We probably get alerted to four or five so called conspiracies a week on this end. Most of them are rather humorous and easy to refute, so we just delete without comment. And herein, we shall not be starting another one.

Yet, there is a workable plan afoot that could put the leadership of most of the important committees in the House in the hands of people with decidedly un-American intentions. In fact, the more we look at the information we developed this week, the more we must recommend that everyone just vote straight Republican in November and we'll start sorting out the problems with that next year.

This short study was to see what the House would look like if the Democrats won back control next month. Dick Gephardt would be Speaker, of course. But, that's only the tip of the problem. Most work is done in the various committees and whoever runs the committees wields much of the power. So, we looked to see who the ranking Democrats are on 45 important committees and subcommittees. Let's look at a few of the most interesting ones:

The Appropriation Committee has two subcommittees of interest for this study. If the Democrats take the House, the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies will be chaired by Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio). The Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs would be chaired by Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

Chairmanship of the House Banking and Financial Services Committee would go to either John J. LaFalce (D-NY) or Bernard Sanders (S-VT). At the subcommittee level, Barney Frank (D-MA) would chair Housing and Community Opportunity, Maxine Waters (D-CA) would get Domestic and International Monetary Policy and Bernard Sanders (S-VT) could chair General Oversight and Investigations.

Under the House Commerce Committee, Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) is in line to chair either the Subcommittee on Health and Environment or the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

And, of course, Henry A. Waxman, (D-CA) would take over the powerful House Government Reform Committee. On the subcommittee level, Patsy Mink (D-HI) would chair Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources.

The Postal Services subcommittee would be chaired by Chaka Fattah (D-PA).

The House International Relations Committee gets interesting at the subcommittee level because Cynthia A. McKinney (D-GA) would chair International Operations and Human Rights and Donald M. Payne (D-NJ) would get the Subcommittee on Africa.

Anything could happen on the House Judiciary Committee because John Conyers (D-MI) (of reparations fame) would be chairman. And, it would not be any better at the subcommittee level because Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) would chair Commercial and Administrative Law and Mel Watt (D-NC) would get the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

The House Armed Services Committee Military Personnel Subcommittee would go to Neil Abercrombie (D-HI). The House Committee on Resources would be another major problem for the American people because George Miller (D-CA) would be chairman. Just as bad would be the subcommittees because Carlos Romero-Barceló, the Delegate from Puerto Rico, would chair National Parks & Public Lands and Eni Faleomavaega, the Delegate from American Samoa, would chair Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife &Oceans.

Yeah. You read that correctly. People none of us elected to anything would chair committees over all public lands and conservation.

Moving on we find that the House Small Business Committee would be chaired by Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and the Government Programs and Oversight subcommittee by Danny Davis (D-IL).

Peter DeFazio (D-OR) would chair the subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.

The House Veterans Committee would be chaired by Lane Evans (D- IL). For the subcommittees, Luis V. Gutierrez, (D-IL) would get Health, Bob Filner (D-CA) Benefits and Corrine Brown (D-FL) Oversight and Investigations.

The powerful House Ways and Means Committee would be chaired by Charles B. Rangel (D-NY). The subcommittee on Oversight would be chaired by William J. Coyne, (D-PA) and Pete Stark (D-CA) would get Health.

This is the "short list" description of the problem. If the Democrats take over the house, it actually gets much, much worse than this. For instance, the subcommittee on Energy & Mineral Resources would be chaired by Robert Underwood, the Delegate from Guam.

But, forget Underwood for a moment. He doesn't belong on this list.

All of the above people have something important in common. What we found was that at least thirty-one of the forty-five important House committees and subcommittees we looked at would be chaired by members of the House Progressive Caucus.(1) These are, of course, all card carrying, go to meeting, socialists.(2)

For a basic primer on the direction they intend to force the federal government, read "The Fairness Agenda"(3) and then decide for yourself. And, while you are over there, check out just how many card carrying socialists there are in the House -- and which committees they are concentrated on.

Then, vote Republican.

(1.) http://www.netprogress.org/legis/index.htm

(2.) See Issue #191 from July 23, 2000

(3.) http://www.netprogress.org/FairnessAgenda.htm

Y'all ever push those little wires in the ground that are used as frames for political yard signs? They are very hard to push in around the side of highways, but I just did quite a few. So, now I'm paying for it and my fingers don't want to hit the correct keys on this keyboard anymore.

Anyway, that's just a result of local politics. On the national scene, not much has changed. Gore made an ass of himself again in the third and last debate. This time, thanks to his tinsel-town friends, he showed up three or four inches taller than he is naturally. Someone who has known him for most of their lives was sitting in the front row at the debate and noticed Gore's new shoes -- the showbiz kind used by short actors with larger than normal heals outside the lifters inside.

Anyway, all the egotistical, far-left talking heads consulted each other after the debate and pronounced Gore the winner again -- that in the face of "real people" polls giving Bush anywhere from 60 to 90%. We can disregard that as the babble of vulgar (far left) minds. The problem is, they also control everything that is called "news" today.

Along with the elevator shoes, it seems that Gore also took counsel in his rock band friends before a photo shoot for Rolling Stone and borrowed one of their cod pieces. Then, Gore's minions started a rumor that Rolling Stone editors had to airbrush the photo. Does the Gore campaign really think modern America is that gullible? This guy has absolutely no shame!

And, to our union friends in Michigan who are even thinking of voting for this jerk: Remember Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber? Well guys, for a while there people were passing around a few pages from crazy Kaczynski's long text about the ills of technology on society and pages from Gore's book about the ills of technology on society, for comparison. Turns out, Al Gore has one hell of a lot in common with Kaczynski. Few people could tell who wrote which text. Calling the internal combustion engine "a mortal threat to the security of every nation," Gore said he wants automobiles off the road. You union guys want to be out of work, elect Gore. We locked Kaczynski up. The least we can do is throw Gore out of government.

Unlike Kaczynski, Gore didn't blow anyone up, you say? Maybe not. But those self-centered nut-cases he hired at EPA mandated over four thousand dollars worth of useless changes to each car produced. How's that affect the sales of what you build? Lee Iacocca and Governor John Engler have it exactly right: Gore would decimate the auto industry.

Al Gore is a despicable person. He reminds many of the smart-ass kid on the playground who torments others until someone gives him a bloody nose, and then goes running to the teacher. Our problem is, he has most of the national media in his camp.

Even Jim Lehrer pulled a dirty trick in last week's debate. Lehrer began the debate with a statement regarding Gore's allegations of Bush "bungling." That was obviously a set-up deal designed to belittle Bush by bringing up a Gore insult. It was an attempt to sucker punch Bush and throw him off his stride. Well, that and the fact that they stocked the audience with ignorant liberals. But, even so, Bush appeared in the liberal lion's den and left the victor.

The media tries to pump up Gore as the alpha male policy wonk with years of experience and degrade Bush whenever possible. But, like Gore, they lie a lot.

In fact, last week the Democrats and the Gore campaign brought out one of their favorite media kingpins, Larry Flynt, to dig for dirt on Bush. Flynt will pay up to a million bucks for whatever disparaging information he can get, so let's not be too surprised if someone makes something up.

Besides disregarding the illegal stuff, like all the campaign finance, money laundering and perjury felonies he committed, Gore was a major failure at nearly everything he did in government lately.

For instance, it was Gore who told OPEC to raise oil prices so Russia, Mexico and others could raise capital to pay off their debt payments to American banks.(1) So, in effect, we now pay an indirect tax to Russia and Mexico.

It was Gore who was charged with "reinventing" government. Today, no matter who measures those "results," that was a major flop. Things got much worse, not better.

Gore was tasked to help Russia change to a free market based economy and bring the rights of life, liberty and property to the Russian people. Instead, Gore threw in with Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, one of the biggest crooks in the country. Therefore, billions of dollars in American aid to Russia was stolen. The whole of the Russian economy crashed. The Russian people realized very few freedoms. And, it looks as if Russia may be returning to communism.(3) That's what Gore did because he is too stupid to know he was not qualified but yet too pigheaded to put someone knowledgeable in charge.

Then there's Al Gore the environmentalist. Gore is the person most responsible for allowing the radical eco-wackos into government. Seven years later, we see their results: Not only were many thousands of Americans hassled because of stupid regulations, these stupid regulations caused over 7,000 square miles of public and private land to burn this last summer alone. This is criminal negligence, of course. But, these people are all under the protection of Janet Reno's Just-Us Department, so nothing will be done.(4)

Not only do Gore's actions reek of the waste, fraud and abuse so common in the Clinton-Gore administration, Gore actually intentionally stole money from the American people. That is, he has not reported for work in over four months, yet still receives a salary and all benefits. Only in government can people be both negligent and crooked with impunity!

Last, Al Gore lies about everything. So, we should evaluate Al Gore by his own words.(5)

(1.) Finding the News, Oct. 1, 2000 -- #201

(2.) Gov't Fails "Results" Test, May 17, 1998 -- #85

(3.) Gore Supports Communists, Oct. 1, 2000 -- #201

(4.) A Legacy of Fire, Sept. 3, 2000 -- #197

(5.) Al Gore: In His Own Words, Sept. 17, 2000 -- #199

A recent U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion proves that we should all be paying very close attention to the way Hillary and her attorney friends act when questioned for misdeeds.

We will never recommend lying a lot, as Bill, Hillary and Al were said to do during depositions and such. But what has come to be called "taking the Hillary" -- don't remember, have no recollection of that, etc. -- seems to be permissible during legal questioning. And let's face it, if that is acceptable behavior for those in government, those who are trained and experienced in the law, it most certainly must be a technique the rest of us should study and remember.

Anyway, on a more practical note, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals recently said that we may not be able to claim the privilege against self-incrimination under certain circumstances. For instance, targets of a grand jury probe have no right to be provided an attorney unless they were in custody. Also, according to the Appeals Court, targets do not even have a right to know they are being investigated.

A Tennessee man was arrested and convicted for possession of crack cocaine. The evidence used in court included his testimony before a grand jury. His lawyer argued that the use of grand jury testimony violated his right to a fair trial because he was not first warned that anything he said could be used against him, and he was not offered a lawyer.

Apparently, the guy went into the grand jury and honestly answered most of the questions put to him. In other words, he forgot to forget. He blabbed. Therefore, he helped to convict himself. And, the Appeals Court wrongly allowed the conviction to stand.

Usually, according to the Justice Department, a letter and an Advice of Rights form is sent to targets of a grand jury probe. Witnesses do have rights, even in a grand jury. Most importantly, witnesses have the right to dummy-up, which, in the above case, would have been very beneficial.

Most grand jury proceedings are little more than a tool of the prosecutor -- a perfunctory proceeding. Prosecutors can indict just about anyone they wish. All they need do is neglect to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. And, unfortunately, that is very common.

Therefore, a good rule of thumb is that, if a prosecutor is running the show, say nothing. We all have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Start out with that, end up with that, and say nothing in between. Or, ask for complete and total immunity against prosecution for everything said. Then, if you get it, go ahead and tell them everything you have ever done. . . .

But even if you are testifying before the grand jury because you really want to see some bad guys put away, don't forget that if the questioning starts getting a little too close to home for you, consider taking a Hillary. It works for them.

While we're out campaigning for a candidate (instead of writing) for Congress who will join with Rep. Ron Paul in support of our Constitution, we submit an address to the House by Ron Paul, himself. As with most of what Rep. Paul does, this speech is a good instruction on what should be the limits of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I must oppose H.R. 4678, the Child Support Distribution Act. While I applaud the sections of the bill providing increased flexibility to states to ensure that child support payments go to benefit children, rather than government bureaucrats, other provisions of H.R. 4678 present grave dangers to individual liberty, privacy, constitutional government and the sanctity of the American family.

I am particularly disturbed by the language expanding the use of the National Directory of New Hires, popularly known as the 'new hires database', in order to more effectively administer the unemployment compensation system and deny visas and residency to non-citizens who are delinquent in child support payments. Identifying persons who are failing to fulfill their legal obligation to pay child support is a worthy goal, as an OB-GYN who has delivered over four thousand babies in my over thirty year medical career, words cannot express the contempt I hold for those who would refuse to support their children. Similarly, preventing fraud in the unemployment program is obviously important to the nation's employers and employees whose taxes finance the unemployment insurance system.

However much I share the goals meant to be accomplished by the expanded uses of the database, I must remind my colleagues that the road to serfdom, like the road to hell, is paved with noble purposes and good intentions. Expanding the use of the new hires database brings us closer to the day when the database is a universal tracking system allowing government officials easy access to every individual's employment and credit history. Providing the government with that level of power to track citizens is to invite abuse of individual liberties.

The threat of the expansion of the new hires database is magnified by the fact that it uses the social security number, which has become for all intents and purposes a de facto national ID number. In addition to threatening liberty, forcing Americans to divulge their uniform identifier for inclusion in a database also facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. In order to protect American citizens from both private and public criminals I have introduced legislation, H.R. 220, restricting the use of the social security number to purposes related to social security administration so that the government cannot establish databases linked by a common identifier.

I would also remind my colleagues that the federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in the collection of child support, much less invade the privacy of every citizen in order to ferret out a few wrongdoers. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy on the high seas. For Congress to authorize federal involvement in any other law enforcement issue is a violation on the limits on Congressional power contained in Article 1, section 8 and the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. No less an authority than Chief Justice William Renhquist has stated that Congress is creating too many federal laws and infringing on the proper police powers of the states.

In a free society, constitutional limits on government power and the liberty of citizens must never be sacrificed to increase the efficiency of any government program, no matter how noble the program's goal. Again I ask my colleagues to keep in mind that the dangerous road toward the loss of liberty begins when members of Congress put other goals ahead of our oath to preserve the Constitution and protect the liberty of our constituents.

While the expanded use of the new hires database provides sufficient justification for constitutionalists to oppose this bill, H.R. 4678 also must be opposed as it furthers the intrusion of the federal government into family life through the use of federal funds to support 'fatherhood programs.' Mr. Speaker, the federal government is neither constitutionally authorized nor institutionally competent to promote responsible fatherhood. In fact, by leveling taxes on responsible parents to provide special programs for irresponsible parents the federal government is punishing responsible fathers!

Federal programs promoting responsible fatherhood are another example of how the unintended consequences of government interventions are used to justify further expansions of state power. After all, it was the federal welfare state which undermined the traditional family as well as the ethic of self-responsibility so vital to maintaining a free society. In particular, the welfare state has promoted the belief that the government (re: taxpayer) has the primary responsibility for child-rearing, not the parents. When a large number of citizens view parenting as proper function of the central state it is inevitable that there will be an increase in those who fail to fulfill their obligations as parents. Without the destructive effects of the welfare state, there would be little need for federal programs to promote responsible fatherhood.

Instead of furthering federal involvement in the family, Congress should stop pumping the narcotic of welfare into America's communities by defunding federal bureaucracies and returning responsibility for providing assistance to those institutions best able to provide help without fostering an ethic of irresponsibility and dependency: private charities and churches.

Certain of my colleagues will say that this bill does promote effective charity through expansion of the 'charitable choice' program where taxpayer funds are provided to 'faith-based' institutions in order to administer certain welfare programs. While I have no doubt that churches are better able to foster strong families than federal bureaucrats, I am concerned that providing taxpayer funding for religious institutions will force the institutions to water-down their message -- thus weakening the very feature that makes these institutions effective in the first place!

Furthermore, providing taxpayers dollars to secular institutions violates the rights of taxpayers not to be forced to subsidize beliefs that may offend them. As Thomas Jefferson said 'To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.'

In conclusion, H.R. 4678, the Child Support Distribution Act, violates the Constitution by expanding the use of the new hires database, thus threatening the liberty and privacy of all Americans, as well as by expanding the federal role in family in the misguided belief that the state can somehow promote responsible fatherhood. By expanding the so-called 'charitable choice' program this bill also violates the conscience of millions of taxpayers and runs the risk of turning effective religious charities into agents of the welfare state. It also furthers the federalization of crime control by increasing the federal role in child support despite the fact that the federal government has no constitutional authority in this area. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill and return responsibility for America's children to states, local communities and, most importantly, parents.

(1.) The Congressional Record, Page: H7315, or go to

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr090700child.htm

  ** uhuh **

The President said he is reducing taxes.

uhuh.

Congress says they are balancing the budget.

uhuh. Sez who?

Web Home Page: www.uhuh.com

---

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh and GR Force, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 1996 by Forest Glen Durland.

fron204.htm. Revised 10-22-00. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.