Heads Up A Weekly edition of News from around our country March 14, 1997 #26 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net ---------------------------------------------------------- Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html ---------------------------------------------------------- A PARADOX IN THE LAW Those of us who were paying attention might have learned a little about federal law this week. Because, evidently, the law in the United States has just been changed considerably. (see Rule of Law in the Feb. 7 issue of "Heads Up" for the way it once was) No more need citizens worry about the laws passed by Congress, Vice President Al Gore implied to the nation during a televised press conference. Unless laws are first vetted through the courts, they have "no controlling legal authority," the VP said. Ozone Head served sixteen years in Congress and he is now on his fifth year as vice-president. So . . . he must know exactly what he is talking about. He's an authority on law. . . . Well? Isn't he? Never mind that 18 USC 607 says that "It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive any contributions . . . in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties. . . ." And, never mind that the words "any person," "any contributions" and "any room or building" are words that are very clear and easy for all of us to understand. Ozone Head found a cop-out: "There was no controlling legal authority." No one asked if this also applies for executive orders, rules and regulations, but it probably would. If there is no court decision on the subject, there is no controlling law! That's this week's simple legal rule of thumb, freshly invented by the simpleton in the White House. The fact is, Gore made at least fifty fund-raising telephone calls from the White House. And now we learn, he also made quite a few fund-raising calls from his Senate office for the campaign five years ago. So, even if we forget the White House calls, he still committed a series of federal felony offenses from his Senate office. His "no controlling legal authority" argument is kind of interesting after you think about it for a while. Because, how do you get a law started that way? If something is not illegal (no controlling legal authority), you can't get arrested for doing it. But, if no one gets arrested, and has it tested in court, how would there ever get to be "controlling" legal authority? That's an attractive paradox. And, unless we see Al "the Ozone Head" Gore being led off by the FBI in stainless steel bracelets, apparently his interpretation of the law is correct (for those in government, anyway). Cause, after all, he stood up in front of the television cameras and admitted to the nation what he had done -- and he even said that he was proud of it. The Department of Justice certainly should not need more proof than that! That is, were they inclined to enforce the law. REMOVE BAD JUDGES Surprise, surprise. Finally, it looks like Congress is starting to take a good look at activist judges. It's about time, too! "The Washington Times" reported Wednesday that House Majority Whip Tom DeLay is already writing articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge Fred Biery of Del Rio, Texas. Biery, you may remember, is the judge who postponed indefinitely the swearing in of two Texas Republicans because members of the military voted for them. The local race for county commissioner and sheriff were won by only 800 votes. Biery ruled it unfair because many of the military votes cast were absentee votes. Also under consideration for impeachment is U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson in San Francisco who blocked voter approved California Proposition 209, and U.S. District Court Judge Harold Bear, Jr. who tossed out drug evidence in a New York case because he did not think police had reason to search the defendant's car -- he later reversed himself. Articles of impeachment are filed in the House (indictment), and require a simple majority vote to pass. Then they go to the Senate (for trial), where a two-thirds vote is necessary to convict. To date, only 13 judges have been impeached, and only three since 1986. With all the crazy decisions lately, it seems like this action is way overdue. Judges must be "encouraged" to follow the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights. Any judge deviating from the Constitution, as written, should be removed from the bench immediately. Already, liberal groups are calling the proposed impeachment action "intimidation." But that's good, actually. Hopefully, judges will think of it that way, too. Because, if Congress "intimidates" judges into obeying the Constitution by impeaching one or two a year, so much the better for us citizens. DOWN WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT Those of us who were adults back in the 1960's will remember the words "down with the establishment" from the hippies back then. That's when a "trip" required acid, "crash" had two distinctly different meanings and the word "man" included everyone. Where did all those hippies go, we sometimes wonder. Obviously, most of them grew up to become productive adults. That's because about the time they got married and started having kids, an interesting revelation popped into their drug-soaked minds: They needed a dependable source of income to live comfortably! And, to legally acquire the amount of money required to feed and house a family requires that they first get cleaned up and act like part of the establishment. So, most did. Not all did, though. Not really. Many of the anti-establishment hippie-type college kids managed to stay on campus. They are now teachers. Yup, these are now the far-left instructors teaching our children. Yes, they are still far-left anti-establishment radicals -- most of them have never had a real job of any sort, nor any type of life outside of a commune or campus lifestyle. But, they get to mold the thinking of our youngsters, nonetheless. Another bunch of anti-establishment types became environmentalists. You know, they commune with nature, and all that stuff. . . . Some of them even weaseled their way into government positions, working for regulatory agencies. Others are members of militant environmental organizations, pushing their government brethren for more anti-establishment rules and regulations. No, the anti-establishment crowd did not disappear. Not all of them, anyway. They just cleaned themselves up a little and went political. And if you look closely, they seem to be winning their fight against the establishment, too. It seemed a little preposterous back then when a popular radio personality called them "long hair hippie-type pinkos." Most of us thought them to be totally a-political -- drop-outs rather than "pinkos." We were wrong! They are today's socialist teachers and today's socialist regulators. And it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the political ones are still working against the American establishment by aiding groups like the UN and UNESCO. The problem is that what they consider to be the "establishment" includes our United States Constitution and most of our American values. PROTECTING PROPERTY We're not very enthused at writing "book reports" on this end. But there is one recently released book that really deserves mention. And, we might add, although we only had time to spend about fifteen minutes thumbing through it, like many others we immediately added our name to the list of potential purchasers. This is essentially a self defense book for property owners. The book is targeted at both current and would-be property owners, and outlines dozens of interesting signs to look for when walking rural land. A retired biologist (who, understandably, wishes to remain anonymous) spent a year documenting all applicable "endangered" plants and animals for five midwest states. Both diagrams and full color pictures are included so as to make identification almost easy for even the untrained eye. But the book goes far beyond just identification of endangered (and potentially endangered) plants and animals. This author also offers concise information on what to do about the potential problem. For instance, two chapters include information on the legal methods used by government agencies to "restrict" the usage of private property occupied by endangered species -- and information on how to fight that action. But, most interesting to current land owners is the "proactive" preventive information included. About one-third of the book includes instructions concerning everything from transplanting to total eradication of many protected plants and animals. In other words, information on how to get it off of your land, and keep it off of your land, before the regulators find out it was there. Now . . . before the environmentalists get their shorts in a bunch, we should again report that this book was written by a well experienced biologist. Therefore, most instructions include information on how to effectively move the unwanted plant or animal to suitable public land (or the local regulator's land) -- presumably, far away from your own property. The book, we were told, is self-published and advertised by word of mouth. Even so, the first 5,000 copy printing, we were told, sold out in about two months. Another 5,000 will be printed in two or three weeks. It's a shame, actually, that such a book is necessary. But, necessary it is. The environmental wackos in government now have more stupid laws, rules and regulations regarding endangered species (and "near" endangered species) than any single person can learn. And most of these laws, rules and regulations can adversely affect private land usage. Many of these regulations make no sense, either. For instance, at a Kentucky meeting, we were shown five plants that are proposed to be labeled "threatened," and "protected," by environmentalists. We mentioned that, in Michigan, we called those plants "weeds," and they are very plentiful throughout the state. We further mentioned that property owners in Michigan would consider it a good thing if Kentucky environmentalists came up and removed as many as they wished. Obviously, this was not the desired response. For, the environmentalist ranger continued right on with his prepared speech on why it is necessary for government agents to do an environmental "inventory" on all public and private land in the state. Ulterior motives, maybe? Of course! We were asked (told) to not advertise this book, and we honor that request. Apparently, the books are sold as fast as they are printed and everyone involved is comfortable with that situation. We also chose to not compile information about the author and the book's distributors. Suffice to say, they all own property locally. Readers may draw their own conclusions from that statement. . . . Yes, this new book will sell well. And it should. It is an informative and well written text. But it is a damn shame that such a book is necessary. ANARCHY ON HIGH "Sometimes there is a difference between what is legal and what ought to be done," America was informed this week. We should all remember that message, too. Because, those words came directly from the nation's chief law enforcement officer, the President of the United States! Yup, the nation's chief lawman implied that "there is a difference between what is legal and what ought to be done." Those words should resonate loudly within every patriot hall in the nation! Those words should be framed in gold for all good citizens to ponder. Finally, Slick Willie uttered something bordering on truth. Of course, he didn't mean it. Well, he didn't mean it to apply to us American citizens, anyway. That was his excuse for why (he thinks) he can morally violate campaign fund-raising laws with impunity. And, that he did! Most of the campaign laws. Former White House chief of staff Leon E. Panetta practically admitted on NBC last Sunday that the 1996 Clinton reelection committee illegally spent $35-million to $40-million in Democratic National Committee "soft money" contributions on campaign commercials. Yet, federal law prohibits the use of that money in an election campaign. "The president was looking at a Republican Congress trying to implement a contract on America that would impact on Medicare, on education, go after the assault weapons ban, and the president was committed to make sure that that would not happen and that he would be able to be reelected," was Panetta's excuse. Yup, and the end justifies the means. Because, "there is a difference between what is legal and what ought to be done." The Republicans were coming, was the administration's rallying cry. Can't have that . . . so anything goes in order to win! Al Gore wasn't the only one dialing for dollars at the White House. Slick admitted doing it, too. And when Hillary was asked by the press if she partook in the fund-raising activities from the White House, she said (six times!): "I do not recall making any [telephone calls], but I'm not going to say absolutely never. I just don't recall being asked to make any. I don't recall making any," she told reporters. Uh huh. Sure. In Hillary-speak, that means: Yes, I did it. So what? Don't bother me with those inane questions! But both Panetta and Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, who also appeared on the NBC show, said they never solicited campaign contributions from their Capitol Hill offices when they were in Congress because they felt "it would have been improper." Yeah. It could get them some prison time, too! Attorney General Janet Reno also seemed to acknowledge the problem. Last week she said that federal law prohibits solicitation and receipt of campaign funds on federal property "by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office." She just hasn't decided to do anything about it yet. So, let's do our civic duty and give her a few pertinent facts: "It is unlawful for a foreign national to contribute to any political campaign" (2 USC 441e). Yet, Al Gore, Ron Brown, Senator Chris Dodd, John Huang, and quite a few others at the Democratic National Committee headquarters knowingly and actively solicited funds from foreign nationals. Slick Willie intentionally accepted campaign money from Communist China operatives. His "plausible denial" scenario of not being informed -- that the Chinese were laundering money into political campaigns -- by the FBI and the National Security Council will soon fail. Believe the FBI on this one, folks. Clinton knew early on that the Communist Chinese were involved laundering money into political campaigns, and he wanted the lion's share of it. But, for him to admit that is to admit to a serious federal felony. Hence, the current cover-up and finger pointing in the news. "Whoever promises any contact or other benefit as a consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity may be fined, imprisoned, or both" (18 USC 600). That would include Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Senator Chris Dodd, and a whole cast of characters in the Commerce Department and the DNC (most of Congress, too!). Slick had to know that John Huang was probably a mole for the Chinese government. Yet, he gave Huang a position at the Department of Commerce anyway. As we all know now, that tactic paid off handsomely in campaign funds! And one only need read any current newspaper to learn of all the "coffees" and other perks offered to major contributors by the Clinton administration. "Whoever illegally obtains campaign contributions, or knowingly accepts campaign contributions that are laundered in an attempt to conceal the nature, source, ownership or control of the funds, may be fined, imprisoned, or both" (18 USC 1956). That would include Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Huang, Chris Dodd, the leadership at the DNC, and quite a few Clinton appointed ambassadors. Half of the Clinton administration was involved in the re-election campaign -- and therefore, procuring campaign funds. It started as soon as they took office, with Ron Brown and John Huang at Commerce shaking-down business executives and foreign nationals, and it ramped up quickly from there. This administration did whatever it took to get money. They sold access. They sold influence. They sold government positions. They sold government services. And they changed laws and regulations to benefit major campaign contributors -- including foreign governments. Did they break the law? Sure. Continuously. But, so what? The Republicans were coming, and the end justified the means. It was justified for the Clinton, Clinton and Gore team to violate the law because, "sometimes there is a difference between what is legal and what ought to be done." Remember that. There is a difference. But . . . only if you are an official of the federal government. INTERESTING LEGAL TERMS Below are a few legal terms that seem to apply to the current news reports. These are provided only because they offer interesting insight into what some lawyers in the Department of Justice may (or should) be thinking if they read the same news reports we do. Just for kicks, we picked the oldest law dictionary on our shelf: "The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary" by James C. Cahill, dated 1922. This dictionary was chosen because it was published before American law was corrupted by the FDR administration. Conspiracy: "A combination of two or more persons by some concerted action to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish some purpose, not itself criminal or unlawful, by criminal or unlawful means." Malfeasance: "The unjust performance of some act which the party had no right, or which he had contracted not, to do." Misfeasance: "The performance of an act which might lawfully be done, in an improper manner, by which another person receives an injury." Nonfeasance: "The neglect or failure of a person to do some act which he ought to do. The term is not generally used to denote a breach of contract, but rather the failure to perform a duty towards the public whereby some individual sustains special damage, as where a sheriff fails to execute a writ. "When a legislative act requires a person to do a thing, its nonfeasance will subject the party to punishment; as, if a statute require the supervisors of the highways to repair such highways, the neglect to repair them may be punished." Last but not least comes a term from a twenty year old political dictionary of obviously liberal bent. We choose this book because we believe that, when the subject at hand is the behavior of liberal politicians, it is probably best to define the terms the way the liberal politicians understand them. And, this term was once a real favorite of the socialist reactionaries among us: Civil Disobedience: "Refusal to obey a law, usually on the ground that the law is morally reprehensible. Recent examples of civil disobedience include Negro refusals to obey segregation laws and actions of anti-Vietnam war groups in refusing to honor draft regulations. Civil disobedience ordinarily takes the form of nonviolent resistance and is aimed at arousing public opinion against the law." IMPEACHMENT Just as we completed the text for this week's issue of "Heads Up" a very important story popped-up. This is from "The Washington Times," and the synopsis is included immediately below: "The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has been asked to begin an impeachment inquiry of President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore amid accusations that a growing campaign-finance scandal has compromised national-security interests and corrupted the country's foreign-policy decisions. Rep. Bob Barr, Georgia Republican, made the request this week in a three- page letter to Chairman Henry J. Hyde, challenging fund raising "on federal property and with federal resources."" This is good stuff, forks. The article is well worth reading -- no, studying -- in its entirety. This is history in the making, and Jerry Seper of "The Washington Times" does an excellent job of summarizing the situation as it exists today. Friday's "Washington Times" is on the Internet all weekend, so go over and check it out. The address is: http://www.washtimes.com/fullindex/fullindex.html -- End --