Heads Up A Weekly edition of News from around our country May 16, 1997 #35 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net ---------------------------------------------------------- Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html ---------------------------------------------------------- THE $6-BILLION SCAM When you want to know what politicians are up to you follow the money trail. But as it turns out, all the reported hoopla over this administration's involvement in illegal campaign contributions and political treachery may be little more than the tip of the proverbial iceberg. It looks like the best part of the story is just now becoming exposed -- and it's starting to read like the plot of a Tom Clancy novel. A while back the Communist Chinese gun runner, Wang Jun, was caught trying to smuggle $4-million worth of fully automatic AK-47s into the United States to sell to California street gangs. He was not personally arrested, of course, because someone in the Clinton administration warned him and he fled back to China just in time. Along with running guns, Wang Jun is also Chairman of a bank named China International Trust and Investment Corp. (CITIC), which is actually run by the staff of China's Military Commission. According to our Defense Intelligence Agency, CITIC, the Bank of China and the China Investment Bank, are all used by the Chinese intelligence community to fund operations and serve as a cover for operatives. They also do business in the United States. Now we learn that the Chinese military industrial complex has been using these banks to issue and sell bonds in the United States. Sources say that over $6-Billion in bonds have been sold by these banks to American pension funds and other investors through the U.S. bond and securities markets. This gives the Chinese military institutions access to ready cash (in American dollars), which they can use for any purpose. The Chinese People's Liberation Army is, of course, now in the process of purchasing vast amounts of high-tech military equipment from Russia. They are also buying as much equipment as they can get from us. Goldman Sachs, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin's former firm, made a bundle peddling these bonds, as did J.P. Morgan and other major Wall Street players. But there's a problem. The Economist reports that these banks are "unstable and mired in debt." Half the bank loans they have made may have gone bad. The Red Chinese government will only admit that 20% of the loans have gone bad. But even so, that amounts to many times the bank's capital. So, investing in these bonds could be a disaster waiting to happen. The banks are insolvent, and possibly never intended to pay back the bonds. The Economist also reported that at these institutions, "accounting principles are inconsistent and poorly understood, so bank's senior executives are rarely given reliable information by their loan officers." Yeah. Some of the executives are busy doing other things, anyway. Things like running an army, smuggling guns into the United States, having coffee with the U.S. President, and laundering influence payments (campaign funds) to pass around Washington. Usually there are a whole series of ethical and financial considerations to explore before brokers sell foreign bonds to American pension and investment funds. But for some reason all standards seem to have been dropped with these Chinese banks. Therefore, it looks like the Clinton Administration -- and especially Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin -- better get their stories straight before this information gets legs with the popular press. Because, as USA Today reported Wednesday: "These bond sales pose a very real national security problem and could severely undermine the health of any pension funds that invest in them." Rubin, of course, was head honcho over at Goldman Sachs. Therefore, it is likely that he is the one who approved this deal for the company. He probably pocketed a couple million dollars in commissions from it, too. This story is presently still rather complicated. That's because all of the details are not out yet. But it won't be long before a few powerful pension fund managers realize that they may well be holding six-billion dollars worth of worthless paper. And we doubt very much that the American people will be happy to learn that they have been funding the Communist Chinese Army. Yes folks, there's soon going to be some very probing questions asked, and these questions should start soon. So, when we look for the "quo" in the quid pro quo for the millions of dollars the Democrats received in laundered campaign contribution money from China, perhaps it is here: Over $6-Billion in uncollateralized junk bonds, and the amount is still growing. It seems that the Chinese got a rather nice return on their investment. ENVIRONMENTAL LIES Everyone wants clean air to breath, right? Yeah, sure we do. And we also want a clean environment in which to live, play and raise a family. So here comes an inconvenient question: When was the environment cleaner? If you said back in the 1950's or 1960's, you would be wrong. Let's look at some well published data the Investor's Business Daily compiled last week. Carbon monoxide emissions have dropped 14.9 percent since the U.S. began measuring in 1974. Nitrogen dioxides -- which help form smog -- have dropped 33.8 percent since 1975. Sulfur dioxide in the air has been cut 50.3 percent since 1970, and lead emissions are down 97 percent since then. The air-quality index shows that air quality in the U.S. has improved 42 percent since 1980. And, since 1988, the annual release of toxic chemicals by industry has declined by 34 percent. While the trends for water quality are less clear, Investor's Business Daily reports, the data available show things are getting better: Water quality has improved 27 percent since 1980, according to estimates by the Pacific Research Institute -- with similar improvements in Canada, by estimates from the Fraser Institute. Each year, harvests of timber in the U.S. equal only 60 percent of new growth, and yearly soil lost through erosion due to farming has dropped by almost one-fourth since 1982. Now comes the Environmental Protection Agency exerting control over the American population with its new standards for ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter. Air pollution control officials define particulate matter as "a broad class of substances that occur throughout the atmosphere, originate from a variety of sources, and have different effects on human health and the environment as well as different chemical and physical properties." One source of these particulates is said to be residential wood burning -- your fireplace. So, they would have us believe, our wood burning stoves and fireplaces are dangerous to asthmatics. That, of course, is preposterous! The two greatest man-made sources of harmful particulate matter in the atmosphere are very obvious, yet unregulated: Trucks and aircraft. When you see a big eighteen wheeler, or a big jet aircraft, pouring out that black smoke . . . well, there you go! Those are particulates that are harmful to all humans equally. The problem is, we need trucks and planes delivering products. That's money (commerce) on the move -- the very movement that keeps this country great. The major source of particulate matter in the atmosphere, however, is dirt. Yeah, ordinary old natural dirt -- dust from roads, crops, livestock and natural soil erosion -- accounts for 83 percent of all "particulates" to be regulated. Coincidentally, those wetlands -- swamps, bogs, and whatnot -- the EPA is so strict on protecting, are another major contributor to the problem. And God forbid a volcano erupts anywhere in the world that can affect the air in the United States. . . . EPA estimates that more than 500 counties would be in "nonattainment " of the new standards and more than 100 million people will be affected. Does EPA care that most of this "pollution" is natural, has been with us forever, and will probably be with us forever? Hell no! These new regulations extend current powers and give the bureaucrats a whole set of new powers over the citizens of the United States. And that, folks, is exactly what it is all about! That is exactly what they want: Power and control. Power and control over you. For example, a few years ago the EPA made a deal with state regulators. EPA was to "allow" states the power to regulate pollution. Suddenly that stopped. Why? States were starting to get good results. And EPA was afraid those closest to environmental problems might succeed in solving them -- and, at a real savings in costs. That type of program could lead to a wholesale devolution of power. The federal government can't have that! That would not only draw control away from the EPA, but also away from the national environmental groups whose power is rooted in that agency. So, they put an abrupt stop to the program. Now Washington controls everything with an iron fist again. Many Members of Congress are now willing to rein in the EPA, but they will need some poking and prodding before they will do it. You see, the only voices Congress hears are sponsored by the far-left groups that actually want strong government control of everything. Conversely, those of us who see the fallacy in these and other oppressive regulatory actions are strangely silent. That must change. And soon. If not, be prepared to give up the use of niceties like your fireplace and barbecue to the capricious flimflam fallacies of the social-engineering regulators. LEGAL KIDNAPPING Our dictionary defines kidnapping as: To seize and detain unlawfully. That may not be a legal definition, but it's close enough. Because, the simple definition of "To seize and detain unlawfully" opens up some very interesting scenarios. We all know that to steal someone's child is kidnapping. And so is capturing and holding an adult. That's simple. Most Americans will agree on that. Kidnapping can also be a capital crime in most civilized societies. But even where the death penalty is not imposed, the practice is still considered a serious offense. OK, so what if a government agent does it? When, exactly, does "to seize and detain unlawfully" become kidnapping when the action is performed under color of law, by a government agent? "Never," police agencies say. Citizens have a "duty" to submit to arrest by "any" officer, police agencies say. If the police officer was wrong, you will have your day in court to explain it, prosecutors say. Anyone see a little problem with this type of logic? Does a citizen have a "duty" to submit to arrest, and sit in jail for months awaiting trial, when they have done nothing wrong? Who decides if this is right or wrong? Keep reading and you will see why this question needs some intense public discussion, and soon. You may also agree that some specific changes in the above authoritarian attitude are woefully necessary. Recently, a Cincinnati police sergeant admitted that he "planted" drugs on a perpetrator to make an arrest. OK, let's stipulate that the perpetrator was probably a drug dealer. So? Does that make the officer's actions right? Because the officer "planted" drugs on the person, the man went to prison for a while. If this is not seizing and detaining unlawfully -- kidnapping -- what then shall we call it? The man was not convicted legally. There was no evidence for a legal conviction. The evidence came from an illegal "plant," by the arresting officer. Was the officer fired when his commander learned of this? No, of course not. Nor can the officer be prosecuted for his illegal action. Resulting from an unbelievable turn of events, the sergeant has immunity from prosecution. Worse yet, this situation is common throughout the country. Through a quirk in the law, many police officers have immunity from prosecution for illegal activities committed while on duty, as long as they admit the offense to their superiors. They may receive administrative punishment, but if they admit their actions, they may not be prosecuted criminally. The reason is that officers are required to respond completely and truthfully to any questions asked by superiors. Thus, they give up their right to Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. And, hence, have absolute immunity against prosecution. Below is a copy of commonly used language taken from The Cincinnati Manual of Rules and Regulations: "A member must, upon direction of the Police Chief or his designated representative, respond completely and truthfully to all questions that are specifically, directly and narrowly related to his performance as a police officer. Since the member is required by rule and case law to answer, and has no right against self- incrimination, the response to such questions may be used only in the application of administrative justice. The member is immune in any subsequent related criminal proceeding from the uses of his answers or fruits thereof." This is how it works, folks. If an officer answers truthfully during an inquiry, that officer is then immune from prosecution. Planting evidence, lying in court, even murder, can then not be prosecuted. So, can kidnapping be legal? Not exactly. But most police officers can get away with it without much problem. An interesting addendum comes from the Congressional testimony of James Maddock, FBI Deputy General Council, this week. Maddock was asked what action would be taken against FBI laboratory personnel who, in the past, fudged results and/or perjured themselves in court. Maddock indicated that the offending personnel were now retired, and that "The FBI is not in a position to take action against retired personnel." The reason the FBI will not arrest one of their own for lying, cheating, perjuring, and otherwise breaking the law is two-fold. First, these people know too much, and if they were ever prosecuted they could implicate half of the Bureau. And second, there would then have to be hundreds of cases re-tried, which could clog the courts for years. The Inspector General's report said that FBI laboratory evidence was "altered, omitted and improperly supplemented." Which is nothing more than legal-speak for "they fudged results and lied a lot." The words "altered and omitted" are very interesting, too. That means that they purposely covered up exculpatory evidence. It does not matter though. The perjuring liars are free, and they will stay that way. Those they lied about to send to prison are still in prison, and they will stay that way. Re-trying cases would place an imposition on the Justice Department. So, it shall not be allowed. In other words, lives of American citizens are to be sacrificed to the expediency and comfort of the bureaucrats at the Department of Justice. Like it or not, this is the state of our American justice system in 1997. Now . . . about those changes we mentioned as being necessary back in the seventh paragraph. . . . FEDERAL NEGLIGENCE If ever an administration seemed hell-bent on destroying our cities and corrupting our youth, this seems to be the one. This administration is totally and completely negligent in performing one of it's Constitutionally mandated duties. To wit: Protecting our borders. Using the administration's own numbers, two-million to two-million-four-hundred-thousand pounds of illegal cocaine and heroin are smuggled into the United States from Mexico annually. That folks, is enough to keep each and every adult American citizen high for almost a week. Customs Commissioner George Weise said on Nightline that we only have 2,000 customs inspectors, and therefore can inspect less than 4% of the trucks coming in from Mexico. Texas Attorney General Don Morales reports that only about 2% of the trucks entering Texas from Mexico are inspected. When 60 Minutes filmed a border crossing for an hour or two, they saw none being inspected -- that is, until the inspectors noticed the cameras were there. The Customs Department says that 3.5-million trucks enter this country from Mexico annually. That means that, even using the government's number of a 4% inspection rate, the 2,000 inspectors check 140,000 trucks per year, or a little better than one truck per inspector each week. That is not very much. Put another way, over 3,360,000 trucks enter the United States each year from Mexico with absolutely no customs inspection. Is there any question of how that 1,000 to 1,200 tons of illegal cocaine and heroin gets into this country every year from Mexico? These numbers are no surprise to anyone in Washington, folks. We got the numbers from Washington. What should be a surprise to us is that Washington knows this, yet chooses to do absolutely nothing about it! You never hear the so called Drug Czar mention these numbers. You never hear Slick Willie or any member of his cabinet mention this problem. Nor does any Member of Congress. But they all know of it. Exactly why no one in government seems to give a damn is the big question we need answered. Another problem was also brought up on 60 Minutes. That was the problem of vehicle safety. NAFTA rules let these Mexican trucks drive right into the United States and operate on our highways intermixed with our traffic. Mexican trucks do not, however, have to meet American safety standards. Neither do the Mexican truck drivers. Less than 1% of Mexican trucks are safety inspected at the border. Yet, according to some reports, over half of all Mexican trucks entering the United States are defective and/or sub-standard in some way. We understand that Mexico's biggest exports are cocaine and heroin. And we understand that the people of Mexico badly need the money received from the sale of these drugs. However, cocaine and heroin are still illegal substances in this country. Therefore, it is the legal responsibility of the federal government to interdict these substances at the border. If customs agents cannot handle that job, perhaps it is time we fire them and make other arrangements. We would not renew the contract of a private organization that performed in such a slip-shod and negligent manner. So, why do we have to keep this Customs Department crew after they demonstrated for years on end that they cannot perform? That badge and a gun they carry should give them no special right to be unproductive. Meanwhile, the drug trafficking across the U.S. - Mexican border just about doubled under the Clinton Administration. So, what was Slick Willie's response to cover up the problem? You got it; he demonized American- grown tobacco products! Negligence in office, it's called. VOLUNTEERISM Or: Clinton's Latest Hypocrisy by: Craig Brown A little over a week ago one of the most preposterous events in the history of feel-good politics took place. With an avalanche of scandals, subpoenas indictments and calls for impeachment descending on him in a manner unprecedented for a United States President, Bill Clinton was feeling a little edgy. Another fine mess other people had gotten him into. Now what to do? The obvious remedy was what had always worked in the past. He needed a diversion. Another crisis to focus upon. The trouble was, he had used up all the good crises. First there was the health care crisis, then the crime crisis, the school lunch crisis, the Black church burning crisis and they had all provided the needed sleight of hand to cover him while he dodged another bullet. But what was left? Was the Administration facing a "crisis" crisis? Eventually someone came up with the idea of a "volunteer crisis." After all, volunteering has always been as American as apple pie. Volunteering shows that you care and if people don't care enough, we'll have mandatory volunteering and paid volunteering. And what a great photo-op! We'll get a bunch of the usual movie stars together and Bill and Al will join them in painting over some school house walls on television. And start the whole thing off with bells and whistles at a "volunteer summit" held in Philadelphia at Liberty Hall where the whole thing about volunteering began. Here in Kentucky we don't need any reminding about volunteering. If anyone thinks there was a shortage of volunteers during the recent floods, go talk to the residents of Falmouth, Silver Grove, California or Mentor. That, friends, was the defining snapshot of volunteerism, Kentucky style. Nobody ordered them, nobody paid them. They just by God rolled up their sleeves and did what had to be done. Of course Bill Clinton is no stranger to playing the volunteer card. In one of the most amazing displays of chutzpah ever seen, he stood at his State of the Union speech before a house full of adoring members of the National Education Association and drew cheers as he slapped them in the face by telling them what a lousy job of teaching they had done. To atone for their failure, he was proposing spending millions of dollars to hire "volunteers" to teach third graders how to read. The Philadelphia "summit" not only reeked of hypocrisy, Clinton style, but it failed to accomplish the intended task. Volunteerism remains alive and well in America and so is that festering cesspool of scandal contaminating the hallways of the White House. -- End --