Yeah, you read the title right: License Speech! Read on and see if you don't find some agreement in such a foolish statement.

First, pick a right. Any right.

OK, let's start with the current craven Congressional scheme: Abolishment of our Constitutionally protected Second Amendment right. The miscreants in the Senate -- those less than honorable scoundrels who spout off at the mouth about "law" at the drop of a hat but showed us that they have absolutely no idea what a "trial" is supposed to encompass -- have proven to the country that they cannot even understand the words "shall not." As in, ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As anyone watching the nightly news or reading a newspaper knows, that dishonorable, impeached liar of a president wants a series of new gun laws. So, he called his obedient sycophants in Congress, some wealthy lobby groups and his court jesters in the national media and caused pressure to be put on reticent Republicans.

Bribe and coerce. Coerce and bribe. Such are the ways of today's Washington politics. Such is the shame, the dishonor, of today's Washington.

The very liberal national media, not knowing their posterior orifice from the hollow end of a spent cartage shell or pistol barrel, went out and found every anti-personal-arms socialist suck-up they could get before a camera. Then, they started looking for tearjerker stories to run. Meanwhile, the lobbyists wanting favors from the administration put pressure (read bribe money here) on Congress. A couple days of all that and 80% of the "anything for money" (and to get elected again) craven Congress are ready to conform.

Bribe and coerce. Coerce and bribe. Whatever happened to honest journalism? Where are the patriot legislators? It seems that the whole of the Washington press corps are at the beck and call of the Clinton Administration and willing to coerce Congress. Automatically, every one of them produced perfectly, marched in lock-step, and purveyed the propaganda (except the Washington Times, that is). That nearly everything they related to the American public was little more than a statistical lie and contrived propaganda is a self-evident truth needing no comment. The fact that there was a well orchestrated political campaign against a Constitutional right borders on criminal.

So, yes; politicians should be licensed. Political commentary should also be licensed. No person should be allowed to run for office, or speak or write publicly on political issues, without passing an annual test of at least 500 questions on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Furthermore, other questions should be asked concerning pertinent opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court, especially recent opinions.

A minimum of 75% correct would be required for a political license. Any politician (or bureaucrat) not passing would automatically lose their seat. Any media person not passing must be relegated to reporting sports, funerals or garden parties.

After all, we test proficiency by licensing physicians and surgeons, plumbers and truck drivers, lawyers and CPAs, architects and civil engineers, police and private investigators, nurses and teachers. Shouldn't we also test the proficiency of those professionally driving public political opinion and passing laws that impact on our whole way of living and working in society?

All elected officials, bureaucrats and those so called "professional journalists" reporting their actions, must also be held to a professional standard and that standard is the ideals embraced by the Founding Fathers in this country's founding documents. Therefore, as professionals, they must know the subject perfectly. There can be no exceptions.

I mean, are we to allow any smooth talking ignoramus able to get elected or hired to public service to make law, even when they obviously know little or nothing of the intricacies of our way of government? "NO!" says I. Yet, that is exactly what we are doing.

The regulatory bureaucracy (and many in Congress) act as if they belong in the government of the Soviet Union rather than that of the United States. And, most of the national media know so little about how our government should be operated, they think all that is just peachy.

No more!

We need standards. License the miscreants.

Then, if they violate the Constitution, pull their license. If they cannot be trusted to follow our nation's prime directive, they should not be allowed to become paid participants in the public forum. That is, we must weed out those professional activists in the political arena who cannot conform to the Constitution.

And, last week, that would include 98% of the Senate and nearly all of the liberal national media.

I have been interviewed by popular political reporters when, in the middle of the interview, I realized that person knew absolutely nothing of the government intended by the Founding Fathers. I have heard Members of Congress insist that they vote "on the bottom line" of a bill, rather than its Constitutional implications. And I watched sniveling Senators like Lautenburg and Schumer speak on the floor of the Senate and lie with every statement. That flakes like these may lie unchallenged and with impunity on the Senate floor shows that many Senators must be either Constitutionally ignorant, factually challenged, or both.

Yet, the national media eat that stuff up. They also publicize it as truth. How, then, do we counter that? In fact, we should not have to; we should demand better. We deserve much better.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis stated, back in 1928 (Olmstead v. United States):

If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. ... Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of its own existence.

All political power is derived with the permission of the people. The law controlling government is the Constitution. Therefore, We the People are the enforcers of that law. And, no person working in government, or commenting on government, gets a vote (or comment) against our Constitution. To do so should mean instant dismissal.

It's time we rein in these recalcitrant political operatives. And the only easy way to do that is to treat them as they treat professional people in society. That is, to license them. Thereafter, when they violate the Constitution (malpractice) we can pull their license and be done with them.

The House passed another semi-secret budget bill last week to fund all the spook agencies. Nothing new there. However, a quick look through the bill offered a couple very interesting revelations (admissions?).

This bill is H.R.1555, the "Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000." The bill funds "the: (1) Central Intelligence Agency; (2) Department of Defense; (3) Defense Intelligence Agency; (4) National Security Agency; (5) Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; (6) Departments of State, the Treasury, and Energy; (7) Federal Bureau of Investigation; (8) National Reconnaissance Office; and (9) National Imagery and Mapping Agency."

Section 305 of the bill makes it a crime for anyone to identify any of the many "present or retired" spooks. Punishment for so doing was set at imprisonment of not less than five years and not more than ten years and a fine of not more than $50,000. Or, for a lesser offense of just talking about them, punishment shall be imprisonment of not less than 18 months and not more than three years and a fine of not more than $15,000.

This is a very, very interesting section for many reasons. It's a direct violation of the First Amendment, of course, and would never pass a test in court. But, it's also a method for government to control the news even more than it already does. That is, there are a few hundred well published journalists in the national media who are (were?) also CIA agents. And, of course, they help direct the flow of news in favor of the federal government's position. So, if this bill also passes the Senate, as written (the Senate bill is different), all of these agent/reporters get a free pass because no one will be allowed to identify them as being directly under the influence of big government.

There are also a few Members of Congress who are prior CIA and NSA officers. Perhaps that is why that provision was inserted in the House bill.

That said, Section 601 of the bill gets even more interesting. Sec. 601 is titled simply: " Prohibition on Drug Trafficking by Employees of the Intelligence Community."

That's right, Congress felt it had to pass a law to make the spook agencies stop funding secret projects by selling illegal drugs on the streets of the U.S. As reported here and other places, the federal spook agencies have smuggled in tons of heroin and cocaine over the years, much of which ended up on the streets of our inner-cities. Worse yet, not one of these public employees has been arrested for either drug running or money laundering. And, the national media covers it up for them because the spook agencies have so many people in key media positions.

The bill states that:

No element of the intelligence community, or any employee of such an element, may knowingly encourage or participate in drug trafficking activities.

Also:

Any employee of an element of the intelligence community having knowledge of facts or circumstances that reasonably indicate that any employee of such an element is involved with any drug trafficking activities, or other violations of United States drug laws, shall report such knowledge or facts to the appropriate official.

Report drug running to "an appropriate official"? Who may that be? "The term 'appropriate official' means the Attorney General, the Inspector General of the element of the intelligence community (if any), or the head of such element."

Note: The Attorney General knew the CIA operatives were smuggling tons of cocaine into the country for sale in our inner-cities and the AG gave them a free pass on it. In fact, the Justice Department even went so far as to get some of the perpetrators out of jail when they were caught by State and local police.

For more information on this bill, we refer the reader to the Thomas web site. <http://thomas.loc.gov>

One other interesting point, though: The bill demands stiff punishment for citizens who disclose the identity of even a retired spook. It calls for zero punishment, however, for federal agents, or their contract workers, who smuggle in tons of illegal drugs and launder the proceeds through our banks.

There are reams of pages of laws describing the mandatory punishment for citizens who smuggle, distribute, sell, or possess any amount of illegal drugs. Yet, I cannot seem to find corresponding punishment for federal officials. Typical.

In other words, it appears as if this law finally "cracks down" on the blatant drug smuggling by the spook agencies. But, in fact, it has more open holes than a block of Swiss Cheese. Spooksville gets another free pass.

That's because, in Washington, the term "national security" means security for federal bureaucrats. If they cared a hoot about the security of the American people, they would not have sold those tons of cocaine to kids in our inner-cities -- creating quite a few thousand crack-heads.

The U.S. Supreme Court shook up a few conservatives with a ruling on welfare. The case was "Saenz vs. Roe" (No. 98 - 97), and the Court's majority opinion was delivered by Justice Stevens.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-97.ZS.html

This is a very interesting case, when you disregard the welfare aspect of it. Below are just a few interesting quotations -- spiced up with a couple of comments.

This Court has consistently held that Congress may not authorize the States to violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, the protection afforded to a citizen by that Amendment's Citizenship Clause limits the powers of the National Government as well as the States. Congress' Article I powers to legislate are limited not only by the scope of the Framers' affirmative delegation, but also by the principle that the powers may not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution.

 

Good stuff! Early on, we find that the "Citizenship Clause limits the powers of the National Government as well as the States." How does it do that?

The Court tells us that Congress must obey the Constitution:

Congress' Article I powers to legislate are limited not only by the scope of the Framers' affirmative delegation, but also by the principle that the powers may not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution.

OK, here's one many readers are interested in: ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Here's another: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . ." There are a few other basic rights that fit here, but these will do for now.

Even "permissions" are protected under the Constitution. For instance, Article IV, Section 1 states that, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; . . ." Therefore, your marriage and drivers licenses apply in all States equally. All "licenses" should, actually, but most professional and concealed carry weapons licenses are not recognized -- which appears to be a direct violation of the Constitution.

Anyway, the court also ordered:

The word 'travel' is not found in the text of the Constitution. Yet the 'constitutional right to travel from one State to another' is firmly embedded in our jurisprudence. Indeed, as Justice Stewart reminded us in Shapiro v. Thompson, the right is so important that it is 'assertable against private interference as well as governmental action a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.'

Without pausing to identify the specific source of the right, we began by noting that the Court had long 'recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.'

We could, perhaps, ask the Court its feelings concerning traffic stops for no reason except to see if the traveler is properly using a seatbelt, or indiscriminately searching innocent patrons of public buildings and airports. These official indignities cannot be allowed under this (and other) Court opinions. So, why does Congress keep passing these clearly un-Constitutional laws?

If we believe the Court to be the interpreter of our Constitution, then we must also believe that the other two branches are in violation of our Constitution. To wit:

. . . we have consistently held that Congress may not authorize the States to violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, the protection afforded to the citizen by the Citizenship Clause of that Amendment is a limitation on the powers of the National Government as well as the States.

Well . . . there's the problem. The United States Supreme Court still thinks there is "a limitation on the powers of the National Government." That was the intent of the Founding Fathers, to be sure, but no one in the legislative or executive branches seem to know that anymore. Or care. If they did, most regulators would quickly be out of work.

Yet the Court continues:

Article I of the Constitution grants Congress broad power to legislate in certain areas. Those legislative powers are, however, limited not only by the scope of the Framers' affirmative delegation, but also by the principle 'that they may not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution. For example, Congress is granted broad power to 'lay and collect Taxes,' but the taxing power, broad as it is, may not be invoked in such a way as to violate the privilege against self-incrimination.' Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 29 (1968).

 

And, here we go again! This is good Constitutional theory, but has little to do with today's federal government: ". . . the taxing power, broad as it is, may not be invoked in such a way as to violate the privilege against self-incrimination." Wow, what a concept! This is truly good Fourth and Fifth Amendment stuff. Except, all that went out the window with the wishes of the IRS and the federal regulatory bureaucracy. FDR killed, eviscerated and buried our Constitution in the 1930s.

But folks, maybe all freedom is not completely lost in these United States. This opinion was published just last week. And it was a 7-2 decision. Really! Therefore, it is the brand-spanking-new law of the land that all must obey.

Except, no one in the federal government pays much attention to Supreme Court opinions anymore. If they don't like an opinion, they just do not honor it, and there is nothing in the world any of us can do to change that except elect some honorable people.

Because, this is not the government intended by the Founding Fathers. All we've had for the past 60 years is a sick, bastardized parody of that government the Constitution was intended to provide. If the Constitution were really the law of the land, we would be required to build a high wall around those in Washington, D.C. and declare the area a national prison.

As we have suggested before, sooner or later we were bound to get in a little legal trouble for the things we write. Every conservative group in the country has met the wrath of big government at some time or another these past few years. A long list of think tanks and publications were suddenly being hassled by that big, over-extended hand of the central government. Most, like WorldNetDaily, were audited by the IRS. So, why not the little "Heads Up" newsletter too? There's a reason, probably.

Big government has not been very interested in us. No, we got it from a local judge. But a friendly, retired local judge, we must add. His complaint is that we are running an ongoing publication without stating the customary ownership and liability criteria often enough.

We always tell him that we do not have any. He always asks, "which, ownership or liability?" We reply, "both." He orders: "Write something anyway." So . . . here goes:

The Heads Up newsletter only exists in cyberspace. We print no copies and have nothing to sell. Subscriptions are free. Therefore, no money is spent on, nor earned from, this newsletter. Not one penny. It should, therefore, be considered by government to be a hobby rather than a business.

All that is necessary to subscribe to "Heads Up" is to send a message saying you wish to be placed on the list. There is no charge. All we ask is that subscribers pass the newsletter on to friends -- as received, with no changes or additions.

Current newsletter subscribers come from all walks of life. From aircraft pilots to zoologists; from Militia members to legislators; a good cross-section of America is represented.

In truth, we have no idea how many people read this newsletter every week. That is because most subscribers send the newsletter to their friends and/or post it somewhere. Therefore, there is absolutely no way to keep count.

On top of that, a number of paper publications have requested permission to reprint articles. Also, a few broadcasters have permission to use the newsletter on the air.

We have nothing to offer here except ideas -- a viewpoint on the facts moving the news. I do not expect that all readers will agree with everything I write. And that is as it should be. My intent -- my only reason for writing -- is to offer a Constitutional perspective on current events, a viewpoint seldom found in the major media.

Many people have asked if we are ever harassed for what I write. Others have said that "Heads Up" is a little too hard on the central government and we could receive a "visit" if I don't take it easy. My standard answer for that is simple. I jokingly say: "Fine; just have them call ahead so we bring the Great Dane in first. Then I'll put on a pot of coffee and we can visit around the large kitchen table, while enjoying the view out the window of the rolling hills. In fact, I'll even invite an old judge and his retired lawyer friends over, too, and we can all have an interesting afternoon discussing Constitutional issues."

Anyway, in 136 weeks of publication, not one government official has done or said anything that could possibly be construed as retaliation for what I write. They do, however, sometimes write in disagreement. We always carefully read what they write, and then reply. Many public officials have even subscribed.

Any success realized by the newsletter is a direct result of the readers. All I do is write it. Readers distribute the newsletter. Without that, I would be writing for myself. Because, really, if I had to maintain a large database, I too would soon be getting into a position of spending (as others are) money to keep the publication going and would need to commercialize to pay the bills.

We are lucky, too, that people like Jeff in central Michigan and Forest in northern California, are nice enough to post the newsletter on their web sites. Forest even runs an extensive subject index for readers.

In short, if y'all keep reading and passing the newsletter around, I'll keep writing.

And, if there are any publication syndicates or book agents out there, I have the time and I'm interested. . . . .

 (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.

hu136.htm. Revised 5-22-99. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.