Heads Up

A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia


October 4, 1998 #105


by: Doug Fiedor


E-mail to: fiedor19@eos.net

Copyright © 1998 by Doug Fiedor, all rights reserved

This text may be copied and distributed freely

but only in its entirety, and with no changes

Previous Editions at:





When asked why the regular military was said to be removing ammunition from National Guard units, the reply was cryptic: "There are different reasons for different areas of the country," a field grade military officer told me last week.

"Some say the active military needs the ammo for training," I replied. "Others say the brass no longer trust civilians to have it nearby. Is there any truth to either of those reasons?" Three active duty military officers were independently questioned, yet we received three attempts to side step the answer.

So, we went to the ranks we know a little better: Warrant Officers. One said that he "heard all that garbage about the military attacking civilians, and it ain't going to happen. Who would dare give the order? I am quite sure that every person in today's military knows what the term frag means."

Whew! He was serious, too. However, when I mentioned Waco, he quickly changed the subject.

Another Warrant Officer simply said, "yes, we need everything we can get." And, that brought me back to my real reason for calling:

"Our forces are showing increasing signs of serious wear," Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reported at his carpet dance before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. "Our current readiness is fraying and the long-term health of the total force is in jeopardy."

Right. The military has been gutted by a negligent administration and, until now, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were afraid to admit it publicly. Much of the equipment is in disrepair. The best trained and qualified are leaving the military in droves. American forces are spread thin, all over the world. Supplies are low. Fuel for training is nearly nonexistent in some areas. Morale in many areas is very poor. Military pay has not kept up with inflation. Etc., etc.

"We need to put additional dollars into taking care of our most important resource, the uniformed members of the armed forces," General Shelton told the Senate Committee. "The best tanks, planes and ships in the world are not what make our military the superb force that it is today. ... Our people are more important than hardware."

Generals, being political animals, tend to relate the best side of everything under their command. The people actually using the equipment and doing the work think the situation is about ten times worse than related to the Senate. Some think today's American military is nearly as bad as it was when Carter left office. Others think it is much worse today, because the liberal social engineers have inflicted a drastic toll on the morale of the real solders.

"The unfit and incompetent have free run of the military today," a Chief Warrant Officer told me on condition of anonymity. "The only part of this Army you would recognize today is the salute." Rather than spending a few years in a cushy position training other officers, he, and many of his coworkers, will be bailing out soon.

Not said in public is that for most units to actually be ready to deploy they must now have 120% of their allotted personnel. I was told that when some women do not wish to deploy, they become sick, pregnant or whatever. There were also tales of "time out" cards provided to be used when a solder feels overly stressed and of professional military people actually crying (even in ranks) when they didn't like something.

Many in Congress are finally starting to notice the problems. Senator Bob Smith (R - N.H.) wrote in the Wall Street Journal last week:

The best information we have about readiness problems has come from junior officers and noncommissioned officers, quoted in the press or even writing directly to members of the Armed Services Committee. Their accounts and letters are blunt, and a handful may be dismissed as whining. But many are clearly written -- and signed, at some peril -- by junior leaders who reported their concerns up the chain of command to the Joint Chiefs, only to find them AWOL from the debate over defense spending.


The Clintons clearly stated that they "loathe" the American military. They obviously intended to disrupt all of its traditions. By all reports, it seems that they have just about succeeded.



Last Monday, Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman announced that Judicial Watch presented a report to Congress detailing substantial and credible evidence of impeachable offenses uncovered in its twenty lawsuits concerning the Clinton-Gore Administration. Specifically, the report deals with Clinton-Gore scandals commonly referred to as Filegate and Chinagate, and other matters, including the misuse of the Internal Revenue Service against perceived adversaries of the Administration.

"During the last week, officials of the Clinton-Gore Administration and their surrogates have boasted about how the Lewinsky scandal will not lead to the President's impeachment," Klayman said in a prepared release. "As a result, they have tried to cut a deal with Congress. In fact, the Lewinsky scandal, however serious, is minor compared with the evidence of likely high crimes and misdemeanors which Judicial Watch has found in Filegate, Chinagate and related Clinton-Gore scandals."

"After reading Judicial Watch's 145-page report, which is supported with over 2,000 pages of hard evidence, no longer will Clinton-Gore operatives be able to claim that the scandals only involve sex," Klayman stated.

Reading the report validates much of what most of us "thought" to be illegal activities in the White House. Through depositions and investigation Judicial Watch developed proof. For instance:

Judicial Watch has uncovered evidence that President Clinton and his agents have violated a number of federal laws relating to bribery, campaign fundraising, the theft of government services, privacy, corruption of federal law enforcement, abuse and misuse of federal agencies (including the Internal Revenue Service), perjury, civil rights violations, obstruction of justice, graft and likely breaches of national security.

The evidence uncovered by Judicial Watch overwhelmingly indicates that President Clinton condoned, directed and effected this lawbreaking. It also shows that he was aided and abetted by, among others, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Vice President Albert Gore, late Commerce Secretary Ronald Brown, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other key White House personnel, including Leon Panetta, John Podesta, Harold Ickes, Bruce Lindsey, Bernard Nussbaum, and Labor Secretary Alexis Herman.

For example, Judicial Watch had uncovered key evidence in the massive political espionage, witness tampering and intimidation operation popularly known as "Filegate". In "Filegate", the Clinton White House, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Hillary Rodham Clinton, former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, and Clinton appointees Craig Livingstone and Anthony Marceca, illegally obtained and misused the FBI files of former Reagan and Bush Administration staffers and others to gain sensitive information on perceived political opponents and material witnesses for use in its smear campaigns. Judicial Watch represents the victims of "Filegate" in a civil lawsuit.

The "Filegate" political espionage, witness tampering and intimidation operation, a horrendous violation of the Privacy Act and other laws, continues to this day. It represents the means by which the Clintons defend the various scandals which threaten their hold on power. The evidence indicates that the Clinton Administration, with the direct knowledge and participation of the President, continues to illegally compile, maintain and disseminate sensitive information on perceived adversaries from confidential government files. Contrary to previous Clinton Administration explanations, Judicial Watch discovered that it was a high-level Clinton political appointee who illegally ordered the release of Linda Tripp's confidential information from her Pentagon file in a clear effort to intimidate her from telling what she knew of Clinton White House illegal activities, and to destroy her credibility. Judicial Watch also uncovered evidence indicating that President Clinton authorized the illegal release of Kathleen Willey's letters, stored in a White House filing system subject to the Privacy Act, in an effort to intimidate and smear her. Like Ms. Tripp, Ms. Willey is a material witness in on-going criminal grand jury investigations and civil lawsuits.


Judicial Watch deserves our gratitude -- and our support -- for a job well done.

For your reading pleasure, the full report can be found at: www.judicialwatch.org and also at www.uhuh.com. It's interesting reading.



In the old neighborhood they were simply called "the Suits". For the most part, they were obnoxious, abrasive and treated some of the older folks like they were the enemy, rather than outstanding American citizens.

Anyone who could speak another language was thought to be a probable communist by these guys. So, the Suits would bug telephones, break and enter private property, take anything they wanted and even beat people they didn't like. Yet, they claimed they were "defending" us.

Needless to say, the Suits were not trusted by anyone in the neighborhood, including the police.

The Suits did not need a warrant to tap telephones or burglarize homes and businesses, they said. The were the government, the G-men, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We were to shut up about anything we saw them do and bow down in total obedience. Else, we would be next.

The FBI improved a little over the years, but not all that much. They still tend to act like they are the King's chosen representatives, with complete permission to do whatever they wish. And, many of them still display that obnoxious attitude.

So, it was no real surprise when Representative Bob Barr (R-GA) announced last week that the FBI seeks permission from Congress to return to its oppressive ways.

Rep. Barr released information exposing an effort by the Department of Justice to obtain massive new enforcement powers. Barr's press release (http://www.house.gov/barr/) says that the information was obtained from a confidential source within federal law enforcement. Among other things, the Department's "wish list" for new authority includes: An expanded definition of terrorism to include domestic crimes having no relationship to terrorism. The power to seize commercial transportation assets for federal use. The ability to commandeer personnel from other federal agencies without reimbursement. Expanded wiretap authority to allow "roving" wiretaps, and wiretaps without any court authority. Enlarged asset forfeiture provisions to allow the FBI to seize personal property in both criminal and civil matters. The establishment of a permanent "FBI Police Force". Loosening of Posse Comitatus restrictions to allow more military involvement in domestic law enforcement. And, the authority to force telephone and Internet companies to divulge information on their customers.

The proposed ability to bring in "personnel from other federal agencies" would give the FBI access to those other 60,000 armed federal agents, and one can only wonder what plans they would have for an "FBI Police Force." Added with the expanded powers the FBI already has, they want complete control to do nearly anything they please. In conjunction with the National Security Agency and their Echelon spy network, the FBI already illegally monitors most of our telephone and e-mail communications. Now they want warrantless taps on our local telephone calls, too. And, of course, they want the ability to call in the military as back up. Just like they did at Waco.

The request for "enlarged asset forfeiture provisions" is a nice touch, too. That way they can take whatever they want from anyone even suspected of wrongdoing -- those B&E's would no longer be as necessary. No proof would be necessary, either. Already, there is a bill in the Senate allowing police to confiscate any amount of cash over $10,000, just on general principles.

"These requests belong in some bizarre conspiracy novel, not in serious legislative documents being circulated at the top levels of federal law enforcement", Barr said. "These proposals represent a sneak attack on the most cherished principles of our democracy. If they become a part of our law, freedom and privacy in America will be permanently and severely diminished."

Rep. Barr reports that the Justice Department and the FBI are "shopping" this wish list in an effort to get the items placed in a spending bill without hearings or debate. In other words, these police state tactics may well be the law of the land next year.

However, we voters might have something to say about that -- if we call in time, that is. As we have reported many times, the end of a Congressional session is always the most dangerous time for liberty. This is the time the most oppressive socialists in Congress sneak their nefarious amendments into the large appropriations bills no one in Congress ever reads before approving.



History is again repeating itself. Read this passage, written during the Second World War, and see if you do not agree.

[I]n a planned society the question can no longer be on what do a majority of the people agree but what the largest single group is whose members agree sufficiently to make unified direction of all affairs possible; or, if no such group large enough to enforce its views exists, how it can be created and who will succeed in creating it.

There are three main reasons why such a numerous and strong group with fairly homogeneous views is not likely to be formed by the best but rather by the worst elements of any society. By our standards the principles on which such a group would be selected will be almost entirely negative.

In the first instance, it is probably true that, in general, the higher the education and intelligence of individuals become, the more their views and tastes are differentiated and the less likely they are to agree on a particular hierarchy of values. It is a corollary of this that if we wish to find a higher degree of uniformity and similarity of outlook, we have to descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive and "common" instincts and tastes prevail. This does not mean that the majority of the people have low moral standards; it merely means that the largest group of people whose values are very similar are the people with low standards. It is, as it were, the lowest common denominator which unites the largest number of people. If a numerous group is needed, strong enough to impose their views on the values of life on all the rest, it will never be those with highly differentiated and developed tastes -- it will be those who form the "mass" in the derogatory sense of the term, the least original and independent, who will be able to put the weight of their numbers behind their particular ideals.

If, however, a potential dictator had to rely entirely on those whose uncomplicated and primitive instincts happen to be very similar, their number would scarcely give sufficient weight to their endeavors. He will have to increase their numbers by converting more to the same simple creed.

Here comes the second negative principle of selection: he will be able to obtain the support of all the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently. It will be those whose vague and imperfectly formed ideas are easily swayed and whose passions and emotions are readily aroused who will thus swell the ranks of the totalitarian party.

It is in connection with the deliberate effort of the skillful demagogue to weld together a closely coherent and homogeneous body of supporters that the third and perhaps the most important negative element of selection enters. It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program -- on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off -- than on any positive task. The contrast between the "we" and the "they," the common fight against those outside the group, seems to be an essential ingredient in any creed which will solidly knit together a group for common action. It is consequently always employed by those who seek, not merely support of policy, but the unreserved allegiance of huge masses. From their point of view it has the great advantage of leaving them greater freedom of action than almost any positive program. The enemy, whether he be internal, like the "Jew" or the "kulak," or external, seems to be an indispensable requisite in the armory of a totalitarian leader.

That in Germany it was the Jew who became the enemy until his place was taken by the "plutocracies" was no less a result of the anti-capitalist resentment on which the whole movement was based than the selection of the kulak in Russia. In Germany and Austria the Jew had come to be regarded as the representative of capitalism because a traditional dislike of large classes of the population for commercial pursuits had left those more readily accessible to a group that was practically excluded from the more highly esteemed occupations. It is the old story of the alien races being admitted only to the less respected trades and then being hated still more for practicing them. The fact that German anti-Semitism and anti-capitalism spring from the same root is of great importance for the understanding of what has happened there, but this is rarely grasped by foreign observers.


This piece was written about 1943 by noted professor of economics, and Nobel laureate, F.A. Hayek. The complete text can be found -- beginning on page 137 -- in his book The Road to Serfdom, (Chapter 10: Why the Worst Get on Top) published by The University of Chicago Press. The book is still in print, and may be ordered from any good bookstore.

Now, fifty-six years later, the faces may have changed and the place may have changed, but the methods -- and many of the so-called "causes" -- are eerily similar. Think not? Then read the piece again. But first, consider the modus operandi of certain of today's liberal factions.

Today, we see that the environmentalists, the race-baiters, the safety organizations, the Non-Governmental Organizations, the biosphere and wilderness proponents, the "It takes a village" crowd, the animal rights groups, and the fairness for everything whiners, all have one thing in common: They all want big government to control everything. They are socialists. And, they prey on the non-informed for support.

All of these groups start with a sound argument -- you are for clean air, green spaces, fairness for all, safety, etc., are you not? -- then they use the argument as a means of fostering support for more government control rather than as a tool for education.

The same old socialist tricks still work well. So well, in fact, that the president and half of Congress would be labeled as exactly what they are in any other country: big government loving socialists. Yet, 75% of the American public fail to realize the obvious.

They claim to offer us a safer and more productive society when, in truth, their game is to accumulate as much control over the lives of the people as possible. It's a control thing, because obedient people make better workers and better workers can pay more taxes. More taxes, of course, pays for even more government, which allows bureaucrats much greater control over the people. Everyone wins, except the individual citizen.

Their next step is simple. Europe is already there with the European Union. There will be three other such unions within the near future. Then, the Unions will join to form a one world governance Union and a movement towards a complete dictatorship.

While in New York two weeks ago, both Clinton and Blair fired the first shot signaling the beginning of a world takeover: As a beginning, they publicly proposed international monitory control through the world's first central bank.

Apparently, no one in the United States even noticed . . . or cared.


By: Craig M. Brown
When you start upon life's quest
To stand head and shoulders above the rest,
Then set your troubles aside with ease
And seek the wisdom of Isosoles;
In seeking to finally improve your fate
And heap success upon your plate
The Yings from the Yangs you seperate
And Triangulate, Triangulate, Triangulate!
Triangulate! Every chaos you can create
Can raise you higher, ain't it great?
So don't sit there and meditate;
Triangulate, Triangulate, Triangulate!
Allow no difference to abate
As merrily through life you skate,
Turning friendships into hate,
Triangulate, Triangulate, Triangulate!
As a friend to all you'll elevate
And find yourself the Chief of state
Pitting black against white, man against mate
While you Triangulate, Triangulate, Triangulate!



Copyright, 1998. All rights reserved.






-- End --