Heads Up
A Weekly edition of News from around our country
February 7, 1997 #21
by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net
----------------------------------------------------------
Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html
----------------------------------------------------------
THE THIRD WAY
Did anyone notice that not one single
domestic program proposed by Slick Willie in the State
of the Union address is a function authorized to the
federal government by the Constitution? Nope, not one!
Therefore, every penny of our tax dollars Slick plans to
spend on these domestic programs is also devoid of
Constitutional authority.
Oxford trained Bill Clinton is, of course,
a socialist. That is exactly what the Rhodes Scholar
program is over at Oxford University: A training ground
for a specific type of political socialist. These are
not your Karl Marx type of socialists either, as we will
soon see. These are the movers and the shakers of both
business and politics -- but with a twist.
Read between the lines in the State of
the Union, folks. He wants schools, libraries, hospitals
(each bed), businesses, and even homes all wired to the
Internet. Why? Anybody remember where we've heard all
that before? Orwell's 1984, maybe?
Seriously though, Slick is a strong
proponent of the "Third Way." That's a form of
government said to be a blend of the "best" of both
capitalism and communism. The "Third Way" is a
"Financial-Political Oligarchy," as some describe it.
And, because of the many Rhodes Scholars around the
world, it's tentacles reach internationally, as well as
exerting national control.
In the United States alone, there are at
least thirty people in high government positions who
are also proponents of this type of government. The
current president is only the most visible of the group.
If you think about this model for a while,
you will soon realize how, and why, we differ from
classical socialism, or Communism. To keep the best of
capitalism in a "Third Way" society, private property
must be allowed. Rather than government owning all
property and the means of production, as in pure
socialism, an alternative is used. In a "Third Way"
society, property and business is simply controlled by
government regulation, rather than government ownership.
In a "Third Way" society, the laws to keep
us citizens in line come from the communist model of
government -- complete government control of everything
from womb to tomb. The moneyed elite, however, work
under the capitalist system, so as to continue generating
wealth.
We middle class, then, are to be the
controlled. Our children are to be taught in government
schools, but trained to only that level which is
necessary to become good workers. We are to have a
semblance of freedom. But the working class people must
never have enough freedom (or accumulative power) to
interfere in either commerce or government.
Look at all of the "tightening" of the
"loopholes" (freedom) in the law over the past few years
as an example of control. All of those regulations would
be a really good hint, too. Few, if any, of these
impositions on our lives have any basis (authority) in
the Constitution. In fact, none of this was intended
by the authors of our Constitution. Yet, we citizens
have accepted laws controlling everything in our lives.
Why?
But, to report this is to repeat the
information related in the past twenty issues of
"Heads Up," isn't it. For whether we like it or not, the
"Third Way" is already "our way." Most of it is here, in
place, right now!
Now comes Slick Willie proposing more!
Complete socialism, womb to tomb. Which is also complete
government control womb to tomb. Whatever happened to
freedom? Anyone care anymore?
Those Americans thinking government should
provide schooling for all kids are looking for government
indoctrination of all kids. Anyone thinking the
government should provide medical treatment for all
people propose government takeover of the medical
profession, and bureaucratic rule on who may or may not
be treated. Anyone thinking the government should
provide free baby-sitters to all is . . . well . . . you
get the idea.
We have to get government out of our
lives. Not, as Clinton proposes, invite it in. Else,
his "Third Way" will be so entrenched in this country we
will never get it out of here.
In other words, if you do not see authority
for a government program explicitly written within the
Constitution, reject it! When they do not have the
authority for a federal program, your responsibility is
to tell them so.
ACCC -- ALMOST THERE
"Heads Up" has received a lot of mail
these past few weeks concerning a new national
organization that is forming. We are happy to report
that things have been moving right along, albeit quietly,
and the group will soon announce its existence publicly.
The name chosen for the new organization
is: "American Constitutional Campaign Committee." And,
as the name implies, the intent of the group is to set up
a citizen's national campaign committee in defense of our
United States Constitution, as written.
As readers know, "Heads Up" strongly
supports peaceful activities to re-institute a
Constitutional form of government in our country. We
still have the "right" of assembly. We still have the
"right" of free speech. We still have the "right" of
petition. And we still have the "right" to involve
ourselves in politics. Accordingly, we also have the
"right" to use all of these tools to encourage our
friends and neighbors to join us in driving the
socialists out of government service.
The "tightening" of all the "loopholes"
(read freedoms) in the law is continuing. Therefore,
our right to join together for these activities may not
be available to us for much longer. For that reason,
those of us on this end say: Let's go for it! We have
nothing to loose (except maybe a little time), and we
have a hell of a lot to gain if we succeed.
Starting now, ACCC invites interested
Constitutionalist groups, and citizens with strong
organizational and public relations skills, to contact
them at: 52300 Scottsville Road, P.O. Box 51851,
Bowling Green, KY 42102-6851. An e-mail address
(ACCC@mindspring.com) will also be available within
a few days.
ACCC membership will be open shortly to
all American citizens who are registered voters.
However, "Heads Up" was told that there is neither staff
nor funds available to reply to everyone at this time,
so we will all have to wait for more particulars.
NO ETHICS REFORM
The House of Representatives is having a
bit of a problem finding Members willing to serve on the
Ethics Committee. So far this session, they have only
been able to cajole one Republican and one Democrat into
volunteering. They need twelve more, but there are no
takers.
So . . . as usually happens when the
elected ones do not wish to do something, a proposal
was made to farm it out to citizens. Yup, you guessed
it! They want to form a commission. No kidding!
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) and Rep. Robert E. Andrews
(D-NJ) suggest an outside panel of 14 private citizens,
empowered to investigate all ethics complaints against
members and staff. Now folks, this sounds like a really
interesting job. Just think of all the possibilities. . . .
"The people are the best judges of
congressional ethics," Rep. Andrews said. Yeah, you
guys sure aren't. Talk about total conflict of
interest! Everything you do there turns into a political
food-fight.
What they need is a few good, impartial
Constitutionalists on that Ethics Commission. That'll
fix a few of the problems on the House side, anyway.
They need a commission full of people willing to file
ethics charges for violation of oath of office whenever
one of them introduces an unconstitutional bill.
Hey! Anyone out there know how to signify
in writing when you're raising your hand really, really
high??
Wow! What a position that would be.
RESURRECT THE RULE OF LAW
We've all heard of it. But few Americans
use the term "Rule of Law" anymore for a very good
reason. Except for lawyers, not many of us have any idea
what that term really means. Worse yet, most of us don't
really care what it means, either. The term is just not
very useful for everyday conversation.
But we should care. There was a time,
before about 1940, when nearly every American citizen
knew exactly what the term Rule of Law indicated. And,
they often demanded strict enforcement! You should be
very familiar with the term, too. It pertains to
something very precious to you: Your freedom. And
today, we're desperately in need of a resurgence in good
old fashioned freedom from government restraints.
One old political dictionary defines Rule of Law as
"an Anglo-American concept that emphasizes the supremacy
of the law and restricts the discretionary power of
public officials. The Rule of Law particularly stresses
the protection of individual rights from the arbitrary
interference of officials." In other words, when applied
correctly, it protects your personal freedom. Not the
group rights the leftist-liberal socialists try to push
on us, but our own individual, personal rights and
liberties.
In "The Road to Serfdom," Professor of
Economics and Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek says of the Rule
of Law: ". . . this means that government in all its
actions is bound by rules fixed and announced
beforehand -- rules which make it possible to foresee
with fair certainty how the authority will use its
coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one's
individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge."
Now do you see why we need to know
more about the Rule of Law? Because it restricts the
discretionary power of public officials. Well,
originally, it was supposed to, anyway.
And yes, public officials really are
supposed to be controlled by something other than the
vote. It is the "what" that is to limit the actions of
public officials that has become foggy in the minds of
many of today's American citizens.
In the United States, the limiting factor is
our Constitution.
Years ago, we used to say that we have "a
government of law and not of men." Back then, we
expected our elected officials and bureaucrats to stay
within the boundaries set down by our Constitution. That
is, Congress was not expected to pass unconstitutional
laws, the president and the courts were expected to
strictly enforce the Bill of Rights, and your state and
local officials would do only those things outlined by
your state constitution and/or city charter.
That is what our grandparents expected.
All rights and liberties of the individual citizen were
supposed to be protected by government. But, that was
years ago. This is now. And things have changed.
Still, the foundation on which the
government of the United States is constructed is the
Constitution. To violate the words -- the intent -- of
the Constitution, therefore, is to profess a form of
government outlawed by the document itself.
In 1928, Supreme Court Justice Louis D.
Brandeis wrote (277, US 428, 485), "Nothing can destroy
a government more quickly that its own laws, or worse,
its disregard of the charter of its own existence."
Justice Brandeis also wrote that "If we desire respect
for the law, we must first make the law respectable."
>From that, we may safely assume that Brandeis also meant
Constitutionally legal.
To propose a law, rule, regulation,
executive order, or judicial opinion not in exact
agreement with the authority given government by our
Constitution would also be a direct violation of the oath
of office taken by all members of government. It is,
therefore, itself a violation of the law!
Furthermore, in "Norton v. Shelby,"
(118 US 423), the Supreme Court said that "An
unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights,
it imposes no duty, it affords no protection, it creates
no office."
Today's popular press accounts relate
that prostitutes on the street now have a higher
believability level than elected officials and their
bureaucratic minions in Washington. This is because
hookers do not normally lie about what they have to
offer. Elected officials and bureaucrats, on the other
hand, live a lie in that they violate the Constitution
-- the Rule of Law -- in nearly everything they do today.
"Patriotism means to stand by the country,"
said Theodore Roosevelt. "It does not mean to stand by
the president or any public official, save exactly to the
degree he himself stands by the country."
Amen, Teddy. Amen.
RIP OFF
The public gift shop in the U.S. House
of Representatives made $118,000 last year. Whereas,
the private supply shop right next to it lost $930,000.
The "public" gift shop, of course, has inflated prices
for us citizens. The "private" store, on the other hand,
offers bargain prices to lawmakers, staff and their
friends.
So, lawmakers propose a fix: Raise the
prices of goods on the tourist side.
We elected them, folks. We elected them.
THE MEDIA SHAME
There was a major quandary among the
hair-sprayed news-readers Tuesday night. They were
supposed to cover the State of the Union address.
However, the OJ jury decided to bring in a verdict at the
same time.
At first the news-readers sat there
babbling, wasting time, because nothing was happening
with either story. No matter that the House, as it is
once a year, was filled with every member of Congress,
the Supreme Court and the President's Cabinet. To the
news-readers, there was no news.
Then, as the President of the United States
spoke to Congress and the nation, they detracted from his
talk by placing distracting split screens and/or
"crawlers" on the screen so we would be informed of the
circumstances involving a murdering ex-football player.
Of course, this is a President so devoid
of morals that no man would want his mother, wife,
sister or daughter to be alone in the same room with him
for more than a second. Nor would any honorable woman
dare be caught alone with the man. But, that's not the
point. He is still the President of the United States!
And, as such, he was speaking officially on government
policy.
Yet, the major American news media put
the annual message of the President of the United States
on equal footing with that of a known killer. And that,
dear reader, is a damn shame!
STUPID LAWS
Here's a bill that may well win the
"Heads Up" award for stupidest bill of the year. This
one was introduced by Ohio Senator Mike DeWine -- who
incidentally, served four terms in the House before being
elected senator, so should know better.
S. 171 states that: "A person is guilty of
an offense if, acting with the state of mind otherwise
required for the commission of a crime, that person
intentionally engages in conduct that, if successful,
would constitute or result in the offense." Huh?
Furthermore, the bill says: "It is not a
defense to a prosecution under this section -- (1) that
it was factually or legally impossible for the actor to
commit the crime, if the crime could have been committed
had the circumstances been as the actor believed them to
be; or (2) that the crime attempted was completed."
Let's see here, you would no longer have
to actually "do" something illegal to be guilty of a
crime, you would only need to have the "state of mind
otherwise required for the commission of a crime."
Get it? "State of mind" = thought crime.
OK. So you're sitting home broke one
day. Suddenly, you start daydreaming about how easy
that little bank down the road would be to stick up. You
own a shotgun, you need the money, the bank is there, you
momentarily have the impure thought, and in your mind the
deed is probably doable.
Well, well! If DeWine's bill passes,
you have just committed a federal felony -- without even
leaving your easy-chair!
And they wonder why even hookers get
more respect then they do. . . .
TIME FOR STARR TO SHINE
It seems that Independent Counsel Kenneth
Starr is getting ready to act. And, it's about damn
time, too. Accounts have it, however, that he's writing
a book on the Clinton's first.
No, it's not a book to publish -- although
some of us may wish to read it. His is a "few hundred
pages" stating all of the particulars of the case(s).
And, word has it that they're not so much deciding on
"who" to charge with ancillary crimes like perjury, but
who "not" to charge! A quick reading of the depositions
show that everyone in the White House lied at least a few
times under oath.
Bill and Hillary, of course, hold the record
for lies. Investigators deposing them last year said
privately that both of them lied "most" of the time,
even under oath.
Complicating the issue, their buddy Web
Hubbell is just about to get out of prison. And, Starr's
investigators are asking him, indirectly, how much he
really wants to stay out. You see, there's a matter of a
bribe or two -- and a perjury charge or two -- they can
hit him with if he does not cooperate. . . .
Gore is in hot water too, but not with Ken
Starr. Janet Reno put 25 FBI agents on the illegal
campaign finance scams the White House and DNC were
running, and Ozone Head's name pops up continually.
Guess who is President if Clinton, Clinton
& Gore all get indicted and have to resign?
Yup, Newt.
-- End --