Two of the presidential candidates used illegal drugs well into their twenties (and over?), yet support long prison terms for those who do the same today. And we hear all major party candidates preaching on changes in the law, yet only Alan Keyes professes support for the Constitution, our premier law. All the other candidates admit with every campaign proposal they make that they have absolutely no intention of obeying the Constitution.

Since the tokers of the Clinton, Clinton & Gore team took over the White House, marijuana arrests have increased 56%. Yet, with all those policing officials working in and around the White House, not one of the drug abusers working there has been arrested. Same thing for Capitol Hill, incidentally.

For instance, the very same Senate that couldn't even be bothered with an impeachment trial for Bill Clinton because the White House threatened to air some of the dirty laundry of the Senators and their staffs, managed to sneak through another unconstitutional bill that screws the American people out of more of their right to free speech. This violation of the Bill of Rights is called "The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999" and comes to us via the big government socialists Hatch and Feinstein. Apparently they were taking lessons from totalitarian communist dictators because, this piece of legislative crap says in part:

It shall be unlawful for any person to teach or demonstrate the manufacture of a controlled substance, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of a controlled substance, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime.

 

So, now they are going to censor chemistry books in the name of their failed war on drugs. Worse, this disgrace actually passed by unanimous vote in the Senate and is now in the House.

The ones who need censoring are those in government. They should be forced to stick to those tasks mandated to the federal government by the Constitution and stay out of everything else.

Did anyone else notice that the media did not wish to "report" the facts from that non-primary election exercise called a caucus vote in Iowa? All media received all information at the same time -- they have that fixed -- yet, they reported the "results" in percentage only. We think it's time that the group that reports all election results to the media be strictly supervised and that they be required to release all raw data as soon as it becomes available.

Of 2 million residents in Iowa, about 1.4 million are eligible to vote but only about 88,000 were reported to participate in that little caucus. And according to CNN, of those, only 2,000 votes were cast for Democrats. [and it was labeled "votes."]

So, on the Republican side, Bush won with 36,000. Forbes came in second with about 27,000 and Keyes was third with nearly 13,000. On the Democratic side, Al Gore's "big win" came about with a whopping 1,269 votes over Bradley's 698.

Which means, all Republicans received more votes than Bradley and all but Orrin Hatch received more than Gore. That is why the liberal media hypocrites would not give us the numbers. Clearly, the real data was way too embarrassing for the Democratic Party supporting media to report.

And while we're talking about pure hypocrisy, last week Hillary Clinton accused Mayor Rudy Giuliani of getting down and dirty on the campaign trail -- and insisted that she's no liberal. "A lot of these names and labels they're trying to stick on me are purely for the sake of stirring up the right wing. I think it's going to be very important for the people of New York to know I supported welfare reform," she said. "I support the New Democrat agenda."

In reality, it's hard to tell if she is a classic Marxist or a mainline socialist. Both fit at different times.

But, she's not the only lying hypocrite in the family. Associated Press reports that Bill was "sharing a rare insight into how he has dealt with the emotional fallout of the impeachment scandal." Apparently, President Clinton said he has sought a "spiritual anchor" and to forgive those he feels had wronged him. "What I have gained more than anything else is a certain humility in recognizing how important forgiveness is, but how it doesn't count and it can't count unless you can give it as well as ask for it," the president said in an interview with the Christian Science Monitor.

The hypocrisy of modern politics is such that, according to a CNN-AltPolitics vote count, Alan Keyes received ten times the votes of Al Gore in Iowa. Yet, the American people will never hear the truth because the Socialist-Democrats will never allow their liberal media sycophants to report that.

On January 12, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided Reno v. Condon (98 - 1464) in favor of the federal government. Many people think this was another federalism case but, after reading the complete opinion, we see it is not.

Actually, Reno v. Condon should be read with an eye on personal privacy. That is, the Court states that a State may not mandate personal information from citizens and then enter into interstate commerce, which is not a function of government, by selling that private information to business concerns. In short, the Court said that, because the State was acting as an information vendor of private information, Congress may regulate the act.

That Congress and the Supreme Court needed to act to protect privacy is unfortunate. But, evidently, the people of the State were not able to control their own public officials and some action was necessary to protect privacy.

Below is the Syllabus for the case. The complete opinion may be found at:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1464.ZS.html

State departments of motor vehicles (DMVs) require drivers and automobile owners to provide personal information, which may include a person's name, address, telephone number, vehicle description, Social Security number, medical information, and photograph, as a condition of obtaining a driver's license or registering an automobile. Finding that many States sell this information to individuals and businesses for significant revenues, Congress enacted the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA), which establishes a regulatory scheme that restricts the States' ability to disclose a driver's personal information without the driver's consent. South Carolina law conflicts with the DPPA's provisions. Following the DPPA's enactment, South Carolina and its Attorney General filed this suit, alleging that the DPPA violates the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments to the United States Constitution. Concluding that the DPPA is incompatible with the principles of federalism inherent in the Constitution's division of power between the States and the Federal Government, the District Court granted summary judgment for the State and permanently enjoined the DPPA's enforcement against the State and its officers. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the Act violates constitutional principles of federalism.

Held: In enacting the DPPA, Congress did not run afoul of the federalism principles enunciated in New York v. United States, and Printz v. United States. The Federal Government correctly asserts that the DPPA is a proper exercise of Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. The motor vehicle information which the States have historically sold is used by insurers, manufacturers, direct marketers, and others engaged in interstate commerce to contact drivers with customized solicitations. The information is also used in the stream of interstate commerce by various public and private entities for matters related to interstate motoring. Because drivers' personal, identifying information is, in this context, an article of commerce, its sale or release into the interstate stream of business is sufficient to support congressional regulation. See United States v. Lopez. This does not conclusively resolve the DPPA's constitutionality because in New York and Printz the Court held that federal statutes were invalid, not because Congress lacked legislative authority over the subject matter, but because those statutes violated Tenth Amendment federalism principles. However, the DPPA does not violate those principles. This case is instead governed by South Carolina v. Baker, in which a statute prohibiting States from issuing unregistered bonds was upheld because it regulated state activities, rather than seeking to control or influence the manner in which States regulated private parties. Like that statute, the DPPA does not require the States in their sovereign capacity to regulate their own citizens; rather, it regulates the States as the owners of databases. It does not require the South Carolina Legislature to enact any laws or regulations, as did the statute at issue in New York, and it does not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes regulating private individuals, as did the law considered in Printz. Thus, the DPPA is consistent with the principles set forth in those cases. The Court need not address South Carolina's argument that the DPPA unconstitutionally regulates the States exclusively rather than by means of a generally applicable law. The DPPA is generally applicable because it regulates the universe of entities that participate as suppliers to the market for motor vehicle information -- the States as initial suppliers of the information in interstate commerce and private resellers or redisclosers of that information in commerce.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky, of course, is mostly rural, with agriculture and mining communities throughout the State. There are also a number of Amish families living in Kentucky. So, it was with great surprise that we noticed that HB 425, a bill "relating to motor vehicles" was introduced into the Kentucky House on January 20.

This would be comical if it wasn't also so sickening. Because, quite obviously someone is targeting a single religious class of people who also happen to be good citizens of the community and want nothing more than to be let alone.

Without further comment, here, folks, is conclusive evidence that the political herd desperately needs a major culling as soon as possible.

Create a new section of KRS Chapter 186 to require all buggies propelled by animal power to obtain a vehicle identification number from the Transportation Cabinet prior to registering or operating them upon any public highway; require a buggy propelled by animal power to maintain motor vehicle insurance under the provisions of KRS 304.39-080; amend KRS 186.010 to change the definitions of a "motor vehicle," as well as a "vehicle," to include buggies propelled by animal power; amend KRS 186.412 to exempt the operator of a buggy propelled by animal power from providing a Social Security number when applying for an instruction permit or operator's license; amend KRS 186.420 to require a person to obtain a operator's license prior to operating a buggy propelled by animal power upon any public highway; amend KRS 189.200 to require all vehicles operated on a public highway to be equipped with rubber tires; require animals used to propel buggies to be equipped with rubber shoes; amend KRS 186.160, 189.010, 189.050, 189.090, 189.190, and 304.39-020 to conform.

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/record/00rs/HB425.htm

Below is a reply concerning an article titled "Commerce Dept Snoops on Citizens" in last week's issue. Because this is an official response from the bureaucrats at the Census Bureau, perhaps we should take them at their word.

If we take them at their bureaucratic word, two things become immediately evident: First, the Constitution gives the federal government no authority to collect personal information. Second, the action is a violation of the Fourth Amendment's "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and affects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" that shall not be violated by government agents.

Making the answers "mandatory" means that the full force of government will be used against scofflaws. That is, under certain circumstances, government agents can come and kill citizens who do not answer properly.

Personal information is private property. Therefore the "mandatory" clause, in itself, puts this action in the extraconstitutional/unconstitutional column and makes it a violation of our right to privacy under the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.

In the majority opinion of Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia (448 U.S. 555, 1980), the United States Supreme Court said:

Notwithstanding the appropriate caution reading into the Constitution rights not explicitly defined, the Court has acknowledged that certain unarticulated rights are implicit in enumerated guarantees. For example, the rights of association and privacy, the right to be presumed innocent, and the right to be judged by a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial, as well as the right to travel, appear nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Yet these important but unarticulated rights have nonetheless been found to share constitutional protection in common with explicit guarantees. The concerns expressed by Madison and others have been resolved: fundamental rights, even though not expressly guaranteed, have been recognized by the Court as indispensable to the enjoyment of rights explicitly defined.

Also see "Reno v. Condon" above.

Clearly, the "mandatory" questions of the Census Bureau are a violation of our privacy.

Now for the letter:

Mr. Fiedor,

Just thought you'd appreciate the response I received from the census folks concerning their latest task of information intrusion. I do see many problems with this whole scenario, especially from a government that doesn't trust me to do my own thinking. Thanks for the heads up!

Mike

Thank you for your message regarding participation in the American Community Survey. We are sorry that you feel this survey asks intrusive personal questions. The American Community Survey is a new survey the U.S. Census Bureau is developing to provide critical economic, social, demographic, and housing information to this country's federal, state, and local decision makers every year, not just once every ten years, as part of the decennial census.

Every question in this survey is required by federal law to manage or evaluate federal government programs. For example, grouped information about utilities is used by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Agriculture to administer their programs. Industry and occupational information helps meet the needs of vocational education, employment, and training programs.

Local governments use such information for budgeting, evaluating programs, and planning for community development projects. Scout programs, libraries, churches, banks, and hospitals use this information to provide services to the community and to locate buildings and programs. Transportation planners use it to place bus stops and time traffic lights (using journey-to-work information). Utility companies use such information to understand their customer bases so they can conserve energy and project future needs. Every time someone turns on a water faucet or a light switch at home, summarized census information is behind the services that are received. Information on work status helps companies decide where to place new plants or offices.

Because of the importance of this information, the U.S. Congress provided that response is mandatory. At the same time, the respondent's confidentiality is strictly protected. Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), specifies that the Census Bureau can use the information provided by individuals for statistical purposes only and cannot publish or release the information in any way that would enable someone to identify the individual respondent. Additionally, the Congress imposed severe criminal sanctions, up to five years imprisonment and/or up to a $5,000 fine, if any Census Bureau employee violates those provisions (13 U.S.C. 214). We are attaching a copy of Title 13, Sections 182 and 225, for your information. A statement about the penalties (up to $100) for noncompliance is in Section 221.

We hope this provides a better understanding of the Census Bureau's obligation to protect confidentiality and why responding to the American Community Survey is so important. In light of the many local benefits, we hope you will make every effort to respond to the American Community Survey questionnaire.

If you have any questions about the legal nature of the survey, please call Mr. Phil Freije of the Census Bureau's Legal Office on 301-457-2918. If you need further information, please call Dr. Ken Bryson of the Census Bureau's Demographic Statistical Methods Division on 301-457-8509.

[Note that no mention was made in the above letter about the Constitutional reason for conducting the census.]

Way back when -- when we were a lot poorer but didn't know it because we were happy and life was good -- there was a famous neighborhood orator who was also a United States Senator.

As a young boy always available to do odd jobs around the neighborhood, I was required to attend a rather large outside function one beautiful June day. The Senator spoke of the joy of being an American, love of country, duty to God and country, and how proud he was of all of us for joining various civilian national defense related programs that were still around after the Second World War.

Then, a surprising thing happened: His booming voice cracked and tears came to his eyes as he started to read the names of local boys killed in the Korean Police Action. He, too, knew some of those guys.

And then, just when we thought he was done, he started on Liberty.

Freedom and Liberty were a big deal with us back then. There were a lot of people in the neighborhood who had lived under Hitler and most of us lost relatives over there. So, when that serious stuff started, we kids knew that was not the time to be rustling around -- lest the nearest adult give us a healthy smack across the head.

That day, it was a repeat of his famous "box" speech I had heard before and we had also discussed thoroughly in school.

Of course he talked of the "ballot" box. I'm not sure, but it may have been an election year -- not that it ever mattered in his case. He was "Our Senator," everyone liked him, and that was that.

Then he said, "I have the soap box," and went on to explain to us how important it was that we also use our freedom of speech to get our political points across. The old folks loved that. Especially the ones who recently arrived from Europe.

But, when he got to the "jury" box he diverted from the law a little, some said. Apparently, he too agreed that a jury must not only judge the guilt of the person being tried, but also the applicability of the law in the matter before the jury. "That helps keep government in check," he said to thunderous applause.

Soon thereafter, a little joking around started and the band was playing, so I bugged out to the refreshment stand for a large cherry Coke. Even then, though, I knew he missed something. The speech was not complete. All of the "Boxes of Liberty" were not properly related.

The audience was greatly interested by the time I got back. That old guy didn't forget at all. The joking and the band playing were cover, marking time, while people he wanted came up to the bandstand.

The last Liberty Box, as we all knew very well back then, was the cartridge box. And so, after another five or ten minutes on the methods of protecting Liberty, the Senator made many mothers in the audience proud by personally giving awards for expertise and proficiency in the use of personal firearms.

Boy Scouts, student ROTC members from high schools and colleges, police officers . . . he lined them up and pronounced every name correctly (difficult, in that neighborhood) as he personally handed each of them an award. By their presence on that platform, each was proclaimed to be a good, honorable and useful member of society. They were "the protectors of Liberty." So said our Senator. Therefore, it must be true. That is how it was back then, when things were simpler and life was good. People said they could hear that final standing ovation two miles down the road that afternoon.

Because, there was another important thing we all knew for certain, deep in our own hearts: No Nazi Gestapo bastards or Stalinist commie pinko punks would be taking over OUR neighborhood anytime soon. We had our own damn army! And anyway, even us kids had guns and knew how to use them. Me too, I felt with pride.

A Polish Catholic Priest and a Polish Jewish Rabbi were to finish out the afternoon with some words and a prayer or two. Both were very memorable with their freedom and Liberty oriented mini-sermons and their semi- nondenominational prayers. Again, there were tears evident in many of the older folks; those who lost family and friends to the Nazi jackbooted Gestapo bastards just about a decade earlier. The younger among us always thought it unfortunate that the war stories kept getting rehashed. But, unless the older folks said something, it was not our place to mention it.

Then, as the flags came down, a very tall police officer sat at attention atop his beautiful thoroughbred horse and blew a very chilling rendition of Taps and the Boy Scouts fired off a twenty-one gun salute in honor of those boys the Senator mentioned who were recently lost in Korea.

Back then, we all knew that the soap box, the ballot box and the jury box were the basics of freedom and liberty and must be appreciated and used properly. They defend liberty in a free society. It's when a society becomes less than free -- when government gets crazy and the other boxes no longer work properly -- that we must reach for that cartridge box.

As those two great religious leaders painted so dramatically in word pictures that fine June afternoon many years ago, one only needs to read the story of the Warsaw Ghetto for an indication of just how quickly and easily the necessity for the cartridge box can occur.

There was one thing everyone readily agreed on back then. Liberty requires work. These "Liberty Boxes" are not just rights, they are also our civic duties.

  ** 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.

hu168.htm. Revised 4-16-02. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.