Heads Up

A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia

June 14, 1998
Issue #89

by: Doug Fiedor
E-mail to: fiedor19@eos.net

Previous Editions at:


Here's part of a conversation heard at a Senate Committee meeting two weeks ago.

Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah), Chairman, Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem: "In the event of a Y2K-induced breakdown of community services that might call for martial law," will the military be ready?

Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre: "We've got fundamental issues to deal with that go beyond just the Year 2000 contingency planning. And I think you're right to bring that up." One problem is, "You may be flying across the country and an air traffic controller may be a military guy in certain areas as opposed to it being an FAA person," Hamre said. And the military will not be Y2K compliant.

Were they talking about martial law? Here in the United States? Because computers aren't Y2K compliant?

Later, Bennett predicted, "The world as a whole is almost doomed to have major problems because other countries are way behind, however badly prepared we are" to handle the problem. "It is entirely possible that every organization in America could get its own computers fixed . . . and still have major problems. When people say to me, is the world going to come to an end, I say I don't know. I don't know whether this will be a bump in the road . . . or whether this will in fact trigger a major worldwide recession with absolutely devastating economic consequences in some parts of the world."

Two weeks ago, the Year 2000 czar (yes, there is one) John Koskinen said the federal government should have more than enough money earmarked in fiscal 1999 to fix the millennium bug. Koskinen said that two proposed Year 2000 contingency funds totaling nearly $5.5 billion dollars beyond the administration's operating budget request should cover the costs of fixing federal computer systems. Included in that is a $3.2 billion pool of money that the administration is requesting to cover anything from Year 2000 fixes to emergency military missions. "That's more than enough," Koskinen told reporters at this month's first Y2K press briefing.

Note that the words "emergency military missions" were included above. Without actually needing to read between the lines, we see the possibility of a very disturbing problem developing here. Some (no telling how many, but it includes the military) in government seem to feel the Y2K problem could cause enough trouble, starting in 1999, to give the U.S. government reason to declare a national emergency and even declare martial law.

And another thing, Koskinen never said that the federal government's computers will be ready by year 2000, only that they have enough money.

Up to this point, the conversations concerned primarily federal government computers. Put another way, the reason government's computers are not Y2K compliant is 100% due to the negligence of government.

It 's not like they didn't know the year 2000 is coming. The Clinton Administration had an eight year window to assure all government commuters were compliant. Not doing so can cause great harm to a large segment of society, which is negligence. And, it's the same deal for Congress. Not a word till late last year.

Last week, it was the Senate hearings on Y2K. The week before, it was the administration searching for terrorists in every dark corner. Police are acting like military and the military is practicing attacking American civilian areas. I hate to seem morose about the situation, but when a Senate Committee suggests the possible necessity of a national emergency enforced by martial law, it kind of piques my interest. And the military, Bennett was told, is ready.

Maybe so, but I'm not!

Bennett predicts that worldwide Y2K problems are now "inevitable." He fears they will lead to serious economic recession in some parts of the world. And even if all American organizations fix their own computers in time, Bennett said they still face disaster from likely shutdowns of telephones, banking and other services abroad, because it is not likely they will make the required fixes in time. So, Bennett concludes, contingency plans must be made. Including plans for a national emergency enforced by martial law.

Let's see how this works: America invents computers and populates the world with them. Suddenly, there's a problem -- identified years ago, as it was -- with some of the computers. Now the people of the United States are expected to give up their liberty? Is that what government has degraded to?

The aircraft problems, if there are any, are the problem of the rich aircraft companies and the government's FAA. When people cannot fly, they will either take the bus, drive or stay home. If there is a disruption of electric power, telephone service, or service from any other company allowed monopoly status, we will sue them for negligence.

And, as for government computers . . . well, many people in the United States would not find it a problem if half of the government's computers were turned off permanently -- all the alphabet agencies immediately come to mind. . . .

Banks and business that depend on computers and wish to continue making money will be compliant. That's the way it is. Those which deal with overseas banks and corporations will just have to go back to using paper (remember that?) and the postal system for a while.

In other words, there is no emergency! There may certainly be some aggravations for a time. But aggravation is not a national emergency. Nor does it require the assistance of the military.

In fact, the American military, we understand, will be occupied with it's own computer aggravations. Because, like most of government, they too were negligent in this matter.

For more information, visit Senator Bennett's Y2K web page at: http://www.senate.gov/~bennett/y2k.html


Shall we call her hero, an American role model or just a very persistent woman? Whatever the tag, Wisconsin State Representative Annette Williams is a success story to be heralded.

It wasn't so long ago, maybe 15 years, that Annette Williams was a single Black mom standing in an inner-city welfare line. One day she took stock of herself and decided to go back to school. And, as those of us who have met Ms. Williams can attest, she also has a burning desire to "do something" to benefit her community. So, to get started, she ran for elected office and won.

Today, most people know her publicly as Polly Williams, the woman most responsible for the Milwaukee Plan, which is the nation's first major school choice voucher program to include access to private and religious schools for low income families. We might also add that, due to the high esteem in which she is held by fellow legislators, Polly Williams was the only Democratic Representative we know of ever to be appointed to a committee chair in a Republican dominated House.

Currently, the Milwaukee Plan only includes a few inner-city neighborhoods. But that's certainly not for lack of effort on the part of Polly Williams. Using legal tricks and maneuvering, groups like the Wisconsin chapter of the National Education Association, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People fought any expansion of the Milwaukee Plan. These groups were determined to keep inner-city kids trapped in a failing education system. Polly Williams, on the other hand, is living proof of the value of a good education.

This fight has been in progress for over a decade, and is not really over yet. But on June 10, by a vote of 4 to 2, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld an expansion of the nation's first major school choice voucher program, now to include 15,000 inner-city kids. The next stop is the United States Supreme Court where, incidentally, we'll bet on a vote of 6 to 3 in favor.

Also deserving credit in this good fight is the Landmark Legal Foundation. Landmark Legal has invested 10 years in this effort and was effectual in presenting the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

"This is a clear victory for the children of Milwaukee and, hopefully, a harbinger of hope for children around the nation," said Landmark General Counsel Pete Hutchison.

"This is the first ruling by any appeals court in the country that permits taxpayer money to go to pervasively sectarian schools for general K-12 education," said Peter Koneazny, Legal Director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, which is co-counsel on behalf of the liberal plaintiffs who originally challenged the school choice program in August 1995.

"If the NEA, the ACLU, the NAACP and the other opponents of education reform decide to take this case to the U.S. Supreme Court," Hutchison added, "Landmark will continue to litigate vigorously to advance the cause of quality education."

"Under the theory of this case, Wisconsin is now free to fund parochial school education on the same basis that it funds public school education," said Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the national ACLU. "That decision can only be upheld if 50 years of Supreme Court law and the Establishment Clause is reversed."

"This is not only going to allow for choice, but for competition among schools, public and private," Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson said.

"The court has recognized two fundamental truths," Hutchison said. "First, that everyone, regardless of economic status, should have access to a quality education. And second, that traditional public schools, with their self-interested administrators and all-powerful teachers' unions, are not the only places where children can receive a first-rate education."

We agree with Landmark, but only in part. Simply put, most inner-city schools do not teach, and that must be corrected immediately. Instead of teaching kids to count money properly, they teach self esteem. Rather than reading, writing and arithmetic, children learn about condoms, birth control and homosexuality. And rather than discipline, they now have something called conflict resolution.

The government school results are out there for all to see. The graduates lack of scholastic skills are obvious. And hopefully, this time common sense may prevail. The indisputable fact is that the government school system installed in most large cities has failed miserably. All that keeps them going now is the political power of the administrators and teachers unions. Costs per student varies from a whopping seven to ten-thousand dollars per student per year. Yet many public school systems cannot even keep order in the classrooms.

We need more, much more, for our nation's children. A system that combines local control, parental control and competition between schools, will provide a very important first step. If some of the competing schools are run by religious institutions, so be it. All that should be required is that parents have an informed choice in the school they chose for their child.

Polly Williams is exactly correct. Many of this country's large public school systems are little more than a continuing recipe for failure. It is time we rethink the whole system of education in this country.

We salute your good works, Representative Williams, and also thank the Landmark Legal Foundation for their important assistance in this matter.

For more information, visit the Landmark Legal Foundation web page at: http://www.landmarklegal.org/ There's some very important work being done by that organization.


Here in the "foothills of Appalachia," there is a Congressional campaign of national interest in progress. Most interesting to Heads Up readers is that this is a race of opposing ideologies, almost like running Ron Paul against Ted Kennedy. The race is for Jim Bunning's 4th Congressional district (Bunning is running for the Senate) seat.

From the left, there's Ken Lucas, presently the executive of Boone County, KY. Lucas is trying his best to cozy up to Bill Clinton, even attending the Clinton millionaire's fund-raising dinners in Cincinnati. Clinton is starting to pay limited attention to Lucas, but certainly not the amount of attention Lucas wishes.

On the other hand, the Democratic House Progressive Caucus (read socialists) are planing to funnel big bucks into the Lucas campaign. So too are a dozen or so other "progressive" Social-Democratic groups.

Wealthy in his own right, Lucas epitomizes the new limousine liberal. When the kids of Boone County's rural areas needed fresh, clean water to drink, Ken Lucas locked up the bonding authority of the county to build another fancy golf course rather than lay water pipe. In a 250 square mile county with a population of only 72,000, there are traffic jams everywhere because, during his seven year tenure, Lucas refused to build the needed new roads. The little infrastructure that was built magically sprung up in non-traveled vacant areas of the county because "the areas may soon be developed."

Like all liberals, Ken Lucas is also against citizens keeping and bearing weapons. When the issue came up in the Kentucky General Assembly, Lucas took it upon himself as county executive to write stern letters decrying citizens possessing handguns. The bill passed anyway, of course, because Lucas' constituents, and people all over Kentucky, flooded the Capitol with calls and letters in favor of concealed carry.

On the right, we have Gex "Jay" Williams, who's currently a State Senator known for 'shaking things up' in a Democratic controlled Senate. Liberals like to label Gex Williams as right wing, religious right and (our favorite) a loose cannon. To put it simply, Williams refuses to conform to socialist ideals, which greatly upsets the liberals.

Actually, if all things were equal, there wouldn't be much of a race here. Gex Williams is rather popular around the State of Kentucky. But, a puppet of the rich liberals, Williams ain't. Whereas, Lucas is an active member of their exclusive private golf course set. On the other hand, Gex Williams has been the underdog in every race he's ran so far, yet always won.

We talked with Gex Williams (a Heads Up Subscriber) for quite some time last Wednesday evening. Most notable at the present time is that Gex asks that we do all we can to insure that Ron Paul (R-TX) wins his bid for reelection. "I'll need Ron Paul to show me the ropes," Gex said.

Congressman Paul came to Kentucky a few weeks back to campaign for Gex in the primary and Williams said that Ron Paul will be back stumping for him again before the general election.

The Democratic National Committee, the House Progressive Caucus, and other left-leaning groups, think they see a win for their side here. Looking at the voting records, they see that the majority in the district are registered Democrats. What they do not fully realize is that these people are not liberal. Most are very conservative.

Consequently, Lucas is flying false colors, initially claiming to be a conservative Democrat. Yet, his actions are those of a Social-Democrat, and a good part of his campaign funds are coming from far left groups.

The differences in the two candidates are easy for all to see. When a men's group invited Gex to a non-profit fund-raiser "bacon shoot" to earn money for food for the needy, Gex was there with his sons, shooting. He hob-knobs with people in all walks of life. Ken Lucas, on the other hand, will only attend exclusive golf course cocktail parties. As elected officials, Gex Williams has a proven track record in the fight for liberty; whereas Ken Lucas has a proven record of calling for more government control.

So that's the election of national interest in Northern Kentucky. A Ted Kennedy or a Ron Paul, who shall represent Kentucky's 4th Congressional district next year? Only time will tell. However, I guess it's clear who we at Heads Up support.

If any Kentucky folks are interested in helping the Gex Williams for Congress Campaign, the address is: 454 Commonwealth Ave. Erlanger, KY 41018. The telephone number is: (606) 342-2770, or toll free at (888) 683-4439.

Also, as Gex Williams suggests, let's insure that Ron Paul is reelected to Congress. People like Ron and Gex will remain active in the fight for restoring our liberty.


by Craig M. Brown -- for Heads Up

If you haven't read President Clinton's Executive Order [13083] of May 14, you should do so immediately. This is even more important for each and every member of Congress and all in the media who are concerned with the immediate future of our country.

The order is entitled, FEDERALISM and if enacted, will destroy the balance of power between we the people, the states and the federal government. It also illuminates, for those who haven't already noticed, the radical differences between Presidents Reagan and Clinton.

The order begins benignly enough, expressing deep respect for the United States Constitution and the powers it guarantees to states and individuals. A few paragraphs later, however, the gloves come off and the claws come out. The essence of the order is that Federal Agencies should, if they wish, recognize provisions of the Constitution protecting the rights of states and individuals and should think it over carefully before overriding them. State's rights will be subject to the whims of Federal Agencies.

If the replacement of definitive words in the Constitution such as must and shall by waffle words, such as may and could, isn't alarming enough, the words toward the end of the order should be enough to jar awake even the most jaded observer of American government. Clinton's Executive Order states that Reagan's Executive Order 12612 of October 26, 1987 is revoked.

For a decade. this order by President Reagan served to highlight the 10th Amendment to the Constitution and reaffirm its meaning to our lawmakers. This Executive Order also underscored Mr. Reagan's commitment to returning the powers of the government to the people. This is the Reagan legacy, and the reason history has reserved a place for him as one of the greatest of American Presidents.

By revoking this executive order, President Clinton demonstrates his contempt for the Constitution and individual rights, and asserts his commitment to a massive central government.

For some inexplicable reason, members of our Congress appear to be ignorant of Clinton's Executive Order on Federalism. It is therefore up to us to bring it firmly to their attention, not asking, but demanding that it be rejected before it becomes law on August 14th.

To reach your Congressional Representative, call 1-800-504-0031, the call paid for by those friendly little people of the AFL-CIO.

[Editor's Note: A copy of Ronald Reagan's 1987 Executive Order supporting "Federalism" -- which preserved the 'original intent' of the Founding Fathers -- should be compared with Clinton's concoction to understand the full impact of this discussion. The full text of both Executive Orders may be found at: http://www.uhuh.com/laws/list-law.htm Need we mention that checking for "weasel words" is encouraged? Remember folks, they don't call Clinton "Slick Willie" for nothing.]


By: Forest Glen Durland -- to Heads Up

Friday, June 12, I received a call from Mr. Dobie McArthur, aide to U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.). Apparently, Lugar's office has been receiving a number of calls regarding Clinton's Executive Order 13083.

Mr. McArthur wanted to know just what in the Executive Order we found so detrimental. He states that all he could see was a restatement of support to the Constitution and the government. He pinned me down by asking me to state the exact paragraphs we felt offensive. This put me in a bind.

An effort was made to explain that Clinton writes covertly and deviously, making it necessary to read with an ability to diagram sentences. This did not set well. An effort was exerted to emphasize the necessity to read the Executive Order from the eyes of a criminal. He did not seem to understand.

An example was made in Section 1(c) in the definition of agency. He pointed out that it limited the president by laws Congress had passed. I pointed out that it limited Congress. The president could say, "OK, you guys say these are agencies," and proceed from there.

McArthur selected Section 3(c) to illustrate that Clinton's Executive Order limited itself and protected the people. From that paragraph I selected the clause "should not necessarily" and stated that it was open-ended and that Clinton will use that clause as license to do anything he wishes.

Mr. McArthur could not answer why the President was allowed to make laws when the Constitution states that only Congress can make laws. I tried to pin him down, but he bowed out at that point.

He always diverted to existing laws, but I would interrupt and insist on basic Constitution. I declared that no one can bypass or skirt around the Constitution, and that, therefore, all Executive Orders that become laws are unconstitutional. He could not counter that point without referring to existing laws.

In short, Mr. McArthur would NOT agree to stop the Executive Order until we had time to discuss essential points, such as the basic Constitution, before all else.

McArthur stated that it is not true that we have been under emergency status continuously since 1933, quoting laws ending all PREVIOUS states of emergencies after Nixon abused them.

I pointed out that PREVIOUS did NOT affect the future. Mr. McArthur was asked why Clinton used emergency status to send troops to Bosnia. He answered with a myriad of reasons, such as the President has the authority to do such things, and that Congress did not end the funding. He quoted Teddy Roosevelt as sending ships and troops half way around the world. There was no money to bring them back, so Congress was stuck with funding to get them home.

My reply was, why does not Congress stop the LAW? His rely was that there had been attempts, but that Congress did not pass them.

We agreed to disagree, but also to continue correspondence on this important issue. This, and future correspondence, can be found on my web site at: http://www.uhuh.com/homepage.htm

-- End -