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 BYE

	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 --