Heads Up



   A Weekly edition of News from around our country



		  February 7, 1997   #21



	  by:  Doug Fiedor    fiedor19@eos.net



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

  Previous Editions at:  http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html

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





THE THIRD WAY

	Did anyone notice that not one single 

domestic program proposed by Slick Willie in the State 

of the Union address is a function authorized to the 

federal government by the Constitution?  Nope, not one!  

Therefore, every penny of our tax dollars Slick plans to 

spend on these domestic programs is also devoid of 

Constitutional authority.

	Oxford trained Bill Clinton is, of course, 

a socialist.  That is exactly what the Rhodes Scholar 

program is over at Oxford University:  A training ground 

for a specific type of political socialist.  These are 

not your Karl Marx type of socialists either, as we will 

soon see.  These are the movers and the shakers of both 

business and politics -- but with a twist.

	Read between the lines in the State of 

the Union, folks.  He wants schools, libraries, hospitals 

(each bed), businesses, and even homes all wired to the 

Internet.  Why?  Anybody remember where we've heard all 

that before?  Orwell's 1984, maybe?

	Seriously though, Slick is a strong 

proponent of the "Third Way."  That's a form of 

government said to be a blend of the "best" of both 

capitalism and communism.  The "Third Way" is a 

"Financial-Political Oligarchy," as some describe it.  

And, because of the many Rhodes Scholars around the 

world, it's tentacles reach internationally, as well as 

exerting national control.

	In the United States alone, there are at 

least thirty people in high government positions who 

are also proponents of this type of government.  The 

current president is only the most visible of the group.

	If you think about this model for a while, 

you will soon realize how, and why, we differ from 

classical socialism, or Communism.  To keep the best of 

capitalism in a "Third Way" society, private property 

must be allowed.  Rather than government owning all 

property and the means of production, as in pure 

socialism, an alternative is used.  In a "Third Way" 

society, property and business is simply controlled by 

government regulation, rather than government ownership.

	In a "Third Way" society, the laws to keep 

us citizens in line come from the communist model of 

government -- complete government control of everything 

from womb to tomb.  The moneyed elite, however, work 

under the capitalist system, so as to continue generating 

wealth.

	We middle class, then, are to be the 

controlled.  Our children are to be taught in government 

schools, but trained to only that level which is 

necessary to become good workers.  We are to have a 

semblance of freedom.  But the working class people must 

never have enough freedom (or accumulative power) to 

interfere in either commerce or government.

	Look at all of the "tightening" of the 

"loopholes" (freedom) in the law over the past few years 

as an example of control.  All of those regulations would 

be a really good hint, too.  Few, if any, of these 

impositions on our lives have any basis (authority) in 

the Constitution.  In fact, none of this was intended 

by the authors of our Constitution.  Yet, we citizens 

have accepted laws controlling everything in our lives.  

Why?

	But, to report this is to repeat the 

information related in the past twenty issues of 

"Heads Up," isn't it.  For whether we like it or not, the 

"Third Way" is already "our way."  Most of it is here, in 

place, right now!

	Now comes Slick Willie proposing more!  

Complete socialism, womb to tomb.  Which is also complete 

government control womb to tomb.  Whatever happened to 

freedom?  Anyone care anymore?

	Those Americans thinking government should 

provide schooling for all kids are looking for government 

indoctrination of all kids.  Anyone thinking the 

government should provide medical treatment for all 

people propose government takeover of the medical 

profession, and bureaucratic rule on who may or may not 

be treated.  Anyone thinking the government should 

provide free baby-sitters to all is . . . well . . . you 

get the idea.

	We have to get government out of our 

lives.  Not, as Clinton proposes, invite it in.  Else, 

his "Third Way" will be so entrenched in this country we 

will never get it out of here.

	In other words, if you do not see authority 

for a government program explicitly written within the 

Constitution, reject it!  When they do not have the 

authority for a federal program, your responsibility is 

to tell them so.



ACCC -- ALMOST THERE

	"Heads Up" has received a lot of mail 

these past few weeks concerning a new national 

organization that is forming.  We are happy to report 

that things have been moving right along, albeit quietly, 

and the group will soon announce its existence publicly.

	The name chosen for the new organization 

is:  "American Constitutional Campaign Committee."  And, 

as the name implies, the intent of the group is to set up 

a citizen's national campaign committee in defense of our 

United States Constitution, as written.

	As readers know, "Heads Up" strongly 

supports peaceful activities to re-institute a 

Constitutional form of government in our country.  We 

still have the "right" of assembly.  We still have the 

"right" of free speech.  We still have the "right" of 

petition.  And we still have the "right" to involve 

ourselves in politics.  Accordingly, we also have the 

"right" to use all of these tools to encourage our 

friends and neighbors to join us in driving the 

socialists out of government service.

	The "tightening" of all the "loopholes" 

(read freedoms) in the law is continuing.  Therefore, 

our right to join together for these activities may not 

be available to us for much longer.  For that reason, 

those of us on this end say:  Let's go for it!  We have 

nothing to loose (except maybe a little time), and we 

have a hell of a lot to gain if we succeed.

	Starting now, ACCC invites interested 

Constitutionalist groups, and citizens with strong 

organizational and public relations skills, to contact 

them at:  52300 Scottsville Road,  P.O. Box 51851,  

Bowling Green, KY  42102-6851.  An e-mail address 

(ACCC@mindspring.com) will also be available within 

a few days.

	ACCC membership will be open shortly to 

all American citizens who are registered voters.  

However, "Heads Up" was told that there is neither staff 

nor funds available to reply to everyone at this time, 

so we will all have to wait for more particulars.



NO ETHICS REFORM

	The House of Representatives is having a 

bit of a problem finding Members willing to serve on the 

Ethics Committee.  So far this session, they have only 

been able to cajole one Republican and one Democrat into 

volunteering.  They need twelve more, but there are no 

takers.

	So . . . as usually happens when the 

elected ones do not wish to do something, a proposal 

was made to farm it out to citizens.  Yup, you guessed 

it!  They want to form a commission.  No kidding!

	Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) and Rep. Robert E. Andrews 

(D-NJ) suggest an outside panel of 14 private citizens, 

empowered to investigate all ethics complaints against 

members and staff.  Now folks, this sounds like a really 

interesting job.  Just think of all the possibilities. . . .

	"The people are the best judges of 

congressional ethics," Rep. Andrews said.  Yeah, you 

guys sure aren't.  Talk about total conflict of 

interest!  Everything you do there turns into a political 

food-fight.

	What they need is a few good, impartial 

Constitutionalists on that Ethics Commission.  That'll 

fix a few of the problems on the House side, anyway.  

They need a commission full of people willing to file 

ethics charges for violation of oath of office whenever 

one of them introduces an unconstitutional bill.

	Hey!  Anyone out there know how to signify 

in writing when you're raising your hand really, really 

high??

	Wow!  What a position that would be.



RESURRECT THE RULE OF LAW

	We've all heard of it.  But few Americans 

use the term "Rule of Law" anymore for a very good 

reason.  Except for lawyers, not many of us have any idea 

what that term really means.  Worse yet, most of us don't 

really care what it means, either.  The term is just not 

very useful for everyday conversation.

	But we should care.  There was a time, 

before about 1940, when nearly every American citizen 

knew exactly what the term Rule of Law indicated.  And, 

they often demanded strict enforcement!  You should be 

very familiar with the term, too.  It pertains to 

something very precious to you:  Your freedom.  And 

today, we're desperately in need of a resurgence in good 

old fashioned freedom from government restraints.

	One old political dictionary defines Rule of Law as 

"an Anglo-American concept that emphasizes the supremacy 

of the law and restricts the discretionary power of 

public officials.  The Rule of Law particularly stresses 

the protection of individual rights from the arbitrary 

interference of officials."  In other words, when applied 

correctly, it protects your personal freedom.  Not the 

group rights the leftist-liberal socialists try to push 

on us, but our own individual, personal rights and 

liberties.

	In "The Road to Serfdom," Professor of 

Economics and Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek says of the Rule 

of Law:  ". . . this means that government in all its 

actions is bound by rules fixed and announced 

beforehand -- rules which make it possible to foresee 

with fair certainty how the authority will use its 

coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one's 

individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge."

	Now do you see why we need to know 

more about the Rule of Law?  Because it restricts the 

discretionary power of public officials.  Well, 

originally, it was supposed to, anyway.

	And yes, public officials really are 

supposed to be controlled by something other than the 

vote.  It is the "what" that is to limit the actions of 

public officials that has become foggy in the minds of 

many of today's American citizens.

	In the United States, the limiting factor is 

our Constitution.

	Years ago, we used to say that we have "a 

government of law and not of men."  Back then, we 

expected our elected officials and bureaucrats to stay 

within the boundaries set down by our Constitution.  That 

is, Congress was not expected to pass unconstitutional 

laws, the president and the courts were expected to 

strictly enforce the Bill of Rights, and your state and 

local officials would do only those things outlined by 

your state constitution and/or city charter.

	That is what our grandparents expected.  

All rights and liberties of the individual citizen were 

supposed to be protected by government.  But, that was 

years ago.  This is now.  And things have changed.

	Still, the foundation on which the 

government of the United States is constructed is the 

Constitution.  To violate the words -- the intent -- of 

the Constitution, therefore, is to profess a form of 

government outlawed by the document itself.

	In 1928, Supreme Court Justice Louis D. 

Brandeis wrote (277, US 428, 485), "Nothing can destroy 

a government more quickly that its own laws, or worse, 

its disregard of the charter of its own existence."  

Justice Brandeis also wrote that "If we desire respect 

for the law, we must first make the law respectable."  

>From that, we may safely assume that Brandeis also meant 

Constitutionally legal.

	To propose a law, rule, regulation, 

executive order, or judicial opinion not in exact 

agreement with the authority given government by our 

Constitution would also be a direct violation of the oath 

of office taken by all members of government.  It is, 

therefore, itself a violation of the law!

	Furthermore, in "Norton v. Shelby," 

(118 US 423), the Supreme Court said that "An 

unconstitutional act is not law.  It confers no rights, 

it imposes no duty, it affords no protection, it creates 

no office."

	Today's popular press accounts relate 

that prostitutes on the street now have a higher 

believability level than elected officials and their 

bureaucratic minions in Washington.  This is because 

hookers do not normally lie about what they have to 

offer.  Elected officials and bureaucrats, on the other 

hand, live a lie in that they violate the Constitution 

-- the Rule of Law -- in nearly everything they do today.

	"Patriotism means to stand by the country," 

said Theodore Roosevelt.  "It does not mean to stand by 

the president or any public official, save exactly to the 

degree he himself stands by the country."

	Amen, Teddy.  Amen.



RIP OFF

	The public gift shop in the U.S. House 

of Representatives made $118,000 last year.  Whereas, 

the private supply shop right next to it lost $930,000.  

The "public" gift shop, of course, has inflated prices 

for us citizens.  The "private" store, on the other hand, 

offers bargain prices to lawmakers, staff and their 

friends.

	So, lawmakers propose a fix:  Raise the 

prices of goods on the tourist side.

	We elected them, folks.  We elected them.



THE MEDIA SHAME

	There was a major quandary among the 

hair-sprayed news-readers Tuesday night.  They were 

supposed to cover the State of the Union address.  

However, the OJ jury decided to bring in a verdict at the 

same time.

	At first the news-readers sat there 

babbling, wasting time, because nothing was happening 

with either story.  No matter that the House, as it is 

once a year, was filled with every member of Congress, 

the Supreme Court and the President's Cabinet.  To the 

news-readers, there was no news.

	Then, as the President of the United States 

spoke to Congress and the nation, they detracted from his 

talk by placing distracting split screens and/or 

"crawlers" on the screen so we would be informed of the 

circumstances involving a murdering ex-football player.

	Of course, this is a President so devoid 

of morals that no man would want his mother, wife, 

sister or daughter to be alone in the same room with him 

for more than a second.  Nor would any honorable woman 

dare be caught alone with the man.  But, that's not the 

point.  He is still the President of the United States!  

And, as such, he was speaking officially on government 

policy.

	Yet, the major American news media put 

the annual message of the President of the United States 

on equal footing with that of a known killer.  And that, 

dear reader, is a damn shame!



STUPID LAWS

	Here's a bill that may well win the 

"Heads Up" award for stupidest bill of the year.  This 

one was introduced by Ohio Senator Mike DeWine -- who 

incidentally, served four terms in the House before being 

elected senator, so should know better.

	S. 171 states that:  "A person is guilty of 

an offense if, acting with the state of mind otherwise 

required for the commission of a crime, that person 

intentionally engages in conduct that, if successful, 

would constitute or result in the offense."  Huh?

	Furthermore, the bill says:  "It is not a 

defense to a prosecution under this section -- (1) that 

it was factually or legally impossible for the actor to 

commit the crime, if the crime could have been committed 

had the circumstances been as the actor believed them to 

be; or (2) that the crime attempted was completed."

	Let's see here, you would no longer have 

to actually "do" something illegal to be guilty of a 

crime, you would only need to have the "state of mind 

otherwise required for the commission of a crime."  

Get it?  "State of mind" = thought crime.

	OK.  So you're sitting home broke one 

day.  Suddenly, you start daydreaming about how easy 

that little bank down the road would be to stick up.  You 

own a shotgun, you need the money, the bank is there, you 

momentarily have the impure thought, and in your mind the 

deed is probably doable.

	Well, well!  If DeWine's bill passes, 

you have just committed a federal felony -- without even 

leaving your easy-chair!

	And they wonder why even hookers get 

more respect then they do. . . .



TIME FOR STARR TO SHINE

	It seems that Independent Counsel Kenneth 

Starr is getting ready to act.  And, it's about damn 

time, too.  Accounts have it, however, that he's writing 

a book on the Clinton's first.

	No, it's not a book to publish -- although 

some of us may wish to read it.  His is a "few hundred 

pages" stating all of the particulars of the case(s).  

And, word has it that they're not so much deciding on 

"who" to charge with ancillary crimes like perjury, but 

who "not" to charge!  A quick reading of the depositions 

show that everyone in the White House lied at least a few 

times under oath.

	Bill and Hillary, of course, hold the record 

for lies.  Investigators deposing them last year said 

privately that both of them lied "most" of the time, 

even under oath.

	Complicating the issue, their buddy Web 

Hubbell is just about to get out of prison.  And, Starr's 

investigators are asking him, indirectly, how much he 

really wants to stay out.  You see, there's a matter of a 

bribe or two -- and a perjury charge or two -- they can 

hit him with if he does not cooperate. . . .

	Gore is in hot water too, but not with Ken 

Starr.  Janet Reno put 25 FBI agents on the illegal 

campaign finance scams the White House and DNC were 

running, and Ozone Head's name pops up continually.

	Guess who is President if Clinton, Clinton 

& Gore all get indicted and have to resign?  

	Yup, Newt.



			-- End --