Last week, Columnist William Safire identified an obvious truth that has bothered a lot of Americans for a very long time: "We have stumbled into the era of no-fault government. Blamelessness is next to godliness; nobody in authority is held responsible for blunders, no matter how costly."

Exactly. In the current scheme of things, only citizens may be held culpable by government. There is no mechanism for the people to hold government officials answerable, no matter how much they completely screw up, which parts of the Constitution they trash, or how many people they harm in the process. We the People gave the federal government its job description, but we have little or no recourse when they do not follow it.

Safire writes that, for government workers, there is an "absence of penalty for failure to do one's job."

Precisely! And so too is there an absence of penalty even when they do that which is expressively forbidden to the federal government. Making laws concerning liberty, religion and our right to keep and bear arms comes to mind quickly. So does the wholesale stealing of private property through bizarre forfeiture laws.

Safire says that: "Only institutions may be chastised in this blame-free society -- not those individuals wrapped in anonymity who make the costly mistakes."

Not exactly. How can a citizen charge a federal agency, or even a single agent, with a crime for an illegal search or seizure? The fact is, that is impossible. Because, even if that citizen can afford to hire a room full of lawyers and wins his case in every court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal government will just disregard the court rulings and go about doing exactly as it wishes anyway.

For instance, last month the D.C. Court of Appeals told EPA to shut up and quit bothering people with all their goofy new unconstitutional regulations. The EPA doesn't care. They stopped for about an hour. Now they're full speed ahead again.

In a series of Supreme Court cases -- including New York, Lopez and Printz -- the federal government was told that the Tenth Amendment is the controlling legal authority and that they have no authority to tell a State to do anything other than those matters expressly listed within the Constitution.

Did that help? Obviously not. I just saw a State legislator's list of laws the federal government demands they pass during the next session of the General Assembly. It's a long list, too.

So, as with the stupid EPA oppression, why aren't the federal officials demanding these unconstitutional law changes arrested, tried and imprisoned? They are, after all, using the power of their office in an expressly illegal manner -- and causing harm to American citizens.

If a citizen uses illegal coercion and harms people, we can be sure government agents will come after that perpetrator. Why then may government agents disobey the Constitution by applying illegal coercion to State and local elected officials (and citizens) with impunity? The law should work the same for everyone.

Safire labels some of this as the "evasion of accountability." That's true, to a point. But there is more to it than just that. Most often, it also amounts to a blatant abuse of power.

For instance, the Fourth Amendment guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." A warrant must be issued stating exactly "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Yet, try to go into an airport or federal building without being searched. Government even has banks, credit reporting bureaus and automobile dealerships acting as their snitches. And, if government agents find a citizen carrying over $1,000 in cash, they will steal the money. To be stopped and searched for no reason is a serious violation of our Fourth Amendment rights, as is forfeiture. Yet, it happens many thousands of times every day throughout the country.

Some Constitutional violations would almost be comical if they weren't so aggravating. For instance, last week Congress sent in the clowns again to discuss what type of toilets we would be allowed to use in our homes. Watching that discussion is kind of like watching Clarabell the Clown trying to explain to Bozo something that is neither of their concerns.

It's time to hire some adults we can trust to work in government. The current crew does not seem to know their place in the Constitutional scheme of things.

House Republicans finally started asking a few questions about the regulatory bureaucracy. We do not think they asked the correct questions on this round. Nevertheless, the information they demand will be interesting.

For over 50 years, Congress has allowed the vast federal regulatory bureaucracy to do darn near as it wished. Congress would pass an open ended law stating some type of goal, and a bunch of desk-bound regulators (with the help of their Non Government Organization friends and interested big industry lobbyists) would promulgate a few hundred rules and regulations impacting on the unsuspecting American people with the full force of law.

That being done, the federal regulation bureaucracy decided they needed their own special armed police force. Next, they wanted their own special court system, a court system in which they can hire and fire their own judges. Soon, most regulatory agencies were all three branches of government rolled into one. Then, they took their cue from the IRS's tried and proven tactics and stated that violations of their edicts would be a civil crime so that the Bill of Rights would not apply and a citizen would be guilty in one of their little kangaroo courts until proven innocent.

The Democratic run Congress loved this arrangement. The people were properly controlled, and the Congress Critter could stand back and tell any constituent falling into the clutches of that unconstitutional system: "It ain't my fault, I'm on your side against this out of control bureaucracy."

It is Congress' fault, though. Under orders of the socialist Roosevelt administration, Congress created the mess. Then, every year thereafter, they expanded on it.

Now, Republicans in Congress are starting to look at the federal regulatory bureaucracy a little. And they realize what a real mess they have on their hands. There is little or nothing about the federal regulatory bureaucracy that even comes close to being authorized by powers given to the federal government by the Constitution. And now, being the majority in both houses, the problem is the Republicans' responsibility.

Here's the problem: Most Republicans (not the old ones, they are lost causes) know that, like the IRS, the whole of the regulatory system makes a total mockery of that "rule of law" we call our Constitution. Regulatory agencies are, in fact, executive, legislative and judicial branches rolled into one bureaucracy. They are much closer to the communist politburo form of government than anything our Founding Fathers ever envisioned. But, that has become our system and no one knows how to change it back.

Because, to abolish the regulatory system would mean a gross loss of power for the federal government. The people could not be controlled as strictly. Even the suggestion of a cutback would cause a chorus of socialists -- Clinton, the Democrats in Congress and their sycophants in the press -- to scream bloody murder.

So, Congress is going to tinker with the regulatory system a little.

Now comes the "Regulatory Right-to-Know Act of 1999," or HR 1074. It just passed the House last week and now goes to that sink hole called the Senate.

The House estimated that it costs the American people an extra $700 billion in hidden costs every year just to comply with federal rules and regulations. Republicans in the House want to know how much, if any, of this money is getting measurable results.

"Americans deserve to know where their hard- earned tax dollars are going, and this bill will provide that information," said House Commerce Committee Chairman Tom Bliley (R-VA), chief sponsor of the bill.

The socialists and liberals in the federal government are up in arms, though. The Clinton administration and the old line Democrats oppose the bill, saying the benefits of federal health and safety rules are difficult to quantify and the bill would put unneeded new burdens on federal agencies.

Yeah, they would have to be a little bit accountable for once.

The bill requires the director of the Office of Management and Budget to submit to Congress an annual analysis of the impact of federal rules and paperwork on both the public and private sector. In that analysis, the costs and benefits of each agency and agency program, rule and regulation must be specified and the OMB must include a report on duplications and inconsistencies between agencies.

Furthermore,

the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall arrange for 2 or more persons that have nationally recognized expertise in regulatory analysis and regulatory accounting, and that are independent of and external to the Government, to provide peer review of each accounting statement and associated report.

And so it goes. Still, in any form, and for any reason, the federal regulatory bureaucracy is unconstitutional. That is the real fact Congress should be addressing.

There are two field grade and two company grade officers from another country who read this newsletter regularly. That is because we are friends. We met by accident a few years ago while they were acting as tourists for a few days before an important work related business meeting. And, because I wanted to brush up on their language, and they English, we have spent a few hours together over the past few years.

On their last trip, there was some conversation on the topics reported here that interested them. The UN and martial law were on the front burner.

Two of the men had worked with/for the UN for a while and freely related that the UN greatly fears an armed American populace. As part of one contingency plan, they know it would be nearly impossible for foreign UN forces to function in this country while so many of us are armed. The UN's desire, therefore, is that we be disarmed.

No great surprise there.

What they related on martial law was a real surprise, though. According to the most senior of the four, there are not enough U.S. troops to enforce martial law in this country unless the people passively allow it.

Maybe so. The Army has 468,000, the Marines but 170,000 and there are 75,000+ armed federal regulators and 600,000 local police officers in the country. That's about one armed person for every 190 citizens.

The gentleman was correct. After checking with an American Army officer of the same relative rank, we find that's not even enough to hold California if the people do not cooperate. In fact, because of the mountains, that is not enough to take over Eastern Kentucky, either.

That is, short of air raids and the use of big guns, it is not.

When asked where they will be at the stroke of midnight for the new year, the reply was a unanimous and unequivocal, "Home!" Because, as freely related to me, they expect many more problems there than we are expected to have here. And, so it appears, do many leaders in military units from countries around the world.

When I mentioned that many Americans fear their guns will be confiscated, I was laughed at. The reply was something like: "One at a time. Yes. All together, at once, never." Which makes complete sense, if one thinks about it. The government is already actively working on that "one at a time" part.

So, I asked straight out: "Do you think we are to have martial law?"

After a bit of discussion, the answer was "probably yes," in some form.

Their reasoning, however, did not deviate at all from many things we, and others, have been reporting. That is, committees from both the House and Senate have already called for martial law and questioned the Pentagon on it's readiness. All military leaves are canceled. So too are the vacations of any and all armed federal officers. The National Guard and Reserves will be on alert. And, all police departments will be at full manpower.

Clearly, then, someone expects to have massive force available for something. Else, they would not be putting all those guns at the ready. But, why?

Certainly, some of us could have a Y2K problem of some sort. But, 99% of us will stay home to take care of family. That being true, there will not be much policing to be done.

Then other news came in. That armed encampment known as FBI headquarters closed its doors to visitors. A few days later, so did the Pentagon.

It seems strange, at least on this end, that the people with all the guns, those best able to defend themselves in case of trouble, are hunkered down against the American public. Is there something going on here that we should know about, or is this just the first step in whipping their people into an "us" against "them" mentality?

We think that the American people have a right to know exactly what is happening. Is the supposed threat of domestic or foreign origin? What is the threat to our family, neighborhood, city?

But, we serf-citizens will never be told. So, we must raise the flag of concern. And concern, for anyone who has ever worked with me, of course means preparation. Because, ultimately, we are the ones most responsible for protection of home, family and neighborhood.

Therefore, my friends, it is time to get both body and skills up to par. Whatever the threat may be, we are the initial home defense.

For over a week, EPA ran hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of "clean air" spots on Cincinnati radio. Like other parts of the country, the Cincinnati area was under a heat and "smog" alert and the EPA was threatening draconian new constraints on residents if they violated one of EPA's arbitrary and capricious "attainment" guidelines.

The radio spots told local people to curtail such things as driving, using lawn mowers, barbecuing, and a number of other normal activities in order to keep the "smog" that is always present on hot summer days down to the level EPA demands.

No matter, though. President Bill Clinton had a fund raiser scheduled in Cincinnati. Which means, Clinton came to town. And, in so doing, he was directly responsible for hundreds of unnecessary police and public official's cars to be on the road. Worse yet, the Clinton procession tied up Friday evening rush hour traffic for many thousands of home-bound drivers while they waited for the Presidential motorcade to make the 30 mile trip from the airport, through Cincinnati and over to the fat cat fund raiser.

But that's not all. Being totally oblivious to the health of the local residents, President Clinton used the largest jet aircraft in his fleet, a 747, to come to the Cincinnati area. And, according to EPA and others in the "Green" cabal, a 747 arriving and departing from the average airport produces as much smog as a car driven over 5,600 miles, and as much polluting nitrogen oxides as a car driven nearly 26,500 miles. It also belches out a ton of soot.

Bill Clinton knew this and should have thought twice before unnecessarily flying into an area under a heat and smog alert. Obviously, though, campaign funds are much more important to Bill Clinton than the health and lives of the metropolitan Cincinnati residents.

There have been no reports yet as to exactly how many of the area's asthmatic babies and children suffered due to the nonchalant and careless antics of the President of the United States. However, the next time health statistics are reported, there is expected to be a spike for that week.

Also last week, Al Gore, the Vice President and reigning chairman of the Green cabal who claims there is no controlling legal authority over administration wrongdoers, proved to America that the environmental laws, rules and regulations only apply to us serf-citizens and never to the controlling elite.

While the socialist clowns in Congress were busy defending their mandate that all Americans use only "low-flow" toilets -- another goofy idea by Al Gore, originally proposed to conserve water -- Al Gore managed to use enough water for a silly campaign photo-op to flush the equivalent of two-and-a-half BILLION toilets.

It seems that Vice President Al Gore and Governor Jeanne Shaheen paddled out on a section of the Connecticut River for the photo opportunity. However, there wasn't a lot of water in that river this summer. So, they had it "fixed."

To make it "picture perfect," they needed more water, so a special discharge of nearly 4 billion gallons of water was let out of a dam upstream to keep their canoe afloat.

"They won't release water for the fish when we ask them to, but somehow they find themselves able to release it for a politician," complained John Kassel, director of the Vermont Department of Natural Resources, to The Washington Times. Kassel accompanied Gore on the trip. "The only reason they did this was to make sure the vice president's canoe didn't get stuck."

That was far from the first time Gore put personal well-being above the environment, though. During the 1996 presidential race, he had Denver officials release 96 million gallons of water, at a cost of $59,000, so he could be photographed against a roaring South Platte River.

The Gore team "had to know the river levels were being raised, just like they had to know he was going to a Buddhist temple for a fund-raiser," Republican National Chairman Jim Nicholson, said.

In a stop down the road, Gore announced that $819,000 from various federal sources will be spent to enhance the Connecticut River's environmental and economic resources. "We have to make the 21st century the time when we finally right the environmental wrongs of our past," Gore told a small group of less than 200 who gathered in one of Hammond Farm's fresh-cut hay fields along the Connecticut in Cornish.

No word, yet, on exactly how much Gore's latest photo-op splash cost taxpayers.

Truly, Gore is correct: There is "no controlling legal authority" for this administration. We are to do as we are told. They do as they wish. That's how far the "rule of law" has deviated off course in these United States.

(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.

hu146.htm. Revised 7-31-99. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.