asked to speak to me on the telephone.

We spoke of the environmental movement and the way the front-line membership is used (and paid) by the behind the scenes promoters in business and foreign government organizations. Surprisingly, we agreed on much that was actually happening lately, and the direct causes. Some of that background information will be used in future Heads Up articles.

About half way through the conversation, he abruptly switched the subject to guns, the American Militia movement and "protection" of the American citizen. That is where we began to disagree adamantly.

First, I was told that Americans must give up their personal weapons. He said this was a world movement that must include the United States. I mentioned that his argument is false. No American civilian has a personal weapon that can bother a citizen of Europe, Asia or Africa. We Americans threaten no other country with our personal guns.

He said that many in the United Nations feel threatened by so many armed Americans. I replied that many of us Americans find that to be a good thing. He seemed to become nervous, and said it is not a "good thing" at all.

I too became both nervous and angry as I asked why.

"There is an agreement," I was told. "United Nations troops may have to patrol the United States in time of emergency," he said. I asked, "what agreement? I know of no such treaty." He mumbled something unintelligible, but I was already talking again, too, so that didn't help.

I told him, in the clearest military voice that I could muster, that "if UN troops come to patrol our country, they will stay."

He didn't understand my point. So, I explained our limited access highway system to him. Then, possibly with a bit of a testy attitude, I went on to explain the awesome power of a 30-30 and 30.06 rifle, and what just a few onlookers armed with such rifles could do to a military caravan while they were sitting ducks on an interstate highway. He was not pleased, and rambled on a little more about the dangers of civilians with guns.

Suddenly, the conversation was returned to the eco-wackos and the havoc (benefit, from his point of view) they play on our country. Sounding agitated, he tried to challenge me on the agents of influence remark I supposedly made.

So, I gave him two names and one source of funding. He then hung up. Hard!

And so it goes, folks. There really are internationally active people out there who believe they know what is best for American citizens. This guy was a joke, though. This man was from a little rinky-dink wreck of a country. The place is a dump, from border to border, one big disaster. Yet, he feels free to attempt to affect our lives? His hubris was totally amazing! It is almost like he had taken lessons from Hillary, or something.

To say that I was angry with this fool is an understatement. But, perhaps some good will come from our conversation. Maybe he will realize that as much as we Americans argue amongst ourselves, as much as Americans poke fun at each other and sometimes act like enemies, one truth should never be overlooked by foreigners: If an enemy army lands on our shores, we Americans all quickly become only Americans. And they are not! That will be a very dangerous position for foreigners to be in.

The strong cohesiveness of the American people in time of danger should never, EVER be underestimated by any foreign force -- including the United Nations. Foreign men with guns may someday come. But they will not leave.

So remember those words, buddy. Then pass them around for others to consider. Cause that is the way it has always been here. That is the way it is in these United States now. And that is the way it will always be.


Craig and Debbie Brown received a reply from their Congressman, Jim Bunning, that they would like to present. Like Craig and Debbie, we can't help but wonder what affect a few hundred calls to House Members -- and especially to Rep. Hyde -- would have at this time.

The letter is below, in it's entirety.

Thank you for contacting me regarding President Clinton's ethical problems and his possible impeachment. I am glad to hear from you. As you may have heard, Attorney General Reno recently decided not to appoint an Independent Counsel to look into President Clinton and Vice President Gore's fund-raising activities. I am outraged by her decision and I am sure this will give more ammunition to Congressman Bob Barr's argument to impeach the President.

The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight is involved in an on going investigation to get to the bottom of all the illegal activities that Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore might have participated in during their time in office. I am sure the Members of the Committee will do all that they can to let the public know what was really going on at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Also, I will let my good friend, Henry Hyde, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, know of your interest in having hearings on Congressman Bob Barr's bill. Unless, he signs onto the bill, it will not see the light of day.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Stay in touch.

Incidentally, Rep. Henry Hyde's FAX number is (202) 225-1166


It's the "silly season" (campaign time) again so U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) cannot send out his normal message on the Internet. However, that is not to say that Heads Up cannot quote a bit from Paul's January 5 weekly column -- there shall be no restraints on political speech here.

Because folks, this is the type of thing we really like to hear from our elected officials. Compare this excerpt from Ron Paul to Bill Clinton's State of the Union. There will be a whole world of difference.

For many people, the dawning of a new year represents fresh opportunities. As I recently sat down to examine last year and explore the possibilities for 1998, I knew that there was only one resolution I could make in good conscience.

Having already been blessed with a wonderful, expanding family of children and grandchildren, a beautiful wife of more than 40 years, and good health, I knew my resolution for 1998 should focus on the office with which I have been entrusted by the people of the 14th District of Texas. My focus in Congress for 1998 will be on providing an alternative to the Washington status quo, and remaining true to my Oath of Office. That Oath was administered a year ago this week and stated:

"I, Ron Paul, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, and without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

This Oath clearly states that as a Member of Congress, I can only do those things outlined in the Constitution. And so I must "bear true allegiance" to the law of the land, and support only the special interest of constitutional government and individual liberty, not the failed ideologies of big-government, command economics and central control.

But it is not enough -- either by my Oath of Office before God, or my conscience as your employee -- that I simply speak against those opposing our form of government and values. Instead, I must work actively to introduce those values into the national debate and into the law books. As such, I will be spending a great deal of time arguing on behalf of passage for the legislation I have introduced.

. . .

In all, I am pleased to be sponsoring more than a dozen pieces of legislation, each designed to promote the interests of individual empowerment, constitutional government and much lower taxation. Further, I will be working hard for the more than 100 pieces of legislation I have cosponsored, all of which reflect the deeply-held morals, views and attitudes of the people of the 14th District, and our Founding Fathers.

With 1998 comes a fresh opportunity to work for the future, to work for a society which respects the principles of limited government, individual responsibility and economic liberty. With this new year we have a new opportunity to usher in a future for ourselves and our children which is brighter than any previous generation has imagined.

Shouldn't we promote this guy? I happen to think that his office is on the wrong end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

-- End --