Heads Up
A Weekly edition of News from around our country
March 14, 1997 #26
by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net
----------------------------------------------------------
Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html
----------------------------------------------------------
A PARADOX IN THE LAW
Those of us who were paying attention
might have learned a little about federal law this week.
Because, evidently, the law in the United States has just
been changed considerably. (see Rule of Law in the
Feb. 7 issue of "Heads Up" for the way it once was)
No more need citizens worry about the
laws passed by Congress, Vice President Al Gore implied
to the nation during a televised press conference.
Unless laws are first vetted through the courts, they
have "no controlling legal authority," the VP said.
Ozone Head served sixteen years in Congress and he is now
on his fifth year as vice-president. So . . . he must
know exactly what he is talking about. He's an authority
on law. . . . Well? Isn't he?
Never mind that 18 USC 607 says that "It
shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive
any contributions . . . in any room or building occupied
in the discharge of official duties. . . ." And, never
mind that the words "any person," "any contributions"
and "any room or building" are words that are very clear
and easy for all of us to understand. Ozone Head found a
cop-out: "There was no controlling legal authority."
No one asked if this also applies for
executive orders, rules and regulations, but it probably
would. If there is no court decision on the subject,
there is no controlling law! That's this week's simple
legal rule of thumb, freshly invented by the simpleton in
the White House.
The fact is, Gore made at least fifty
fund-raising telephone calls from the White House. And
now we learn, he also made quite a few fund-raising calls
from his Senate office for the campaign five years ago.
So, even if we forget the White House calls, he still
committed a series of federal felony offenses from his
Senate office.
His "no controlling legal authority"
argument is kind of interesting after you think about it
for a while. Because, how do you get a law started that
way? If something is not illegal (no controlling legal
authority), you can't get arrested for doing it. But,
if no one gets arrested, and has it tested in court, how
would there ever get to be "controlling" legal
authority? That's an attractive paradox.
And, unless we see Al "the Ozone Head"
Gore being led off by the FBI in stainless steel
bracelets, apparently his interpretation of the law is
correct (for those in government, anyway). Cause, after
all, he stood up in front of the television cameras and
admitted to the nation what he had done -- and he even
said that he was proud of it.
The Department of Justice certainly should
not need more proof than that! That is, were they
inclined to enforce the law.
REMOVE BAD JUDGES
Surprise, surprise. Finally, it looks like
Congress is starting to take a good look at activist
judges. It's about time, too!
"The Washington Times" reported Wednesday
that House Majority Whip Tom DeLay is already writing
articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge Fred
Biery of Del Rio, Texas. Biery, you may remember, is the
judge who postponed indefinitely the swearing in of two
Texas Republicans because members of the military voted
for them.
The local race for county commissioner and
sheriff were won by only 800 votes. Biery ruled it
unfair because many of the military votes cast were
absentee votes.
Also under consideration for impeachment
is U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson in San Francisco
who blocked voter approved California Proposition 209,
and U.S. District Court Judge Harold Bear, Jr. who tossed
out drug evidence in a New York case because he did not
think police had reason to search the defendant's
car -- he later reversed himself.
Articles of impeachment are filed in the
House (indictment), and require a simple majority vote to
pass. Then they go to the Senate (for trial), where a
two-thirds vote is necessary to convict. To date, only
13 judges have been impeached, and only three since 1986.
With all the crazy decisions lately, it
seems like this action is way overdue. Judges must be
"encouraged" to follow the Constitution, and especially
the Bill of Rights. Any judge deviating from the
Constitution, as written, should be removed from the
bench immediately.
Already, liberal groups are calling the
proposed impeachment action "intimidation." But that's
good, actually. Hopefully, judges will think of it that
way, too. Because, if Congress "intimidates" judges into
obeying the Constitution by impeaching one or two a
year, so much the better for us citizens.
DOWN WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT
Those of us who were adults back in the
1960's will remember the words "down with the
establishment" from the hippies back then. That's when
a "trip" required acid, "crash" had two distinctly
different meanings and the word "man" included everyone.
Where did all those hippies go, we
sometimes wonder. Obviously, most of them grew up to
become productive adults. That's because about the time
they got married and started having kids, an interesting
revelation popped into their drug-soaked minds: They
needed a dependable source of income to live
comfortably! And, to legally acquire the amount of money
required to feed and house a family requires that they
first get cleaned up and act like part of the
establishment. So, most did.
Not all did, though. Not really.
Many of the anti-establishment hippie-type
college kids managed to stay on campus. They are now
teachers. Yup, these are now the far-left instructors
teaching our children. Yes, they are still far-left
anti-establishment radicals -- most of them have never
had a real job of any sort, nor any type of life outside
of a commune or campus lifestyle. But, they get to mold
the thinking of our youngsters, nonetheless.
Another bunch of anti-establishment types
became environmentalists. You know, they commune with
nature, and all that stuff. . . . Some of them even
weaseled their way into government positions, working for
regulatory agencies. Others are members of militant
environmental organizations, pushing their government
brethren for more anti-establishment rules and
regulations.
No, the anti-establishment crowd did not
disappear. Not all of them, anyway. They just cleaned
themselves up a little and went political. And if you
look closely, they seem to be winning their fight against
the establishment, too.
It seemed a little preposterous back then
when a popular radio personality called them "long hair
hippie-type pinkos." Most of us thought them to be
totally a-political -- drop-outs rather than "pinkos."
We were wrong!
They are today's socialist teachers and
today's socialist regulators. And it shouldn't be a
surprise to anyone that the political ones are still
working against the American establishment by aiding
groups like the UN and UNESCO.
The problem is that what they consider
to be the "establishment" includes our United States
Constitution and most of our American values.
PROTECTING PROPERTY
We're not very enthused at writing "book
reports" on this end. But there is one recently released
book that really deserves mention. And, we might add,
although we only had time to spend about fifteen minutes
thumbing through it, like many others we immediately
added our name to the list of potential purchasers.
This is essentially a self defense book for
property owners. The book is targeted at both current
and would-be property owners, and outlines dozens of
interesting signs to look for when walking rural land.
A retired biologist (who, understandably,
wishes to remain anonymous) spent a year documenting all
applicable "endangered" plants and animals for five
midwest states. Both diagrams and full color pictures
are included so as to make identification almost easy for
even the untrained eye.
But the book goes far beyond just
identification of endangered (and potentially endangered)
plants and animals. This author also offers concise
information on what to do about the potential problem.
For instance, two chapters include
information on the legal methods used by government
agencies to "restrict" the usage of private property
occupied by endangered species -- and information on how
to fight that action.
But, most interesting to current land
owners is the "proactive" preventive information
included. About one-third of the book includes
instructions concerning everything from transplanting to
total eradication of many protected plants and animals.
In other words, information on how to get it off of your
land, and keep it off of your land, before the regulators
find out it was there.
Now . . . before the environmentalists get
their shorts in a bunch, we should again report that this
book was written by a well experienced biologist.
Therefore, most instructions include information on how
to effectively move the unwanted plant or animal to
suitable public land (or the local regulator's land) --
presumably, far away from your own property.
The book, we were told, is self-published
and advertised by word of mouth. Even so, the first
5,000 copy printing, we were told, sold out in about two
months. Another 5,000 will be printed in two or three
weeks.
It's a shame, actually, that such a book is
necessary. But, necessary it is. The environmental
wackos in government now have more stupid laws, rules
and regulations regarding endangered species (and "near"
endangered species) than any single person can learn.
And most of these laws, rules and regulations can
adversely affect private land usage.
Many of these regulations make no sense,
either. For instance, at a Kentucky meeting, we were
shown five plants that are proposed to be labeled
"threatened," and "protected," by environmentalists. We
mentioned that, in Michigan, we called those plants
"weeds," and they are very plentiful throughout the
state. We further mentioned that property owners in
Michigan would consider it a good thing if Kentucky
environmentalists came up and removed as many as they
wished.
Obviously, this was not the desired
response. For, the environmentalist ranger continued
right on with his prepared speech on why it is necessary
for government agents to do an environmental "inventory"
on all public and private land in the state.
Ulterior motives, maybe? Of course!
We were asked (told) to not advertise this
book, and we honor that request. Apparently, the books
are sold as fast as they are printed and everyone
involved is comfortable with that situation. We also
chose to not compile information about the author and the
book's distributors. Suffice to say, they all own
property locally. Readers may draw their own conclusions
from that statement. . . .
Yes, this new book will sell well. And it should. It
is an informative and well written text. But it is a
damn shame that such a book is necessary.
ANARCHY ON HIGH
"Sometimes there is a difference between
what is legal and what ought to be done," America was
informed this week. We should all remember that message,
too. Because, those words came directly from the
nation's chief law enforcement officer, the President of
the United States!
Yup, the nation's chief lawman implied
that "there is a difference between what is legal and
what ought to be done." Those words should resonate
loudly within every patriot hall in the nation! Those
words should be framed in gold for all good citizens to
ponder. Finally, Slick Willie uttered something
bordering on truth.
Of course, he didn't mean it. Well, he didn't mean it
to apply to us American citizens, anyway. That was his
excuse for why (he thinks) he can morally violate
campaign fund-raising laws with impunity.
And, that he did! Most of the campaign laws.
Former White House chief of staff
Leon E. Panetta practically admitted on NBC last Sunday
that the 1996 Clinton reelection committee illegally
spent $35-million to $40-million in Democratic National
Committee "soft money" contributions on campaign
commercials. Yet, federal law prohibits the use of that
money in an election campaign.
"The president was looking at a Republican
Congress trying to implement a contract on America that
would impact on Medicare, on education, go after the
assault weapons ban, and the president was committed to
make sure that that would not happen and that he would be
able to be reelected," was Panetta's excuse.
Yup, and the end justifies the means.
Because, "there is a difference between what is legal and
what ought to be done." The Republicans were coming, was
the administration's rallying cry. Can't have
that . . . so anything goes in order to win!
Al Gore wasn't the only one dialing for
dollars at the White House. Slick admitted doing it,
too. And when Hillary was asked by the press if she
partook in the fund-raising activities from the White
House, she said (six times!): "I do not recall making
any [telephone calls], but I'm not going to say
absolutely never. I just don't recall being asked to
make any. I don't recall making any," she told
reporters. Uh huh. Sure.
In Hillary-speak, that means: Yes, I did
it. So what? Don't bother me with those inane questions!
But both Panetta and Secretary of Defense
William S. Cohen, who also appeared on the NBC show,
said they never solicited campaign contributions from
their Capitol Hill offices when they were in Congress
because they felt "it would have been improper." Yeah.
It could get them some prison time, too!
Attorney General Janet Reno also seemed
to acknowledge the problem. Last week she said that
federal law prohibits solicitation and receipt of
campaign funds on federal property "by any person for the
purpose of influencing any election for federal office."
She just hasn't decided to do anything about it yet. So,
let's do our civic duty and give her a few pertinent
facts:
"It is unlawful for a foreign national to
contribute to any political campaign" (2 USC 441e). Yet,
Al Gore, Ron Brown, Senator Chris Dodd, John Huang, and
quite a few others at the Democratic National Committee
headquarters knowingly and actively solicited funds from
foreign nationals.
Slick Willie intentionally accepted
campaign money from Communist China operatives. His
"plausible denial" scenario of not being informed -- that
the Chinese were laundering money into political
campaigns -- by the FBI and the National Security Council
will soon fail. Believe the FBI on this one, folks.
Clinton knew early on that the Communist Chinese were
involved laundering money into political campaigns, and
he wanted the lion's share of it. But, for him to admit
that is to admit to a serious federal felony. Hence, the
current cover-up and finger pointing in the news.
"Whoever promises any contact or other
benefit as a consideration, favor, or reward for any
political activity may be fined, imprisoned, or both"
(18 USC 600). That would include Bill and Hillary
Clinton, Al Gore, Senator Chris Dodd, and a whole cast of
characters in the Commerce Department and the DNC (most
of Congress, too!).
Slick had to know that John Huang was
probably a mole for the Chinese government. Yet, he
gave Huang a position at the Department of Commerce
anyway. As we all know now, that tactic paid off
handsomely in campaign funds! And one only need read
any current newspaper to learn of all the "coffees" and
other perks offered to major contributors by the Clinton
administration.
"Whoever illegally obtains campaign
contributions, or knowingly accepts campaign
contributions that are laundered in an attempt to conceal
the nature, source, ownership or control of the funds,
may be fined, imprisoned, or both" (18 USC 1956). That
would include Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John
Huang, Chris Dodd, the leadership at the DNC, and quite
a few Clinton appointed ambassadors.
Half of the Clinton administration was
involved in the re-election campaign -- and therefore,
procuring campaign funds. It started as soon as they
took office, with Ron Brown and John Huang at Commerce
shaking-down business executives and foreign nationals,
and it ramped up quickly from there.
This administration did whatever it took
to get money. They sold access. They sold influence.
They sold government positions. They sold government
services. And they changed laws and regulations to
benefit major campaign contributors -- including foreign
governments.
Did they break the law? Sure.
Continuously. But, so what? The Republicans were
coming, and the end justified the means. It was
justified for the Clinton, Clinton and Gore team to
violate the law because, "sometimes there is a difference
between what is legal and what ought to be done."
Remember that. There is a difference.
But . . . only if you are an official of the federal
government.
INTERESTING LEGAL TERMS
Below are a few legal terms that seem to
apply to the current news reports. These are provided
only because they offer interesting insight into what
some lawyers in the Department of Justice may (or should)
be thinking if they read the same news reports we do.
Just for kicks, we picked the oldest law
dictionary on our shelf: "The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary"
by James C. Cahill, dated 1922. This dictionary was
chosen because it was published before American law was
corrupted by the FDR administration.
Conspiracy: "A combination of two or more
persons by some concerted action to accomplish some
criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish some
purpose, not itself criminal or unlawful, by criminal or
unlawful means."
Malfeasance: "The unjust performance
of some act which the party had no right, or which he had
contracted not, to do."
Misfeasance: "The performance of an act
which might lawfully be done, in an improper manner, by
which another person receives an injury."
Nonfeasance: "The neglect or failure of a
person to do some act which he ought to do. The term is
not generally used to denote a breach of contract, but
rather the failure to perform a duty towards the public
whereby some individual sustains special damage, as
where a sheriff fails to execute a writ.
"When a legislative act requires a person
to do a thing, its nonfeasance will subject the party to
punishment; as, if a statute require the supervisors of
the highways to repair such highways, the neglect to
repair them may be punished."
Last but not least comes a term from a
twenty year old political dictionary of obviously liberal
bent. We choose this book because we believe that, when
the subject at hand is the behavior of liberal
politicians, it is probably best to define the terms the
way the liberal politicians understand them. And, this
term was once a real favorite of the socialist
reactionaries among us:
Civil Disobedience: "Refusal to obey a
law, usually on the ground that the law is morally
reprehensible. Recent examples of civil disobedience
include Negro refusals to obey segregation laws and
actions of anti-Vietnam war groups in refusing to honor
draft regulations. Civil disobedience ordinarily takes
the form of nonviolent resistance and is aimed at
arousing public opinion against the law."
IMPEACHMENT
Just as we completed the text for this
week's issue of "Heads Up" a very important story
popped-up. This is from "The Washington Times," and the
synopsis is included immediately below:
"The chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee has been asked to begin an impeachment inquiry
of President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore amid
accusations that a growing campaign-finance scandal has
compromised national-security interests and corrupted the
country's foreign-policy decisions. Rep. Bob Barr,
Georgia Republican, made the request this week in a three-
page letter to Chairman Henry J. Hyde, challenging fund
raising "on federal property and with federal
resources.""
This is good stuff, forks. The article is well worth
reading -- no, studying -- in its entirety. This is
history in the making, and Jerry Seper of "The Washington
Times" does an excellent job of summarizing the situation
as it exists today.
Friday's "Washington Times" is on the Internet all
weekend, so go over and check it out. The address is:
http://www.washtimes.com/fullindex/fullindex.html
-- End --