-Caveat Lector-
----------
From: Dan Syes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Troy Griggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eric Quarles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: a couple of really good articles....
Date: Sun, Apr 25, 1999, 1:21 PM
Heads Up
A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia
April 25, 1999 #132
by: Doug Fiedor
E-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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:
http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/list-hu.htm
and
http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html
Table of Contents
CHILDREN, RULES AND GUNS
AMERICA'S NAT'L DEFENSE EMERGENCY
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY DEBACLE
THE CO- PRESIDENCY DEBACLE
CHILDREN, RULES AND GUNS
My father kept his in the bedroom closet. My grandfather said he didn't
need one, but when I had to crack his safe because he
forgot the combination, I found two old ones in there. My uncle kept his
on top of the chest of drawers in the bedroom. As a
child, all of my friends had essentially the same experiences.
In my 14th summer, Elvis made the charts with "Heartbreak Hotel." I had
a little jingle in my pocket from my paper route,
mowing grass and caddying for the rich folks down at the fancy golf
course. Because, you see, I wanted one, too. So I worked
and saved for it.
Well, there came a day back that summer when I had the $25 I needed, so
I peddled my bicycle the seven miles over to the
closest Wards store. And therein, I purchased my first one: A brand new
bolt-action, single shot 22 caliber rifle.
"Don't load that thing around here," the salesman admonished as he
rapped a sales receipt around the barrel and bagged my
300 rounds of "High Power" ammunition.
That was sold in the basement of the large department store. Picture a
lanky 14 year old boy walking through a department
store today carrying a rifle and a bag of ammunition. That would cause a
bit of attention today. Back then, no one cared. Nor
did anyone say anything as I held the rifle across the handlebars of my
bike while I peddled home.
It wasn't that everyone knew me (few did) and had no fear of me shooting
them, it was that kids did not shoot at people.
Period. No exceptions. There were no problems like that back then.
We lived within the city limits of a major city, but on the very last
street of that city. Within a five minute walk was a large
woods. Therefore, most of the guys in the neighborhood had guns and it
was rather common to see them carried around.
There were two rules for us kids that were not often violated: No loaded
guns within the city limits. And, point it at someone
and you loose it. The last rule was important because, back then, any
adult could smack any kid upside the head and take their
gun away for inappropriate use. It happened sometimes, too.
Lots of guns were around that neighborhood, but no person ever shot at
anyone. Not even once.
Yet, in high school, many of us were chided relentlessly by our "peers."
That's part of growing up. I certainly got my share,
because there was much about me to kid about. Four eyes and fumble
fingers come to mind. Lanky and dumb Pollock were
part of it, too.
But even with that, there were unstated rules among us kids. Say
something nasty about someone's, family or religion and there
will be a fight. Ditto for not fighting "fair" by ganging up on someone
or picking on someone smaller.
That's how it was back when Elvis was starting to become "king" and Fats
Domino was selling records by the many millions.
We knew that people were all different and that we did not have to like
everyone. But we also were taught that we were not to
bother people, that we were to respect their freedom and leave them
alone -- as long as they did the same for us.
There also came a time that summer when a group of us were stopped by a
police officer while walking down my street at
11:30 p.m. We had shotguns, 22s and there were even a couple revolvers
in the group.
The officer asked normal police officer questions: Where do you live?
Where are you going? Why are you out this late? Do
your parents know you are out this late? However, there was not one
question about the guns. We were sent home. We were
going home anyway, so simply replied "yes sir," and continued on our
way.
No identification was necessary. We didn't have any, anyway. No one did,
back then, unless they drove a car. Nor did the
officer bother to write down our names. We lived in the neighborhood, he
didn't. Still, we were required to do as we were told,
with no back-talk. Else, the nice officer would have delivered us to our
parents and we would have been punished.
The rule was, if a "bad" adult tells you to do something you knew was
wrong, you were to get out of his presence immediately.
But still, no back-talk was allowed.
And that is the key, the missing attribute today:
We had rules. Lots of rules. And we obeyed them correctly. Usually,
anyway. "Society has rules," our old social studies
teacher liked to say in his booming voice. "Your responsibility is to
obey those rules." All of our parents said pretty much the
same thing. Continuously.
There were consequences, too. Parents would whip your butt for sassing
them or any other adult. Other kids would kick your
butt if you went too far with them. Steal, rob or assault and you got
the police. Justice was swift from all sectors of society back
then. As kids, we couldn't get away with much of anything.
All of my old crowd still have guns. Many of us are also legally armed
citizens in public. Yet, no one out of the whole crowd
has ever been accused of using a gun inappropriately. And, as I add that
up, we are talking about over 500 years (combined)
of well armed citizens.
But, as kids, we had supervision, we learned rules, and we were taught
to respect the rights of others. Also, we were not
desensitized by a constant diet of murder, mayhem and people bleeding as
entertainment and nightly news on television.
In short, the problem is not the guns -- since before Billy the Kid,
guns were always easily available to youngsters. The problem
is the parents, and the liberal "feel good" atmosphere in the public
schools. Children are not adults; they are in training to
become adults. Children need strong direction. Rules, in other words.
Lots of very clear rules. Providing a permissive
atmosphere for children does nothing but allow anarchy in society.
Now, capitalizing on the tragedy at Littleton, Colorado, comes the
babbling of vulgar liberal minds. Liberals refuse to admit that
the actions of those young demented killers are but outward symptoms of
the moral decline brought about by their liberal social
policy. Instead, they wish to punish all of society by depriving honest
Americans of their Constitutional right to keep and bear
arms.
Nothing will be said of the millions of armed American citizens who use
their guns correctly. That will never be factored into the
equation of freedom. The socialists of the world want tighter controls
over the American people and they fear attempting to
exert too much control while so many of us are armed and skilled with
our arms. For that, they have the Clinton administration.
I, for one, will practice my birthright and remain as always, an armed
American citizen. So should you.
AMERICA'S NATIONAL DEFENSE EMERGENCY
By: House Majority Leader Dick Armey
(R-TX),April 19, 1999
<http://freedom.house.gov>
As we consider funding for the Kosovar War, we cannot make the mistake
of merely replacing bomb-for- bomb and
missile-for-missile. We must take urgent steps to improve our military
capabilities across-the-board. The president will ask for
around $6 billion (including foreign aid). Even $10 billion would be
insufficient to begin fixing six years of Clinton-Gore neglect
of our armed forces.
Our conflicts in the Balkans and Iraq have revealed a true national
defense emergency. Taking only the facts that have come to
widespread public attention, our armed forces are clearly under
considerable strain.
** We are critically low of air launched cruise missiles, our weapon of
choice since the 1980s. We're cannibalizing part of our
strategic deterrent, converting nuclear tipped cruise missiles to
conventional ones. A severe shortage of air crews is requiring us
to mobilize thirty thousand reservists.
** We are pulling aircraft carriers out of the Pacific in order to cover
the Mediterranean, despite the dangerous tensions in the
Taiwan straits and Korean peninsula.
** We are transferring aircraft from Turkey to the Balkan theater,
weakening our effort to contain Saddam Hussein -- a
transfer typical of the shell games our military is now forced to play.
** After deciding to dispatch Apache helicopters to Albania (like the
cavalry coming to rescue the beleaguered Kosovars) it
has taken weeks for them to arrive. There are now few Kosovars in Kosovo
left for the Apaches to save.
This alarming picture of our post Cold War build-down military suggests
immediate dangers.
Did knowledge of our overstretched forces contribute to the disastrous
decision to begin the Kosovo operation with only a
fraction of the aircraft we used in Desert Storm? Is this why we waited
three weeks into the fighting to add an additional 300
planes to the campaign? Is it the reason that we are having trouble
bringing little Serbia to heel by acceptable means?
More critically, if our military is overstretched by fighting two wars
(with only air assets engaged), what will happen if other
hostile states decide to take advantage of our preoccupation? As our
Balkan imbroglio grows, how will we respond to
challenges elsewhere in the world?
Ever since America became globally dominant with the end of the Cold
War, we have faced the possibility of an "Anti Axis" --
that is, that a diverse collection of states and terror groups, united
only by their antiAmericanism, might begin to move against us
simultaneously. They would not need to coordinate, any more than the
Vandals and Visigoths coordinated against Rome.
Rather, they would simply grasp that when an overburdened America is
occupied in one area, they all have more freedom to
move against American interests in others.
The Balkan War and our apparent military overstretch could call such an
Anti Axis into being. North Korea may already be on
the move. There are signs that the Pyongyang regime is working with
Russian diplomats on a "peace offensive" by which, along
with its continuing nuclear and missile programs, it hopes to neutralize
the peninsula. China is continuing its buildup across the
water from democratic Taiwan. And needless to say, archterrorist Osama
Bin Laden knows he won't be subject to any more
cruise missile attacks while America is struggling in the Balkans.
The Clinton Administration's six-year-long neglect of the defense budget
brought us to this position. Since the end of the Gulf
War, our military has shrunk by forty-percent. Army divisions have
dropped from 18 to 10. Fighter wings 24 to 13. The Navy
used to have 546 ships. Now it has only 333. At the same time, our
deployments have increased. As Curt Weldon often points
out, we have had 33 Army deployments in the 1990s alone, compared with
ten for the entire period from 1950-1989. Funding
has been inadequate to meet demands. The result has been low troop
retention, slower recruitment, a shortage of spare parts,
and deficient training.
Clearly this Congress must pass, on an urgent basis, legislation to
reverse the decline of our military. Only by doing so will we
prevent trouble from breaking out in many parts of the world. Only by
doing so do we have a chance to prevail in the Balkans
without damaging America's interests elsewhere. We should look at all
areas -- from munitions to weapons procurement to
technological modernization to training and personnel.
President Clinton has created a national security emergency by
neglecting the defense budget for six years while spreading our
troops thinly across the globe. Congress now has a duty to correct this
situation. We have no greater responsibility than to
ensure that our men and women who put their lives on the line have the
equipment they need to do the job.
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY DEBACLE
House Majority Leader Dick Armey made some extremely good points above.
And it's good to know that someone in the
leadership of Congress recognizes many of the problems with our so
called "national security."
Because, our national security went to hell in a handbasket under the
Clinton administration. Clinton's foreign relations are every
bit as screwed up as his domestic and personal relations. Nations that
should be our friends are actually scheming against us.
People of other countries who benefit from our military and trade are
demonstrating in the streets against us. Worldwide, we
are again becoming the "Ugly Americans."
But, it's not us, as in the American people. It's them, as in the United
States government. It's the misadministration,
maladministration and amazingly stupid blunders by the nincompoops in
the Clinton administration that is causing the problems.
On the domestic front, we are inundated with illegal aliens -- to the
tune of many thousands each week. They just walk right on
over, like they belong here. And, why not? We allow them money and
benefits for breaking our law.
So, too, with the illegal drug trade. Illegal drugs come into this
country by the tons every week. Yet, who among us will believe
for a minute that anyone could repeatedly sneak anything into this
country by the ton without detection by government agents?
Something is wrong with this picture.
Now comes this insane war in Serbia.
First, we do not belong there. I mean, what hubris this administration
displays saying that we can stop a feud that has been in
progress off and on for over 600 years! They're still fighting for
retribution over something that happened about 1360, for
Pete's sake. We want in on that? How stupid.
And now there are prisoners of war already. Unconscionable!
It is both the duty and the responsibility of every NCO, officer and
politician to protect every fighting man with every means
possible. That's called leadership. There is absolutely no excuse for
allowing those men to be captured, or to stay captured.
Our military should be relentless in its quest to get them back. Quite
obviously, this is not being done. Again, there is no
leadership.
As with the Vietnam war, the rot starts from the top -- from Washington.
Those three men, and any men subsequently
captured, will be released, or not, at the pleasure of the Serbian
government. Our government wrote those boys off as an
expenditure of war. That's sickening.
Second, this "war" is being run by a teacher, a trade lawyer-lobbyist
and a magazine writer. Worse yet, as with their
president(s), not one has a day's military experience to fall back on.
Because, in truth, they hate the military. Consequently, we
have already lost this conflict.
So, while it is true that the government of Serbia should be abolished,
new leaders elected, and Milosevic and most of his crew
tried for war crimes, it is also true that if we had an administration
that knew its posterior orifice from a hole in the ground, that
would have happened after the Bosnia action. Instead, Clinton and Gore
sent men to fight, then went fundraising. That, too, is
sickening.
National security means the protection of this nation's people, not the
government's public reputation. So, when thousands of
elected officials and bureaucrats in the federal government totally
neglected their responsibility by not recognizing that we have a
major calendar change coming up and did not repair and/or replace their
computers accordingly, they deserve to be punished.
That part of the Y2K crisis affecting government's computers is their
wholly caused crisis; their responsibility. It was caused by
their stupidity, their negligence, their total disregard for their jobs
and the American people.
However, they plan to punish us rather than the perpetrators. They are
planning to deprive us of our individual personal rights
by declaring martial law.
Did we do something wrong to have all (or any) of our rights usurped?
No, of course not. They, those in government, did the
wrong. But they have the military, so we'll probably get the
consequences. National security?
Well folks, it just so happens that the declaration of martial law is an
illegal action. Thanks to "The Federalist Brief" at:
<http://www.Federalist.com> we acquired a very interesting U.S. Supreme
Court quote that fits right in here:
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and
people, equally in war and peace, and
covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men,
at all times, and under all circumstances.
No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever
invented by the wit of man than that
any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great
exigencies of government. Such a
doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.
(Caldwell v. Parker (1866), 252 U. S. 376)
There is no provision in the Constitution that allows any member of
government to suspend any of our individual rights (except
habeas corpus during invasion). To do so is called "despotism," says the
U.S. Supreme Court. Yet, the federal government
feels free to do it, not because they have the right, but simply because
they have the might.
Those military personnel practicing to attack American cities took an
oath to defend our Constitution. Perhaps someone should
remind them and their officers. And we might also ask, at the same time,
if they are to be Stepford soldiers or American
soldiers.
National security means the protection of the American people, which
includes all of their Constitutional rights. Martial law,
except possibly during time of actual attack, is something that is
completely and totally foreign to our Constitution.
If these wayward military groups wish to practice attacking an urban
environment, perhaps they might scoot on over to Serbia
and free those three POWs. Let's see if they can function in a real
shooting situation.
And, for our own "national security," we had all better start paying
very close attention as to whom we plan to help in the
coming primary election. Some major changes are needed throughout the
whole of the federal government.
That part is our responsibility.
THE CO-PRESIDENCY DEBACLE
"Buy one, get one free," Bill Clinton said during his first Presidential
campaign. And, unfortunately, he was serious about sharing
power with Hillary. Hillary was serious about it too, and attempted to
take over domestic policy -- even to the point of
appointing cabinet members. "We are the President," she is quoted as
telling people.
So, a fair question is, who is really in charge of what? And, under what
authority can Hillary Clinton set any type of public
policy for the United States? The answer is, there is no such authority.
She should not be involved in government.
In the Federalist Papers #70, Alexander Hamilton discusses why the
executive branch of the federal government is vested in
one President. Let's see how these words written 211 years ago still
ring true today:
But one of the weightiest objections to a plurality in the
Executive . . . is, that it tends to conceal
faults and destroy responsibility. . . . It often becomes
impossible, amidst mutual accusations, to
determine on whom the blame or the punishment of a pernicious
measure, or series of pernicious
measures, ought really to fall. It is shifted from one to
another with so much dexterity, and under such
plausible appearances, that the public opinion is left in
suspense about the real author. The
circumstances which may have led to any national miscarriage
or misfortune are sometimes so
complicated that, where there are a number of actors who may
have had different degrees and kinds
of agency, though we may clearly see upon the whole that there
has been mismanagement, yet it may
be impracticable to pronounce to whose account the evil which
may have been incurred is truly
chargeable.
Having more than one person acting as president "tends to conceal faults
and destroy responsibility." Like, for instance, who
hired Craig Livingstone, who ordered the White House computer system,
who is responsible for ordering those 900+ secret
FBI files, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Everyone knows who, but the Lords and
Ladies of Capitol Hill do not have the courage to
say it publicly.
Hamilton Continues:
Wherever two or more persons are engaged in any common
enterprise or pursuit, there is always
danger of difference of opinion. If it be a public trust or
office, in which they are clothed with equal
dignity and authority, there is peculiar danger of personal
emulation and even animosity. From either,
and especially from all these causes, the most bitter
dissensions are apt to spring. Whenever these
happen, they lessen the respectability, weaken the authority,
and distract the plans and operation of
those whom they divide. If they should unfortunately assail
the supreme executive magistracy of a
country, consisting of a plurality of persons, they might
impede or frustrate the most important
measures of the government, in the most critical emergencies
of the state.
The Clintons hate the military, she more than him. Yet, reports say,
they micromanaged their numerous attacks from the White
House. And even though neither Clinton has any military experience, we
now have this two headed, disgrace for a presidency
on the brink of starting World War III.
Back in the Feb. 12, 1998 issue of "The Hill," Clinton's confidant,
campaign co-conspirator and fellow pervert, Dick Morris,
writes that Hillary is taking over most presidential duties:
The coup was bloodless and, most likely, wordless. The minute
President Clinton was thrown
irredeemably on the defensive on Jan. 21 -- the very day he
began his sixth year in office -- Hillary
took over. Not just the scandal defense but the building
itself. The bargain is clear to both the
president and the first lady. She need never articulate it. He
intuits it. Here's the deal: She'll bail him
out of this mess, but, now, she calls the shots.
The president, hanging by his wife's largesse, knows enough to
step aside. From now on it will be
her appointments, her policies, her positions that get green
lights. The formal staff of the White
House will have to take a back seat reminiscent of the health
care reform days.
More recently, reports said that White House staffers were even trying
to call Hillary back from vacation in hopes she would
make Bill stop the war with Serbia.
Folks, that whirling sound you hear coming from Virginia is not some
sort of secret military device. That's George Washington,
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson spinning in their graves. We've got a
Marxist, feminist, with an obnoxious attitude as the
illegal Chief Executive Officer of this country.
Need I mention the Constitution one more time?
End
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
