On June 14, a major American newspaper publishing corporation published "Guidelines On Ethical News-Gathering." Citing "a deep concern over public distrust of the media; a need to address the increase in lawsuits focusing on news-gathering methods and not on the truth of stories; and the desire to alleviate reader concerns about fairness and accuracy of content", the Gannett Newspaper Division effectively ordered its reporters to stop lying.

Well, actually, the Gannett Newspaper Division set forth what it calls "The Gannett Principles of Ethical Conduct for Newsrooms" for all of its 73 daily newspapers. Therein, the Division said it is committed to: Seeking and reporting the truth in a truthful way. Serving the public interest. Exercising fair play. Maintaining independence. And, acting with integrity. http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/990614/va_gannett_1.html

We took great interest in the catchall "Serving the public interest," since that could include darn near any point of view reporters and editors thought applicable. Which, we might add, would normally tend to be their typically liberal spin on things.

"One of the key points under the 'Serving the Public Interest' Principle is to be 'vigilant watchdogs of government and institutions that affect the public.' We have carried this out very effectively over the years," said Phil Currie, senior vice president/News. "That will continue vigorously."

Again, that got our attention.

One of the points in the "Serving the Public Interest" section states: "We will provide the news and information that people need to function as effective citizens."

Sounds good. We only wish that it would happen in practice. Instead, reporting continues with a distinctly anti-conservative, pro big central government spin.

The truth is, most Americans are interested in their own personal freedom -- and, lately, the lack thereof. Yet, we never seem to see any hard hitting pieces in the newspapers on how our rights are continually being usurped by the central government. In truth, we have a local editorial page editor who picks at that once in a while, but the local Gannett offering is, overall, a very liberal- leaning newspaper.

It seems to us that one function of a major newspaper would be to let the public know, exactly and specifically, anytime the government violates its primary operating instructions: our Constitution. And, when quoting a politician, newspapers should also tell the public when the political rhetoric has absolutely no basis in fact, and why. Currently, reporters just print liberal bureaucratic propaganda as fact and seldom worry about what is truth.

Gannett is absolutely correct: There is a deep "public distrust of the media;" as well there should be. The American media lies to us a lot. With only few exceptions, the media feeds the American public little more than liberal, big government promoting spin. Television news programming has become little more than news magazine shows with a strong liberal taint -- "infotainment," Michael Medived calls it. Newspaper reporters are famous for what they leave out of stories, which amounts to little more than a cover-up for the misdeeds and negligence of liberal politicians. Even much of the radio news has a decidedly liberal bias to it.

Yet, the media seems to have no problem launching vicious attacks against conservatives and they display a rabid hostility against anyone even mentioning the preservation of our personal, unalienable and Constitutional rights. The sorry fact is, many in the media are demonstrably anti-Constitution. They have no objective truth to relate, only the blind acceptance of the value free tolerance so common to the useful idiots on the far left.

The law of the land is our Constitution. Therefore, that must be the standard from which all laws are discussed. All forms of media should relate all new laws, rules and regulations as to how they fit in (or not) with the Founding Fathers original intent of the Constitution.

That is what people need to know: how their personal rights are being violated or protected. And we need to know things like, when Clinton said background checks stopped 400,000 people from buying guns, it was a blatant lie. We need to know that, just the week before, when Clinton said that background checks stopped 250,000 people from buying guns, that too was a lie. Yet, few in the media care. They accept everything said by liberal politicians because they are also liberal.

Another problem is that newspapers are being gobbled up by a handful of major corporations. Some of these corporations are also buying into television and radio. For instance, "Inside Radio" recently reported that, in 1996, the top 50 corporations involved in radio owned 800 stations. By 1999, the top 10 corporations involved in radio owned 1,719 stations -- out of about 2,530 radio stations, give or take a couple.

It's clear, our news is controlled, filtered and spun to favor big government and socialism. Just about everyone realizes that today. That's one reason the Internet is so popular. And, unless that media bias is corrected, "public distrust of the media" will grow into an outward form of public disdain of the media.

The U.S. Supreme Court gave a boost to federalism last week. The far left is whining again, but the States got some of their rights back. It was labeled the most powerful indication yet of the Supreme Court's determination to reconfigure the balance between state and Federal authority in favor of the States. We think that might be stretching things just a little. However, we did strike the mother-lode for those very pertinent quotations we like to use -- quotations that also just happen to be the law of the land now.

Alden et al. v. Maine (98 - 436) is the decision most immediately interesting. In "Alden" the Court held that state employees cannot sue the state for violations of Federal labor law. As Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the opinion for the (5 to 4) majority:

When Congress legislates in matters affecting the states, it may not treat these sovereign entities as mere prefectures or corporations. Congress must accord states the esteem due to them as joint participants in a Federal system.

 

Because, as Justice Kennedy said, for Congress to be able to authorize suits in a state's own courts

would be even more offensive to state sovereignty than a power to authorize the suits in a Federal forum. A power to press a state's own courts into Federal service is the power first to turn the state against itself and ultimately to commandeer the entire political machinery of the state against its will and at the behest of individuals.

Three years ago, in Seminole Tribe v. Florida, the Court ruled that Congress did not have the power to force states to defend themselves in Federal court under laws enacted under Article I of the Constitution, including laws that regulate interstate commerce.

So, Congress punted, by providing that employees could bring Fair Labor Standards Act cases in state courts. Some workers tried in the Maine courts. But, the Maine Supreme Court tossed it out, saying the state had sovereign immunity in its own courts similar to its 11th Amendment immunity in Federal court. So, the question for the Supreme Court to decide was whether closing the state courthouse to a suit based on a Congressionally created right was a proper application of state sovereign immunity. The Court's majority ruled that it was.

In effect, the Court made States immune from suits by state employees for violations of Federal labor law. Really though, all the Alden decision did was to close the state court route, too. Unfortunately, it still leaves enforcement open to individual federal agencies, like the Department of Labor.

The court said states cannot be sued against their will in state courts by people seeking to enforce some federal law. It appears, therefore, that this decision would also tend to block many of those "nuisance suites" from special interest groups on the far left -- such as the rabid environmentalists.

Because, in a series of cases (New York, Lopez, Printz, etc.) the Court ruled that, except for those powers "enumerated" in the Constitution, Congress may not make Federal law binding on the States, and/or State officials. That is, the States are sovereign and, except for those powers ceded to the federal government by the States in the Constitution, the federal government has no business telling them what they may or may not do.

As an example, the words below are from the majority opinion, and hence, are the law of the land. Read them and enjoy.

Under the federal system established by the Constitution, the States retain a "residuary and inviolable sovereignty." (The Federalist No. 39.) They are not relegated to the role of mere provinces or political corporations, but retain the dignity, though not the full authority, of sovereignty.

We have sometimes referred to the States' immunity from suit as "Eleventh Amendment immunity." The phrase is convenient shorthand but something of a misnomer, for the sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from nor is limited by the terms of the Eleventh Amendment. Rather, as the Constitution's structure, and its history, and the authoritative interpretations by this Court make clear, the States' immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today (either literally or by virtue of their admission into the Union upon an equal footing with the other States) except as altered by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments.

Any doubt regarding the constitutional role of the States as sovereign entities is removed by the Tenth Amendment, which, like the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, was enacted to allay lingering concerns about the extent of the national power. The Amendment confirms the promise implicit in the original document: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This should be notice, then: Federalism Does NOT mean that the federal government is supposed to try to control everything!

Millions of American citizens around the country are actively working to take back their government from the socialists now in charge. Thousands of State officials are also involved. And, when the subject is federalism, the United States Supreme Court is helping. The Court already accepted two federalism cases for next term. There are at least a dozen others waiting in the wings.

Read the full Alden v. Maine decision at: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-436.ZS.html

Last month, a three-judge panel at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals acted on a lawsuit by a number of trucking and industry groups, and put the Environmental Protection Agency into a tizzy. It's not completely over until it hits the Supreme Court (if they dare appeal), but it looks like EPA lost a big one.

This concerned EPA's arbitrary new regulations issued in July 1997. That new round of unsubstantiated oppression imposed much tougher "health standards" for "smog-causing ozone." On top of that, EPA decided to regulate microscopic soot -- dust in the air. With but a scribble of the bureaucratic pen, these ridiculously tighter standards put hundreds of counties throughout the country in violation of federal air quality standards.

The new dust rule would require states to regulate microscopic particles, or soot, down to 2.5 microns -- 28 times smaller than the width of a human hair. Dirt roads would be verboten. Diesel trucks would need equipment to catch the "black coal" coming out of their exhaust stacks. Charcoal barbecues would be banned. And, even in a moderate reading of the new rule, the incense burned during services by many religions would be forbidden.

A group of scientists and engineers asked EPA for an opportunity to review the scientific research data leading to the reasoning behind these outrageous new rules. I, and others, were told that we were to obey the new rules and that we had no business reviewing the data. Congress thought differently but, according to EPA, Congress wasn't worthy of examining the data, either. Congress then wimped out and the information is still secret. We believe, therefore, there is no research data to back up the need for new regulations. The ploy seems to be little more than another bureaucratic power grab.

No matter. Vice President Al Gore called the tougher regulations "the most significant steps in a generation to protect the American people, especially our children, from air pollution." To which, one very senior medical scientist sarcastically replied: "It kind of makes one wonder how we were able to grow up 50 years ago, what with nearly everything we experienced in our childhood lives now labeled as pollution."

Anyway, the Court said Congress set the parameters in a section of the 1990 Clean Air Act "so loosely as to render them unconstitutional delegations of legislative power."

The court said the agency had "failed to state intelligibly" how much pollution is too much -- and why. It also said the EPA's process of setting the standards amounted to an unconstitutional delegation of powers that rest with Congress.

"If the court fails to uphold these protective standards, Congress must ensure that these protections are preserved for the American people," the agency whined in a statement. Which is exactly true.

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress," the very first sentence of our Constitution states. EPA can make no law, is another way to put it. Never mind that environmental matters are not even one of the "Powers herein granted" to Congress.

We note, as do many legal experts, that there is a renewal of interest among scholars and some judges in the principle of unconstitutional delegation of powers. For instance, David Schoenbrod, a professor at New York Law School in New York City, believes that Congress should at least "state the benchmark by which agency regulators decide what to do." He warns that what we have now "is environmental politics, not environmental law." We agree, but also add that Congress has been very negligent about its oversight duties and must keep a much tighter rein on all federal agencies.

Needless to say, the decision was a major victory for a wide range of industry groups, from trucking companies to electric utilities, that had fought the tougher air quality rules as too expensive and based on nothing more than the edict of control-freak bureaucrats.

"It's a big victory. One of the biggest," said Robin Conrad, senior vice president for litigation at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. She said the ruling brings into question the EPA's methods of selecting the new standards and asserted the agency was "picking numbers out of thin air." She added the EPA now will have to "start the process all over again ... and justify its numbers."

Thomas J. Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the court's ruling "strikes right at the heart of EPA's abuse of regulatory authority -- and that's a big win for business, large and small."

The case is American Trucking Associations, Inc., et al. v. EPA (97-1440) and can be found at: http://laws.findlaw.com/DC/971440A.html

The very next week, another panel of D.C. Appellate Court judges said EPA's new regulations must be put on hold pending further court action in a lawsuit by a number of Midwest States and utilities. That action means that 22 states, from Michigan to Maine, will not have to submit plans in September describing how they intend to reduce the interstate transport of pollution. Nor may EPA, if they obey the D.C. Court of Appeals, enforce any new regulations.

We have a better idea. Let's go with the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers: abolish the EPA (and the other regulatory agencies), and let the States take care of local problems. These "one size fits all" laws and regulations are as stupid as selling one size fits all shoes for kids.

Texas Governor George W. Bush, son of former President Bush, won re-election last November with a huge majority and was suddenly being hailed as a leading contender for the Republican nomination for the 2000 presidential race.

The simple question is: Anyone know why? We may, and we'll get to that shortly. However, can anyone name three great things George Jr. has done for Texas? OK, how about one really good thing, then. . . .

Actually, Texas has a good reason to like Bush as governor. Before Bush was the reign of one Ann (Ma) Richards -- a brassy, big government loving liberal with a loud mouth. So, what's not to like here? Any governor who acts half way normal would be a very welcome change.

Bush grew up in Midland and Houston. He was a F-102 pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. He received a bachelor's degree from Yale University and a MBA from Harvard Business School. By 1978, Bush was testing his political wings and ran for Congress in West Texas, but was narrowly defeated.

Governor Bush is married to Laura Welch Bush, a former public school teacher and librarian. They have twin teenage daughters, Barbara and Jenna.

Admittedly, George Jr. supports bilingual education and racial preferences. He calls himself a "compassionate conservative," denoting a mix of liberalism and conservatism. Often, however, that gets very silly. For instance, George Junior actually said out loud: "I propose that every city have a telephone number 119 -- for dyslexics who have an emergency." The liberalism goes deeper, though. He also supports federal control of public schools through Hillary's so called "School-to-Work" plan.

More recently, Texas Gov. Bush has bought into a key environmental fallacy, saying he believes there's no question that the globe is warming. "I believe there is global warming," the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported Bush saying at a news conference. Never mind that, just a couple weeks before, Bush had said that the "science is still out" on global warming.

"The last time I wasn't certain of the science," he said. "I've had some briefings recently and I'm becoming more convinced that the science proves there's global warming."

Uh huh. Sure. Quick study, that guy -- quicker than 80% of the scientists in the field.

Last April, the Texas Gun Owners Alliance reported Gov. Bush pulled yet another important about face. After the Colorado school shooting, he endorsed a controversial gun control proposal that had been killed only hours earlier by a Texas House committee. The committee chairman, who voted against the bill, said the governor had never told him he supported it. The bill would require instant criminal background checks of people buying firearms from unlicensed sellers at gun shows. In an article in the Dallas Morning News on April 28, Bush went even further stating, "I think the federal government needs to expand its background checks so that they become effective." Bush also signed legislation prohibiting anyone from carrying a weapon within 300 yards of a school, and holding adults criminally liable if they allow a juvenile access to a loaded gun.

Growing up a rich kid, Bush was said to be a hell-raiser in college. An unnamed insider, quoted on MSNBC, said that George Jr. hired a private detective to determine what the press and his opponents could find on him. As the story goes, he wasn't thrilled with the results. Practically speaking, we should not care much about that and should concentrate on his government record. Yet, it is interesting to note that he is worried what could come out.

Then, there's the money angle. "I didn't -- I swear I didn't -- get into politics to feather my nest or feather my friends' nests," George Jr. told the Houston Chronicle. However, there's that August 16, 1998 piece by R. G. Ratcliffe: "Business associates profit during Bush's term as governor," that is very interesting. http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#corruptsources

"When it is all said and done, I will have made more money than I ever dreamed I would make," Bush, told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram about his Texas Rangers business deal (he paid $600,000, and sold for $14 million). He also finagled himself a couple good tax breaks on that deal, which helped considerably.

When we look at the great business and political deals of George Junior, it starts to become apparent that there was more than just a little help from the friends of George Senior. The CIA is well placed throughout the American business scene as well as in the national media. Before becoming President, George Senior was, of course, director of that CIA. George Senior also ran a number of CIA operations while serving in the White House as Vice President.

So, how did George Junior get such great press that actually says nothing of substance? Easy. The people comprising the spook community are very good at that type of propaganda -- just as they are quite good at throwing money towards their favorite sons.

George Jr. would certainly make a much better president than Al Gore. But, so would approximately 10,000 other American citizens. That should not be our only criterion for electing a president. Our questions pertain more to how George Jr. would honor and support our Constitution if elected President.

The answer seems to be obvious: Not very well. So, we'll keep looking for a candidate to support.

This is about Kentucky and what Kentuckians have done and are doing to stem the rising tide of government regulations that intrude into our daily lives at an ever- increasing pace. The key here is a horrible word called "apathy." An apathetic person is inevitably a victim, a person who cannot be saved and doesn't care. So, job one is to convert apathy to outrage, and the battle is half won.

The specific mission in this case was to derail the EPA in their plan to force tailpipe testing on Northern Kentucky. Two years ago the EPA announced that Northern Kentucky was to be lumped in with Cincinnati, which was not in compliance with air quality standards as set by the EPA, and ordered us to reach "attainment" as they put it, or be subject to tailpipe testing. If we didn't submit to their edicts they would impose sanctions on us, including the denial of federal highway funds. What happened next is a cultural curiosity. A large number of us, including many of our elected "leaders", began to whimper, bemoaning the fate that has befallen us. Others turned to outrage.

It became apparent early that our Congressional representatives weren't going to help us in our battle with the EPA. The first thing we did was start a letter writing campaign to newspapers around the state, and Northern Kentucky in particular, spelling out our outrage at the arrogance of the EPA. We also began attending public hearings and bringing in expert witnesses. The resultant publicity served to educate, as well as to outrage the citizenry. Little by little, the will of the people was being felt more and more by our state legislators and county officials. The giant of public outcry was awakening our elected officials. But still, many of them continued to whimper that this was the federal government and there's nothing we can do about it.

Many of us began scouring the archives of state and federal law. We already had a number of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court that we relied on, but we hit gold when we came across Kentucky statute, series 77. This 1953 state statute gave broad governing powers to the counties when it came to environmental regulations. Of the three Northern Kentucky counties, Kenton, Boone and Campbell, none of them had held the required public hearings mandated prior to accepting tailpipe testing or any other regulation.

We began buttonholing elected state and county officials on both sides of the aisle. We force fed them our talking points on EPA violations of legal, scientific and moral principles in their relentless determination to force tailpipe testing on unwilling citizens. It was time, we told them, to stand up for the people who elected them. Still there were some who seemed unwilling to do battle with the federal government. "Tailpipe testing is inevitable," was the familiar whine, "and there's nothing we can do about it."

Then, in quick succession, two things happened. The Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce held a meeting for city, county and state officials for Northern Kentucky with officials of the Kentucky EPA and the Air Quality Council. The meeting was not to discuss if or when tailpipe testing would be imposed, but how it would be done. There were many questions asked about cost efficiency, scientific validity and supreme court decisions upholding states rights and separation of powers. The answers were either evasive or non-existent. We would either submit to tailpipe testing or they would impose federal sanctions. In the space of just under two hours, the Kentucky EPA had accomplished what we had been trying to do for years. The people of Northern Kentucky had become united. What's more, they were angry.

The second thing happened at the Boone County courthouse on the night of June 15th. The Boone County Fiscal Court met before a packed house of legislators, scientists, press and citizens. First on the evening's agenda, the court heard arguments on tailpipe testing, led by Lexington attorney and gubernatorial candidate Gatewood Galbraith. It was no contest. The Boone County Fiscal Court voted unanimously for a moratorium to be imposed on testing in Boone County, until a report on testing be released by the National Academy of Science. Campbell and Kenton counties are expected to follow Boone County's lead and form a solid front.

This is not over yet and probably will never be over. The EPA never stops. If you push them down in one place, they just pop up again someplace else. In their arrogance, they truly believe they are above the law or public opinion and it is they, not us, who are the masters. But when it comes to liberty, outrage trumps arrogance every time.

[As one of the people who both attended and addressed the above mentioned meetings, I must add that this is a much better account than anything appearing in the major newspapers. Also, through personal conversation with State elected officials (the latest being on the day of this writing), I know that their interest is sincere and they expect to get results. Furthermore, this peaceful protest recently made national news and will soon be a topic of discussion on Capitol Hill. -- ed]

(This is Jeff in central Michigan) 

---

The President and Congress said they are reducing taxes and balancing the budget. uhuh. Sez who?

Smile and Force Congress to Kick the Debt & Taxes Habit with Money System Honesty for We People. We demand the whole truth with an honest viewpoint.

Don't send money. Call Jo(e) Congress and send letters.

Click here to contact Forest.

Web Home Page: www.uhuh.com

  Back to the top of this page

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

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 1996 by Forest Glen Durland.

hu141.htm. Revised 4-2-06. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.