As it turns out, the civil rights racket is a rather good business to be in. Ask Jesse (where's the camera?) Jackson. That's his gig and he's a multimillionaire.

Of course, government gives Jackson big bucks every year in the form of grants. Normally, we would insert a number here designating how much old Jesse rips the taxpayers off for every year. However, after three hours of searching and a few telephone calls, it appears that information may not be publicly available.

Interesting, that. Information on the use of public funds is not publicly available.

The government also gave Jesse a free pass to extort money from businesses he says possibly could be racist. From that, he's been known to get payoff checks in million dollar increments. No word as to where that money goes, either.

None of that must be news, though. The national media doesn't care to ask what Jackson did and does with all that money. Except now, that is.

It seems that Jesse Jackson (yawn. . . . ) got one of the volunteers at his "Rainbow Push Coalition" Black activist group in a family way. Worse, he took his pregnant lover to the White House while "counseling" the impeached, perjuring philanderer about his peccadilloes. Neither of the two philanders thought anything wrong with that. Heck, they all even posed for group photos.

All I've got to say is that must have been one hell of an interesting religious counseling session! Elmer Gantry(1) lives, in spirit if not in fact.

Anyway, it appears that Jesse turned loose of some of his activist money. He gave the woman forty-grand to move to California and set her up in a $350,000 home. On top of that, Jesse also sends her a palimony/child support/payoff check of ten-grand a month.

And, while we're on the topic of hypocrites in government, how about that Hillary, eh? Even after setting up a tax free legal fund and begging for donations, the Clintons still owe millions in legal fees. Hillary got eight-million from a buy-off book deal. That would satisfy most of their debts, one would think. But, nope! Instead of paying off debts, they plunk down a couple million on a house.

The problem is, other than the New York pad they recently bought, the Clintons have never had a house before and so own nothing that is useful around the house. They hired a decorator and were told that furnishing their Washington pad would run about a million bucks -- not counting the artwork.

To furnish their $4.6 million New York home they went begging for donations. Somehow, they convinced over 10,000 New York citizens to donate their hard-earned cash. New York Daily News columnist Michael Daly reported that the list includes 200 retirees, 67 teachers, 50 nurses, 31 librarians, 27 members of the clergy, 14 social workers, 10 guards, five composers and four disabled veterans. "She is a woman who accepts money from a butler and buys two mansions," Daly wrote.

So, what worked in New York will work in Washington, too. Therefore, Billy and Hilly are out begging again. Except, this time she "registered" (as new brides do) in fancy stores so their rich friends will be sure to buy them nothing but the best for their second home in Washington.

There was a time when we called these expensive "gifts" graft and/or pay-offs. Not any more though. Many politicians go to Washington near paupers and return home rich. It's expected, evidently.

Worse, last Friday afternoon the Washington establishment proved to the world that politicians do not live under the same laws they impose on us. Clinton killed innocent people in foreign countries to keep his problems out of the news. He lied under oath, obstructed justice, intimidated witnesses and committed at least another dozen felonies. But, independent counsel Robert Ray let him walk. According to the deal made, all Clinton must do is write down on a piece of paper that he lied and say he's sorry.

So much for "justice." It was changed to "just us."

In what may be the lying, impeached obstructer of justice's last official hypocritical act, he went on television last Thursday evening to address the nation. Among other lies, Clinton stated that he leaves the economy in great shape and his administration paid down $600-billion of the national debt. (See last week's newsletter for the truth on these matters.)

There was not one word about all those unemployment halls full of people, the high inflation rate, the energy crisis, and old folks on fixed incomes needing to keep their home thermostats dialed way down because they cannot afford fuel at today's prices.

If nothing else, Bill Clinton is consistent. He got into office by lying to the American people and he leaves office lying to the American people.

Good riddance to bad garbage.

1. http://www.oxfordbooks.com/win/elmer.html

Note: Yesterday, President George W. Bush admonished, "I ask you to be citizens, not spectators. Citizens, not subjects."

And so we should. It is time we take charge again.

Finally, the trash is gone.

Well . . . the trash is gone from the White House, anyway. Thanks to about 25% of the electorate of the State of New York -- who, based on the poor quality of people they send to Washington, evidently dislike the rest of the country -- we'll still have the Icemaiden to contend with in the Senate. But, we can work around that problem.

The Clintons are out of the White House. That's a very good start -- many steps in the right direction. And, as this little publication hits many computers around the country, good Americans everywhere are celebrating change. We'll hoist a glass of cheer ourselves, on this end.

Help has arrived.

The White House is again populated by honest people. We now have a friendly President and his delightful wife living there. Things are getting back to what they should be.

For instance, we all know that, if nothing else, the Bush's will not be running disinformation operations against the American people and war rooms against anyone disagreeing with them.

President and Mrs. Bush will not sic their Secret Service agents on those who publicly disagree with them. Nor will they have the IRS audit groups speaking out against White House proposals. And we all feel fairly certain that our new President will not allow anyone working for him to pull hundreds of FBI files on members of Congress or past administration workers to use for blackmail.

Talk about change, the new President's cabinet has people in it we out in fly-over country can not only respect, but actually like.

We know that the Clinton recession, although already harming many thousands of people around the country, will now be attended to by people who actually know what they are doing. Clinton cronies and the liberal media may try to blame the Clinton recession on the Bush administration, but the American people know the unemployment halls were filling up before Bush took office.

We remember the high gasoline and fuel oil prices that came about on the Clinton watch. Million of us have already had the unpleasant surprise of a doubling of heating costs this winter. But, Americas are sure that both President

George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney know what to do about the Clinton energy crises. It will take a few months, but this country can become energy self- sufficient. We have enough coal and oil to last hundreds of years.

Americans are grossly overtaxed. We have an income tax, import and export taxes, a marriage tax, a social security tax, and a death tax. And, along the line, we have thousands of hidden taxes due to the central government's interference in every aspect of banking, industry, agriculture, and commerce throughout the nation. At one time or another, George Bush and/or members of his new team have identified and commented on each of these taxes. Now that they are part of government, we expect that at least some of these will be addressed soon.

All that is needed. We want smaller, less intrusive government. We need lower taxes to get the economy moving again. And we want a government we can trust.

The problem is, the Bush team, when all in place, will be made up of but a very few hundred people. Can they do everything we want?

Not the way things are now.

Not with all those socialist groups out there taking grant money from the government and then using it for unconstitutional activities.

Not with that very liberal hundred-billion-dollar industry called the national media spewing socialist propaganda day after day.

Not with Clinton, Clinton and Gore -- and all of their past and present minions -- having instant access to

90% of the nation's broadcast microphones and periodicals to use to disparage the Bush administration and the ideals of good conservatives nationwide.

Not while federal prosecutors, the FBI and the BATF hold the attitude that all of us out here in the real part of the country who support and defend the Constitution are enemies of the government.

This is where we come in.

We must stop letting this government thing be a one way street. That's how we got into this damn mess in the first place! We didn't pay enough attention to what was going on, so those in Washington did just about anything they wished. Which means, they feathered their own nests.

We allowed all these socialist groups to function unimpeded. Sure we did -- when was the last time you took to the microphone to complain about their un-American activities?

Many of the major newspapers on the left are falling on hard times because they are losing money. NBC and CNN are about to schedule major lay-offs. ABC and CBS will not be far behind.

The reason for that is simple: Most Americans do not like them. They are working against the ideals we once euphemistically called "Mom, Flag and Apple Pie" -- our American way.

They might be going broke, but they are still very significant because they control the news. Which means, folks, bucking them is a very hard row to hoe for the new Bush team.

Our job, then, is not just to instruct our members of government, but also to severely chastise anyone in society disparaging our members of government when they try to accomplish our bidding.

We are responsible for taking out that trash, too.

John Ashcroft and I disagree on a few points of law. But I support him for attorney general just as I would support him for president.

Also, we certainly do not agree on religion. But, so what? John Ashcroft is an honest man. He said that he will support the "rule of law" -- our Constitution -- and the laws of the land. I firmly believe he will do that much better than most.

The socialists throughout the country find Ashcroft positively frightening. That's understandable. Their agenda does not include the protection of the natural and Constitutional rights of the individual. Rather, the socialists want government to support only group rights, and then only for their chosen groups.

John Ashcroft may play that game a little. But not nearly as much as the socialists amongst us would like, and surely not to the detriment of the Constitution.

Another point that must be made is exactly who is creating the fuss against Ashcroft. As John J. Miller & Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review identified last week, "Liberal groups opposing the nomination of John Ashcroft for Attorney General receive about $45 million in government funding annually, according to an analysis by the Capital Research Center.

"There are, of course, dozens of left-wing interest groups lobbying to defeat Ashcroft. The Capital Research Center -- a vital organization that examines who funds what -- took a close look at 18 of them, including the Feminist Majority Foundation, NAACP, National Education Association, NOW Legal Defense & Education Fund, and Planned Parenthood."

Add in a few government groups and government unions and one quickly sees that these are all the far-left Clinton supporters. And, they all received a lot of money from the Clinton administration. Is there a connection here? Youbetcha!

Move over to the Senate. Clinton in-law Barbara Boxer and Hillary consort Charlie Schumer are first in line there, followed directly by all the honor-less reprobates who supported Clinton in the so called "Senate Trial" without even seeing one piece of evidence.

The fact is, John Ashcroft knows many of these people. He knows about their fundraising activities. And he knows how they pass-through grants, favors and laws for those who play along to get along.

The problem is, all this "playing along" to get along is also in violation of a whole series of federal laws. These people know that John Ashcroft knows a lot about what goes on on Capitol Hill and they know that Ashcroft is an honest man.

Inconvenient, that! Rather disconcerting, too.

Which famous people have the most to lose with an honest attorney general? The Clinton's, Al Gore and most of their major fundraisers have a great deal to lose. So do both of those idiot Senators from California and at least one of the fascist Senators from New York. Then comes Kennedy and Dodd. An honest attorney general will have to address their excesses and frauds -- especially when he already knows that their violations of the law were ongoing practices, not just occasional mistakes.

There are also a few rather significant union money laundering (and fraud) cases in the works. Then too, most of the socialist groups receiving big government grants have not filed expenditure reports because they have totally misused the money.

John Ashcroft might also want to look into all that voter fraud. After all, that worked against him, too. And, we plan to whisper in his ear about all those millions of acres tied up in biosphere reserves around the country. That program was canceled nearly 20 years ago but is still being funded with misappropriated funds.

We will look for the protection of individual liberty, too. John Ashcroft promises to uphold the rule of law, which includes the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. Well, here's a hint on how that could go:

In Public Utilities v. Pollak(1), the Court ruled:

"Liberty in the constitutional sense must mean more than freedom from unlawful governmental restraint; it must include privacy as well, if it is to be a repository of freedom. The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom. Part of our claim to privacy is in the prohibition of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. It gives the guarantee that a man's home is his castle beyond invasion either by inquisitive or by officious people. ... But even in his activities outside the home he has immunities from controls bearing on privacy. He may not be compelled against his will to attend a religious service; he may not be forced to make an affirmation or observe a ritual that violates his scruples; he may not be made to accept one religious, political, or philosophical creed as against another. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment give more than the privilege to worship, to write, to speak as one chooses; they give freedom not to do nor to act as the government chooses. The First Amendment in its respect for the conscience of the individual honors the sanctity of thought and belief. To think as one chooses, to believe what one wishes are important aspects of the constitutional right to be let alone."

Then again, in Illinois v. Andreas(2), the Court revisited the Fourth Amendment:

"The Fourth Amendment, however, does not protect only information. It also protects, in its own sometimes-forgotten words, '[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects . . .' As Justice Brandeis put the matter in his dissent in Olmstead v. United States, the Fourth Amendment 'conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men'. The right to be 'let alone' is, at the very least, the right not to have one's repose and possessions disturbed."

That's the law of the land, if the new administration enforces it.

(Far reaching examples continued in next article.)

1. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/343/451.html

2. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/463/765.html

The Printz Supreme Court opinion(1), and the earlier Lopez(2) decision, have a lot in common. Both are about guns -- sort of. The Printz ruling declared that Congress exceeded its authority by demanding that local police do background checks for handgun purchases and the Lopez decision said that Congress exceeded its authority when it tried to ban guns near schools.

But these opinions could just as easily have been about any object. The Brady law, which gave us the Printz decision, was a stupid law for Congress to pass. Stupid for many reasons, but only emotional around the country because it violated our gun rights.

The Printz Supreme Court opinion is surely about the stupidity of Congress, but is it about guns? No, not at all. It was about a Congress run amuck. It's about a Congress that no longer even pretends to obey the Constitution. It's about a President who acts more like a king. And, it's about a Supreme Court that understood it was time to rein in the gross overreaching of the other two branches of government.

That's also what the Lopez decision, and others, were about. That's why there are a lot of really worried bureaucrats in Washington this week. Periodically, the courts do their job. And, this new administration may help.

First comes a little history lesson from the Supreme Court on why the federal government may not command a State to enforce federal laws and regulations. Our new President and Attorney General say they shall enforce the rule of law to the letter. So, OK, here some of it comes. All regular readers of this newsletter are going to want to understand these words from the "Printz" ruling and encourage the new administration to conform appropriately:

"Enactments of the early Congresses seem to contain no evidence of an assumption that the Federal Government may command the States' executive power in the absence of a particularized constitutional authorization. The early enactments establish, at most, that the Constitution was originally understood to permit imposition of an obligation on state judges to enforce federal prescriptions related to matters appropriate for the judicial power. The Government misplaces its reliance on portions of The Federalist [Papers] suggesting that federal responsibilities could be imposed on state officers. None of these statements necessarily implies -- what is the critical point here -- that Congress could impose these responsibilities without the States' consent. They appear to rest on the natural assumption that the States would consent. Finally, there is an absence of executive commandeering federal statutes in the country's later history, at least until very recent years. Even assuming that newer laws represent an assertion of the congressional power challenged here, they are of such recent vintage that they are not probative of a constitutional tradition.

"The Constitution's structure reveals a principle that controls these cases: the system of 'dual sovereignty.' Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained a residuary and inviolable sovereignty that is reflected throughout the Constitution's text. ...

"Finally, and most conclusively in these cases, the Court's jurisprudence makes clear that the Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program."

And there it is folks, the Prozac moment for bureaucrats. It was written in very clear and concise English, too. This comes right from the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Printz: "The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program."

So, that takes care of the federal government ordering a state to do something. But the federal government also coerces states into obedience through threat of withholding highway, education and other funds, grants and what have you. The Court knows that. So apparently the Justices figured that if they were going to have the Washington bureaucracy reaching for the Prozac anyway, they may as well lay it all out for them at once. The Court continues in Printz:

"The Government points to a number of federal statutes enacted within the past few decades that require the participation of state or local officials in implementing federal regulatory schemes. Some of these are connected to federal funding measures, and can perhaps be more accurately described as conditions upon the grant of federal funding than as mandates to the States; others, which require only the provision of information to the Federal Government, do not involve the precise issue before us here, which is the forced participation of the States' executive in the actual administration of a federal program. We of course do not address these or other currently operative enactments that are not before us; it will be time enough to do so if and when their validity is challenged in a proper case. For deciding the issue before us here, they are of little relevance. ...

"Even assuming they represent assertion of the very same congressional power challenged here, they are of such recent vintage that they are no more probative [proof -- ed.] than the statute before us of a constitutional tradition that lends meaning to the text. Their persuasive force is far outweighed by almost two centuries of apparent congressional avoidance of the practice."

Whew! "Even assuming they [programs the federal government coerces the states into following] represent assertion of the very same congressional power challenged here. . ." Yeah, we see that it's the same. The federal government demands compliance to thousands of rules relating to subjects on which it has no right to even speak. It's all a grossly un-Constitutional overreach of power. And, it looks as though the Court sees it that way too.

In other words, the Court will be looking for a case to use to limit many of the rules, regulations and programs the federal government now imposes on the states and the people.

Now the Printz Court goes back to teaching a little history that should be of great interest to most of us.

"Finally, and most conclusively in the present litigation, we turn to the prior jurisprudence of this Court. Federal commandeering of state governments is such a novel phenomenon that this Court's first experience with it did not occur until the 1970's, when the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated regulations requiring States to prescribe auto emissions testing, monitoring and retrofit programs, and to designate preferential bus and carpool lanes. The Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits invalidated the regulations on statutory grounds in order to avoid what they perceived to be grave constitutional issues, and the District of Columbia Circuit invalidated the regulations on both constitutional and statutory grounds, see District of Columbia v. Train. After we granted certiorari to review the statutory and constitutional validity of the regulations, the Government declined even to defend them, and instead rescinded some and conceded the invalidity of those that remained, leading us to vacate the opinions below and remand for consideration of mootness. [EPA v. Brown, 431 U.S. 99 (1977)]

"Although we had no occasion to pass upon the subject in Brown, later opinions of ours have made clear that the Federal Government may not compel the States to implement, by legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs."

There we go again! "The Federal Government may not compel the States to implement, by legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs." There's the law of the land, folks. And, that law of the land includes seatbelt laws, EPA rules, the Army (Corps of Engineers), BLM, the biosphere socialists and all those little federal regulators running throughout the country supporting the mischief of the left. Our new administration knows of these Court rulings and there is a very good chance they may actually obey them.

But there is more. And the following text from the Printz ruling is just as important as the text above.

"When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise. At issue (in New York v. United States)(3) were the so called 'take title' provisions of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, which required States either to enact legislation providing for the disposal of radioactive waste generated within their borders, or to take title to, and possession of the waste -- effectively requiring the States either to legislate pursuant to Congress's directions, or to implement an administrative solution. We concluded that Congress could constitutionally require the States to do neither. 'The Federal Government,' we held, 'may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.'"

And so we see it again: "The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." This raised the heartburn level to new heights in the federal regulatory agencies.

There was an interesting point in the N.Y. v. U.S. opinion not cited in Printz. Writing for the majority in New York, Justice O'Connor more or less made a new rule on the relationship between States and the federal government. Therein, she writes: "When Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by 'consent' of State officials." Sure. Because the States are the Principals in the Constitutional arrangement. The Federal Government is an Agent of the States.

As we see, there is already enough Supreme Court case law to authorize scrapping the worst players of the federal regulatory bureaucracy. That is, there would be if the other two branches of government honored Supreme Court rulings. But, to do so would mean that the executive branch would have to relinquish many of its un-Constitutional powers. It would also mean that Congress would again be responsible for writing all laws -- and keeping them within the bounds set down by the Constitution. Previously, the Court's opinions on these matters were ignored as much as possible.

Will the Bush administration honor the rule of law? They say they will.

Is help on the way? One can dream.

1.  http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/95-1478.html

2.  http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/u10287.html

3.  http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/144.html

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh, GR Force and FRON, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 2003 by Forest Glen Durland, subject to Fiedor's rights.

fron214.htm. Revised 5-20-03. uhuh, GR Force and FRON are non-profit.