Heads Up A Weekly edition of News from around our country January 24, 1997 #19 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net ---------------------------------------------------------- Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html ---------------------------------------------------------- GO ALONG TO GET ALONG President Clinton was sworn in again, Congress is back in session again, and all is as it should be in Washington. Well . . . all is as the people in Washington think it should be, anyway. In truth, it is a far cry from anything intended by the authors of our Constitution. Oh sure, there are still three basic branches of government. But effectively, there are now four branches. Because, it's the unelected (and unaccountable) bureaucrats of the regulatory agencies that cause the most havoc to the people living in the states. Remember, it is the regulatory agencies that mimic the Communist form of government within our system. That is, each agency has complete control of all three branches -- executive, legislative and judicial -- within its own system. And folks, that is about as far from our Constitutional form of government as you can possibly get. And, what's this "era of bi-partisan cooperation" rhetoric? Slick Willie is publicly trying to position himself as a centrist, a moderate with patriotic tendencies, before the indictments are released. And some of the Republicans act like they're are falling for this self-serving hubris! This is crazy. What we want is even more partisan bickering. We want it to be as difficult as possible to get a bill through Congress. And we want as much stress and strife between Congress and the administration as possible. Think not? Visit any law library and look at the amount of federal law you are expected to understand and obey. Then go over and check out those two-hundred and some fat books of regulations you are also expected to know and obey. The fact is, we already have way too many laws. (Note: See the 12-20-96 issue of "Heads Up" -- "Madison Warned us" -- for more on this.) After all, what good are laws that no one except lawyers reads or understands? And, when the volume of law becomes so great (as it is now) that no single person can ever know it all, the prosecutors and courts have the opportunity for selective tyranny at will. Yeah, we'll accept a little cooperation between the legislative and administration branches. We'll accept a little bi-partisan cooperation in Congress, and between the Houses of Congress, too. But, only if it is to repeal laws. Not to make more. The problem is, they are gearing up to pass even more laws. So, we should be doing our part to stir that partisan aggravation pot as much as possible. To that end, we should keep them busy by demanding hearings and investigations on everything we can think of. That is, unless you are the type of person who actually wants even more constraints on your own personal freedom. STUPID LAWS Slick and his FAA have been putting airport security on the fast track. That nothing much has ever happened at an airport in over two decades is, well, incidental to the project at hand. Travelers are going to be protected whether they need it or not. The administration wants all aircraft passengers to be screened by computer check. The person's complete background, including criminal history and past travels would be computerized, and available to all airport personnel. The intent is to create computerized "profiles" of potential terrorists and other troublemakers, of course. "We are potentially a (terrorist) target," said Mort Downey, the deputy transportation secretary. Yeah. And evidently the word "potential" is the operative word here. That "potential" is now all that is required to severely violate the liberty of American travelers. The cost of the project is expected to be $9.9-Billion -- or, about $90 from each and every American taxpayer. This includes high-tech passenger search equipment, bomb-sniffing dogs, x-ray equipment to scan baggage, and hardened containers for hold cargo. Most interesting is the passenger search equipment commissioned by the Department of Justice. With these devices, they will compile rather explicit videos of all passengers -- sans clothing, of course. The new equipment actually looks right through clothing to "see" the human body in all its glory. Current pictures are about the quality of the original tin-type photographs. But, they'll get better as the equipment is perfected. By the way, look for the new scanning devices at your local Federal Building soon, too. Won't that make you feel safe? No word yet on who will control the archives of these pictures -- or how we can obtain copies through the freedom of information act. . . . FREEDOM OF THE PRESS We must all support the concept of freedom of the press. However, when the press goes so far to the left than it becomes little more than a cheering section for socialism, we need not support it financially. Such is the case at ABC news. They just hired socialism's head cheer leader, George Stephanopoulos, to add "color" to their news programs. He is, of course, the very same White House aide instrumental in interfering with the free flow of information to the public these past four years. Like most socialists, Stephie's idea of freedom of the press is to relate only information he agrees with. For instance, conservative writer Tony Snow started a Sunday morning talk/news program on FOX last year. Well, guess which senior White House aide was jumping up and down and demanding that no member of the administration appear on that "right-wing" program? Uh huh. Roone Arledge, ABC's news president, called little Georgie "one of the best known and most articulate presidential advisers this country has ever seen." Well, maybe so. But shouldn't honesty and believability also be considered in news broadcasts? SLICK AND DEVIOUS TOO If you listen closely to Slick Willie's speeches, and maybe do just a little reading between the lines, you can tell what kind of problem he's trying to weasel out of at the time. For instance, his inauguration speech was a babble of something like "we must all work together in a bi-partisan way and work for the good of the people." That was his rhetoric for everyone on TV. Well folks, they don't call him "Slick" for nothing! The very next day, talking to Democrats, he said about Republicans proposing to change campaign finance laws: "Delay will mean the death of reform one more time. . . . If you will do it, we will do it. We have offered our hand time and again. Why not just say yes?" That, of course, is because of all the illegal campaign contributions he, Gore, and the Democratic National Committee got caught taking. Right now, there at least three FBI investigations looking into this, and the deeper they dig, the more dirt they find. Sen. Christopher Dodd, the party's general chairman during this mess, got into the act, too: "Let the Republicans join us. Let this be a challenge today to the new Republican leadership. ... Why don't you clean up your financial picture as well?" Perhaps someone should inform the Senator from Connecticut that he better dummy up. Because, were he not a senator, and the past party chairman, he would already be in jail for money laundering. We expect that stuff out of Slick. He's doesn't seem to know the difference between a lie and the truth. Before becoming Democratic chairman, however, Dodd used to tell the truth once in a while. Colorado Gov. Roy Romer took over as party chairman this week. He started out by saying that contributions to the DNC will not buy access to power brokers [anymore]. Sure, governor. We believe you. Sure we do. PAID LEGISLATION He who pays the fiddler calls the tune. And, if anyone thinks it's any different in Washington they've probably have their head stuck someplace it doesn't belong. Most of us would call what lawmakers get bribes. They don't, though. They call the donations -- the ones accounted for on the record -- "campaign contributions." They call their paid vacation trips -- family and all -- "fact finding tours." Then, of course, there are all the paid golfing outings, ski trips, sporting events, and whatnot -- most of which are thousands of miles away from their state. Those are paid business meetings with "constituents," of course. And us citizens? Uh . . . well . . . are you on the contribution list? If not, you may get to say something to your Member of Congress for two minutes. Maybe. It all depends who your Member is, actually. Contribute a thousand bucks, though, and see how much time you get. Or, form a PAC and contribute $10,000 and you may even be able to influence some legislation. Remember the peanut subsidy vote last year? That ridiculous subsidy survived 212 to 209. Of those 212 voting to keep the subsidy, each received an average of $1,542 from the growers. And the 209 voting against the subsidy? Well, as it turns out, they only received an average of $152 apiece. Hey! Money talks in Washington. Here's another example: Last March, the Senate voted 54 to 42 to preserve a law allowing timber companies to salvage dead and dying trees on public lands. Those voting to keep the program had received an average of $19,503 in timber industry contributions over the previous five years; those opposed, $2,675. Ditto for the sugar industry. In a House vote to keep the sugar price subsidy, the 217 voting for the subsidy received an average of nearly $6,000 each. The ones voting against only average $853. Senators voting for the subsidy received an average of $13,473, and those voting against only $1,461. That vote ended up costing consumers about fifty cents more for a five pound bag of sugar. And so it goes. There are many of these "coincidences." Probably hundreds actually, over the years. We've got the best Congress money can buy! This information comes from the new Center for Responsive Politics report titled "Cashing In: Money, Votes, and Congress." It's a very interesting report on how campaign contributions affect the vote in Congress. Wander over to www.crp.org and see how your Members of Congress stack up in this money for votes game. You may be surprised. But before you do, ask yourself how we Constitutionalists can play. Do we have to pay them to cast their vote for Liberty? Do we have to pay them to protect our individual rights? Apparently it would help. Slick Willie takes money from just about anyone, and regulates accordingly. So do many in Congress. Maybe that's the name of the political game: We get them enough money and they leave us the hell alone!? Kind of like the Mafia. You pay the payola, give them the vigorish every so often, and maybe they do something to help you when you need it. It's just like politics in a third world country, too. Except, here the payment is not called bribes. Here, it's called "contributions" or reimbursements for "meetings." Uh huh. It may take a while, but we'll catch on. This is a really sick way to run a government! It looks bad, but this is how it works. The proof is in the evidence. Therefore, the question those of us seeking a Constitutional form of government must ask is both simple, and very pragmatic: If this is the game, how much does it take to get in? And, what are the rules? What will it take for us Liberty loving citizens to start winning? Let's ask them and find out. JURY INFORMATION The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) recently announced that their web page is ready for visitors. The address is: www.fija.org The "Citizens Guide to Jury Duty" is there, as is their "Fully Informed Jury Flyer." And, unlike some other organizations we can name, the group's officers are listed -- complete with addresses and telephone numbers. The Jury Power Page has quite a lot of useful information, and should be very interesting reading to all citizens who love liberty. We should recommend this site as mandatory reading for anyone called for jury duty. As an aside: If this is just the initial web page for the FIJA, expect some fantastic material from them in the future. INCOME TAX Indiana Senator Richard Lugar announced a new effort to scrap the IRS -- and hence, income, estate, inheritance, capital gains, and gift taxes. Instead, Lugar proposes a 17% retail sales tax. "A single-rate consumption tax on goods and services is the fundamental change needed to spur economic growth and increase wages, savings and investment. . . . The sales tax would be collected at the retail level, allowing us to abolish the IRS." There is more to this, of course. No one really knows exactly how big the underground economy in the United States actually is -- some say it's hundreds of billions of dollars annually. What we do know, however, is that no taxes are paid on these underground transactions. So, Lugar's sales tax plan would catch most of that. Word on the street in Washington has it that Texas Rep. Bill Archer -- chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee -- has been having private talks with Slick Willie that may concern abolishing the IRS. And, it is said, there was agreement between the two men. Archer, you may remember, came out in favor of that about two years ago. There are two very promising points to be made here: Any taxing changes that are made must go through Archer. And, Slick desperately wants to make his mark on history (other than the indictments). The detractors will be the big government loving liberals. They will see it as a great loss of power over the people. DIVIDING AMERICA Michigan Rep. John Conyers presented his hackneyed proposal to compensate Black people for slavery again. This year, it's HR-40. Conyers wants taxpayers to pay for a "commission to examine slavery," and to "make recommendations to Congress on appropriate remedies," meaning money, of course. It's a stupid bill and, as always, it will not go anywhere. On the other hand, Conyers also proposes HR-118, the "Traffic Stops Statistics Act of 1997," which might have a chance of passing. The "Traffic Stops" bill orders police departments to keep records of the race, sex and age of everyone stopped. He also wants to know if a search was instituted and why, what contraband was discovered, and whether an arrest was made. Conyers' intent, of course, is to determine how many more Black males are stopped than White people, and why. He cares nothing about Liberty, or the Fourth Amendment. Conyers' only interest is in making noises about racial discrimination. Florida's Rep. Hastings also introduced a race based bill, HR-188, to "establish Federal, State and local programs for the investigation, reporting, and prevention of bias crimes." Hastings wants the Attorney General to set up a "National Director of Bias Crimes." According the bill, the Department of Treasury, the FBI, and the Department of Justice are all to cooperate in this. Oh, and the bill calls for "bias crime interdiction and prevention," too. That should be very interesting! How do you interdict thought? The only saving grace in this is that no one in Congress takes either Conyers or Hastings seriously. On the other hand, the Democrats promote by seniority, rather than ability. So, had the Democrats become the majority in Congress again, both of these guys would have probably ended up committee chairmen. Oops. YOU'RE ENDANGERED The tree-huggers -- and this time bug-huggers, too -- have a plan. And, some of us are definitely not going to like this. This plan may have to do with your home, your neighborhood, and your lifestyle. In short, some Americans might be forced to move out of their nice new homes soon. It seems that certain "endangered species" of plants and bugs like to live in areas newly developed for people. But public officials -- who swore by their oath of office to uphold all of the rights and liberties of the people guaranteed by the Constitution -- are favoring bugs and scrub plants over citizens. The new report comes out this week. In it, Mark Roberts, a Princeton University researcher, said the study demonstrates that "endangered species tend to clump together." Now, that should be enough to get your interest right there. They "clump together," as in the desired "biospheres" environmentalists want set up around the country maybe? No, not yet. But yup, that's what they're working towards. And, here's where they drop the other shoe: He reports that many of the "hot spots for species protection also are areas of major growth and development -- providing the potential for conflict." That's us, folks. We're the "conflict" in this situation. That's because, "These areas (of species concentration) where human activities are currently high are still very important areas of wildlife," the Associated Press reported in an interview with Roberts. "That means we have to enter into a dialogue ... in such a way that we can arrive at a method to conserve species while minimizing impact." Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt of course agrees, saying that with a better knowledge of species concentration, it may be easier to reach compromise agreements for their protection. "If we improve our knowledge of the distribution and co-occurrence of species then we can provide a sounder scientific basis for ecosystem based habitat conservation," Babbitt wrote in a companion article this week in Science magazine. With that, we say again: If these people are so damn interested in bugs, plants and little crawly critters, they are free to purchase some property and grow as many of the little buggers as they wish! But the fact is, that could be too successful. Then they wouldn't have anything to bitch about. Also, they cannot control anyone by doing it that way. And that, folks, is the crux of the whole situation here: Control. There are two important levels of involvement we should watch in these situations. We see the activist level, because they're in the news a lot supporting their cause. But there is a much more sinister level we never see. That is the people who finance the activists. Like Dow Chemical financing activists to work towards a ban on Freon just before their patent ran out, these financiers do it for the money. As with the Freon fiasco, when you follow the money trail, you will see why the action occurred. All of these environmental activists organizations require a lot of money to disseminate the message for their cause. Also, many of these so called "activists" are actually very well paid for what they do. Sure, part of their funding comes from personal donations. But, just a small part. Most of their money comes from grants from foundations and corporations -- which, in one way or another, all have a financial interest in the outcome of the activism. These "activists," then -- some knowingly, others unknowingly -- are little more than useful idiots for the men with the deep pockets. In truth they are foot-soldiers, fighting for the cause of producing someone more money. Now, that is not to say that all environmental causes are silly. After all, we all like clean lakes, green parks and watching nature's critters frolic in the woodlands. We all want to breath clean air, too. However, any good thing can be carried to the extreme. And today's environmental activists have long since passed over the line denoting fanatical. We have cleaned most lakes. Most rivers are better now than they were a hundred years ago, and getting better. Our critter population -- deer, for example -- is now getting excessive. We could still use more fish, and we're getting them. That's because man is smart -- ingenious, in fact. We wanted more buffalo, so people are breeding them. We wanted more shrimp, so people are farming them. Ditto for trout, catfish, crawfish, turtles, pheasant, etc., etc. The government didn't need to ban humans from hundreds of thousands of acres for these animals to survive and prosper. Humans saw the need -- or the market -- and began farming the critters. So OK, maybe bugs and weeds are a different story. We do not really want them, so no one grows them. But they can. The fact is, we can grow and/or breed anything we wish. And, were these activist organizations to put their budgets into reproducing whatever their current "endangered" thing is this month, there would be an overabundance of them in the United States within a few short years. Instead, we get inundated with junk science reports, which usually support hair-brain schemes, which usually unnecessarily inconvenience unsuspecting people. Who finances all this foolishness, and why? -- End --