James Madison once wrote: "I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

How true! And we must be ever vigilant to insure that whenever corrupt bureaucrats twist the power of the government to usurp the rights of citizens, they are quickly and decisively punished to the fullest extent of the law.

From the misdirected antics of federal bureaucrats at the Headgates of Klamath Falls to the usurping of our rights by the socialist Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA), from bureaucratic war on the farmers and ranchers out West to the constant harassment of landowners along the Appalachian Trail, federal agencies are constantly overstepping their Constitutional authority and violating the third in the trinity of our unalienable rights: our right to property. In previous publications, we have shown just how Constitutionally illegal that is.(1)

Now comes a case of a complete fraud against the American people resulting from the blatant abuse of power. This is a story of a deceitful, illegal conspiracy by minor public servants that was intended to harm both the interstate and intrastate commerce of thousands of American citizens. Yet, little or no legal action has yet been taken against the perpetrators.

On Dec. 17, Audrey Hudson published an article in The Washington Times describing a diabolical scheme by a group of government paid eco-whackos in which they falsified tests to detect an "endangered" species.(2) The reason was that these conspirators wanted to close off huge tracks of land in the Northwest to roads and off-road vehicles, snowmobiles, livestock grazing and tree thinning. Even the existing ski resorts would be banned. Already, people have lost their homes and property because of other eco-whacko actions.

As The Washington Times reported:

"Federal and state wildlife biologists planted false evidence of a rare cat species in two national forests, officials told The Washington Times. Had the deception not been discovered, the government likely would have banned many forms of recreation and use of natural resources in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest and Wenatchee National Forest in Washington state.

"The previously unreported Forest Service investigation found that the science of the habitat study had been skewed by seven government officials: three Forest Service employees, two U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials and two employees of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The officials planted three separate samples of Canadian lynx hair on rubbing posts used to identify existence of the creatures in the two national forests."

DNA tests of the hair later determined that the samples came from a lynx living inside an animal preserve and an escaped pet lynx being held in a federal office until its owner retrieved it.

This was a case of total and complete fraud against the people of the United States, in other words. The action could have caused hundreds of local jobs and bankrupt farmers and ranchers. And, the perpetrators were caught red handed.

So, what was the penalty for these perpetrators attempting to cause millions of dollars in disruption of commerce? Interesting, that! As reported, "The employees have been counseled for their actions and banned from participating in the three-year survey of the lynx, listed as a threatened animal under the Endangered Species Act. Federal officials would not name the offending employees, citing privacy concerns."

"Privacy concerns," eh? For criminals? They are major felons. They conspired against the American people. They should go to prison, not counseling.

In a Dec. 19 Washington Times piece(3), Audrey Hudson reports that some on Capitol Hill are calling for the perpetrators to be fired:

"If in fact it occurred, and there's clear evidence it did, people ought to be fired," said Sen. Larry E. Craig, Idaho Republican and chairman of the Republican Policy Committee. "If they hadn't been caught, you might have seen entire forests shut down on a false premise. That's serious stuff," Mr. Craig said.

Yes, Senator. And it is a criminal conspiracy, too. They knowingly and willfully planted false evidence with intent to do harm to the American people.

Other lawmakers stopped at asking the General Accounting Office to conduct a complete audit on this false sampling stuff and report back.

We have a better idea: Enforce the law. For instance, we can start with "conspiracy against rights" (18 USC 241) that seems to be applicable here:

"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; . . . They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

The perpetrators quite obviously formed a conspiracy to oppress the rights of many American citizens. There is also a "deprivation of rights under color of law" statute (18 USC 242), which, under general conditions, applies better to government agents overstepping their authority:

"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both . . ."

Contact Congress. Let's insure these lawbreakers get the prison time they so definitely deserve.

1. "Protecting Our Property Rights" -- Issue #243

2. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20011217-7117603.htm

3. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20011219-351875.htm

Do you have your papers in order? Sure you do. We all do nowadays. We have our birth certificate, Social Security card and driver's license available any time some lowly bureaucrat requests them. Many of us have a passport, too.

Of course, we do not normally carry all that with us at all times. Many of us do, however, always carry debit and credit cards and insurance identification along with our State drivers license or ID card. That's more than should be necessary, say some federal bureaucrats. So, they want to "help" us solve the problem.

Their idea is a single card that could include all government permissions, like driving, carrying a gun, Social Security or welfare and medical data. It would also act as an universal debit and credit card and carry credit, criminal and employment history. The smart identification card will also include our Internet information and provide a secure encryption method for both e-mail and telephone calls.

Something like that is already being issued to military personnel. The Defense Department card is officially called the Common Access Card. The one designated for civilians will also have a snappy name.

The military smart ID cards allow Defense Department officials to look into their databases and see everything their personnel do -- including doctors seen, the department doorways passed through, the computers accessed, and how much activity each person has on the Internet.

Civilian cards will be a little better. They will compile all the same data as their military cousins, but will also allow government to sell income data and buying trends to private business concerns.

Americans have already given up their privacy by allowing credit bureaus and advertising corporations free rein to compile any and all information they can find. The new federal smart cards will only add a few odds and ends to that, which officials say "will not bother anyone but the most avid privacy freaks."

Already there is a strong consortium made up of media, advertisers and their associated business partners quietly pressuring federal bureaucrats to make the smart card program happen for at least a significant segment of society. The military was just a beginning.

For instance, the Air Transport Association wants a "voluntary" travel card for passengers, which would include a biometric identifier. The card is to link to a system of government databases and include criminal, intelligence and financial records. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, a group of state bureaucrats, is working on a plan to create a national identification system to link all driver databases to high- tech driver's license cards with computer chips, bar codes and/or biometric identifiers. The Justice Department and General Services Administration admitted they are also working with motor vehicle officials and commercial vendors on some sort of high-tech ID system. Already, Rep. Stephen Horn (R-CA) introduced a bill that would establish a Commission on Homeland Security to study the use of national identification systems.

And, of course, there is the multimillionaire Clinton supporter, Larry Ellison, chief executive of Oracle Corp, calling for a smart-card of his own design for all citizens -- a card surprisingly close to what's on the wish list of many federal bureaucrats.

So, what's the problem with such a smart ID card that is also our travel card or "mini-passport," as well as our banking, medical and employment card? Having great encryption for all of our cell phone calls and e-mail would be handy. It would also be great to only have one card to carry around that does everything.

According to bureaucrats who presently prefer to remain anonymous (for damn good reasons, we shall soon see), there are a number of interesting reasons smart "identification" cards are desirable to government officials: All the better to control the serf citizens with, of course.

Sure, Americans could have a great encryption system for e-mail and cell phone calls. However, government will have a universal decoding procedure, just in case they care to snoop. Along with that, of course, government will also be able disrupt any citizen's communication at any time.

A cashless society is desirable in conjunction with the credit-debit function of the card. Then, all financial transactions of every individual will be available to be scrutinized by bureaucrats. Furthermore, by withholding card access, bureaucrats will also be able to stop all financial transactions of any person any time they wish. Work and travel permission could also be denied by a simple command in the government's main computers.

So, anyone not paying a ticket or child support on time, not showing up at a court hearing, or just becoming a suspect of a crime, could have all travel, work, medical, and commercial transactions cut off by any minor bureaucrat with access to the computer. It would then be the responsibility of the citizen to present themselves to the proper government office to rectify the matter. Else, all liberty would be suspended.

And so goes the story behind the story of the "smart card." It is no more than a modern means of complete control.

Around the end of each year, the Media Research Center(1) holds its "Annual Awards for the Year's Worst Reporting." This is an hilarious presentation for political watchers because it uses "journalists" own words to prove just how far over to the left of the political spectrum these self-aggrandizing media fools are.

As readers laugh along at this foolishness, please be advised that we did not rip-off the big winners. Ya'll are going to have to visit the MRC website for the stupidest remarks and biggest belly laughs.

By way of introduction, last May 15 Peter Jennings said on CNN's "Larry King Live":

"I think there is a mainstream media. CNN is mainstream media, and the main, ABC, CBS, NBC are mainstream media. And I think it's just essentially to make the point that we are largely in the center without particular axes to grind, without ideologies which are represented in our daily coverage, at least certainly not on purpose."

OK. Let's look at that some. Here's a quote from the "mainstream" ABC News President David Westin talking about terrorism at a Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism event on Oct. 23:

"The Pentagon as a legitimate target? I actually don't have an opinion on that, and it's important I not have an opinion on that as I sit here in my capacity right now. ... I can say the Pentagon got hit, I can say this is what their position is, this is what our position is, but for me to take a position this was right or wrong, I mean, that's perhaps for me in my private life, perhaps it's for me dealing with my loved ones, perhaps it's for my minister at church. But as a journalist I feel strongly that's something that I should not be taking a position on. I'm supposed to figure out what is and what is not, not what ought to be."

At the end of "On My Mind," a commentary by ABC anchor Carole Simpson, January 7, Simpson indicated the "mainstream," objective viewpoint of ABC nicely:

"What an exhilarating moment it must have been for her -- the first First Lady in history to be elected to public office. There, for all the nay-sayers to see, was the woman who had finally come into her own, free at last to be smart, outspoken, independent, and provocative, all qualities she had been forced as First Lady, to 'hide under a bushel.' Still she was voted one of America's most admired women. Just wait. You ain't seen nothin' yet."

Again, here's Carole Simpson, anchor of ABC's "World News Tonight/Sunday," in her ABCNews "On My Mind" piece for February 24.

"In every family there are people and situations you would just as soon keep from others. So, when you express shock and outrage at Bill and Hillary's brothers' involvement in the pardon controversy, consider what your own relatives might do if you possessed the power of the presidency."

And here's the politically "mainstream" Peter Jennings supporting his network's viewpoint on the April 19 edition of "World News Tonight." This follows a story on a study purporting more aggression in children who attend day care:

"The U.S. is actually the least generous of the industrialized nations. In Sweden, a new mother gets 18 months of maternity and parental leave, and she gets 80 percent of her salary for the first year. Mother or father can take the parental leave any time until a child is eight. England gives 18 weeks maternity leave. For the first six weeks, a mother gets 90 percent of her salary from the government and $86 a week thereafter. German women get two months of fully paid leave after giving birth. The government and the company kick in, and either parent has the option of three full years in parental leave with some of their salary paid and their jobs protected."

Here's Dan Rather's style of political objectivity on the "CBS Evening News," February 27:

"President Bush tonight outlines his cut-federal- programs-to-get-a-tax-cut plan to Congress and the nation. Democrats will then deliver their televised response, which basically says Mr. Bush's ideas are risky business, endangering among other things, Social Security and Medicare."

CBS news is just as bad in the morning. Here's Bryant Gumbel to CBS legal analyst Jonathan Turley on Bush vs. Gore, Dec. 13, 2000 on "The Early Show":

"And we can't let Justice Thomas pass on this. There's no opinion of his in here, he doesn't ask questions in court. Does he do anything besides vote and rubber stamp Scalia?"

This far-left bashing of normal American political thought is not just on television, though. The print media reeks with it. Below are examples from a couple publications that are very far left of center.

Steven Jukes, the global head of news for "Reuters News Service," wrote an internal memo cited by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz in a Sept. 24 article that was interesting:

"We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist. ... To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack."

Newsweek's Jonathan Alter represented his publication's position on the communist leader Mikhail Gorbachev, April 27, on "Imus in the Morning."

"He's only the most important political leader alive in the world today, historically speaking. ... If you look over the course of our lifetimes, who was the most, well, you go back to Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. ... If I look back over my lifetime, who is the world leader who changed things the most, and I don't actually think it is a close call."

And, while we're considering really stupid statements, Newsweek's resident idiot, Eleanor Clift, screeched to Tony Blankley on "The McLaughlin Group," March 24:

"Arsenic in the water. Starting up the Cold War. Make as much carbon dioxide as you like. Laugh about it. Bush has set himself up as a huge target. And the arsenic is going to be the equivalent of what your boss [Newt Gingrich] did with cutting school lunches."

She's not the only one at Newsweek with very strange logic, though. Here's their assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas on "Inside Washington," December 23, 2000:

"Well, you know, Attorney General is actually an important job. Why can't they buy off the right wing with unimportant jobs? I mean, this is a sop, I assume, to buy off the wing nuts, but it's like giving, I mean, the Attorney General counts, it matters."

One great moment in political comedy happened on the Nov. 15 "O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News. That was when Geraldo Rivera made a groveling attempt at defending his eight years of far-left sophistry:

"It was a huge national distraction, going after a guy who lied about getting oral sex from a woman he wasn't married to, and I think I know a million guys who get oral sex from a woman they weren't married to. ... All of us have a shared guilt right now, and the shared guilt is for the last ten years we have been horribly distracted. I would bet you that I can find you 4,000, 5,000 FBI agents who wish to God they weren't assigned to Whitewater, Monicagate, Bill Clinton -- that instead they were on the trail of Osama bin Laden and the people who were plotting mass murder against us."

As soon as these jerks dig themselves down into a deep enough hole, a few million Americans are going to want to start pushing the dirt back in on top of them. It's nearly time.

1. http://www.mediaresearch.org

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 2001 by Forest Glen Durland, subject to Fiedor's rights.

fron256.htm. Revised 12-22-01. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.