Heads Up

A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia


February 14, 1999 #122


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:





Finally, the impeachment farce is over. And, to be sure, a total and complete travesty of justice is all that it was!

From the very beginning, the China connection problem, approaching treason, was removed from the table. So too were campaign money laundering, filegate, travelgate, the White House computer irregularities, Whitewater, rape, abuse of power, intimidation, and blackmail. So, what did that leave? Sexual improprieties in the Oval Office and the resultant cover up. How stupid!

Over a year ago, we identified major improprieties with the White House computer -- Hillary's toy. That thing is connected with the Secret Service records, the FBI computer and the IRS system. Worse yet, they scanned in all those FBI background check files.

Therefore, they can work up a very complete dossier on nearly anyone they wish, almost instantly. And they do. Worse, they share the information with their "secret police" private investigators. As a matter of fact, they are so blatant about this abuse of power that employees of their private investigators actually have offices in the White House.

So, it's no surprise that the leader of the party of the ass got every party member to march in lock-step to his drummer throughout the impeachment proceedings. Like dictators of old, the Clintons demanded 100% party loyalty and got it. They also demanded acquiescence from the Washington media corps, and for the most part, also received that in spades.

From beginning to end, this whole procedure was nothing but a farce. Congress deceived the American people. Sure, memorable speeches were made. Sure, they often gave the good people of the United States hope that definitive action would be taken. That was the idea. That is part of the show that is politics -- the fog of delusion Washington regularly perpetrates on the American people.

And the Fourth Estate was nearly a complete scam in this matter. Look closely how they carefully "balanced" each article and TV program, leaving out important information and always relating doubt in even the few remaining charges put forward. If omission is a lie, what then do we call the reporting in the popular press, propaganda?

The definitive understatement of the year comes from David Schippers, a well experienced House Judiciary Committee lawyer who is not a politician: "From the day they presented the impeachment articles to the Senate, it seemed like the whole attitude of the senators was 'We don't want to be bothered. We don't want to be annoyed.'"


So, the bullheaded ones in the party of the ass prevail. They keep their unscrupulous leaders, the Clintons. But, at what cost to the people of the United States? It will take years to undo the evil inflicted by this administration.

Like a liquored-up teenage bully on a vendetta armed with the car keys and a few guns, the White House now seeks revenge. To start, Clinton (which one?) is planning a full campaign of retribution using FBI and IRS files.

According to Capitol Hill Blue (CHB) (http://www.capitolhillblue.com) last Friday, "the Clinton White House has collected new dossiers, complete with financial records, FBI investigative information and IRS reports on House impeachment managers and other perceived enemies of the administration."

"I've seen FBI and IRS files on members of Congress, complete dossiers on reporters and more," one worried aide admitted [to CHB]. "This is really scary." CHB also reported that some White House aides worry privately that the President's lust for revenge will be so great it will create a new scandal and charges of abuse of power.

Scandal, yes. New charges, no. Congress is craven.

Congress just proved to the American people what Heads Up has been reporting for more than two years: There is more than one system of justice -- rule or law -- in the United States. And they, the controlling elite, do not have to obey the same laws as we, the taxpaying peasants.

Consequently, all hell is about to rain down on Clinton detractors. The FBI investigations, IRS audits and administrative actions of a few years ago were but the tip of the iceberg of what is to come now that they are free of legal constraints.

"We are the President," Hillary said a few months ago. Well folks, it looks like Congress may have just promoted them to something more ominous. And, based on their histories and aberrant proclivities, they can be counted on to take full advantage of the situation.

Whatever happens will be very interesting to watch -- kind of like Dante on acid.



There's good and bad in everything. Due to the negligence of the craven Senate, Clinton walks. But, even so, we learned something useful from the actions of the misguided senators. So, let's extract some good from the disaster.

Some say that the Senate was sitting as a jury and therefore may only judge guilt or innocence. Instead, the senators took it upon themselves to also judge the applicability of the law.

Well "some" would be wrong. An American jury can and should judge both the innocence of the person being tried and the applicability (and Constitutionality) of the law the accused is charged with violating. That judges and prosecutors do not want jurors to know this is an altogether different subject.

But, let's start at the beginning. The very first Chief Justice of the United States was John Jay. Well, back in 1794, the U.S. Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in "State of Georgia vs. Brailsford" (3 Dall 1). In part, Chief Justice John Jay instructed the jury thusly:

It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision. You have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.


In Webster's 1828 dictionary -- back when Americans still understood the Constitution -- a Jury was defined in part as: "Petty juries, consisting usually of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions."

In 1809, Thomas Jefferson wrote to Thomas Paine: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by men, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

In 1804, Alexander Hamilton wrote that jurors should acquit even against the judge's instruction, "if exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong."

As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an "unreviewable and irreversible power ... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge." (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))

So, last week the Senate decided that the perpetrator was guilty, but it did not wish to the apply the law, as written, in this case. That may be pushing the envelope a little bit too far, but it's legal.

And we may -- and should -- do the same. Why should we, as jurors, ever convict anyone for an un-Constitutional law? Jefferson said that the jury should hold government "to the principles of its constitution." That is done by acquitting anyone charged with a bad law.

Chief Justice John Jay said that: "You have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge … the law as well as the fact in controversy." That means that if, as a juror, you do not like that law, or the way it is applied in the case at hand, you just say "not guilty" and have it over with.

Hamilton said that when a juror does not agree with the instructions of the judge, they should use their own discretion. Just say no, in other words.

Therefore, we should never convict anyone for mere possession of a firearm. Nor should we convict for most income tax cases or any regulatory cases. In fact, we should not convict in any case where there is even a remote possibility that government agents violated any part of the Constitution.

The American people just saw the United States Senate judge both the facts and the law. Any kid in the country can tell you that Clinton committed perjury and caused others to lie for him. The Senate also knows that to be fact. Therefore, they acquitted by rejecting the law, not the facts.

And, so may we. Jury nullification is what it's called. It's time for some good old fashioned civil protest on the way back to a Constitutional form of government.

Take a look at the Fully Informed Jury Association's web page at: <http://www.fija.org/>. And copy off their "Jurors' Handbook" while you are there.



The importance of the event was illustrated by similar remarks made by two women, on different days, who (we assumed) do not know each other: "I don't go there any more than I have to." Both people voluntarily compared the happenings at the nearby town with the movie "Amerika."

All reports were the same. Most of the local folks are sick and tired of being constantly bothered by these would-be military people.

"Helicopter traffic sometimes gets really heavy, even at night," one young married woman offered. "They land those things right next to the hospital and it can get really loud in there."

A newspaper reporter even described a customs chopper taking part in the exercises. Many helicopters used, however, are the very dark-green type currently favored by some Army units. Also seen were military medical evacuation choppers sporting the red cross designation of the medical corps.

The people being harassed by this ongoing quasi-military task force are Americans. The area under strict federal government supervision is Andrews, North Carolina. And this exercise has been in operation consistently, for a year.

Publicly, this militarized task force claims to be looking for bombing suspect Eric Rudolph. However, it's been many months since anyone has seen any sign of Rudolph in the area. Worse yet, police and military groups who best know that area -- such as the North Carolina State Police and the local North Carolina National Guard -- are, for some reason, deliberately excluded from participating in this so called "manhunt."

Instead, Federal Marshals, the FBI Hostage Rescue Team (of Waco fame) and a number of prison guards and police officers from Georgia, are rotated in for a couple weeks at a time. American Army personnel and equipment are also involved, which is an obvious violation of the law.

Many personnel are said to be carrying a Federal Marshal's identification card as their authority. However, people who actually saw these ID cards note that many of them look as though they were created on a computer with a cheap color printer, or perhaps reproduced on a standard copy machine.

Costs for this ongoing military exercise are said to exceed a million taxpayer dollars a day, and perhaps a great deal more at times. That means, of course, that the Justice Department has spent a few times more operating this task force than the $40-million liberals decry Starr spending investigating Clinton's wrongdoings. Congressional aides told Heads Up that they cannot get accurate costs yet, but are "working on the problem."

Most interesting to us are reports of men in full military uniform marching in platoon formation. Others were seen boarding helicopters dressed in full combat dress, including helmets, bullet-proof vests and carrying what appeared to be automatic rifles. (see links to pictures below)

All this, in the peaceful little city of Andrews, NC, where little if anything ever happens to attract the attention of police.

Clearly, something is going on in Andrews. But, it is not the manhunt the task force announced. People on Capitol Hill are starting to believe that FEMA is somehow involved, but they do not know exactly how or why. What is known is that personnel are regularly rotated in and out of the area. And, while there, these personnel go through a series of military style training exercises.

Worse, by all published accounts and private conversations, the attitude of this occupation force towards the residents of the area seems to be very similar to that of the Soviet Union military when they were stationed in various Iron Curtain countries: "We are in charge and you are to obey."

There is no reason for the federal government to station two to three hundred task force troops near the little town of Andrews. Nor is there any reason for these task force personnel to ever appear in public dressed in full battle regalia and armed to the teeth. Such oppressive actions were well settled in the law over 500 years ago when it was announced that knights may not enter populated areas in full armor and armed. That frightened the unarmed peasants, so was deemed unacceptable behavior, even for the King's defenders. Even back then, the sheriff was charged with handling criminal activity.

Evidently, something nefarious is afoot in Andrews, North Carolina. Perhaps this is a test of how much the American people will take without a major protest. Or, as some rumors have it, possibly they are building a permanent stronghold in those scarcely populated hills near Andrews.

Whatever the story is, they have a lot to answer for. Because, unless the Constitution was changed without notice, this rogue paramilitary contingent does not belong there. Finding Eric Rudolph is local police business. Besides, the task force has become very, very bad neighbor.

Americans everywhere should demand a Congressional investigation of this occupying quasi- military force in a peaceful civilian area. We need strong assurances that this type of foolishness will not happen in other areas of the country.

See issue #112 (November 22, 1998) for more.

Also check out the pictures of the occupying paramilitary force at:


There is an article and pictures posted by a resident of the area at:


A report and some great aerial pictures posted by a journalist are available at:



By Debra McKim-Brown

As Congress wraps up the impeachment trial and returns to its regular duties, it is important to take a look at the upcoming budget process. Among those agencies that are not provided for in the Constitution, none is more invasive and authoritarian than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Major new environmental laws and amendments to older laws have expanded EPA's authority and responsibility. Like other government agencies, its budget has grown exponentially from $384-million in FY 1970 to $7.3-billion in FY 1998.

Of the $7.3 billion budged in 1998, over $300- Million as been handed out in grants to private organizations like so much largesse from a benevolent monarch, perhaps we should rename it the Emperor's Pet Agenda grants.

According to Citizen's Against Government Waste (CAGW) those nonprofit organizations that accept federal funding subject themselves to political processes, pressures and priorities. Federal grants to nonprofit organizations result in significant trade-offs, including the six detailed below.

Federal grants are accompanied by pages of regulations that are supposed to assure accountability, but instead usually guarantee waste. The more money the nonprofit spends complying with the government regulations, the less the organization has to fulfill its mission. Nonprofits that provide social services may be forced to standardize their activities and use one-size-fits-all solutions that hamper local decision-making and ignore local needs.

The regulations may require strict qualification standards for the grants or may insist that "credentialed" staff provide certain services. Often, these requirements are not needed and become an added expense. Many times, they are the result of labor unions and other special interests forcing their will on Congress and government agencies. When conducting an audit, the government is often more interested in the number of people served and on what the money is spent, rather than actual results.

The nonprofit may chase government dollars just to get more money, diverting itself into peripheral activities and ultimately losing sight of its original mission. In addition, shifting moods of public policy or that year's particular "political correctness" hot button can force grantees to address only certain policy concerns.

Organizations that have strong religious or founding philosophies may find their beliefs are compromised as soon as they accept a government grant.

In addition, nonprofits may be using government grants for rather dubious schemes. When an organization receives government funding, it frees up funding obtained through membership or other nongovernment sources to be used for more controversial activities, such as lobbying or promoting a particular philosophy. Some organizations even use government money directly to promote their political and lobbying activities.

Let's take a look at just a few of those who have received our tax dollars, money that you and I have worked hard to earn and could probably have been better spent on our own home environment projects. The following are just a few compiled by CAGW, the full list can be found at their website, http://www.cagw.org

Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon (EMO) $20,000: The EMO received an EPA grant to teach citizens how to avoid and detect lead paint in houses. While the organization received 38 percent of its funding from government sources, it reported only receiving 3 percent of its revenue from congregations and denominations and 11 percent from individual donations. In addition to outreach, health and ministry programs, the group is involved in political advocacy and considers it a major mission. Its literature provided information on the political issues it has advocated for, such as raising the minimum wage, supporting the Oregon Health Plan, restoring Federal Food Stamps, accelerating the naturalization process, and abolishing the death penalty. There was nothing in the literature about EMO's great work to detect lead paint. The organization appears to be engaged in political advocacy and lobbying that has little to do with ministry (So much for separation of church and state.).

League of Women Voters Education Fund - $140,000: The League of Women Voters Education Fund shares office space with the League of Women Voters, a 501 (c)(4) organization, which claims to be a nonpartisan citizen organization that educates the electorate, registers voters, and makes all levels of government accessible and responsive to citizens. The EPA grant was used to "increase awareness among citizens and decision makers (read: elected officials) about the need to protect wetlands and the many activities citizens can undertake to promote wetlands." In a recent article in the League's magazine National Voter, "Clouding the Issue: The Politics of Clean Air," the group supports the EPA's controversial strict ozone and particulate matter regulations. The League also supports other hot button issues, such as healthcare legislation, from a point of view many Americans would not support. The Education Fund's close relationship with the League raises suspicions regarding its use of government dollars.

World Resources Institute (WRI) $310,000: Created in 1982, WRI is "dedicated to helping governments and private organizations of all types cope with environmental, resource, and development challenges of global significance." Its missions are to "provide objective information and practical proposals for policy changes that will foster environmentally sound development" and "to move human society to live in ways that protect the Earth's environment and its capacity to provide for the needs and aspirations of current and future generations." WRI's chairman is the co-chair of the President's Council on Sustainable Development, a group composed of government, business, labor, civil rights and environmental leaders. He recently called for support of the Kyoto Protocol, a highly controversial international agreement that would require the United States, and other countries, to dramatically reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. One policy WRI advocates for is "environmentally honest fuel prices" (read: higher gas taxes!) and switching to electric cars. The group calls for even more investment of public funds in commercializing renewable technologies. The organization has net assets of $41 million, of which $34.9- million is invested in securities. (N.W.O. anyone?)

Battelle Memorial Institute $1.6 million: Battelle, a Columbus, Ohio nonprofit organization, has a staff of more than 7,000 and conducts about 5,000 projects each year. Appearing to be more like a corporation than a nonprofit, it paid $6 million in federal and state taxes in 1996, less than 0.6 percent of its total revenue. The institute has testified before Congress on the importance of government-funded research and maintaining government- owned, contractor-operated national laboratories. Considering that Batelle runs the DOE's Pacific Northwest Laboratory in the state of Washington, this is no surprise. One of the EPA grants was used to study the effect of global climate change on mountain water resources.

Have your Congressperson take a good look at where the funding for the EPA is really going. Let 'em know which you prefer -- a tax cut that you can take home for your personal environmental upgrade project or funding private organizations with an agenda.



By Craig M. Brown

Drudge and the New York Times broke the story, but we all knew it was coming. Now that he has skated through the impeachment process highlighted by politics and cowardice, we get to see the dark side of President Clinton. He has reportedly taken aim at the thirteen house managers who dared to display the rarest of all commodities in Washington: courage and principle. The President and his followers, who have never possessed either of these qualities, are naturally enraged at people who put their country ahead of themselves and, what's worse, said bad things about President Clinton.

If anyone questions that Mr. Clinton is prone to such action, remember the fate of the young lady in Chicago who shouted "you suck" to the POTUS, or the church Pastor who was rousted by Secret Service agents after he remarked, "God will hold you to account, Mr. President." I can only imagine what happened to the citizens of Brazil when they greeted Mr. Clinton on his visit by throwing doggie-doo at him.

The plan, as the Times explains it, is to throw unlimited money toward defeating the guilty thirteen in 2000. If Hillary gets involved, then if any of these Congressmen ever mooned a schoolteacher from the bus, or got caught smoking in the rest room, you and I will surely hear about it.

Republicans have reacted predictably to this announcement. They have referred to it as "shameful," "partisan," "vicious" and "disgraceful." All of these adjectives are doubtlessly accurate as they apply to the President, but they forgot one. They forgot "ungrateful." President Clinton should be eternally grateful to the Republicans on the House judicial committee. He should schedule them all in for a free night in the Lincoln bedroom. He should put them at the top of his Christmas list, ahead of Barbara Streisand and Larry Flynt.

The gratitude Mr. Clinton should have for the Republicans is for what they didn't do. That huge sigh of relief from the White House after the impeachment vote was because they didn't nail him on Chinagate (i.e. Treason). They let him skate on Filegate (Abuse of power) and Travelgate (more abuse). An investigation of the multitude of Clinton Executive Orders would reveal a systematic shredding of our Constitution. The sad truth is not just that these offenses were not voted into articles of impeachment, they were hardly mentioned.

Many questions surround the omission of these issues. The answers lie to a great extent with Ken Starr and Henry Hyde. Would crimes by the President connected to Travel and Chinagate be too hard to prove? Not likely. Would uncovering illegal Chinese campaign funds expose Republicans as well as Democrats? We're getting warmer. Did the 900-plus FBI files provide blackmail fodder to be used against key Republicans? Very likely. Did the President demand of high level lobbyists that they work diligently on the Senate to protect the President or lose any hope of favors from the White House? A resounding YES! (This from an impeccable source close to the White House).

The fact is we need to examine this in greater degree. Why did we bring the President to the edge of impeachment and then turn away? Why do so many of our elected officials love their country less then themselves? These questions need to be answered. Until they are, President Clinton should show a little gratitude.

Visit the "Boycott NBC" site at: