Heads Up
A Weekly edition of News from around our country
January 24, 1997 #19
by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net
----------------------------------------------------------
Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html
----------------------------------------------------------
GO ALONG TO GET ALONG
President Clinton was sworn in again,
Congress is back in session again, and all is as it
should be in Washington.
Well . . . all is as the people in Washington
think it should be, anyway. In truth, it is a far cry
from anything intended by the authors of our
Constitution.
Oh sure, there are still three basic branches
of government. But effectively, there are now four
branches. Because, it's the unelected (and
unaccountable) bureaucrats of the regulatory agencies
that cause the most havoc to the people living in the
states.
Remember, it is the regulatory agencies
that mimic the Communist form of government within our
system. That is, each agency has complete control of all
three branches -- executive, legislative and judicial --
within its own system. And folks, that is about as far
from our Constitutional form of government as you can
possibly get.
And, what's this "era of bi-partisan
cooperation" rhetoric? Slick Willie is publicly trying
to position himself as a centrist, a moderate with
patriotic tendencies, before the indictments are
released. And some of the Republicans act like they're
are falling for this self-serving hubris!
This is crazy. What we want is even more
partisan bickering. We want it to be as difficult as
possible to get a bill through Congress. And we want as
much stress and strife between Congress and the
administration as possible.
Think not? Visit any law library and look at
the amount of federal law you are expected to understand
and obey. Then go over and check out those two-hundred
and some fat books of regulations you are also expected
to know and obey. The fact is, we already have way too
many laws. (Note: See the 12-20-96 issue of "Heads
Up" -- "Madison Warned us" -- for more on this.)
After all, what good are laws that no one
except lawyers reads or understands? And, when the
volume of law becomes so great (as it is now) that no
single person can ever know it all, the prosecutors and
courts have the opportunity for selective tyranny at will.
Yeah, we'll accept a little cooperation between
the legislative and administration branches. We'll
accept a little bi-partisan cooperation in Congress, and
between the Houses of Congress, too. But, only if it is
to repeal laws. Not to make more.
The problem is, they are gearing up to pass
even more laws. So, we should be doing our part to stir
that partisan aggravation pot as much as possible. To
that end, we should keep them busy by demanding hearings
and investigations on everything we can think of.
That is, unless you are the type of person who
actually wants even more constraints on your own personal
freedom.
STUPID LAWS
Slick and his FAA have been putting
airport security on the fast track. That nothing much
has ever happened at an airport in over two decades is,
well, incidental to the project at hand. Travelers are
going to be protected whether they need it or not.
The administration wants all aircraft
passengers to be screened by computer check. The
person's complete background, including criminal history
and past travels would be computerized, and available to
all airport personnel.
The intent is to create computerized
"profiles" of potential terrorists and other
troublemakers, of course. "We are potentially a
(terrorist) target," said Mort Downey, the deputy
transportation secretary. Yeah. And evidently the word
"potential" is the operative word here. That "potential"
is now all that is required to severely violate the
liberty of American travelers.
The cost of the project is expected to
be $9.9-Billion -- or, about $90 from each and every
American taxpayer. This includes high-tech passenger
search equipment, bomb-sniffing dogs, x-ray equipment to
scan baggage, and hardened containers for hold cargo.
Most interesting is the passenger search
equipment commissioned by the Department of Justice.
With these devices, they will compile rather explicit
videos of all passengers -- sans clothing, of course.
The new equipment actually looks right through clothing
to "see" the human body in all its glory. Current
pictures are about the quality of the original tin-type
photographs. But, they'll get better as the equipment is
perfected.
By the way, look for the new scanning
devices at your local Federal Building soon, too. Won't
that make you feel safe?
No word yet on who will control the
archives of these pictures -- or how we can obtain copies
through the freedom of information act. . . .
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
We must all support the concept of
freedom of the press. However, when the press goes so
far to the left than it becomes little more than a
cheering section for socialism, we need not support it
financially.
Such is the case at ABC news. They just
hired socialism's head cheer leader, George
Stephanopoulos, to add "color" to their news programs.
He is, of course, the very same White House
aide instrumental in interfering with the free flow of
information to the public these past four years. Like
most socialists, Stephie's idea of freedom of the press
is to relate only information he agrees with.
For instance, conservative writer Tony
Snow started a Sunday morning talk/news program on FOX
last year. Well, guess which senior White House aide was
jumping up and down and demanding that no member of the
administration appear on that "right-wing" program?
Uh huh.
Roone Arledge, ABC's news president,
called little Georgie "one of the best known and most
articulate presidential advisers this country has ever
seen."
Well, maybe so. But shouldn't honesty
and believability also be considered in news broadcasts?
SLICK AND DEVIOUS TOO
If you listen closely to Slick Willie's
speeches, and maybe do just a little reading between the
lines, you can tell what kind of problem he's trying to
weasel out of at the time.
For instance, his inauguration speech was
a babble of something like "we must all work together in
a bi-partisan way and work for the good of the people."
That was his rhetoric for everyone on TV.
Well folks, they don't call him "Slick"
for nothing! The very next day, talking to Democrats, he
said about Republicans proposing to change campaign
finance laws: "Delay will mean the death of reform one
more time. . . . If you will do it, we will do it. We
have offered our hand time and again. Why not just say
yes?"
That, of course, is because of all the
illegal campaign contributions he, Gore, and the
Democratic National Committee got caught taking. Right
now, there at least three FBI investigations looking into
this, and the deeper they dig, the more dirt they find.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, the party's general
chairman during this mess, got into the act, too: "Let
the Republicans join us. Let this be a challenge today
to the new Republican leadership. ... Why don't you clean
up your financial picture as well?"
Perhaps someone should inform the Senator
from Connecticut that he better dummy up. Because, were
he not a senator, and the past party chairman, he would
already be in jail for money laundering.
We expect that stuff out of Slick. He's
doesn't seem to know the difference between a lie and the
truth. Before becoming Democratic chairman, however,
Dodd used to tell the truth once in a while.
Colorado Gov. Roy Romer took over as party
chairman this week. He started out by saying that
contributions to the DNC will not buy access to power
brokers [anymore].
Sure, governor. We believe you.
Sure we do.
PAID LEGISLATION
He who pays the fiddler calls the tune.
And, if anyone thinks it's any different in Washington
they've probably have their head stuck someplace it
doesn't belong.
Most of us would call what lawmakers get
bribes. They don't, though. They call the donations --
the ones accounted for on the record -- "campaign
contributions." They call their paid vacation
trips -- family and all -- "fact finding tours." Then,
of course, there are all the paid golfing outings, ski
trips, sporting events, and whatnot -- most of which are
thousands of miles away from their state. Those are paid
business meetings with "constituents," of course.
And us citizens? Uh . . . well . . . are you on
the contribution list? If not, you may get to say
something to your Member of Congress for two minutes.
Maybe. It all depends who your Member is, actually.
Contribute a thousand bucks, though, and
see how much time you get. Or, form a PAC and
contribute $10,000 and you may even be able to influence
some legislation.
Remember the peanut subsidy vote last year?
That ridiculous subsidy survived 212 to 209. Of
those 212 voting to keep the subsidy, each received an
average of $1,542 from the growers. And the 209 voting
against the subsidy? Well, as it turns out, they only
received an average of $152 apiece.
Hey! Money talks in Washington.
Here's another example:
Last March, the Senate voted 54 to 42 to
preserve a law allowing timber companies to salvage dead
and dying trees on public lands. Those voting to keep
the program had received an average of $19,503 in timber
industry contributions over the previous five years;
those opposed, $2,675.
Ditto for the sugar industry. In a House
vote to keep the sugar price subsidy, the 217 voting for
the subsidy received an average of nearly $6,000 each.
The ones voting against only average $853. Senators
voting for the subsidy received an average of $13,473,
and those voting against only $1,461. That vote ended up
costing consumers about fifty cents more for a five pound
bag of sugar.
And so it goes. There are many of these
"coincidences." Probably hundreds actually, over the
years. We've got the best Congress money can buy!
This information comes from the new Center
for Responsive Politics report titled "Cashing In:
Money, Votes, and Congress." It's a very interesting
report on how campaign contributions affect the vote in
Congress. Wander over to www.crp.org and see how your
Members of Congress stack up in this money for votes
game. You may be surprised.
But before you do, ask yourself how we
Constitutionalists can play. Do we have to pay them to
cast their vote for Liberty? Do we have to pay them to
protect our individual rights? Apparently it would help.
Slick Willie takes money from just about
anyone, and regulates accordingly. So do many in
Congress. Maybe that's the name of the political game:
We get them enough money and they leave us the hell
alone!?
Kind of like the Mafia. You pay the payola,
give them the vigorish every so often, and maybe they do
something to help you when you need it.
It's just like politics in a third world
country, too. Except, here the payment is not called
bribes. Here, it's called "contributions" or
reimbursements for "meetings." Uh huh. It may take a
while, but we'll catch on.
This is a really sick way to run a government! It looks
bad, but this is how it works. The proof is in the
evidence.
Therefore, the question those of us seeking
a Constitutional form of government must ask is both
simple, and very pragmatic: If this is the game, how
much does it take to get in? And, what are the rules?
What will it take for us Liberty loving citizens to start
winning?
Let's ask them and find out.
JURY INFORMATION
The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA)
recently announced that their web page is ready for
visitors. The address is: www.fija.org
The "Citizens Guide to Jury Duty" is there,
as is their "Fully Informed Jury Flyer." And, unlike
some other organizations we can name, the group's
officers are listed -- complete with addresses and
telephone numbers.
The Jury Power Page has quite a lot of
useful information, and should be very interesting
reading to all citizens who love liberty. We should
recommend this site as mandatory reading for anyone
called for jury duty.
As an aside: If this is just the initial
web page for the FIJA, expect some fantastic material
from them in the future.
INCOME TAX
Indiana Senator Richard Lugar announced
a new effort to scrap the IRS -- and hence, income,
estate, inheritance, capital gains, and gift taxes.
Instead, Lugar proposes a 17% retail sales tax.
"A single-rate consumption tax on goods
and services is the fundamental change needed to spur
economic growth and increase wages, savings and
investment. . . . The sales tax would be collected at
the retail level, allowing us to abolish the IRS."
There is more to this, of course. No one
really knows exactly how big the underground economy in
the United States actually is -- some say it's hundreds
of billions of dollars annually. What we do know,
however, is that no taxes are paid on these underground
transactions. So, Lugar's sales tax plan would catch
most of that.
Word on the street in Washington has it that
Texas Rep. Bill Archer -- chairman of the powerful House
Ways and Means Committee -- has been having private talks
with Slick Willie that may concern abolishing the IRS.
And, it is said, there was agreement between the two
men. Archer, you may remember, came out in favor of that
about two years ago.
There are two very promising points to be
made here: Any taxing changes that are made must go
through Archer. And, Slick desperately wants to make his
mark on history (other than the indictments).
The detractors will be the big government
loving liberals. They will see it as a great loss of
power over the people.
DIVIDING AMERICA
Michigan Rep. John Conyers presented his
hackneyed proposal to compensate Black people for slavery
again. This year, it's HR-40.
Conyers wants taxpayers to pay for a
"commission to examine slavery," and to "make
recommendations to Congress on appropriate remedies,"
meaning money, of course. It's a stupid bill and, as
always, it will not go anywhere.
On the other hand, Conyers also proposes
HR-118, the "Traffic Stops Statistics Act of 1997," which
might have a chance of passing.
The "Traffic Stops" bill orders police
departments to keep records of the race, sex and age of
everyone stopped. He also wants to know if a search was
instituted and why, what contraband was discovered, and
whether an arrest was made.
Conyers' intent, of course, is to determine
how many more Black males are stopped than White people,
and why. He cares nothing about Liberty, or the Fourth
Amendment. Conyers' only interest is in making noises
about racial discrimination.
Florida's Rep. Hastings also introduced a
race based bill, HR-188, to "establish Federal, State and
local programs for the investigation, reporting, and
prevention of bias crimes."
Hastings wants the Attorney General to
set up a "National Director of Bias Crimes." According
the bill, the Department of Treasury, the FBI, and the
Department of Justice are all to cooperate in this.
Oh, and the bill calls for "bias crime
interdiction and prevention," too. That should be very
interesting! How do you interdict thought?
The only saving grace in this is that no one
in Congress takes either Conyers or Hastings seriously.
On the other hand, the Democrats promote by seniority,
rather than ability. So, had the Democrats become the
majority in Congress again, both of these guys would have
probably ended up committee chairmen. Oops.
YOU'RE ENDANGERED
The tree-huggers -- and this time
bug-huggers, too -- have a plan. And, some of us are
definitely not going to like this. This plan may have to
do with your home, your neighborhood, and your
lifestyle. In short, some Americans might be forced to
move out of their nice new homes soon.
It seems that certain "endangered species"
of plants and bugs like to live in areas newly developed
for people. But public officials -- who swore by their
oath of office to uphold all of the rights and liberties
of the people guaranteed by the Constitution -- are
favoring bugs and scrub plants over citizens.
The new report comes out this week.
In it, Mark Roberts, a Princeton University researcher,
said the study demonstrates that "endangered species tend
to clump together." Now, that should be enough to get
your interest right there. They "clump together," as in
the desired "biospheres" environmentalists want set up
around the country maybe? No, not yet. But yup, that's
what they're working towards. And, here's where they
drop the other shoe:
He reports that many of the "hot spots for
species protection also are areas of major growth and
development -- providing the potential for conflict."
That's us, folks. We're the "conflict" in this situation.
That's because, "These areas (of species
concentration) where human activities are currently high
are still very important areas of wildlife," the
Associated Press reported in an interview with Roberts.
"That means we have to enter into a dialogue ... in such
a way that we can arrive at a method to conserve species
while minimizing impact."
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt of course
agrees, saying that with a better knowledge of species
concentration, it may be easier to reach compromise
agreements for their protection. "If we improve our
knowledge of the distribution and co-occurrence of
species then we can provide a sounder scientific basis
for ecosystem based habitat conservation," Babbitt wrote
in a companion article this week in Science magazine.
With that, we say again: If these people
are so damn interested in bugs, plants and little crawly
critters, they are free to purchase some property and
grow as many of the little buggers as they wish! But the
fact is, that could be too successful. Then they
wouldn't have anything to bitch about. Also, they cannot
control anyone by doing it that way.
And that, folks, is the crux of the whole
situation here: Control.
There are two important levels of
involvement we should watch in these situations. We see
the activist level, because they're in the news a lot
supporting their cause. But there is a much more
sinister level we never see. That is the people who
finance the activists.
Like Dow Chemical financing activists to
work towards a ban on Freon just before their patent ran
out, these financiers do it for the money. As with the
Freon fiasco, when you follow the money trail, you will
see why the action occurred.
All of these environmental activists
organizations require a lot of money to disseminate the
message for their cause. Also, many of these so called
"activists" are actually very well paid for what they do.
Sure, part of their funding comes from
personal donations. But, just a small part. Most of
their money comes from grants from foundations and
corporations -- which, in one way or another, all have a
financial interest in the outcome of the activism.
These "activists," then -- some knowingly,
others unknowingly -- are little more than useful idiots
for the men with the deep pockets. In truth they are
foot-soldiers, fighting for the cause of producing
someone more money.
Now, that is not to say that all
environmental causes are silly. After all, we all like
clean lakes, green parks and watching nature's critters
frolic in the woodlands. We all want to breath clean
air, too. However, any good thing can be carried to the
extreme. And today's environmental activists have long
since passed over the line denoting fanatical.
We have cleaned most lakes. Most rivers
are better now than they were a hundred years ago, and
getting better. Our critter population -- deer, for
example -- is now getting excessive. We could still use
more fish, and we're getting them.
That's because man is smart -- ingenious,
in fact. We wanted more buffalo, so people are breeding
them. We wanted more shrimp, so people are farming
them. Ditto for trout, catfish, crawfish, turtles,
pheasant, etc., etc. The government didn't need to ban
humans from hundreds of thousands of acres for these
animals to survive and prosper. Humans saw the need --
or the market -- and began farming the critters.
So OK, maybe bugs and weeds are a different
story. We do not really want them, so no one grows
them. But they can.
The fact is, we can grow and/or breed
anything we wish. And, were these activist organizations
to put their budgets into reproducing whatever their
current "endangered" thing is this month, there would be
an overabundance of them in the United States within a
few short years.
Instead, we get inundated with junk
science reports, which usually support hair-brain
schemes, which usually unnecessarily inconvenience
unsuspecting people.
Who finances all this foolishness, and why?
-- End --