An elderly Democrat asked an interesting question at the local greasy spoon the other day: "Who are the Democratic heroes today?"

After a little thought, I came up with a smart- aleck answer: "How the hell am I supposed to know, I'm a Constitutionalist, not a liberal. I can't think of any liberal heroes."

"Exactly!" she said. "Back when I was teaching school, at least there were a few national Democrats we could look up to. Now there is no one. Gore does not stand a chance in this election."

Nevertheless, they had a convention anyway.

Slick Willie and the Misses took their campaign time to toot their own horns and, of course, lie a lot. He was as slick as a prosperous used car salesman; she couldn't even speak as well as the artificial intelligence software in my computer can read aloud my e-mail in the morning.

One interesting development was that Fox News went to a split screen format while Bill Clinton was completing his self-indulgent speech. They used half of the screen to show the riots outside the convention center and even talked over Clinton for a while describing the action.

Then, of course, there was the brouhaha about holding a fund-raiser at the Playboy mansion. One worry was that they wouldn't be able to get Bill Clinton out of there. Another problem is that Gore and Lieberman are trying to give the appearance that the Democratic Party suddenly sprouted some "family values."

Of course, all that is in the face of the fact that they had a quota system to insure there were the proper mix of each race, sex, religion and sexual orientation (including transgendered) on the convention floor. Go figure.

Anyway, when the Boy Scouts went up on stage to do their thing, a large contingent of conventioneers joined together to loudly boo the Scouts because of their moral creed. That's the "family values" of the Party of the Ass.

One little inconvenient problem with Gore's new "moral" thing, though: Clinton, Clinton & Gore have this big spender friend who also publishes a girlie magazine. It should be interesting to watch Lieberman when Larry Flynt pops up with a cool half-million or so campaign donation. And don't forget Bob Guccione of Penthouse. Anyway, over the Clinton years, Playboy gave $6,500 to Al Gore to play with, $26,000 to the Democratic Congressional Committee; and $85,239 to Democratic candidates. None of these girlie magazine publishers gave to Republicans.

Incidentally, Lieberman already said Gore should keep the Playboy contributions. "I don't think that he has to [return the money] and I don't think that he should," Lieberman said when asked about the glaring inconsistency. That's politics.

According to New Democrats Online [http://www.ndol.org] the platform of the Party of the Ass was "largely drafted by former Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) Senior Fellow Elaine Kamarck and former Blueprint Magazine editor Andrei Cheney" and is a New Democrat document. Which means, it is also a "Third Way" socialist document. <http://www.ppionline.org>

And, how about that Jesse "where's the camera" Jackson, eh? Someone sent him up to the stage with a script -- not knowing, evidently, that Jesse reads about as good as he speaks. He sounded like he was doing a parody of a bad politician. Enough said.

Teddy Kennedy was also allowed to speak. Typical far-left babble from another limousine liberal. Isn't it about time we start rejecting politicians who acquired their family wealth through organized crime activities?

Joe Lieberman was a surprise. For the most part, he stuck to the script given him. But, we learned something about Lieberman: He is perfectly willing to waste time telling mistruths, half-truths, cheap shots, and complete lies. And, as we note with humor, people noticed.

By Wednesday night, the Democrats had insured that their sycophants in the media did not show the riots outside, so people started listening to the LA police calls over the Internet.

We also got a kick out of hearing about the $50,000 to $100,000 dinners given to Democratic Members of Congress by lobbyists. They do it at the convention because that is an unrecorded bribery zone -- nothing needs to be reported.

Then, along came Al Gore. Apparently, they finally got Gore looking like they want him: sort of like a cross between Ronald Reagan and Howdy Doody.

Gore gave his normal lackluster stump speech, laced with "feel good" social programs and a lot about his family. Actually, he could have phoned it in because all it boiled down to was: 'I love my family and friends and I will work to help certain American families -- by giving them stuff paid for by others -- so vote for me.'

Not one thing Gore mentioned throughout the whole speech concerned a function authorized by the Constitution to the federal government. Not even one. . . .

Such is the shame of today's government. Personified.

Many reports from in and around that convention center seemed to show Democrats in their true color. Inside, they had a strict quota system for delegates. Outside, they lived and acted like a bunch of rich limousine liberals and were often harsh to the service people. One waitress complained that the people were very demanding but the tips were positively awful.

Ah yes, but Democrats are working to help the poor in society. Apparently, though, they mean "all" of the poor "collectively" -- and help them with other people's money -- not the poor who are actually standing in front of them at any particular moment.

Number crunching is not one of our most favorite things to do. However, I have been examining government budgets for quite some time and no longer get fooled easily by the devious tricks often used to hide things from the general population.

So, I was very skeptical when I received messages from two normally credible sources that the administrations of State governments were hiding many billions of bucks from both the people and the State legislators in a "secret set of books." In truth, this sounded much too much like yet another urban rumor or Internet conspiracy floated out for whatever reason people do such things.

Compounding the issue was the fact that they were targeting Kentucky as having nearly $9.5-billion in unallocated funds just sitting around. But, two things are wrong with that statement: First, the Kentucky General Assembly was controlled by liberal Democrats for over 200 years. Second, the governor's office has also been held by liberal Democrats most of that time. So, let's face it; if they could find money, they would have spent it.

Nevertheless, I asked a State Senator for a copy of the often pointed to Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and eventually got around to taking a look.

The CAFR is more or less an audit of the State's assets reported to the federal government. Part of the State's budget is in there, too, but the CAFR is different than the budget because it also lists all assets.

After the third hour of studying the report, I had two basic impressions: First, whoever wrote the report did not take the job very seriously. The writing is contradictory in parts and there were major accounting errors -- one major error of $280-million and others of a million bucks or more each. Second, I doubted that anyone ever read the report, and certainly not federal government accountants or auditors.

Generally speaking, I could see how others -- like CAFRman at <http://www.cafrman.com/Articles/Art-KY-S1.htm> -- came up with a figure of $9.436-billion in unallocated funds for Kentucky, but I did not agree with the specifics. Because of a mishmash of old and new laws (and a clause in the State Constitution), much of that $9.436-billion was not available funds. It could be in other States, but not in Kentucky.

Nevertheless, what I did find is about $2.4- billion in immediately free funds that could and should be returned to the people of Kentucky. It was also easy to identify another $3-billion, or so, that could also be returned to the people after a few minor law changes by the General Assembly.

Therefore, without comment, I handed the Kentucky Comprehensive Annual Financial Report off to David Buck, MBA, who is a good accountant. We agree on many of the same items for the same reasons and a few minor items for slightly different reasons. Better yet, we both agree that, with just a couple minor changes in the law, a total of about $4.7-billion could and should immediately be returned to the people. That equates to about $1,300 for every man, woman and child in the State.

This also presents a major problem for the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The Governor and General Assembly are bound by Section 53 of the Kentucky Constitution to, "provide by law for monthly investigations into the accounts of the Treasurer and Auditor of Public Accounts. ... The reports received by the Governor shall, at the beginning of each session, be transmitted by him to the General Assembly for scrutiny and appropriate action"

Section 53 has quite obviously not been faithfully followed, else the General Assembly would know that the Commonwealth of Kentucky has many billions of dollars in unallocated funds and that there is absolutely no reason to raise our taxes. In fact, there is enough money currently available to run the Commonwealth for at least a year with no taxes. Furthermore, based on the current State budget, if all the $34-billion identified in the CAFR were properly invested, there is a great chance that the Commonwealth of Kentucky could operate, perpetually, from just the interest, and no further taxes or fees would ever be necessary.

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

NOTE: This is the first in a series of articles on this topic. We recommend that readers get a copy of the CAFR for their own State and see what is available. And, we are happy to report, there is great precedence for returning money such as this to the people. According to a December 1999 article in the Wall Street Journal, within his first six months in office, Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura returned $1.3 billion in surpluses to the residents of Minnesota. For more information, visit: <http://www.cafrman.com>

As the federal government goes about its unassigned function of regulating every aspect of the life, liberty and property of American citizens, we sometimes point to the Bill of Rights for protection. So, herein we excerpt a passage from The Federalist Papers #84, written by Alexander Hamilton.

This excerpt is worth reading, and studying. It tells the forgotten story of the American Rule of Law. And it also points out that it is again time We the People have a little job description discussion with our public servants in government. Hamilton wrote:

"I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

The Constitution authorizes very few powers to the federal government. Anything not listed belongs to the States. So, when the federal government wished to regulate alcohol, they first passed a Constitutional amendment.

There has been no amendment passed allowing the federal government to regulate drugs, guns, education, food, medications, medicine, or dozens of other things. They just do it on their own, unencumbered by the need for any type of Constitutional authority.

So, because many of us now fear speaking up, we sit back and accept losing our rights one unconstitutional law at a time.

That's the way things are today, but that is a world apart from what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution.

Kentucky made political news last week and it positively infuriated many Northern Kentucky Republicans.

In a diabolical scheme to win reelection in a strongly conservative district, U.S. Representative Ken Lucas, the sole Democrat from the Blue Grass State, leaked to national reporters that he would not vote for Al Gore at the Democratic convention in LA. Lucas said he disagreed with Gore on issues, like abortion and firearms.

That's ridiculous, of course, because when he was Boone County Judge Executive, Lucas lobbied the General Assembly against passing a concealed carry law and passed the only gun control law in the history of Boone County. Also, just the week before Lucas' newly contrived brouhaha, he was seen in the Lexington area supporting another Democrat for Congress who is a rabid supporter of partial birth abortion.

But, never mind. They don't call this the "silly season" for nothing. It's all just politics.

Many Northern Kentucky Republicans who have followed Lucas' deeds for years are finding it humorous that the Democratic Congressman calls himself a "conservative."

In truth, Ken Lucas failed to win the last Congressional election in the area where people know him best -- his own county. Second, if Mr. Lucas were known by the company he keeps in Congress, he probably would never win another election anywhere in Kentucky again. A little research in the Federal Election Commission records tells the story:

The Lucas campaign fund received money from Reps. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), John Lewis (D-GA), George Miller (D-CA), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and Charles Rangel (D-NY), among others on the far-left. But, those five names stand out because they are all members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus -- a group closely aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). The DSA, of course, is the domestic arm of Socialist International of London, England. Now, why would they support Lucas if he's not one of them?

The Lucas campaign also received $5,000 from Al Gore and big checks from at least one Kennedy and a host of other liberals. He got many thousands of dollars from the liberal unions, $15,000 from the NEA, and even a big check from a certain Cincinnati lawyer with a strong propensity for suing tobacco companies and gun manufacturers.

Yet, the facts-impaired media generally label Lucas as a "moderate" and even a "conservative" and let Lucas get away with calling himself a "common sense conservative." That's baloney. He should be known by the company he keeps when the people of Kentucky are not looking.

In Washington, Lucas joined the New Democrat Network (NDN), which is closely aligned with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI). The goal of these groups, of course, is to promote "Third Way" socialism in the United States -- and launder money back and forth to keep their members elected.

These are the far-left groups sponsoring "open trade, USA" and pushing permanent free trade relations with China, Vietnam and Africa. They gave Ken Lucas a score of 100% for his work with them. That's certainly not "conservative."

The NDN was founded in 1996 by Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the DLC. "NDN acts as a political venture capital fund," a special type of political action committee among political action committees. NDN raises PAC money from many sectors, which they then distribute to their top federal candidates -- Lucas received $10,000 from them. NDN also provides a mechanism for fat-cats to donate directly to candidates without worrying about all those pesky Election Commission limits. Clinton campaign aide, Simon Rosenberg, is now NDN's President. Joe Lieberman is chairman.

The DLC does the same thing, actually. But, by forming the NDN, Lieberman, Clinton, Gore and friends could contribute more than twice as much to favored candidates. And, they do not contribute to conservatives.

So, the truth is that, in his two years in Congress, Ken Lucas burrowed right in with all the rest of the limousine liberals and the Washington insider fat-cat establishment. Election Commission records show that Lucas received most of his campaign contributions from many of the far-left PACs and lobbyists in Washington. That's what the NDN and DLC does for its members: gets them lots of money so they are willing to vote correctly when needed.

This latest news cycle about Lucas not supporting Gore is, therefore, but a contrived scam to trick the people of Kentucky into believing Lucas is a conservative. That even some Republicans around the country fell for the trick is simply because they spoke without first checking Lucas' record.

Or, to put it a little clearer: Ken Lucas is to conservative as Alan Keyes is to liberal. No matter how you look at it, there just ain't a fit there.

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

We suggest that everyone check out the Election Commission records to see who is contributing to their Congress critters. Below are a few addresses of liberal groups. Is your Member of Congress a member of one of these groups? You should know.

<http://imgsrv.sdrdc.com/fecimg/norcansea.html>

<http://www.newdem.org/>

<http://www.dlcppi.org/tnd.html-ssi>

<http://www.ppionline.org>

<http://www.netprogress.org/legis/index.htm>

<http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html>

<http://www.fabian-society.org.uk>

  ** 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.

hu195.htm. Revised 8-19-00. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.