It is a federal felony to crash a train. Even if it's your train, it is still illegal. It is also against the law to fraudulently use the emblems of the Red Cross, which makes the use of those Army medical helicopters by federal agents at the invasion of Andrews, NC illegal. Importing honeybee semen and transporting water hyacinths is also a violation of federal law. Many senior citizens unknowingly commit federal felonies every single day. Most drugstores sell those little pill boxes senior citizens use to remind them to take medication on time and to transport the medication they will need when they leave home for a while. However, federal law makes it a felony to store or transport prescription medication in anything but the container provided by the pharmacist. And, under today's oppressive laws, police can actually use forfeiture laws to take the car, money or anything else of value, of anyone they catch transporting drugs in unmarked or improperly marked containers. Today, without permission from the Army (Corps of Engineers), it is against federal law to fill in some swampland in your backyard to make more room for your kids to play. It's also illegal to place a newspaper in a mailbox, no matter how huge your mailbox may be. And, it's a violation of federal law to sell a toilet that uses enough water to actually flush properly.

A decade and a half ago, the Justice Department estimated there were some 3,000 federal crimes on the lawbooks. Today, no one seems to know for sure. What we do remember, though, was that during the Senate conformation hearing for Janet Reno, both Reno and Senator Joe Biden (D-Del) agreed that ignorance of the law is no excuse in the United States.

Now comes a new report from an American Bar Association panel headed by former Attorney General Edwin Meese in which he admitted the committee could not determine just how many federal criminal laws there are. They did report, however, that more than 40 percent of all federal criminal laws enacted since the Civil War were passed since 1970.

"There is an understandable pressure on Congress not to vote against crime legislation even if it is misguided, unnecessary and harmful," the report's executive summary states. "But there must be a recognition that a refusal to endorse a new federal crime is not a sign that a legislator is soft on crime. … Highly publicized criminal incidents are frequently accompanied by proposals for congressional responses for no reason other than that the conduct is serious, even if the activity is already handled by state law. "

The report also shows that: "The expanding coverage of federal criminal law, much of it enacted in the absence of a demonstrated and distinctive federal justification, is moving the nation rapidly toward two broadly overlapping, parallel and essentially redundant sets of criminal prohibitions ... Such a system has little to commend it and much to condemn it." And the bottom line is that: "There is no persuasive evidence that federalization of local crime makes the streets safer for American citizens." All the federal legislation does is give federal police a foot in the door where they should not have one and makes Congress Critters feel like they are "tough on crime." The problem is, they are also violating the Constitution. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist also criticized Congress over excessive laws, albeit for slightly different reasons. In his annual year-end report on the federal judiciary, Rehnquist blamed the trend on pressure in Congress to "appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime." Rehnquist said that this pressure must be balanced against consideration of whether states are adequately handling such cases and "whether we want most of our legal relationships decided at the national rather than local level."

Rehnquist also said that the trend of federalizing crimes has contributed to a double-digit increase in the number of criminal cases in federal courts, which "threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system."

"Federal courts were not created to adjudicate local crimes, no matter how sensational or heinous the crimes may be," Rehnquist reported. "Matters that can be handled adequately by the states should be left to them." Another point Rehnquist made was that the number of federal criminal case filings rose by 15 percent, to 57,691 cases, in 1998. "Not since 1972 have the criminal filings risen by double digits," Rehnquist said. Unfortunately, those figures do not include the many thousands of actions taken by the federal regulatory bureaucracy or all the private property stolen by federal officials through forfeiture.

The wave of the "Third Way" is taking over. Watch for federal control in all areas to ramp up considerably this year.

Generally speaking, money drives Washington politics and lobbyists provide money. That goes for the executive branch and regulatory agencies, as well as Congress.

Oh . . . what do regulatory agency bureaucrats do with the money lobbyists give them to regulate "properly"? Who knows. That constitutes an illegal bribe, so no one is saying. However, here's a hint: many bureaucrats have quit government service for $200,000 a year lobbying jobs. And, their family members often land very good positions.

Very few in Congress read the bills before them. Some of the pressure to vote for or against a specific bill often comes from constituent contacts. But, more importantly, there are 14,484 registered lobbyists on Capitol Hill. That is, registered lobbyists on Capitol Hill outnumber Members of Congress 27 to 1. Worse yet, these lobbyists have a total of over a $1.2-billion (a total of over $2-million per Congressional office) a year to spread around on Capitol Hill.

Anyone following the news these past couple years would know that there are also a number of unregistered lobbyists running around Washington with big bucks to use for influence. These include representatives of foreign governments and international business concerns. So, with all this lobby money available to buy votes, it's sometimes interesting how little it takes to entice a Member of Congress to vote in direct violation of their oath of office and against the type of government intended by the Founding Fathers. That is, it doesn't take much to get some of these Congress Critters to sell out the rights of the American people.

For example, the Center for Responsive

Politics recently posted new data from the Federal Election Commission. One of the tables posted especially caught our eye. This one concerned campaign contributions by the shamelessly anti-Constitution gun control groups. The top 10 Senate recipients and the amount of the contributions are:

Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) $8,864; Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill) $7,033; Charles S. Robb (D-VA) $5,700; Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) $5,000; Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $4,892; Barbara Boxer (D-CA) $4,722; Robert G. Torricelli (D-NJ) $4,346; Carl Levin (D-MI) $4,200; Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $4,147; John H. Chafee (R-RI) $3,500. The top 10 House recipients and the amount of Contributions are :

Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) $11,000; Lois Capps (D-CA) $5,000; Jim Maloney (D-Conn) $4,500; Jay Inslee (D-WA) $4,000; David E Price (D-NC) $4,000; Lane Evans (D-Ill) $4,000; Marge Roukema (R-NJ) $3,500; Jim McGovern (D-MA) $3,408; Joseph M. Hoeffel (D-PA) $3,335; Eva Clayton (D-NC) $3,000; Rush D. Holt (D-NJ) $2,920; Dennis Moore (D-Kan) $2,918.

Wander over to http://www.crp.org to view the disturbing extent of campaign contributions broken down by category.

Campaign contributions are said to be free speech. Well folks, we think politicians should get their "free speech" only from constituents registered to vote within their respective districts. That is the only thing that will force Members of Congress to pay more attention to the people back home than the deep pockets in Washington.

An American Bar Association poll found that only 18 percent of Americans expressed strong confidence in the U.S. Congress, and only 14 percent expressed strong confidence in lawyers. The media, however, fared the worst, with strong confidence expressed by only 8 percent of the respondents.

Then, when asked to identify the branches of government, only 39 percent could identify all three branches without a hint and 25 percent of respondents could not even identify one branch.

Yet, each and every one of these people get to vote if they wish. Lucky for our country, most of them do not.

In fact, in the last election, only 36 percent of registered voters bothered to vote. Voter turnout in the U.S. ranks down at 139 out of 163 countries. This means that some candidates are elected to office by just slightly more than 18 percent of their constituents. Clinton, for instance, was elected by less that 25% of the registered voters.

Part of this problem is due to a systematic dumbing down of our children by the controllers of government schools. But a good part of it is due directly to the constant barrage of far-left attitudes expressed in the media -- attitudes most American people subconsciously know to be wrong, and even un-American. CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg explained part of the problem in a Wall Street Journal Op Ed piece a couple years ago:

"There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I'm more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don't trust us. And for good reason.

"The old argument that the networks and other media elites have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we're going to slant the news. We don't have to. It comes naturally to most reporters."

Goldberg was certainly correct, too. For instance, in a book review for Salon, Time columnist Barbara Ehrenreich writes:

The Communist Manifesto is well worth the $12 that Verso is asking. Despite the hype, its message is a timeless one that bears repeating every century or so: The meek shall triumph and the mighty shall fall; the hungry and exhausted will get restless and someday -- someday! -- rise up against their oppressors. The prophet Isaiah said something like this, and so, a little more recently, did Jesus.

 

Or, consider ABC News anchor Peter Jennings passing on the misinformation of Jane Fonda's charge that children are "starving to death" in Georgia. This was on last year's April 23 CBS Late Late Show with Tom Snyder:

I was thinking about what Jane Fonda said the other night about North Georgia and how she thought North Georgia was not unlike parts of the developing world and some politicians in Georgia jumped all over her. ... And the truth of the matter is there are parts of America which are just as bad as some of the worst parts in the rest of the world and that's desperately sad.

 

Or, the very liberal CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather on CNN's Larry King Live:

I would not be astonished to see Hillary Clinton be the Democratic nominee in 2000. ... Hillary Clinton, as far as I'm concerned, she's the Person of the Year, if Time magazine doesn't put her on the cover, they may put Mike, Mark McGwire, or Alan Greenspan, or somebody, but Hillary Clinton is the Person of the Year in that, you talk about a comeback kid -- she makes her husband look like Ned in knee pants in terms of comeback from where she was early in the Clinton administration. You know, you add it all up, and you can make a case that Hillary Clinton might, might -- mark the word -- be the strongest candidate for the Democrats.

Or, check out how Diane Sawyer expertly trashes Ken Starr on 20/20:

Announcer: "Did Kenneth Starr go too far?" Diane Sawyer to Starr: "I think there were 62 mentions of the word 'breast,' 23 of 'cigar,' 19 of 'semen.' This has been called demented pornography, pornography for Puritans. Were there mistakes made in including some of this?"

Announcer: "The tables are turned. Now it's the prosecutor's turn to be grilled, when 20/20 Wednesday continues after this from our ABC stations."

. . .

Sawyer: "Which brings us to Linda Tripp, the woman people love to hate, and the accusation that Ken Starr was not what he had seemed. Are you part of a right- wing conspiracy?"

Starr: "No. I don't know that there is one." Sawyer: "His key witness, Linda Tripp, is now a recognized soldier in the army of Clinton haters -- among them Tripp's friend and svengali, Lucianne Goldberg. Among them, the lawyers for Paula Jones. Before he became independent counsel, Starr gave them advice. And among them, millionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, who hired people to dig up dirt on Bill Clinton and funded a chair at Pepperdine University for Ken Starr. ..." Then, there's that famous (or infamous) quote by Time Magazine reporter Nina Burleigh recalling what she told the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz about her feeling toward Bill Clinton:

"I would be happy to give him [Clinton] a blow job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs."

And we remember Time's perennial Clinton defender Margaret Carlson's mouthing off on NBC's Today:

Who has ever been punished more for adultery in this country? I mean, you have to go to Saudi Arabia to see people shamed the way the President was. And I think it was nobody's business.

 

Media roustabout Bryant Gumbel again displayed his far-left bias and lack of understanding on Public Eye:

And Kathleen Willey also spoke about Linda Tripp, a Clinton-basher who seems to be at every ugly turn in this controversy. Tripp was outside the Oval Office when Willey emerged from her encounter with the President. … Just how is it that Linda Tripp is so often conveniently involved in the President's troubles? For some clues let's bring in The New Yorker's Jane Mayer, who has profiled the controversial Miss Tripp in this week's issue. You write that co-workers often viewed her as an inveterate busybody. Has she always been a snoop and a gossip with a particular interest in other people's romantic lives?

 

And so it goes with the far-left national media corps. From socialist to communist, they've got it all covered. What we never, ever hear is a favorable response concerning our Constitution. Instead, they label anyone supporting and defending our Constitution as a right wing wacko.

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

Most of the above quotes were ripped off from the Media Research Center's very enlightening list of "The Best Notable Quotables of 1998" http://www.mrc.org

Also see: Accuracy in Media http://www.aim.org

Here's a list of federal felonies you're all going to love. And these felonies have hardly anything to do with the White House, either. "Hardly," of course, is but a relative Clintonesque weasel-word in that last sentence. . . .

In this case, we have misappropriation and misapplication of public funds, misconduct in office and misfeasance. There is also an ongoing conspiracy of long duration to carry out the above. And, just to add a little flavor to the story, most of the conspirators, and the majority of both Houses of Congress admit this is true. Among the conspirators are the past and present Secretary of State, certain members of the Army and Air Force, certain employees of the EPA, and a number of management-level employees in at least twelve other federal agencies. Many members of government don't seem to see the "crime" here. Or, at least publicly they won't admit they do. So let's define our terms enough to show them that there is clear-cut wrongdoing deserving of prosecution. Our Barron's Law Dictionary defines misappropriation and misapplication as: "The use of funds or property for a purpose other than that for which they are intended or legally required to be used. Misapplication and misappropriation particularly apply to acts of fiduciary [one in a position of trust], including public servants as well as private trustees. The term can include the misapplication of funds intended for another purposes, e.g., the misapplication of public money." Misconduct in Office is defined as: "Corrupt misbehavior by an officer in the exercise of the duties of the office or while acting under color of the office; includes any act or omission in breach of a duty of public concern by one who has accepted public office." Misfeasance is "the doing of a proper act in a wrongful or injurious manner; the improper performance of an act which might have been lawfully done." With that taken care of, now we can get to the particulars.

Back in the Carter Administration there was an international agreement which many countries signed onto. The United States agreed, in part. And, as always, the American taxpayer got stuck paying big bucks for something that had zero benefit for the American public. The key word there was "agreement." It was not an international treaty. President Carter agreed to participate only in part, and implemented that part of the agreement through an executive memoranda. The administration then secured minimal program funding from Congress.

A committee was formed, made up of members of various federal agencies, including the State Department, the Army, and the Air Force. But, Carter lost the election. Reagan became President. And this agreement was costing us big bucks. So, out it went. Funding was stopped, and the program was over.

Well, on the books -- as far as Congress and the White House knew -- the funding was stopped, anyway. In reality, little changed.

The story gets a bit foggy during the last two years of the Reagan Administration and throughout the Bush Administration. But, based on the actions of the committee running the program -- as you will see shortly -- it's obvious that they did not lack for funding. The State Department kicked in a million dollars a year or so to keep the project going. The Army and Air Force contributed big bucks most years. So did at least thirteen federal agencies involved in the project. The committee proceeded on for fifteen continuous years that way.

Every year, Congress designated funds for specific needs of these federal agencies and departments, and every year, for fifteen years, bureaucrats from these different federal agencies and departments diverted a part of their funding to support a project that was legally canceled. Nothing ever showed up on the federal budget, but every year the U.S. National Committee for the Man and the Biosphere Program was well funded with misappropriated and misapplied taxpayer dollars. Members of the military have a shortage of fuel and ammunition with which to train. But still, the Army and the Air Force found money to help fund an illegal program. Some of the ambassador's residencies around the world are in such disrepair that the roofs leak and the plumbing will not work. Yet the State Department poured millions of taxpayer dollars into a project that was legally canceled. EPA, BLA, and at least ten other agencies misappropriated money. And it ends up totaling a lot of money.

Now comes the Man and the Biosphere Committee itself, and even different offenses. Because, this was the group -- most of whom work for federal agencies and know better -- that intentionally received the misapplied and misappropriated money fifteen years in a row. They knew they had no authorization to exist. They knew the funds they received were legally designated for other programs. Yet, they participated in this illegal program anyway. On April 24, 1997, Rep. Coburn offered an amendment to the National Science Foundation budget stating that: "No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act shall be used for the United States Man and Biosphere Program, or related projects." Coburn spelled out the law for the House:

"It is important that the people recognize that the Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage sites are under the guidance of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization also known as UNESCO. The United States withdrew from that Organization in 1984 because of gross financial mismanagement.

"Over 68 percent of our national parks, preserves, and monuments have been designated as United Nations World Heritage sites, Biosphere Reserves or both. There are currently 47 of those sites [94 actually] in the United States, covering an area the size of Colorado. Under the relative agreements, the United States is promising to manage lands in accordance with international guidelines. Many times local governments, [and] private property [owners] are never consulted in these management plans. This is a clear violation of private property rights. The biosphere programs, including the United States Man and Biosphere Program, have never been authorized by any Congress, never been authorized, but still received [funds] this past year and this year will receive over $700,000 of taxpayers' money. "The National Science Foundation distributed more than $400,000 in grants to this unauthorized program despite the fact that the program has never had a consideration or vote in Congress and has never been approved by a body of the Congress."

That amendment easily passed, as did a number of subsequent amendments to various budget bills defunding the biosphere project. Yet, the biosphere reserves are still with us and third-world foreigners from UNESCO are still wandering our nation with the intent of directing our land usage.

Still today, the U.S. and UNESCO Man and Biosphere Program (MAB) seems to be chugging along like the Little Engine that Could. No matter what, it will not quit. Of course, a lot of that has to do with the large salaries paid to the bureaucrats running the program -- you can't expect them to close up shop and go home until they are forced to do so.

Legally, the Man and the Biosphere program does not exist. Yet, an American citizen can still get arrested for entering one of their many restricted zones. Congress never funded the program, and even stated in a number of bills that no money may be spent on it. Yet, the program is still in full operation.

What do we do about the bureaucrats who misappropriated all that money and bothered thousands of American families with their totally unauthorized project? Quite obviously, prosecution is warranted.

Our responsibility, then, is to demand it.

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

For more information, go to:

http://www.mabnet.org/home2.html

http://www.unesco.org:80/whc/heritage.htm

NOTE: Joe Burton -- aka joe 6pk -- is just back from yet another investigation of the situation at Andrews, NC. Read Joe's initial report at:

http://www.uhuh.com/control/6pakand.htm

  ** 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 2-27-99. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.