Time: Fri Nov 22 18:54:22 1996
To: minutemn@pcl.net (Mike Kemp)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: Heads Up
Cc:
Bcc:
reading you 5 by 5 now, Mike.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 08:36 PM 11/22/96 -0800, you wrote:
>Doug Fiedor wrote, Mike Kemp <minutemn@pcl.net> forwards, endorsed:
>>
>> Heads Up
>>
>> A Weekly edition of News from around our country
>>
>> November 22, 1996 #10
>>
>> by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Please Distribute Widely
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> PROHIBITION OF SPEECH
>> It's amazing how selective our "freedom of speech"
>> has become. We live in a society where watching murder
>> and human mutilation are classed as a form of entertainment.
>> Yet, viewing the natural and normal human body is taboo.
>> Religion and speech are said to be free in our country. Yet,
>> if a child combines the two to say a prayer in school it is
>> deemed inappropriate.
>> Isn't something a little backwards here?
>> Now a member of the Kennedy clan plans to censor
>> even commercial speech. You know, advertising.
>> Massachusetts Representative Joseph Kennedy plans
>> to introduce a bill to ban liquor ads from television.
>> Something is wrong with this picture, folks.
>> First, the Kennedy family made their fortune
>> during Prohibition, from selling illegal liquor. Later,
>> they locked in the contract for importing certain
>> alcoholic beverages. The Kennedy money is alcohol
>> money.
>> So, don't be surprised if this bill somehow provides
>> some benefit to the Kennedy family, and their friends.
>> The excuse for banning liquor ads on television is
>> that children may see them. But, that's a lame excuse
>> when thousands of gigantic billboards in metropolitan
>> areas display liquor advertising -- many of them near schools.
>> Yup, there must be something in this for Joe
>> Kennedy, and family.
>> The First Amendment instructs that "Congress shall
>> make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."
>> Our dictionary defines the word abridge as: "to reduce
>> the length or extent of." Perhaps Joe Kennedy's
>> dictionary says something different.
>>
>> MAYBE SHE CAN'T READ
>> IRS Commissioner Margaret Milner Richardson
>> is on the warpath because some Members of Congress
>> propose that the burden of proof in all tax cases be shifted
>> to the IRS. The IRS already has to show proof in
>> criminal cases, but not in civil cases.
>> Richardson said that proposal, if enacted, would
>> make life even more difficult for taxpayers. "The
>> ultimate irony of the solution is that it would require
>> the IRS to gather considerably more information and
>> talk to even more people that it currently does during
>> an audit," she said. Uh huh.
>> Ms. Richardson, the Supreme Law of the
>> Land -- our Constitution -- clearly states: "The right
>> of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
>> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
>> seizures, shall not be violated . . ." Which part of
>> the words "shall not" do you need explained to you?
>> And Margaret, do you see any words differentiating
>> "civil" from "criminal" offenses in there? We do not.
>> Nor do we see an exception for the tax collector.
>> Last session, Congress passed a law which
>> required that they, too, must follow all federal laws,
>> rules and regulations, just as everyone else must.
>> Obviously, we need the same law applicable to the
>> administrative branch.
>> It's a damn shame that we now need a law
>> requiring the federal government to honor and obey
>> the United States Constitution! But, that is evidently
>> the case today. The law should impose stiff prison
>> sentences for all violators, too.
>>
>> NO CONGRESS NEEDED
>> Ohio Representative John Boehner received
>> an "in house" EPA memo that details a method of
>> removing Congress from the lawmaking process. The
>> memo details plans, by administrative fiat, to increase the
>> federal tax on gasoline by 50-cents a gallon. The memo
>> also proposes a host of other hefty taxes on fossil fuels.
>> Apparently, we've been consuming too much folks.
>> So, the tree-huggers want to shut us down. They call for
>> a "carbon tax," a "BTU tax," an "at source ad valorem
>> tax," and a few other "greenhouse gas taxes." The memo
>> estimates that the cost to the economy will be $47-billion
>> annually by the year 2000.
>> The memo states that, "the administration has the
>> authority to begin rule-making on its own, without
>> legislation."
>> How, you might ask?
>> Well, it seems that some obscure provision in
>> Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 gives the
>> administration authority under national security
>> considerations. EPA says that the new gas tax "can be
>> implemented relatively easily and quickly since the
>> legal mechanism and authority exists."
>> Rep. Boehner calls the memo "a rewrite of Al
>> Gore's book, Earth in the Balance -- a radical, extremist
>> approach that would put most working Americans on
>> bicycles."
>> Yeah, but if Slick Willie is impeached, that is
>> exactly what we are going to get! Al rides in the big
>> limo. We get the bicycle.
>>
>> TURKEY'S TALKING
>> Last August, the Meat and Poultry Hotline
>> office of the Department of Agriculture issued a
>> warning that "strongly advises against stuffing the
>> turkey." They said that "cooking the dressing inside
>> the bird could cause serious illness or even death."
>> Folks . . . clearly, there are people working for
>> the federal government who do not have enough to do!
>> This all started with a research study at the
>> University of Georgia. The study recommended that
>> "stuffing" be cooked "outside" the bird. No word,
>> however, on what that should then be called. . . . But,
>> "stuffing," it ain't!
>> Anyway, the Turkey Federation, a trade group
>> of turkey farmers and processors, protested. So, the
>> Department of Agriculture backed down some. Now they
>> say that "cooking a home-stuffed turkey can be somewhat
>> riskier than cooking one not stuffed."
>> Well, at least they did not pass a law or regulation.
>> This time.
>>
>> BY GHALI GOOD BY
>> Well well. Last Tuesday's vote in the UN Security
>> Council was 14-1 in favor of keeping old Boutros Boutros
>> Ghali. The problem is, the United States' vote against is
>> not exactly a vote. It's a veto.
>> News reports say that the American no vote sets the
>> stage for a prolonged battle over his future, and opens the
>> way for new compromise candidates.
>> Yeah. And it also ousts him. By, by Boutros!
>> "Do I represent a danger to the security of the
>> United States?" he muses. "No. Did I smuggle
>> something? Am I Noriega or Saddam Hussein?''
>> he complains.
>> No, Boutros, you are none of those things or
>> people. What you are is someone who covets our
>> country. You want control over our military, you want
>> billions of our tax dollars, you want authority to tax us
>> directly, you want your regulatory agencies to regulate
>> American land usage, you want to affect our education
>> system, and you want to redefine the rights of American
>> citizens.
>> Did that about sum it up, Boutros?
>> By, by Boutros. Good by.
>> And hey, on the way out, please take the rest of
>> the United Nations with you.
>>
>> NO STANDING FOR CITIZENS
>> During the 1992 drought, the federal government
>> cut off irrigation water to farms and ranches around
>> Oregon's Lost River. Because of this, farmers watched
>> their hay, grain and sugarbeets die in the fields. The
>> damage was estimated at about $75-million.
>> This action also caused many ranchers to sell
>> off cattle, because there was no feed for them.
>> Consequently, many farmers and ranchers went bankrupt.
>> Oh. Why was the water supply discontinued? The
>> EPA, of course. They thought it more important to save
>> an endangered sucker fish. Federal government officials
>> decided that fish are more important than the livelihood
>> of a few humans.
>> The farmers and ranchers tried to sue the
>> government. No dice, said the court. So, they appealed.
>> Adding insult to injury, the 9th U.S. Circuit
>> Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that only
>> environmentalists, and others who want to increase
>> protection for wildlife, can sue under the Endangered
>> Species Act. Those wanting to reduce it, or to protest
>> an EPA action, cannot.
>> Like the EPA, the judges apparently felt that the
>> fish were of greater value to the country than the people.
>> This week, the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the
>> case. It should be interesting to see which they think most
>> important.
>> Something else comes to mind that is only
>> somewhat applicable to this case: If these well financed
>> environmental groups really wish to do good, why don't
>> they purchase a little property of their own and breed
>> more of the little critters they so wish to save?
>> It is just as ridiculous to say that these little scrub
>> fish need millions of gallons of free running water in
>> which to live and breed as it is to say that each spotted
>> owl needs five square miles of natural forest in which
>> to nest. The owls have been found nesting in a K-Mart
>> sign -- with people watching! The fish will do well in
>> a tank. Free them later, when the water is up.
>>
>> MORE CORRUPTION
>> It's time for EPA to pay the piper.
>> You see, it is against the law for federal
>> agencies to interfere in elections.
>> But, they did. And, some of the Members of
>> Congress they opposed were re-elected. Now, the stuff
>> is about to hit the fan in Washington. And it's going to
>> be lots of stuff, and a very big fan!
>> It seems that the EPA joined with labor unions
>> and environmental groups to compile a "hit list" for
>> the last election. Republican Members of Congress
>> were rated as "vulnerable," "persuadable" or "prodigal
>> friends." And, 11 of the 25 congressmen targeted
>> were defeated.
>> When they were found out, EPA officials
>> dismissed the criticism as "partisan sniping" -- which,
>> in itself, gives a major hint of exactly where EPA is
>> coming from.
>> The fact is that, through grants, contracts and
>> other payment transfers, taxpayer money was used to
>> influence political races. That is enough to get them
>> some serious prison time.
>> Because of all the financial mischief in the last
>> election, look for the 105th Congress to be very
>> aggressive in pursuing improper lobbying and campaign
>> violations by federal agencies.
>>
>> INSTRUCTIONS FROM HAMILTON
>> What do you think the Founding Fathers would
>> say about the oppressive legislation, rules, regulations,
>> and executive orders emanating from today's federal
>> government? Luckily, in The Federalist Papers No. 78,
>> Alexander Hamilton gives us a pretty good idea:
>> "There is no position which depends on clearer
>> principles than that every act of a delegated authority,
>> contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it
>> is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore,
>> contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this
>> would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his
>> principal; that the servant is above his master; that the
>> representatives of the people are superior to the people
>> themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do
>> not only what their powers do not authorize, but what
>> they forbid."
>> Strong stuff! "No legislative act, contrary to the
>> Constitution, can be valid." Hamilton may have been a
>> lawyer and a politician, but there is certainly no
>> equivocation there! That is quite a concept, especially
>> coming from a man who actively participated in the
>> Convention that wrote our Constitution.
>> It should be noted too that Hamilton was a bit of
>> an authoritarian. At the Constitutional Convention, and
>> within the Cabinet of the Washington Administration, he
>> was a major proponent of a strong central government.
>> Yet, not even Hamilton would ever dream that a
>> president would unilaterally legislate by executive order.
>> Nor would he tolerate the dozens of little Politburos the
>> federal government calls "administrative agencies"
>> passing thousands of regulations annually, each with the
>> full force of law.
>> And surely, if the Founding Fathers saw the state
>> of today's federal court system, and learned how the
>> courts have allowed police search and forfeiture far
>> exceeding the powers imposed on Americans by King
>> George . . . Well, suffice to say, they would not be
>> pleased!
>> We do not have the government intended by the
>> Founding Fathers. Some call today's government a sick
>> parody of that intended by the Founders. But it is not
>> even that.
>> Today's federal government is, in truth, a leviathan
>> of citizen control. It is a government designed to control
>> everything in our lives from womb to tomb. And we
>> citizens are the ones responsible for letting it get this way.
>> Two years ago, the Speaker of the House, Newt
>> Gingrich, suggested that we read and understand the
>> Federalist Papers as a description of the government we
>> should have. He was right! It's time for that trip to the
>> bookstore, folks.
>> Next year, a national citizen's movement will begin
>> in support of those great ideals of freedom, liberty and
>> personal expression defended in blood by the Founding
>> Fathers. And like the Founding Fathers, we will also
>> fight for those ideals. But this fight will be in the arena
>> of public opinion, rather than on the battlefield. And
>> again, freedom will win. After all, what American is
>> not in favor of personal freedom and liberty?
>> But first, we must all take the time to understand
>> the government we should have, as told by three of the
>> Founders themselves.
>> It has been a while since we have had a truly
>> Constitutional form of federal government. It's been so
>> long, in fact, that many Americans are not even sure
>> exactly what was intended in the Constitution. When
>> we all understand that, this will be both an enjoyable
>> and fruitful movement for all Americans alike.
>> Freedom is fun. Patriotism is also fun. And, it's
>> time we enjoyed that type of fun in America once again.
>> The Federalist Papers, by the way, are often cited
>> by the United States Supreme Court as a source of
>> Constitutional law. An inexpensive paperback book
>> version can be found in any bookstore for less than five
>> bucks. That text should be studied by every American
>> citizen.
>>
>> EDITOR'S NOTE:
>> This is only the tenth issue of "Heads Up," but
>> already the response has been overwhelming. Periodicals,
>> such as "Media Bypass," have asked to reprint selected
>> pieces. Radio broadcasts often use articles, the "Anti
>> Statist" web page posts weekly editions, and "Heads Up"
>> will soon be archived in at least two places on the Internet.
>> Whole editions of "Heads Up" have even been
>> reprinted in main-stream Republican newsletters. And
>> two Libertarian groups have also asked for reprint
>> permission.
>> The reception has all been quite amazing, and I
>> thank you one and all. Because, in reality, it is you
>> who pass it along.
>> To date, I have had reports of two errors in the
>> publication. One was an error in the interpretation of a
>> section of the Constitution. When it was reported to me,
>> I agreed that the sentence could have been worded
>> better (more correctly) and promised not to do it again.
>> Another reader mentioned that I was a fraction
>> of one-percent off on a statistic. He was also right.
>> But, by far, the largest response was from the piece
>> about the Citizen's Militia last week. Clearly, many
>> Americans are interested in that topic. My mailbox has
>> been full for a week.
>> Eighty-five percent of those replying agreed -- the
>> militia needs a definable organization, and a code of
>> conduct. Only about five percent said that the citizen's
>> militias should not exist.
>> So far, only one reader was displeased enough to
>> make disparaging remarks about my family heritage, and
>> such. That same person also invited me to kiss a part of his
>> anatomy not normally displayed in public. I politely
>> declined.
>> For future editions, a method needs to be devised to
>> send out the newsletter in a narrower format. That will
>> keep the text formatted properly no matter how many times
>> it is passed along via e-mail. If anyone knows how to do
>> that properly, I would certainly appreciate hearing about it.
>> I thank all of you who sent such kind words of
>> encouragement. And, I want you to know that I will
>> always be open and receptive to (polite) suggestions.
>> -- Doug
>>
>> -- END --
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail