Back in the early 1970s, the hippie culture chanted "down with the establishment." Today, they are the adults -- teachers, reporters, lawyers, judges, legislators, and they make up the membership of dozens of foundations and non-government organizations -- affecting the establishment. And still, each group, in its own way, seems to be working to dismantle our American establishment.

As far as the average American citizen is concerned, our judicial system has become lethargic, cumbersome and ineffective at protecting our rights. Often, the judicial system appears little more then the playground for corrupt lawyers and their partners, the judges.

One case in point was the fiasco of the tobacco lawsuits. The attorneys involved became instant multimillionaires. Judges completely trashed the rights of American corporations and consumers. Unscrupulous tax and spend legislators allowed the foolishness to go forward because it gave them permission to levy yet another heavy tax. Everyone won. Except the average American consumer, that is. Consumers got the bill in the form of yet another hidden tax.

Of course, we are supposed to forget those billions of dollars changing hands at our expense. The published excuse was that the nanny state was protecting the public health. Never mind that everyone involved, except the consumer, had a vested interest.

As we warned back then, that foolishness was just a test case by those unscrupulous lawyers. The corrupters of the courts wanted to see if unprincipled judges would allow the frivolous cases, and they did. Well, the sharks still smell blood -- easy money. So, here come the fat police. Their first scam worked. Now they plan to go after many successful major American corporations under the guise of public health. Even the liberal concerns, like Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, are targets.

They're getting plenty of help, too. In between crying about global hunger, the World Health Organization declares obesity a global epidemic. Reports state that, in the United States, 61 percent of adults aged 20 to 74 are considered overweight or obese. About a quarter of American youth are overweight or obese.

Obesity is determined by body mass index (BMI). That calculation takes into account a person's height, weight and age. According to the U.S. Surgeon General's guidelines for adults 20 years or older, a six-foot tall adult 20 years or older with a weight of 140 to 180 lbs. would be considered healthy, 190 to 210 pounds overweight and 200 pounds or more obese.

The lawsuits have already started. A lawsuit was filed in the New York Supreme Court on behalf of a New York City man who says he has been eating fast food since the 1950s. He has sued the country's four leading fast-food chains, blaming their food's fatty content for his health problems.

The 5-foot-10-inch, 272-pound maintenance worker said he had heart attacks in 1996 and 1999 and has diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. The suit asserts that it was the fast food chains that made him and others overweight. "They said '100 percent beef.' I thought that meant it was good for you," the plaintiff told reporters. "I thought the food was OK. Those people in the advertisements don't really tell you what's in the food. It's all fat, fat and more fat. Now I'm obese."

"There is direct deception when someone omits telling people food digested is detrimental to their health," his attorney said.

Three teenagers in New York City, aged between 13 and 19, have also filed a class-action lawsuit against McDonald's Corp., saying their fast food caused them to gain as much as 200 pounds and develop serious health problems, including heart disease and diabetes. The lawsuit seeks undetermined compensatory damages.

It appears that lawyers went hunting for these clients. The teenagers' parents are reported to be either unemployed or on disability. One question that cries to be asked is, if these parents do not have much money, how could these kids afford to eat so much at the fast food joints? Also, who fed the parents?

In another test suit, McDonald's and Burger King are being sued by a group that claims the fast food corporations have exposed customers to a cancer-causing substance in their french fries since 1990. This West Coast food police group asserts that the burger corporations' fries contain acrylamide, which they say is listed by California as a known carcinogen. The lawsuit argues that McDonald's and Burger King have sold millions of orders of fries, each containing "100 times more acrylamide than the maximum level permitted by the World Health Organization for drinking water."

Negligence can be described as the failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party. Is it negligent of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream to not tell customers that, although their product is a food, it is not to be used as their complete diet? If not, then why should that be a requirement of any of the fast food chains?

With self determination comes responsibility for what you put in your mouth. If we allow these lawsuits to proceed, that is a direct signal that we Americans are willing to let government make most of our personal decisions for us. And, as with cigarettes, we can also expect huge taxes to be levied on anything bureaucrats wish to label potentially harmful.

If we are going to allow lawsuits "for the children," we should sue government schools. Not only do schools serve junk food to the children, most schools cut out recesses and even gym classes. Instead of letting kids burn off excess energy the natural way, the trend is to drug them into behaving. Clearly, that is detrimental to health.

Bringing this a little closer to home: As one who imbibed in a poor meat and potatoes and high refined carbohydrate diet -- made worse by the consumption of an excessive amount of adult beverages -- for way too long, I can attest firsthand to the resultant health difficulties. So, who do I blame? Was it those who sold me the foodstuffs for the poor diet or the producers of beer, vodka and bourbon?

Unlike those who call for the nanny state, I know damn well who is to blame: the one staring back at me in the mirror every morning. No person ever force-fed me anything. Nor has any person or concern ever tricked me into eating or drinking anything that was bad for me. I, as an adult, did it all myself. The problem, therefore, is mine to correct.

So, it is interesting that I could now add my name to a class action lawsuit and get paid for my own personal abuse. Appalling, actually! Excuse me if I fail to believe that is how our law is supposed to work.

It is time voters instruct their representatives in government to insure these legal actions do not go forward. The lawsuits are an insult to the liberty of a free people.

We have plenty of socialists in politics. That's evident. So, it stands to reason that some in politics would also want socialist style (public financed) political campaigns. An interesting point is that, whereas the Democrats are the primary proponents of socialism in the U.S., it seems to be conservatives who are the driving force behind publicly financed political campaigns.

The argument is that offering public funds to help people run for public office takes private money out of politics. That would, of course, be self-evident. The problem is, there are also a couple very important unintended consequences most people do not realize. So, perhaps we should look into this a little.

According to Public Campaign(1): The Citizens Clean Elections Act, passed by Arizona voters in 1998, provides full public funding of campaigns to candidates who are willing to abide by campaign spending limits and forgo the use of private money in their campaigns. In 2000, 16 Arizonans were elected to office using Clean Elections funds. Participation in Clean Elections has since grown to more than 100 candidates this year, including more than 80% of candidates for statewide office and nearly 50% of legislative candidates.

"One dirty little secret of American politics is that most politicians are as dismayed by the private money chase as is the average voter," said Nick Nyhart, executive director of Public Campaign. "Given the option of a clean alternative that frees them from constantly dialing for dollars, and puts them on a level-playing field with their opponents, hundreds of candidates in Arizona, Maine and Massachusetts from across the political spectrum are showing that there's a better way."

In a May 14 press release, Public Campaign reports: "With filing deadlines closing for office-seekers in Arizona, Maine and Massachusetts, a bumper crop of serious contenders are lining up to run 'clean' for statewide office in 2002, showing deepening support for these states' far-reaching systems of full public financing for candidates who agree to raise little private money and abide by strict spending limits."(2)

In Arizona, 29 out of the 34 declared candidates for statewide office are participating in Clean Elections, including 7 out of 8 major candidates for governor. Janet Napolitano, the current Attorney General and leading Democratic gubernatorial candidate, has already handed in more than 6,000 qualifying contributions of $5 and received her first grant of $409,950 in public funding. So far, 44% of the candidates for state legislative office have announced their participation, up from 27% in 2000.

So, what happened? Just for Governor of Arizona this year, there are ten candidates, seven of whom are running with public funds. Many are unknown and stand zero chance of getting elected to anything of importance. And, here's our first point: How many of these candidates would be running for office if they had to organize a team and scrounge for political contributions on their own?

Generally speaking, voters evaluate candidates on three major points early on in the campaign. First, we look at the would be candidate's opinion: where they stand on the issues that most concern us. Second, we look at the heart and believability of the candidate: if they have the tenacity to follow through on what they say and are truthful. And third, we look for organization: if they can run a successful campaign and actually get something worthwhile accomplished if they do get in office -- and have a willingness to protect our rights while in office.

All three points require that the proposed candidate is able to instill trust and confidence in the district's voters. We can identify dozens of people with at least one great idea, but an action track record of zero. We can also identify many others who are very good motivational speakers, yet haven't a clue about political issues and would take a schizoid approach to the larger problems concerning politicians everyday. Obviously, these would not be acceptable candidates. Yet, under the public financing scheme, they could get their political campaigns financed with public funds, if they chose to run for office.

The initial part of the campaign, when a proposed candidate first seeks the help of a few close friends and neighbors to get a race started, is what usually separates the wheat from the chaff. Step two requires the proposed candidate convince a few core Party members to help out by convincing others and starting to raise some money. This is where we see if the proposed candidate has any organization skills and ideas that will interest voters.

In Arizona, candidates must prove they're viable by gathering hundreds of individual $5 contributions. Then they get fixed amounts of public cash for the campaign and can't raise any more private money. Unless, that is, they're outspent by privately funded candidates. In that case, the state will contribute more -- up to $1.2 million in the Arizona gubernatorial primaries, and $1.8 million in the general election.

Gathering the $5 contributions is easy. It's called "sponsoring a spoiler" against the competition. So, if I were running a campaign for a Republican candidate, under that system I would be more than happy to insure that the Green candidate stays in the race to draw votes away from the Democratic Party's candidate. Ah yes indeed, I would be more than happy to help make that happen!

The point is, public funding of political campaigns allows any disorganized nitwit to run for office. And, as pointed out above, many will stumble onto the ballot for less than completely honorable reasons -- as spoilers and/or disrupters.

So, while I firmly agree that the campaign finance rules need to be changed, I cannot agree with public funding. We already have enough idiots in public office. There is no reason to make it easier for even more to have an opportunity to get elected. At the very least, candidates must display very good organization skills. The public financing scheme eliminates that need from the equation.

Besides, it is improper to ask taxpayers to finance the political campaigns of candidates with whom they may be diametrically opposed.

Probably the only way to clean up the campaign financing mess is to restrict campaign contributions to registered voters of the candidate's district. Any other method just opens new doors to more interesting types of political mischief.

1. http://www.publicampaign.org/

2. http://www.publicampaign.org/press_releases/pr5_14_02.html

In the midst of the midterm elections, no one is saying it yet, so I may as well be the first: The race for the White House is already heating up. Political watchers are spotting a trend.

The Democratic Party is quietly showcasing their frontrunners. And, like useful idiots, the media is helping. We should note, however, that this time, one reason the media is helping the Democrats is because they think Bush is boring. The glitzy set in Washington need invitations to formal White House functions, with all the resultant pomp and circumstance, to show themselves off. Else, they cannot justify their importance in the nation's capital. Bush is not providing these outings. Therefore, they are getting ready to unload on him.

But, back to the topic:

Certainly, the major disrupters in Congress, like Daschle and Gephardt, want a shot at the presidency. But, they know they have been relegated to but second fiddles nowadays. Al Gore wants a third shot, too, and may be allowed to at least be a starter in the race. But, in truth, the leadership of the Party of the Ass already have a very good idea which names will be on the presidential ticket for the 2004 general election. It's almost a done deal.

The Democratic Party is primarily a "pay to play" organization. That is, either a candidate has to buy the necessary political support or, in Bill Clinton's case, promise big pay-offs after getting in office. So, when we look to see who on the left has access to the most money locked up, things keep pointing back to the Clintons. Usually, anyway.

Today, we see that the obnoxious mouth of the left -- the new Sidney Blumenthal, James Carville, Lanny Davis and Paul Begala all rolled up into one insufferable persona -- is none other than a wholly owned subsidiary of the Clintons: Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe. The Clintons put McAuliffe in that position and Bill and Hillary control him just like Edgar Bergen controlled Charlie McCarthy.

Remember those recent Congressional investigations on corporate fraud? They missed the part about people like Terry McAuliffe pocketing a reported $18 million profit from a $100,000 investment -- and millions more trading Global Crossing options -- for good reason: The corporations now charged with cooperate fraud dropped big bucks into the coffers of some very influential political action committee accounts.

Among the very important benefactors were organizations founded and controlled by the Democrat Senator from Connecticut, Joseph J. Lieberman. Yeah, holy Joe, the (when convenient) Orthodox Jew, has dirty hands. We prefer to call him chameleon Joe. Remember how quickly he changed his professed political (and sometimes religious) convictions during the last campaign? A truly honorable and/or religious man would not participate in a campaign based on lies, deception, hate, and personal attacks. But Joe Lieberman did. Even on Jewish holy days.

Scratch the surface of the Democratic Party leadership and there are the same five who have been there for years: The Clintons and McAuliffe, of course. But Clinton friends Joe Lieberman and Al From pop up as prominently as red welts on a freshly caned buttock. And these five just happen to be the major proponents of "Third Way" socialism in the United States, just like their European political partners.

It starts with Lieberman's Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)(1). The DLC was founded in 1985. The past chairs include President Bill Clinton, former Rep. Dave McCurdy of Oklahoma, Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana, former Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia, Sen. Charles Robb of Virginia and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri. Then back to Joe Lieberman, with Al From as the ever-present Chief Executive Officer.

The DLC "think tank" is the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)(2), which describes itself as a "Third Way" organization: "The Progressive Policy Institute is a catalyst for political change. Its mission is to modernize progressive politics and government for the Information Age. Leaving behind the stale left-right debates of the industrial era, PPI is a prolific source of 'Third Way' thinking that is shaping the emerging politics of the 21st century."

An offshoot of the DLC and PPI is The New Democrat Network(NDN)(3). The NDN was founded in 1996 by Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the DLC. The NDN "acts as a political venture capital fund to create a new generation of elected officials eager to lead the U.S. and the world into the 21st century and the Internet Age. NDN is committed to electing political leaders who are capable of realizing the great promise of the new century while ensuring that no one is left behind."

NDN has about 65 members in the House and 16 in the senate. Generally speaking, the function of the NDN is to act as the DLC's political action committee and launder soft money to favored Congressional campaign committees.

The junior Senator from New York also runs one of the richest political action committees on Capitol Hill. Like Lieberman's groups, Hillary's PAC collects money from corporations, unions and limousine liberals wanting favors in Washington and doles out the funds to the political campaigns of politicians who can later do her favors. Currently, she is buying candidates for governor and a few well placed members of Congress.

Already, at the July Democratic Leadership Conference, Hillary went into serious campaign mode criticism of President George Bush on issues including civil liberties, the economy and the budget process. Also, as many observers have quietly noticed, she appears to have abandoned Bill and teamed up with Lieberman.

So, there we have our two candidates for the Democratic Party presidential slate in 2004. The media are continually shining a favorable light on both of them. Both have been given the nod recently to give the "Democratic response" to the President's Saturday radio message and both, although practicing socialists, are already trying to be depicted by the media as "centrists."

What is yet to be determined is which one will lead the ticket. We know where we would place our bet. But, at this moment, there is no proof. So, that will have to wait.

Watch how the liberal corporate media depicts these two in the coming weeks. They are being cleaned up for the race. Then, remember who supported socialized medicine for the United States and secretively drafted a dozen enacting laws and a few hundred obnoxious regulations -- complete with an all-purpose national identification card. They were both deeply involved.

Two candidates for president; both mainline socialists. That's the Democratic Party way.

1. http://www.ndol.org

2. http://www.ppionline.org/index.cfm

3. http://www.newdem.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.

fron.htm. Revised 9-14-02. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.