He is an accomplished con artist. She is an adroit illusionist, skilled at deceiving in the arenas of honesty and integrity. Both are proficient, self-serving propagandists and out and out liars. We have been blessed with the benefit of term limits and we'll soon be rid of the professional con artist. But she wants to continue working to impose the dark forces of socialism on the American people by running for the Senate.

A dangerous socialist ideologue, an obsessive patron of a form of government controlled health care that would ruin the world's finest medical delivery system, a frightening advocate of a program of children's education and welfare that would be a disaster to American family life as we know it, she wants to run for public office. Unfit for even a township board or a small town council seat, this inexperienced carpetbagger actually wants to start a political career as United States Senator.

Hubris. Pure, self-gratifying hubris!

As the first wife to come to the White House with her own major agenda and who campaigned with her husband as "two for the price of one," she immediately began interfering in the works of the federal government.

Let's consider, for a moment, any large corporation on the stock exchange and the reaction of stockholders if a newly appointed CEO took the reigns of the company under the same circumstances. That is, the CEO's wife decides to come to work with him everyday, sets up her own office and staff down the hall from him, starts appointing company officials, reading through company sensitive documents, and barking orders to other corporate officers. That poor hen- pecked CEO would be put out on the street just as soon as the Board of Directors could get together a voting quorum!

So, why is it different in government? Why did we allow it? Why was she not prosecuted for reading confidential, secret and top secret documents?

Whitewater, travel-office and commodities- trading scandals are but examples of the matters for which she needs to answer. Declaring that half of the American population were involved in a "vast right-wing-conspiracy" is yet another charge that must be answered. She must be required to account for her actions -- all of her actions. Her holier-than-thou attitude is just not acceptable. Neither are the cold, calculated lies; nor all of the serious perjury matters that are still outstanding.

Hillary has co-opted the entire Justice Department as her own sphere of influence, yet there is a good chance that she may herself become a convicted felon. In which case, the Clintons would have yet another first in the history books: That is, he is the first elected president to be impeached and she could well become the first elected Senator refused to be seated because of criminal convictions.

Most recently, it appears that the Clintons purchased their first home in Chappaqua, N.Y for $1.7 million under false pretenses. They both signed for the mortgage when, apparently, a divorce is planned. If they don't plan to live in the house together, that would be yet another legal fraud as both of their assets and incomes were calculated for the repayment schedule -- and there is no way that a Senator's salary would cover the house payments.

Recently, Hillary said she is waiting for the Secret Service to complete its preparations before she begins moving into "her" New York home. One also wonders which White House goods she will take to furnish the "president's" new home. Certainly, she is using the Secret Service budget to bring the electrical and communications systems up to date on the property. But, that's expected because she seems to be using the federal treasury to finance much of her Senate campaign, too.

Now we come to learn that Hillary and Monica Lewinsky have more in common that just "doing" Bill. Both use professional writers, both hired professional aides to show them how to dress and fix their hair and both consider plastic surgery and liposuction as a shortcut to correct the body their genes and lifestyles have dealt them.

One would think that no candidate with Hillary's history could be elected to office. However, the people of New York elected the sniveling Charles Schumer, so anything is possible. On the other hand, Zogby reports that Hillary's negative ratings in New York are now extraordinarily high. Her unfavorable rating already stands at 48.7. So, there is still some hope New Yorker's will do the right thing.

We're no friend of Giuliani -- he doesn't support the Constitution very well, either -- but, in this race the cry should be "ABC": Anybody But Clinton.

It happens during every Democratic administration and sometimes even during a Republican administration when there is a strong Democratic Congress. But, this time, Congress has been completely circumvented.

When judged only by the results the action would have, it appears that the Clinton administration wants to disarm most minorities.

This isn't the first Democratic administration with that intention, though. From the Roosevelt administration to LBJ, Democrats have been trying to disarm the Black community. First it was gun registration and licensing. Then they went after the "Saturday Night Specials," inexpensive handguns that are the best self defense many low income citizens can afford. Now, they want all personal guns in the inner-city to disappear.

This session, Congress didn't pass the anti-gun legislation the administration wanted. So, the administration is using blackmail to get its way. In an unprecedented misuse of the federal Justice Department, the administration threatened gun manufacturers with legal action if they do not quickly buckle under and settle talks with the unscrupulous state and local officials charging them with creating a public nuisance for legally marketing their already overly-regulated products.

That is, Housing and Urban Development Secretary, Andrew Cuomo, threatened to get up to 3,200 public housing authorities around the country to join together and file a large class action lawsuit against gun manufacturers unless the they capitulate to the wrongful actions already on the table by unprincipled liberal State officials . Hence, legal blackmail.

Cuomo (and Clinton) base this on the perverted logic that guns, and how they are marketed, have contributed to violence in public housing projects. They actually claim, with a straight face, that gun manufacturers have sold defective products or marketed them in ways that increases the likelihood that they will fall into the hands of riffraff and criminals.

Ultimately, what government wants is a quasi- legislative settlement that would require manufacturers to alter marketing practices so as to keep guns out of the hands of poor folks in the inner-city -- primarily Black and Hispanic folks.

This, from the all-time worst run department in government: HUD.

These people act like active alcoholics who are drying out and just found the key to a liquor cabinet. They need their fix however they can get it. Obviously, this proposal is but a knee-jerk reaction to a stupid liberal plan that has not been well thought out at all.

Richard A. Epstein, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, writes in the December 9 issue of the Wall Street Journal that:

These suits are misguided on both process and substance. First, they make a parody of the democratic process. In the past generation, Congress, states and local governments have passed thousands of statutes and ordinances designed to clamp down on gun distribution. By all means enforce them. Unfortunately, these champions of the legislative process are at least as eager to enforce the laws that were not passed. Two bites at the apple has become the norm for public officials, who think they hold a sacred license to litigate or legislate at will. No judge should ever sign off on any settlement that seeks to smuggle into law multiple restrictions on gun sales or gun use. Given their bottomless purse, government litigators should be doubly sure of the soundness of their position before threatening suit.

Ditto that. But there's yet another important aspect to this problem.

According to a November report by the House Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, there are still a few Y2K problems with some of the federal government's computers. Two departments that are not doing very well are the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice. This could present a real problem next year, causing citizens living in public housing to desperately need their guns.

Many people living in public housing are honest, hard working folks with gainful employment. Others exist on welfare alone. A few receive welfare and pick up extra money doing "other" things that may not be very legal. The last, of course, are the ones who should not be armed, but usually are.

If the Department of the Treasury is not ready, and cannot print and disperse welfare checks on time, it stands to reason that there will be a significant number of people in the inner-city out looking for an alternate source of sustenance. If that goes on for very long, there can be real trouble.

Reports are already starting to come out that the Federal Emergency Management Agency admits Clinton has made plans to declare a national emergency because of expected disruptions caused by the Y2K computer problems. We also know that the White House demands that all police, fire and National Guard personal be on an extended duty schedule for a week or so around the first of the year. That seems to be a very good signal to the American people that the federal government believes something violent may happen. Therefore, common sense dictates that every home also be prepared for self defense.

An unfortunate quirk in the law is that the police have no legal "responsibility" to protect a citizen unless an officer happens to be present while the threat is happening. Therefore, disarming all inner-city people means that only the feral street punks will be armed. Honest citizens will then become sitting targets for whatever.

This is no way to treat a population. Our right of self defense should never be violated.

Late in the day, that Tuesday in Seattle, the Secret Service placed the downtown Westin hotel, where President Clinton stayed during the WTO conference, under lockdown, The Associated Press reported. The mayor also put downtown Seattle under curfew.

Wednesday was the second night downtown Seattle was under a curfew to keep demonstrators from disrupting the World Trade Organization conference that virtually ground to a halt when violence erupted Tuesday, another news report said.

Other reports stated that the tear gas was so strong that non-protesters were forced against the store- front windows. The gas spread quickly, gagging bystanders caught in the traffic and melee. Police in riot gear indiscriminately lobbed tear gas canisters and pepper spray, shot off rubber and bean-bag bullets and used night sticks on anyone within reach.

Yet, Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper said 99 percent of the demonstrators were peaceful and cooperated with authorities. He said that some protesters were even doing "everything they can" to help clean up the city. Mayor Paul Schell blamed the violence on "hooligans taking advantage of the moment."

The fact is, police troops forced those "peaceful" protesters out of the downtown area and into peaceful residential areas. Then, the police followed the peaceful protesters into peaceful residential neighborhoods and gassed anyone and anything around.

So, it didn't take long before peaceful residents came outside to see what all the hubbub was about in their peaceful neighborhood -- and why all the tear gas and pepper spray was seeping into their homes and gagging their kids and older folks.

The residents were angry. So, the residents stayed out and shouted at police and National Guard troops to leave their formally tranquil neighborhood. "Go home," the crowds chanted. "We live here." But the police didn't leave. Instead, police intentionally gassed, pepper sprayed and shot crowd control devices at the residents, too.

The far left protesters gave a protest. The police seemed to be trying to cause a full blown riot. As an example, just the few Radio KAOS photos displayed at http://www.olywa.net/angels/120299.html tell an appalling story. We refer readers to photos #2 through #4 for a general idea of common police tactics against what the police chief admitted were 99% "peaceful and cooperative" protesters.

Meanwhile, there were a small group of easily identifiable masked anarchists running around breaking windows, starting trash fires and vandalizing cars. The police left them alone to perform their nefarious tasks. The peaceful protesters were, evidently, easier to hassle.

As we see it, the police made three major errors: First, they took instructions from federal officers on crowd control. Second, they appeared at a peaceful protest wearing $2,000 war-suits and looking like a bunch of Robocops. Third, and most importantly, they had no idea how to control the streets -- to properly protect and to serve.

Police blocked the streets to traffic, then said pedestrians could not walk on the street. That's totally stupid! Worse, there was no "endpoint" cordoned off for the protesters to approach. That is, the police did not put up barricades near the meeting building to halt the protesters. For the first few hours, protesters could go anywhere, and they did. There was no control.

Police knew the tree huggers were coming. Their trick is to chain themselves together. That requires officers with chain cutters to be handy. But, none were in the plan of action. Ditto for other groups. The protesters all had well defined peaceful plans. The police only planned violence.

Police stood by and watched the anarchists cause destruction to private property. They were not able to leave their appointed posts, was their excuse. Yet, had they immediately arrested the few rowdies and got them out of there, all problems (except for the sit-ins) would probably have ended.

In short, street cops are supposed to act like street cops: friendly but firm. Most should have been in normal uniform and patrolling in two man teams on both sides of the streets. The Ninja types and Robocops should be kept in the background, out of sight of the peaceful protesters and residents.

Furthermore, a series of four man "flying squads" with transportation should have been constantly available to immediately get any troublemakers off the streets. And, the masked anarchists should have initially been their primary targets.

This type of crowd control takes a little planning. Also, it entails that every cop on the street be well versed in the techniques used by every protest group demonstrating. Very few protesters were intending to be destructive. Rather, they are usually passively disruptive.

As long as it is a peaceful protest, and the streets are closed to traffic anyway, police should allow them to be just as peacefully "disruptive" as they wish. Normal body functions set the time-limit on that. And, when the only available food and rest rooms are blocks away, that in itself quickly becomes adequate crowd control.

What we saw in Seattle was mob activity, not crowd control. The mob was the police allowing about fifteen of the crowd to cause problems. The mob was the police gone haywire, their control was short-circuited, their lack of a command structure caused a major crowd problem that need not have existed.

There is no excuse for that type of conduct by authorities. No excuse whatsoever.

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

"Political Control:" http://cryptome.org/stoa-atpc.htm

There sometimes comes a time when writers catch a little flack for what they publish. Actually, if a writer is not careful, someone could call an unscrupulous attorney into play and take the publication to court. One such instance for this publication was because of an article titled "Legal Grinch" in issue #97 on August 9, 1998.

That story was about Rick Ganulin, an attorney employed as assistant solicitor for the City of Cincinnati. As Cincinnati newspapers reported, Ganulin took a day off from work to file a federal lawsuit to ban Christmas as a legal holiday. Ganulin said it's been bugging him for years, and he finally decided to do something about it.

Yeah. Ban Christmas.

"The statute that declares Christmas to be a national legal public holiday creates the endorsement of the Christian religion by the federal government," Ganulin told the Cincinnati Post in August of 1998. "I think most people know in their hearts that this is not what the Constitution meant when it said church and state should be separated."

"I don't know why nobody stepped up before to address this issue. I felt strongly that the integrity of the Constitution and the First Amendment was worth it."

Ganulin, of course, was wrong. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Other than banning religious "Tests" or oaths in Article VI, nothing else is said. So, effectively, all we need remember is "Congress shall make no law." That is not to say that Congress cannot give time off. Congress cannot make people celebrate. That's all there is to that.

This publication usually stays away from religious issues because it is too easy to push too many emotional hot buttons. But, in this case, we think that Rick Ganulan is not only stretching the envelope of liberalism way out of shape, he has also gone well beyond the boundaries of common sense and good taste. Furthermore, we felt this was a very poor use of the court system.

It took about a day for us to receive an e-mail from an involved person taking us to task for that piece. The message gave a perverted interpretation of the Constitution and a couple implied threats of legal action if we continue with our comments on the topic.

Except, what some people do not realize is that we don't make this stuff up as we go along. That is, we had three published articles from the major media and a recording from a one hour interview Ganulin did on a talk radio program.

So, we couldn't understand what the fuss was about. And, after we stopped laughing about the threats made, we wrote back a reply that simply said: "Go for it! Put up or shut up." And, of course, there was no reply.

Well, last week a federal court agreed that Ganulin was a bit . . . how shall we put it . . . out of the mainstream of popular thought, maybe?

Dismissing the lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott said that "this court has found legitimate secular purposes for establishing Christmas as a legal public holiday."

"When the government decides to recognize Christmas day as a public holiday, it does no more than accommodate the calendar of public activities to the plain fact that many Americans will expect on that day to spend time visiting with their families, attending religious services, and perhaps enjoying some respite from pre-holiday activities."

Then, saying she thought it was apt in light of Dr. Seuss and "How the Grinch Stole Christmas," the Judge got a little cute with a very applicable poem: "An extra day off is hardly Treason." (Included for your enjoyment below.)

Richard Ganulin, being a lawyer, told reporters he would appeal the dismissal to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. His grounds? He said the judge did not treat the issue with the "strict scrutiny" it deserved: "She never said what she really meant when she implied that Christmas should be considered as a secular holiday as much as a religious occasion."

We think that Judge Dlott said what she meant and meant what she said. That is: this was a very stupid lawsuit, it was a waste of time for the court and it should not go anywhere but the round-file.

If Ganulin appeals, we hope the court takes him to task and charges him heavily for the waste of court time.

Meanwhile, according to Reuters, a Washington- based organization of U.S. Christian employees was granted its request to be added to the lawsuit as a defendant along with the U.S. government. Perhaps a counter lawsuit against Ganulin is forthcoming?

And now for U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott's applicable poem. The use of the word "Lynch" refers to a 1984 Supreme Court opinion. This was in court, after all.

---

The court will address

The Plaintiff's seasonal confusion

Erroneously believing Christmas

MERELY a religious intrusion.

 

Whatever the reason

Constitutional or other

Christmas is NOT

An act of Big Brother!

 

Christmas is about joy

And giving and sharing

It is about the child within us

It is mostly about caring!

 

One is never jailed

For not having a tree

For not going to church

For not spreading glee!

 

The court will uphold

Seemingly contradictory causes

Decreeing "The establishment" AND "Santa"

Both worthwhile "CLAUS(es)!"

 

We are all better for Santa

The Easter Bunny too

And maybe the great pumpkin

To name just a few!

 

An extra day off

Is hardly high treason

It may be spent as you wish

Regardless of reason.

 

The court having read

The lessons of "Lynch"

Refuses to play

The role of the Grinch!

 

There is room in this country

And in all of our hearts too

For different convictions

And a day off too!

 

---

 

 

  ** 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.

hu162.htm. Revised 12-12-99. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.