Heads Up

A Weekly edition of News from around our country

May 16, 1997 #35

by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net

----------------------------------------------------------

Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html

----------------------------------------------------------

THE $6-BILLION SCAM

When you want to know what politicians are up

to you follow the money trail. But as it turns out, all

the reported hoopla over this administration's involvement

in illegal campaign contributions and political treachery

may be little more than the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

It looks like the best part of the story is just now

becoming exposed -- and it's starting to read like the

plot of a Tom Clancy novel.

A while back the Communist Chinese gun runner,

Wang Jun, was caught trying to smuggle $4-million worth

of fully automatic AK-47s into the United States to sell

to California street gangs. He was not personally

arrested, of course, because someone in the Clinton

administration warned him and he fled back to China just

in time.

Along with running guns, Wang Jun is also Chairman

of a bank named China International Trust and Investment

Corp. (CITIC), which is actually run by the staff of

China's Military Commission. According to our Defense

Intelligence Agency, CITIC, the Bank of China and the

China Investment Bank, are all used by the Chinese

intelligence community to fund operations and serve as a

cover for operatives. They also do business in the

United States.

Now we learn that the Chinese military industrial

complex has been using these banks to issue and sell bonds

in the United States. Sources say that over $6-Billion in

bonds have been sold by these banks to American pension

funds and other investors through the U.S. bond and

securities markets.

This gives the Chinese military institutions access

to ready cash (in American dollars), which they can use

for any purpose. The Chinese People's Liberation Army

is, of course, now in the process of purchasing vast

amounts of high-tech military equipment from Russia.

They are also buying as much equipment as they can get

from us.

Goldman Sachs, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin's

former firm, made a bundle peddling these bonds, as did

J.P. Morgan and other major Wall Street players.

But there's a problem. The Economist reports that

these banks are "unstable and mired in debt." Half the

bank loans they have made may have gone bad. The Red

Chinese government will only admit that 20% of the loans

have gone bad. But even so, that amounts to many times

the bank's capital. So, investing in these bonds could

be a disaster waiting to happen. The banks are insolvent,

and possibly never intended to pay back the bonds.

The Economist also reported that at these

institutions, "accounting principles are inconsistent and

poorly understood, so bank's senior executives are rarely

given reliable information by their loan officers."

Yeah. Some of the executives are busy doing other

things, anyway. Things like running an army, smuggling

guns into the United States, having coffee with the U.S.

President, and laundering influence payments (campaign

funds) to pass around Washington.

Usually there are a whole series of ethical and

financial considerations to explore before brokers sell

foreign bonds to American pension and investment funds.

But for some reason all standards seem to have been

dropped with these Chinese banks. Therefore, it looks

like the Clinton Administration -- and especially Treasury

Secretary Robert Rubin -- better get their stories straight

before this information gets legs with the popular press.

Because, as USA Today reported Wednesday:

"These bond sales pose a very real national security

problem and could severely undermine the health of any

pension funds that invest in them."

Rubin, of course, was head honcho over at Goldman

Sachs. Therefore, it is likely that he is the one who

approved this deal for the company. He probably pocketed

a couple million dollars in commissions from it, too.

This story is presently still rather complicated.

That's because all of the details are not out yet. But

it won't be long before a few powerful pension fund

managers realize that they may well be holding six-billion

dollars worth of worthless paper. And we doubt very much

that the American people will be happy to learn that they

have been funding the Communist Chinese Army. Yes folks,

there's soon going to be some very probing questions

asked, and these questions should start soon.

So, when we look for the "quo" in the quid pro quo

for the millions of dollars the Democrats received in

laundered campaign contribution money from China, perhaps

it is here: Over $6-Billion in uncollateralized junk

bonds, and the amount is still growing.

It seems that the Chinese got a rather nice return

on their investment.

ENVIRONMENTAL LIES

Everyone wants clean air to breath, right? Yeah,

sure we do. And we also want a clean environment in which

to live, play and raise a family.

So here comes an inconvenient question: When was

the environment cleaner? If you said back in the 1950's

or 1960's, you would be wrong. Let's look at some well

published data the Investor's Business Daily compiled

last week.

Carbon monoxide emissions have dropped 14.9 percent

since the U.S. began measuring in 1974. Nitrogen dioxides

-- which help form smog -- have dropped 33.8 percent since

1975. Sulfur dioxide in the air has been cut 50.3 percent

since 1970, and lead emissions are down 97 percent since

then. The air-quality index shows that air quality in the

U.S. has improved 42 percent since 1980. And, since 1988,

the annual release of toxic chemicals by industry has

declined by 34 percent.

While the trends for water quality are less clear,

Investor's Business Daily reports, the data available show

things are getting better: Water quality has improved 27

percent since 1980, according to estimates by the Pacific

Research Institute -- with similar improvements in Canada,

by estimates from the Fraser Institute.

Each year, harvests of timber in the U.S. equal

only 60 percent of new growth, and yearly soil lost

through erosion due to farming has dropped by almost

one-fourth since 1982.

Now comes the Environmental Protection Agency

exerting control over the American population with its

new standards for ground-level ozone and fine particulate

matter.

Air pollution control officials define particulate

matter as "a broad class of substances that occur

throughout the atmosphere, originate from a variety of

sources, and have different effects on human health and

the environment as well as different chemical and physical

properties."

One source of these particulates is said to be

residential wood burning -- your fireplace. So, they

would have us believe, our wood burning stoves and

fireplaces are dangerous to asthmatics. That, of course,

is preposterous!

The two greatest man-made sources of harmful

particulate matter in the atmosphere are very obvious,

yet unregulated: Trucks and aircraft.

When you see a big eighteen wheeler, or a big jet

aircraft, pouring out that black smoke . . . well, there

you go! Those are particulates that are harmful to all

humans equally.

The problem is, we need trucks and planes delivering

products. That's money (commerce) on the move -- the very

movement that keeps this country great.

The major source of particulate matter in the

atmosphere, however, is dirt. Yeah, ordinary old natural

dirt -- dust from roads, crops, livestock and natural soil

erosion -- accounts for 83 percent of all "particulates"

to be regulated. Coincidentally, those wetlands --

swamps, bogs, and whatnot -- the EPA is so strict on

protecting, are another major contributor to the problem.

And God forbid a volcano erupts anywhere in the world that

can affect the air in the United States. . . .

EPA estimates that more than 500 counties would

be in "nonattainment " of the new standards and more than

100 million people will be affected. Does EPA care that

most of this "pollution" is natural, has been with us

forever, and will probably be with us forever? Hell no!

These new regulations extend current powers and give the

bureaucrats a whole set of new powers over the citizens

of the United States.

And that, folks, is exactly what it is all about!

That is exactly what they want: Power and control. Power

and control over you.

For example, a few years ago the EPA made a

deal with state regulators. EPA was to "allow" states

the power to regulate pollution. Suddenly that stopped.

Why? States were starting to get good results.

And EPA was afraid those closest to environmental problems

might succeed in solving them -- and, at a real savings in

costs. That type of program could lead to a wholesale

devolution of power. The federal government can't have

that! That would not only draw control away from the

EPA, but also away from the national environmental groups

whose power is rooted in that agency.

So, they put an abrupt stop to the program. Now

Washington controls everything with an iron fist again.

Many Members of Congress are now willing to rein

in the EPA, but they will need some poking and prodding

before they will do it. You see, the only voices Congress

hears are sponsored by the far-left groups that actually

want strong government control of everything. Conversely,

those of us who see the fallacy in these and other

oppressive regulatory actions are strangely silent.

That must change. And soon. If not, be prepared

to give up the use of niceties like your fireplace and

barbecue to the capricious flimflam fallacies of the

social-engineering regulators.

LEGAL KIDNAPPING

Our dictionary defines kidnapping as: To

seize and detain unlawfully. That may not be a legal

definition, but it's close enough. Because, the simple

definition of "To seize and detain unlawfully" opens up

some very interesting scenarios.

We all know that to steal someone's child is

kidnapping. And so is capturing and holding an adult.

That's simple. Most Americans will agree on that.

Kidnapping can also be a capital crime in most

civilized societies. But even where the death penalty is

not imposed, the practice is still considered a serious

offense.

OK, so what if a government agent does it? When,

exactly, does "to seize and detain unlawfully" become

kidnapping when the action is performed under color of

law, by a government agent?

"Never," police agencies say. Citizens have a

"duty" to submit to arrest by "any" officer, police

agencies say. If the police officer was wrong, you will

have your day in court to explain it, prosecutors say.

Anyone see a little problem with this type of logic?

Does a citizen have a "duty" to submit to arrest,

and sit in jail for months awaiting trial, when they have

done nothing wrong? Who decides if this is right or

wrong? Keep reading and you will see why this question

needs some intense public discussion, and soon. You may

also agree that some specific changes in the above

authoritarian attitude are woefully necessary.

Recently, a Cincinnati police sergeant admitted

that he "planted" drugs on a perpetrator to make an

arrest. OK, let's stipulate that the perpetrator was

probably a drug dealer. So? Does that make the officer's

actions right?

Because the officer "planted" drugs on the person,

the man went to prison for a while. If this is not

seizing and detaining unlawfully -- kidnapping -- what

then shall we call it?

The man was not convicted legally. There was

no evidence for a legal conviction. The evidence came

from an illegal "plant," by the arresting officer.

Was the officer fired when his commander learned

of this? No, of course not. Nor can the officer be

prosecuted for his illegal action. Resulting from an

unbelievable turn of events, the sergeant has immunity

from prosecution. Worse yet, this situation is common

throughout the country.

Through a quirk in the law, many police officers

have immunity from prosecution for illegal activities

committed while on duty, as long as they admit the offense

to their superiors. They may receive administrative

punishment, but if they admit their actions, they may not

be prosecuted criminally.

The reason is that officers are required to

respond completely and truthfully to any questions asked

by superiors. Thus, they give up their right to Fifth

Amendment protection against self-incrimination. And,

hence, have absolute immunity against prosecution.

Below is a copy of commonly used language taken

from The Cincinnati Manual of Rules and Regulations:

"A member must, upon direction of the Police Chief

or his designated representative, respond completely and

truthfully to all questions that are specifically,

directly and narrowly related to his performance as a

police officer. Since the member is required by rule and

case law to answer, and has no right against self-

incrimination, the response to such questions may be

used only in the application of administrative justice.

The member is immune in any subsequent related criminal

proceeding from the uses of his answers or fruits thereof."

This is how it works, folks. If an officer answers

truthfully during an inquiry, that officer is then immune

from prosecution. Planting evidence, lying in court, even

murder, can then not be prosecuted.

So, can kidnapping be legal? Not exactly. But

most police officers can get away with it without much

problem.

An interesting addendum comes from the Congressional

testimony of James Maddock, FBI Deputy General Council,

this week. Maddock was asked what action would be taken

against FBI laboratory personnel who, in the past, fudged

results and/or perjured themselves in court. Maddock

indicated that the offending personnel were now retired,

and that "The FBI is not in a position to take action

against retired personnel."

The reason the FBI will not arrest one of their own

for lying, cheating, perjuring, and otherwise breaking the

law is two-fold. First, these people know too much, and

if they were ever prosecuted they could implicate half of

the Bureau. And second, there would then have to be

hundreds of cases re-tried, which could clog the courts

for years.

The Inspector General's report said that FBI

laboratory evidence was "altered, omitted and improperly

supplemented." Which is nothing more than legal-speak

for "they fudged results and lied a lot." The words

"altered and omitted" are very interesting, too. That

means that they purposely covered up exculpatory evidence.

It does not matter though. The perjuring liars are

free, and they will stay that way. Those they lied about

to send to prison are still in prison, and they will stay

that way. Re-trying cases would place an imposition on

the Justice Department. So, it shall not be allowed.

In other words, lives of American citizens are to be

sacrificed to the expediency and comfort of the

bureaucrats at the Department of Justice.

Like it or not, this is the state of our American

justice system in 1997.

Now . . . about those changes we mentioned as

being necessary back in the seventh paragraph. . . .

FEDERAL NEGLIGENCE

If ever an administration seemed hell-bent on

destroying our cities and corrupting our youth,

this seems to be the one. This administration is totally

and completely negligent in performing one of it's

Constitutionally mandated duties. To wit: Protecting

our borders.

Using the administration's own numbers, two-million

to two-million-four-hundred-thousand pounds of illegal

cocaine and heroin are smuggled into the United States

from Mexico annually. That folks, is enough to keep each

and every adult American citizen high for almost a week.

Customs Commissioner George Weise said on

Nightline that we only have 2,000 customs inspectors,

and therefore can inspect less than 4% of the trucks

coming in from Mexico. Texas Attorney General Don

Morales reports that only about 2% of the trucks entering

Texas from Mexico are inspected. When 60 Minutes filmed

a border crossing for an hour or two, they saw none being

inspected -- that is, until the inspectors noticed the

cameras were there.

The Customs Department says that 3.5-million

trucks enter this country from Mexico annually. That

means that, even using the government's number of a 4%

inspection rate, the 2,000 inspectors check 140,000 trucks

per year, or a little better than one truck per inspector

each week. That is not very much.

Put another way, over 3,360,000 trucks enter the

United States each year from Mexico with absolutely no

customs inspection.

Is there any question of how that 1,000 to 1,200

tons of illegal cocaine and heroin gets into this country

every year from Mexico?

These numbers are no surprise to anyone in

Washington, folks. We got the numbers from Washington.

What should be a surprise to us is that Washington knows

this, yet chooses to do absolutely nothing about it!

You never hear the so called Drug Czar mention

these numbers. You never hear Slick Willie or any member

of his cabinet mention this problem. Nor does any Member

of Congress. But they all know of it. Exactly why no one

in government seems to give a damn is the big question we

need answered.

Another problem was also brought up on 60 Minutes.

That was the problem of vehicle safety.

NAFTA rules let these Mexican trucks drive right

into the United States and operate on our highways

intermixed with our traffic. Mexican trucks do not,

however, have to meet American safety standards. Neither

do the Mexican truck drivers.

Less than 1% of Mexican trucks are safety inspected

at the border. Yet, according to some reports, over half

of all Mexican trucks entering the United States are

defective and/or sub-standard in some way.

We understand that Mexico's biggest exports are

cocaine and heroin. And we understand that the people

of Mexico badly need the money received from the sale of

these drugs. However, cocaine and heroin are still

illegal substances in this country. Therefore, it is the

legal responsibility of the federal government to

interdict these substances at the border.

If customs agents cannot handle that job, perhaps

it is time we fire them and make other arrangements. We

would not renew the contract of a private organization

that performed in such a slip-shod and negligent manner.

So, why do we have to keep this Customs Department crew

after they demonstrated for years on end that they cannot

perform? That badge and a gun they carry should give them

no special right to be unproductive.

Meanwhile, the drug trafficking across the U.S. -

Mexican border just about doubled under the Clinton

Administration. So, what was Slick Willie's response to

cover up the problem? You got it; he demonized American-

grown tobacco products!

Negligence in office, it's called.

VOLUNTEERISM

Or: Clinton's Latest Hypocrisy by: Craig Brown

A little over a week ago one of the most

preposterous events in the history of feel-good politics

took place. With an avalanche of scandals, subpoenas

indictments and calls for impeachment descending on him

in a manner unprecedented for a United States President,

Bill Clinton was feeling a little edgy. Another fine

mess other people had gotten him into. Now what to do?

The obvious remedy was what had always worked in the

past. He needed a diversion. Another crisis to focus

upon.

The trouble was, he had used up all the good

crises. First there was the health care crisis, then the

crime crisis, the school lunch crisis, the Black church

burning crisis and they had all provided the needed

sleight of hand to cover him while he dodged another

bullet. But what was left? Was the Administration

facing a "crisis" crisis?

Eventually someone came up with the idea of a

"volunteer crisis." After all, volunteering has always

been as American as apple pie. Volunteering shows that

you care and if people don't care enough, we'll have

mandatory volunteering and paid volunteering. And what

a great photo-op! We'll get a bunch of the usual movie

stars together and Bill and Al will join them in painting

over some school house walls on television. And start

the whole thing off with bells and whistles at a

"volunteer summit" held in Philadelphia at Liberty

Hall where the whole thing about volunteering began.

Here in Kentucky we don't need any reminding

about volunteering. If anyone thinks there was a shortage

of volunteers during the recent floods, go talk to the

residents of Falmouth, Silver Grove, California or

Mentor. That, friends, was the defining snapshot of

volunteerism, Kentucky style. Nobody ordered them,

nobody paid them. They just by God rolled up their

sleeves and did what had to be done.

Of course Bill Clinton is no stranger to playing

the volunteer card. In one of the most amazing displays

of chutzpah ever seen, he stood at his State of the Union

speech before a house full of adoring members of the

National Education Association and drew cheers as he

slapped them in the face by telling them what a lousy job

of teaching they had done. To atone for their failure,

he was proposing spending millions of dollars to hire

"volunteers" to teach third graders how to read.

The Philadelphia "summit" not only reeked of

hypocrisy, Clinton style, but it failed to accomplish the

intended task. Volunteerism remains alive and well in

America and so is that festering cesspool of scandal

contaminating the hallways of the White House.

-- End --

(This is Jeff in central Michigan) 

  ** 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.

hu.htm. Revised 5-22-99. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.