Heads Up
A Weekly edition of News from around our country
November 22, 1996 #10
by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net
----------------------------------------------------------
Please Distribute Widely
----------------------------------------------------------
PROHIBITION OF SPEECH
It's amazing how selective our "freedom of speech"
has become. We live in a society where watching murder
and human mutilation are classed as a form of entertainment.
Yet, viewing the natural and normal human body is taboo.
Religion and speech are said to be free in our country. Yet,
if a child combines the two to say a prayer in school it is
deemed inappropriate.
Isn't something a little backwards here?
Now a member of the Kennedy clan plans to censor
even commercial speech. You know, advertising.
Massachusetts Representative Joseph Kennedy plans
to introduce a bill to ban liquor ads from television.
Something is wrong with this picture, folks.
First, the Kennedy family made their fortune
during Prohibition, from selling illegal liquor. Later,
they locked in the contract for importing certain
alcoholic beverages. The Kennedy money is alcohol
money.
So, don't be surprised if this bill somehow provides
some benefit to the Kennedy family, and their friends.
The excuse for banning liquor ads on television is
that children may see them. But, that's a lame excuse
when thousands of gigantic billboards in metropolitan
areas display liquor advertising -- many of them near schools.
Yup, there must be something in this for Joe
Kennedy, and family.
The First Amendment instructs that "Congress shall
make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."
Our dictionary defines the word abridge as: "to reduce
the length or extent of." Perhaps Joe Kennedy's
dictionary says something different.
MAYBE SHE CAN'T READ
IRS Commissioner Margaret Milner Richardson
is on the warpath because some Members of Congress
propose that the burden of proof in all tax cases be shifted
to the IRS. The IRS already has to show proof in
criminal cases, but not in civil cases.
Richardson said that proposal, if enacted, would
make life even more difficult for taxpayers. "The
ultimate irony of the solution is that it would require
the IRS to gather considerably more information and
talk to even more people that it currently does during
an audit," she said. Uh huh.
Ms. Richardson, the Supreme Law of the
Land -- our Constitution -- clearly states: "The right
of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated . . ." Which part of
the words "shall not" do you need explained to you?
And Margaret, do you see any words differentiating
"civil" from "criminal" offenses in there? We do not.
Nor do we see an exception for the tax collector.
Last session, Congress passed a law which
required that they, too, must follow all federal laws,
rules and regulations, just as everyone else must.
Obviously, we need the same law applicable to the
administrative branch.
It's a damn shame that we now need a law
requiring the federal government to honor and obey
the United States Constitution! But, that is evidently
the case today. The law should impose stiff prison
sentences for all violators, too.
NO CONGRESS NEEDED
Ohio Representative John Boehner received
an "in house" EPA memo that details a method of
removing Congress from the lawmaking process. The
memo details plans, by administrative fiat, to increase the
federal tax on gasoline by 50-cents a gallon. The memo
also proposes a host of other hefty taxes on fossil fuels.
Apparently, we've been consuming too much folks.
So, the tree-huggers want to shut us down. They call for
a "carbon tax," a "BTU tax," an "at source ad valorem
tax," and a few other "greenhouse gas taxes." The memo
estimates that the cost to the economy will be $47-billion
annually by the year 2000.
The memo states that, "the administration has the
authority to begin rule-making on its own, without
legislation."
How, you might ask?
Well, it seems that some obscure provision in
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 gives the
administration authority under national security
considerations. EPA says that the new gas tax "can be
implemented relatively easily and quickly since the
legal mechanism and authority exists."
Rep. Boehner calls the memo "a rewrite of Al
Gore's book, Earth in the Balance -- a radical, extremist
approach that would put most working Americans on
bicycles."
Yeah, but if Slick Willie is impeached, that is
exactly what we are going to get! Al rides in the big
limo. We get the bicycle.
TURKEY'S TALKING
Last August, the Meat and Poultry Hotline
office of the Department of Agriculture issued a
warning that "strongly advises against stuffing the
turkey." They said that "cooking the dressing inside
the bird could cause serious illness or even death."
Folks . . . clearly, there are people working for
the federal government who do not have enough to do!
This all started with a research study at the
University of Georgia. The study recommended that
"stuffing" be cooked "outside" the bird. No word,
however, on what that should then be called. . . . But,
"stuffing," it ain't!
Anyway, the Turkey Federation, a trade group
of turkey farmers and processors, protested. So, the
Department of Agriculture backed down some. Now they
say that "cooking a home-stuffed turkey can be somewhat
riskier than cooking one not stuffed."
Well, at least they did not pass a law or regulation.
This time.
BY GHALI GOOD BYE
Well well. Last Tuesday's vote in the UN Security
Council was 14-1 in favor of keeping old Boutros Boutros
Ghali. The problem is, the United States' vote against is
not exactly a vote. It's a veto.
News reports say that the American no vote sets the
stage for a prolonged battle over his future, and opens the
way for new compromise candidates.
Yeah. And it also ousts him. By, by Boutros!
"Do I represent a danger to the security of the
United States?" he muses. "No. Did I smuggle
something? Am I Noriega or Saddam Hussein?''
he complains.
No, Boutros, you are none of those things or
people. What you are is someone who covets our
country. You want control over our military, you want
billions of our tax dollars, you want authority to tax us
directly, you want your regulatory agencies to regulate
American land usage, you want to affect our education
system, and you want to redefine the rights of American
citizens.
Did that about sum it up, Boutros?
By, by Boutros. Good by.
And hey, on the way out, please take the rest of
the United Nations with you.
NO STANDING FOR CITIZENS
During the 1992 drought, the federal government
cut off irrigation water to farms and ranches around
Oregon's Lost River. Because of this, farmers watched
their hay, grain and sugarbeets die in the fields. The
damage was estimated at about $75-million.
This action also caused many ranchers to sell
off cattle, because there was no feed for them.
Consequently, many farmers and ranchers went bankrupt.
Oh. Why was the water supply discontinued? The
EPA, of course. They thought it more important to save
an endangered sucker fish. Federal government officials
decided that fish are more important than the livelihood
of a few humans.
The farmers and ranchers tried to sue the
government. No dice, said the court. So, they appealed.
Adding insult to injury, the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that only
environmentalists, and others who want to increase
protection for wildlife, can sue under the Endangered
Species Act. Those wanting to reduce it, or to protest
an EPA action, cannot.
Like the EPA, the judges apparently felt that the
fish were of greater value to the country than the people.
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the
case. It should be interesting to see which they think most
important.
Something else comes to mind that is only
somewhat applicable to this case: If these well financed
environmental groups really wish to do good, why don't
they purchase a little property of their own and breed
more of the little critters they so wish to save?
It is just as ridiculous to say that these little scrub
fish need millions of gallons of free running water in
which to live and breed as it is to say that each spotted
owl needs five square miles of natural forest in which
to nest. The owls have been found nesting in a K-Mart
sign -- with people watching! The fish will do well in
a tank. Free them later, when the water is up.
MORE CORRUPTION
It's time for EPA to pay the piper.
You see, it is against the law for federal
agencies to interfere in elections.
But, they did. And, some of the Members of
Congress they opposed were re-elected. Now, the stuff
is about to hit the fan in Washington. And it's going to
be lots of stuff, and a very big fan!
It seems that the EPA joined with labor unions
and environmental groups to compile a "hit list" for
the last election. Republican Members of Congress
were rated as "vulnerable," "persuadable" or "prodigal
friends." And, 11 of the 25 congressmen targeted
were defeated.
When they were found out, EPA officials
dismissed the criticism as "partisan sniping" -- which,
in itself, gives a major hint of exactly where EPA is
coming from.
The fact is that, through grants, contracts and
other payment transfers, taxpayer money was used to
influence political races. That is enough to get them
some serious prison time.
Because of all the financial mischief in the last
election, look for the 105th Congress to be very
aggressive in pursuing improper lobbying and campaign
violations by federal agencies.
INSTRUCTIONS FROM HAMILTON
What do you think the Founding Fathers would
say about the oppressive legislation, rules, regulations,
and executive orders emanating from today's federal
government? Luckily, in The Federalist Papers No. 78,
Alexander Hamilton gives us a pretty good idea:
"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."
Strong stuff! "No legislative act, contrary to the
Constitution, can be valid." Hamilton may have been a
lawyer and a politician, but there is certainly no
equivocation there! That is quite a concept, especially
coming from a man who actively participated in the
Convention that wrote our Constitution.
It should be noted too that Hamilton was a bit of
an authoritarian. At the Constitutional Convention, and
within the Cabinet of the Washington Administration, he
was a major proponent of a strong central government.
Yet, not even Hamilton would ever dream that a
president would unilaterally legislate by executive order.
Nor would he tolerate the dozens of little Politburos the
federal government calls "administrative agencies"
passing thousands of regulations annually, each with the
full force of law.
And surely, if the Founding Fathers saw the state
of today's federal court system, and learned how the
courts have allowed police search and forfeiture far
exceeding the powers imposed on Americans by King
George . . . Well, suffice to say, they would not be
pleased!
We do not have the government intended by the
Founding Fathers. Some call today's government a sick
parody of that intended by the Founders. But it is not
even that.
Today's federal government is, in truth, a leviathan
of citizen control. It is a government designed to control
everything in our lives from womb to tomb. And we
citizens are the ones responsible for letting it get this way.
Two years ago, the Speaker of the House, Newt
Gingrich, suggested that we read and understand the
Federalist Papers as a description of the government we
should have. He was right! It's time for that trip to the
bookstore, folks.
Next year, a national citizen's movement will begin
in support of those great ideals of freedom, liberty and
personal expression defended in blood by the Founding
Fathers. And like the Founding Fathers, we will also
fight for those ideals. But this fight will be in the arena
of public opinion, rather than on the battlefield. And
again, freedom will win. After all, what American is
not in favor of personal freedom and liberty?
But first, we must all take the time to understand
the government we should have, as told by three of the
Founders themselves.
It has been a while since we have had a truly
Constitutional form of federal government. It's been so
long, in fact, that many Americans are not even sure
exactly what was intended in the Constitution. When
we all understand that, this will be both an enjoyable
and fruitful movement for all Americans alike.
Freedom is fun. Patriotism is also fun. And, it's
time we enjoyed that type of fun in America once again.
The Federalist Papers, by the way, are often cited
by the United States Supreme Court as a source of
Constitutional law. An inexpensive paperback book
version can be found in any bookstore for less than five
bucks. That text should be studied by every American
citizen.
EDITOR'S NOTE:
This is only the tenth issue of "Heads Up," but
already the response has been overwhelming. Periodicals,
such as "Media Bypass," have asked to reprint selected
pieces. Radio broadcasts often use articles, the "Anti
Statist" web page posts weekly editions, and "Heads Up"
will soon be archived in at least two places on the Internet.
Whole editions of "Heads Up" have even been
reprinted in main-stream Republican newsletters. And
two Libertarian groups have also asked for reprint
permission.
The reception has all been quite amazing, and I
thank you one and all. Because, in reality, it is you
who pass it along.
To date, I have had reports of two errors in the
publication. One was an error in the interpretation of a
section of the Constitution. When it was reported to me,
I agreed that the sentence could have been worded
better (more correctly) and promised not to do it again.
Another reader mentioned that I was a fraction
of one-percent off on a statistic. He was also right.
But, by far, the largest response was from the piece
about the Citizen's Militia last week. Clearly, many
Americans are interested in that topic. My mailbox has
been full for a week.
Eighty-five percent of those replying agreed -- the
militia needs a definable organization, and a code of
conduct. Only about five percent said that the citizen's
militias should not exist.
So far, only one reader was displeased enough to
make disparaging remarks about my family heritage, and
such. That same person also invited me to kiss a part of his
anatomy not normally displayed in public. I politely
declined.
For future editions, a method needs to be devised to
send out the newsletter in a narrower format. That will
keep the text formatted properly no matter how many times
it is passed along via e-mail. If anyone knows how to do
that properly, I would certainly appreciate hearing about it.
I thank all of you who sent such kind words of
encouragement. And, I want you to know that I will
always be open and receptive to (polite) suggestions.
-- Doug
-- END --