---------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Editions at:
http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/list-hu.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------

When the term "homeland security" is mentioned, I immediately think of the perceptive advice of Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of The Declaration of Independence, a significant kibitzer when James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights and our third U.S. President. As a senior statesman, Thomas Jefferson clearly recognized the need for an American citizen to have the means of security always at the ready:

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." (1)

And so was the original intent of all the Founding Fathers when they wrote and implemented our Constitution. Americans were intended to have the means of self defense. Put another way, the Constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to restrict American citizens from keeping and bearing arms. Rather, the Second Amendment clearly instructs those in government that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Governing a nation after a nuclear attack.  Things you might not have thought about...

Rep. James Madison, who presented the Bill of Rights to the first Congress, earlier wrote in The Federalist Papers #46: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

As late as the 1960s, members of Congress agreed that the American people have an inherent right to keep and bear arms. Senator Hubert H. Humphrey -- later to become Vice President under L.B. Johnson -- offered in an interview(2): "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

Humphrey was exactly correct. We do not have the right to shoot another human unless a life is threatened. Nor do we have the right to hunt down any person for wrongdoing, that being police work. We do, however, have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms for the instant protection of self, family and home against anyone who would do us harm. Well . . . we're supposed to, anyway. That was the Constitutional plan and, to date, no amendments on the topic have contradicted that rule.

Even in the 1980s, Senators were grudgingly admitting that a private citizen has the right to own and carry firearms. According to the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), chairman, in the Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982): "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

So, what happened? If these Senators knew perfectly well that the American people have a Constitutionally protected right to keep and carry arms, why did they turn against the American people and allow all those unconstitutional gun control laws to be enacted? Or, perhaps we should ask: Why is there no punishment for those lawmakers, judges and bureaucrats who knowingly and intentionally violate the Constitution? Are they now above the Constitution -- the supreme law of the land? As stated in The Federalist No. 45, James Madison, the "father" of our Constitution and the fourth President of the United States, wrote that he envisioned little or no role for the federal government in law enforcement because the federal government was to be one of very limited and defined powers:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. . . . The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state."

President Thomas Jefferson later expanded on that thought: "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." Alexander Hamilton, a strong defender of executive branch power, agreed both with the Second Amendment and that the federal government should stay out of everything not specifically tasked to it by the Constitution. In The Federalist Papers No. 78, Hamilton wrote:

"There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal that the servant is above his master that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

Now we fast forward into the Constitutional "Twilight Zone" where the executive branch speaks of citizen involvement in homeland security but quietly bickers about allowing citizens the means. I, for one, both practice and suggest the "enterprise and independence" via the means suggested by Thomas Jefferson as being the surest method of protection in an emergency.

-----------------------------
1. Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967
2. "Know Your Lawmakers," Guns Magazine, February 1

If anyone wonders how the United Nations Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) fit in with the federal government's regulatory agencies, there is a simple answer: They often trade employees back and forth -- most of whom are on the federal payroll.

A while back, we reported that the relationship between eco-whacko groups and United Nations NGOs and federal agencies, like the EPA, was so tight it appeared there was a revolving door between them. Fact is, most of these people are kept on the federal payroll, even while working for the NGOs. They can even get overtime and promotions while working for private groups. Some over budgeted federal agencies give grants to nonprofit groups. Often, federal regulatory agencies even offer grants to nonprofit organizations that use the money to sue the granting agency. It's all a big game, with a well orchestrated game plan. The bureaucratic plan is to grab more power, and their game plan works quite well. The idea is for nonprofit NGOs to use taxpayer funds to force federal agencies to regulate the American public in ways the NGOs desire. Many of the laws, rules and regulations these NGOs want promulgated would be much too harsh to get passed through normal means. So, they trump up some "need" or "violation," whether environmental or health, and the NGO sues the regulatory agency in court. It's a synergistic relationship. As is part of the arrangement, the federal agencies intentionally lose in court. Because, by losing in court, the regulatory agencies gain more power over the American people. The courts "force" the federal regulatory agency to regulate whatever. The federal regulatory agency ends up with more power and churns out even more regulations, forcing American citizens to act according to the wish of the NGO. It's all very simple and very effective. And, our elected representatives in Congress are kept completely out of the loop.

For instance, over the years, a not-for-profit organization called STAPPA/ALAPCO -- two groups sharing the same offices and staff -- has received 49 grants from the EPA, totaling $13,190,826.(2)

What does this organization do to earn those grants? They held a few useless (and lightly attended) forums over the years. Mostly, though, they schedule regular appearances before congressional committees to promote and implement the policies of the EPA -- and lobby for more tax dollars to do it. And, of course, they pay staff workers in selected areas around the country to do the same at the state level. Mostly, though, the paid staff at state levels are but a lobbying ploy. They are there simply to give the appearance, in Washington, of having a large grass roots presence.

Many environmental groups have a revolving door relationship with the federal enforcement agencies like EPA and Fish and Wildlife. The agencies want "experienced people" and the environmental groups provide them. So, it's really no surprise that many millions of tax dollars go out in grants each year to the very environmental groups wanting every little critter and bug in the world protected by law. In fact, it is quite common in Washington for a department or agency to give funds to private, nonprofit groups, which then turn around and spend the money to advocate and lobby for more funds for the granting agency. That taxpayer funded a merry-go-round is the big joke among eco-whackos. They got us coming and going.

Again, the most egregious agency practicing this sort of scam is the Environmental Protection Agency. Over the past few years, EPA gave tens of millions of dollars to nongovernmental organizations directly involved in very liberal political advocacy. For instance, from 1993 through 1995, the Environmental Defense Fund received over $1.8- million, and the Natural Resources Defense Council -- both environmental advocacy organizations -- received nearly $1-million. In return, both groups have attacked all congressional efforts to reduce EPA funding and fought proposals by Congress to require federal agencies to examine the costs of public regulations.

Environmental groups also used their federal grants to fund lawsuits to increase the protected species rolls -- and hence to further increase the powers of federal regulatory agencies. Just last week, a cabal of eco-whacko groups appealed in court to stop the federal government from allowing 226 acres in Montana's Gallatin National Forest from being logged. Apparently, said the complaint, the government did not do enough to adequately review the plight of grizzlies, which are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

Dr. Reed F. Noss of The Wildlands Project clarifies the radical environmentalists' position nicely: "The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans." As nonprofit organizations, these NGOs may receive donations from any source, including United Nations organizations and multi-national corporations. So it is no surprise that these nonprofit groups sometimes receive donations from businesses and business organizations wanting to force specific actions by the federal government. In these instances, the nonprofit NGO may then act as a "backdoor" lobbyist, appearing as a nonprofit citizen's group while actually doing the work of a professional lobbyist organization. And, because these nonprofit groups have such close ties with regulatory agency personnel, their lobbying efforts are usually very fruitful.

Which means, United Nations and UNESCO programs are being implemented in the United States even though, officially, the federal government has approved no formal agreement. Congress abdicated its duty to make law to the regulatory agencies years ago. Over the years, these federal regulatory agencies have become infested with personnel who have very close ties to many of the United Nations Non- Governmental Organizations. Therefore, treaties and agreements are not always necessary for the United Nations and UNESCO to work their will on the American people. The huge number of acres dedicated to biospheres and wildlands throughout the United States is a major example of how well that nefarious scheme works.

Congress, as mentioned above, is completely out of the loop. There is no longer anything they can do about any of this except to watch. Unless, that is, they again begin to honor each and every word of our Constitution, as written -- which is not likely.

-----------------------------
1. http://www.opm.gov/PROGRAMS/IPA/Index.htm http://www1.od.nih.gov/ohrm/hrinfo/IPA/IPA-FAQs.htm http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/cfda/p27011.htm#i11
2. http://www.cleanairworld.org/stappa/comments.html#climate

NOTE: Here's a flash from the past. For your enjoyment, below are but three selected quotations from the hundreds published -- with a straight face -- by established environmentalists. These very enlightening quotes are self- explanatory and we feel no further comment is necessary:

"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population." -- Reid Bryson, Global Ecology Readings towards a rational strategy for Man, (1971)

"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production -- with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon. . . . The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist[s] are hard-pressed to keep up with it." -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

Remembering 2000, first the Democrats in Florida designed the "butterfly ballot." That style ballot worked fine in other states, just not in the Democratic strongholds of Florida. So they whined, cried and kicked up a big fuss because the very same punch card ballots used many places throughout the nation were somehow "unfair" for the people populating a few Florida counties. They got "hanging chads," and the vote does not count if there is not a clear hole. Besides, some Democrat voters said it was too complex to punch a hole next to the name of the candidate they wanted for office. It was acceptable for Republicans, who did it without difficulty. But, as they implied in public and in court, some Democrats had a much lower level of comprehension.

So, the State of Florida sent these complaining counties brand spanking new voting machines. Digital voting machines. The kind of voting machines that require no "punching" effort for the elderly and/or infirm Democrats because all that is necessary is to lightly touch the screen to make a selection. Idiot proof voting machines, with huge icons that are very easy to see.

Except, evidently, those voting machines were not quite all that idiot proof. The poll workers (and voters) of Miami-Dade and Broward County managed to screw up the vote tallies again, anyway.

Sixteen Florida counties used the same kind of touch-screen voting machines. No one else had a problem with the new voting machines. Only those "certain" counties that totally blew the last election managed to mess up the new system.

The Miami Herald reported last Saturday: "In an increasingly eerie replay of the 2000 presidential election in Florida, former attorney general Janet Reno today demanded a statewide, manual recount of the votes in Tuesday's Democratic gubernatorial primary."

The instant question to Janet Reno should have been: Exactly, how does one perform a "manual recount of the votes" on a digital machine? But, never-mind these are Democrats. . . . .

According to the Herald, in this latest Miami-Dade and Broward County debacle, "The directions were written only in English, and the elections office didn't check poll workers' ability to read in English."

Oh? . . . Miami-Dade and Broward Counties hired illiterate foreigners to run an election in the United States? They couldn't read the instructions -- even though all they needed to know in English was "on" and "off" ?

As reported, all poll workers had at least four hours training on the new machines. The election people teaching the class on the new machines said the poll workers were tested and passed. One would think that the training class would be a great place to bring up any lingering incidental problems -- like how to turn the machine on. But, apparently one would be wrong to assume such silly things. Anyway, Democrats would probably class such thoughts as discriminatory.

Still, it gets better: Precinct clerk Dorothy Walton, a poll worker since 1973, said she came away from training without knowing exactly how to close out the machines at day's end. 'Why didn't she ask and learn,' was the simple question asked. She said she didn't ask questions because she was supposed to have a helper who did know. (She assumed!) But, on election day, her helper didn't show up.

Two bits says she took the pay for being there, though.

Anyway, they invented something new to whine about. As the Orlando Sentinel reported on Sept. 18: "Forget the pregnant chads of 2000. Now we get to blame South Florida voters' dirty fingers -- on smudges they left on the new computerized touch-screen voting machines that replaced old punch-card ballots. . . . Listen [sic] to a few South Florida voters complain that the wrong candidate names seemed to pop up on touch screens when they went to make their choice."

An even stranger situation happened in Michigan's August 6 primary election. Not widely related in the news is the fact that there is now a recall for the Detroit City Clerk -- the person in charge of Detroit's polling places and running the elections. Why? Because, according to local media, some of the precincts have still not been counted.

Among the allegations charged are: failure to count votes in a timely manner in the Aug. 6 primary failure to properly maintain vote-counting equipment sloppy vote counting not opening polls on time and having poorly trained workers and incompetence.

In Detroit, most election results are usually predetermined anyway. But, that's not the point. It seems that they could at least have the semblance of an honest election. Some voters (and officials) recommend (demand) that the State take over all voting precincts in Detroit. Otherwise, November will be just as screwed up as the primary was. But, again, that is seen by some as discriminatory. Incompetence must be allowed. False tallies will be accepted. Because . . . well . . . those liberals in government do not want to hurt anyone's feelings.

One thing is clear from this information: The old saying that "friends do not let friends vote Democratic" should be changed to 'voters should never allow Democratic poll workers to run an election without continuous supervision.' Because, left on their own, the tally often comes out wrong -- and some of them have the unique ability to later "find" votes that were not counted when the results did not come out exactly as they wish.

So goes the American election system. That's democracy in action, the Democratic Party way.

Read what our Customers are saying!

Sign up for our monthly specials Newsletter