Heads Up

A Weekly edition of News from around our country

May 30, 1997 - #37

by: Doug Fiedor - fiedor19@eos.net

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


Here's another bill from Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) we should all work to support. HR-1146 is titled the "American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 1997." It is a bill "To provide for complete withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations."

Yup! Get the U.S. out of the U.N., and get the U.N. out of the U.S. Rep. Paul did a very good job with this bill. Even the land grabbers at UNESCO are included.

Section 2 repeals the United Nations

Participation Act of 1945, which ends our participation in the U.N. And, it closes the "United States Mission to the United Nations within 120 days after enactment of the bill.

New York City will get a big chunk of real estate returned to the tax rolls. And, they'll also get rid of a lot of very obnoxious third world diplomats -- many of whom actually hate the United States, and publicly act like it.

Section 3 repeals the United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act, which forces them to move out of our country.

Section 4 states that: "No funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for assessed or voluntary contributions of the United States to the United Nations." That will save us a Billion or so in tax dollars.

Section 5 says that: "No funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for any United States contribution to any United Nations military operation." That will save us another few hundred million dollars.

Also: "No funds may be obligated or expended to support the participation of any member of the Armed Forces of the United States as part of any United Nations military or peacekeeping operation or force." And, "No member of the Armed Forces of the United States may serve under the command of the United Nations."

Section 6 repeals the diplomatic immunity of all those U.N. workers -- who now violate American law with impunity. These are not diplomats to the United States anyway. They should have no immunity from our laws.

Section 6 also states that: "Nations (including any affiliated agency of the United Nations) shall not occupy or use any property or facility of the United States Government."

Section 7 repeals the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Act (UNESCO).

Therefore, there will be no more foreigners with diplomatic immunity wandering around the United States regulating those millions of acres of American land called UNESCO Bioreserves and Heritage Sites. They are to be out of here as of the date of enactment of this bill.

Furthermore, section 8 repeals The United Nations Environment Program Participation Act of 1973. That would remove a whole host of stupid rules and regulations bothering American citizens.

So there you have it! This is what we wanted.

Here's the bill to get the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S. Representative Ron Paul came through 100%.

Now . . . do we plan to help him? What, exactly, are your plans to help get this bill passed?

Knock knock. Anybody care?

Isn't it time to get that Militia and Patriot communications network revved up and unifying people towards a common goal?

How about some leadership here, folks. This silence is damn embarrassing!


Well well, we see by the news that it looks like it's time for a major American crisis. This will have to be a big crisis, too. One that lasts a while. Else, a certain President who can't seem to keep his pants up in mixed company is going to have to display a little more of the Presidential flesh than he wishes in open court.

Because, as everyone knows by now, the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous nine to zip decision, agreed with the Court of Appeals that: "the President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society."

Which means, folks, that if this goes to court, Slick Willie will have to display that part of his anatomy to the court that Paula Jones claims has "distinguishing characteristics."

The Clinton Administration used the full power of the federal government to fight scheduling the trial while he was president. Even the Justice Department got in on this one. However, the Court said that in civil rights cases brought under s1983 there is a "public interest in an ordinary citizen's timely vindication of . . . her most fundamental rights against alleged abuse of power by government officials."

Clinton said that he's too busy to go to trial, but the Court didn't buy that. The opinion said that: "We assume that the testimony of the President, both for discovery and for use at trial, may be taken at the White House at a time that will accommodate his busy schedule, and that, if a trial is held, there would be no necessity for the President to attend in person, though he could elect to do so."

So, for this upcoming subpoena duces tecum, Slick Willie is either going to have to present a body part he does not really wish to show in public, or send certified pictures of said anatomy. That, plus answer a few dozen questions under oath.

However, the Court left him a way out. And, here's where it could easily start affecting the rest of the country. The Court said that the District Court would and should make arrangements to accommodate the President's schedule. In other words, they hinted around that, if he was really busy, the District Court would have to put the trial on hold for a while.

Therefore, Clinton needs a crisis to keep him busy for a few months. And, here's where it could get a bit messy for the rest of us. What kind of major crisis would be sufficient and last long enough?

We don't know on this end. Really, no one knows yet. But, ten to one there is about to be a major war on something. . . .

There are a few witnesses involved in this case, too. And based on the experiences of witnesses for other matters involving the Clintons, it might be an extremely good idea if these people made themselves very scarce until the trial. Two people involved in this matter are already listed as "suicides." We would be willing to bet that a whole squad of government agents are already "investigating" potential witnesses.

The attorneys for Paula Jones say that, unless Clinton settles, they expect this case to come to trial within a year. That puts the trial (if there is one) just a few months after Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr finishes up his investigations. Which means, we could very well be having both his and her Clinton trials in progress next spring.

Here's a thought: Maybe they could both be scheduled while Congress is on break. That way, they could run one on CSPAN-1 and the other on CSPAN-2.

Meanwhile, White House aides say that Clinton is worried about his legacy, his place in history.

That's got to be the joke of the decade! The whole of this administration can be summed up with the simple acronym SCAM: Scandal, Corruption, Arrogance and Malfeasance.


Most reporters do not read the complete Supreme Court opinion when reporting on a decision.

We do. And, believe it or not, right in the middle of the nine to zip opinion ordering that a sitting president's private parts (or certified pictures thereof) can be shown in open court, we got distracted.

This may be hard to completely understand, but the Court said something in this unanimous decision that could become much, much more important to us than the fun of watching Slick Willie show himself in court.

The fact is, if the Court carried this thought forward just a little bit further, we citizens might actually have a shot at winning back some freedom from those one-hundred-million words of womb to tomb federal regulations.

Writing for the Court, Justice Stevens rambled on a little about the separation of powers and how the federal government was intended to be compartmentalized.

Here's the part where we started loosing our train of thought about Slick Willie showing the "evidence" in court:

"The doctrine of separation of powers is concerned with the allocation of official power among the three co-equal branches of our Government. The Framers 'built into the tripartite Federal Government . . . a self- executing safeguard against the encroachment or aggrandizement of one branch at the expense of the other.' (Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S., at 122)."

Yeah. That's what was intended all right. But then Roosevelt came along with out and out socialism and totally violated everything the Founding Fathers wanted in government. Consequently, we ended up with over one- hundred federal agencies, each of which is its own executive, legislative and judicial branch wrapped into one body.

The benefit of a "triparite," or three branch government, effectively ended for most matters affecting the lives of citizens when the fourth, or regulatory branch, began. Nowadays, regulators from the federal agency branch of government control nearly everything affecting our lives with no input needed or desired from elected officials.

Justice Stevens continues:

"Thus, for example, the Congress may not exercise the judicial power to revise final judgments, (Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U. S. 211 (1995)), or the executive power to manage an airport, see (Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens for Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., 501 U. S. 252, 276 (1991) holding that 'if the power is executive, the Constitution does not permit an agent of Congress to exercise it').

(See J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U. S. 394, 406 (1928) (Congress may not 'invest itself or its members with either executive power or judicial power')).

"Similarly, the President may not exercise the legislative power to authorize the seizure of private property for public use. (Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 588.)"

This was the place we had to completely stop reading and consider what was being said here. "The President may not" what?? Huh?

The executive branch and the regulatory agencies do that almost every day! That's been going on for at least fifty years. How many hundreds of executive branch regulations are there that can totally halt any use of private property, "for the good of the general public"?

And, since when has Congress ever been consulted when the executive branch or a regulatory agency condemns property for public use?

The opinion rambled a little more, and then the other shoe dropped:

"We have recognized that 'even when a branch does not arrogate power to itself . . . the separation-of- powers doctrine requires that a branch not impair another in the performance of its constitutional duties.' (Loving v. United States, 517 U. S. ---, --- (1996) see also Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U. S. 425, 443 (1977))."

"Arrogate," by the way, means "to appropriate or claim without right," as when the Roosevelt administration coerced Congress into giving the administration power to regulate all business and agriculture in the United States. Therefore, when the subject is the executive branch, "arrogate" becomes a very, very interesting choice of words for the Supreme Court to use!

Of course, a corrupt Congress gave Roosevelt all those unconstitutional (and dictatorial) regulatory powers. Then Roosevelt unilaterally arrogated (usurped) even more. At first, the Supreme Court protested, and knocked them down. But, FDR managed to corrupt the Supreme Court, and ultimately the Court let the whole series of laws setting up unconstitutional regulatory agencies stand.

After the war, Truman tried to further expand executive powers by taking over most of the nations steel plants. But by then the Supreme Court had had enough and put a stop to his foolishness. The Court should have taken that opportunity to go back and undo the damage it allowed under the Roosevelt administration. But, it did not.

Congress has been centralizing power in Washington ever since. Once the Supreme Court allowed Congress to violate that parchment boundary set down in our Constitution, the rest became easy.

Very few of the provisions set down within the Constitution are respected by those in today's federal government. Congress now feels that it has unlimited authority to legislate on any subject it wishes. And when Congress does not have time to "correct" the actions of us wayward citizens, the bureaucrats at the regulatory agencies fill the void with new laws technically called rules and/or regulations. Even the President now feels free to unilaterally legislate at will through executive order.

All of the limits set forth in our Constitution by the Founding Fathers are now null and void, circumvented over the years through the use of legal trick and device. Politicians still pay lip-service to the Constitution, when it is convenient. But were they to actually follow the Document, as intended by the Founding Fathers, over one-third of the federal government would instantly disappear. So too would all of the "arrogated" authority over the people usurped by the federal government these past 50 years.

That's why these words buried in the text of the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court are so important. The Court is again considering fundamental Constitutional issues. Look at the words again, this time somewhat condensed and more readable.

The Supreme Court unanimously, said:

"The doctrine of separation of powers is concerned with the allocation of official power among the three co- equal branches of our Government. . . . The Framers 'built into the tripartite Federal Government . . . a self-executing safeguard against the encroachment or aggrandizement of one branch at the expense of the other. . . . Thus, for example, the Congress may not exercise the judicial power to revise final judgments.

. . . Similarly, [for example] the President may not exercise the legislative power to authorize the seizure of private property for public use. . . . [In fact] We have recognized that 'even when a branch does not arrogate power to itself . . . the separation-of-powers doctrine requires that a branch not impair another in the performance of its constitutional duties.'"

Indeed! But, how do we stop them?

The Court even quoted the Federalist Papers #51 (in footnote #30): "The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others."

We would like to add another short quote from The Federalist Papers here. In No. 47, James Madison tells us exactly what the "concentration of the several powers in the same department" is called: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether on one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

And that, in a nutshell, is exactly why we have so much trouble with the federal regulatory agencies.

Could it be that the Supreme Court is about to correct the mess it allowed Roosevelt to make of our federal government fifty-some years ago? It almost seems that way. Justice Thomas has been pushing Tenth Amendment issues for a few years, but most of those decisions were bare majority opinions.

This decision was unanimous. Nine to zip!

And folks, unlike Members of Congress, the Justices of the Supreme Court actually read the texts before they vote. They know what they said, and they plan to repeat it.

So, we think (hope) there's a foreshadowing message here.


Last week we mentioned a little of the events surrounding the release of Ronald Kessler's new book, "Inside Congress." Since then, we purchased a copy and are now more than half way through it.

Kessler is a member of the far-left media.

Therefore, the best writing in the book is when he takes the time to denounce the conservatives in Congress. He especially seems to display an ingrained hatred for Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

But, other than the need to read around his obvious bias, Kessler hits on most of the major scandals in Congress, as well as a few that have never yet been reported in the press. From Congressmen and their aids sexually accosting the fourteen year old pages, to check kiting, money laundering, waste, fraud, and abuse of office, the book doesn't miss much.

To be fair, Kessler does also trash quite a few Congressional liberals. However, that is as it should be. Because, due to their forty-year control of Congress, the Democrats are specifically responsible for initiating most of the corruption.

One interesting point was the House Bank check kiting scandal. This scandal included over half of the House of Representatives. And, as we remember, the names of the offenders were to be released at a "later date," after the "investigation" was completed. They never were.

This is interesting because, as Kessler now reports, certain high ranking Democrats were each running a half-million dollar line of credit with that bank.

And, not only was the money tax free to them, it was also interest free.

The liberal media, of course, neglected to report these illegal acts by liberal Members of Congress. They did, however, manage to widely relate the fact that Conservative Rep. Bob Dornan had one check for a couple hundred bucks bounce.

"Inside Congress" is definitely not good reading for those of us with high blood pressure. Omitting the pervasive sex exploits of those on the Hill, the book tells the tale of Congress misappropriating, and wasting, many hundreds of millions of dollars (maybe Billions!) of our tax money. And this is just money that they spent on themselves, not on federal programs.

A few Heads Up readers wrote last week to request our reading list on Congress. We will give it, but with reservations.

Congress has a voter approval rating that is only at about 20%. Members of Congress are having a hard time figuring out why. The fact that the American people are sick and tired of all these federal laws, rules and regulations controlling everything in their lives from womb to tomb is lost on the Lords and Ladies of the Hill. Members of Congress think they are there to make more law. So, they legislate on any subject imaginable -- even how much water citizens are to be "allowed" to use in their toilet per flush. What Members of Congress do not recognize is the word "repeal."

So, when the Heritage Foundation released their book, "The Imperial Congress: Crisis in the Separation of Powers," a few years ago, it caused a minor political stir. "Imperial Congress" not only tells how laws are made, it also describes how and why Congress delegates its Constitutional duties to the regulatory agencies.

The book is written by a group of authors, all of whom have first-hand experience in Congress. For instance, the Forward was written by Representative Newt Gingrich.

John L. Jackley's 1992 book "Hill Rat: Blowing the lid off Congress" gives insight into the operation of making law from the point of view of a Congressional aid. And, folks, you ain't gonna like what Jackley reports either!

Who makes the law that controls us? According to Jackley, and the Heritage Foundation, it is definitely not who you think. Here's a hint: Young Congressional aides and special interest groups have a lot to do with it. Most Members of Congress do not even read the bills they vote into law. And no Member of Congress ever reads the most important bill they vote into law: The Budget.

If you are interested in the sellers and buyers of influence on Capitol Hill, pick up a copy of Philip M.

Stern's 1992 book "Still the Best Congress Money Can Buy." The book will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about the workings of Political Action Committees, special interest spending, money laundering and campaign contributions.

Last, but certainly not least, is Brooks Jackson's 1988 book, "Honest Graft: Big Money and the American Political Process." This is primarily the story of the money laundering exploits of Democratic House Whip Tony Coelho. Clinton advisor Tony Coelho left Congress in disgrace. He had a choice: Give up his seat, or be prosecuted and sent to prison.

Jackson writes that: "Coelho specializes in raising money and spending it by the millions to elect Democrats to the House of Representatives. . . . He runs a modern-day political machine, a sort of New Tammany Hall in which money and pork-barrel legislation have become the new patronage." In truth, Coelho actually paid fellow Congressmen for votes -- often right on the floor of the House while the vote was in progress. A lot of that still goes on; just not as openly.

No wonder the Clinton election campaign hired him as a fund-raising advisor for the last election.

Tony Coelho fits right in as a personal advisor to Bill Clinton.

Taken together, these five books describe today's legislative process even better than many Members of Congress understand it. And folks, it is definitely not a pretty picture. But, that's our government. And we have to understand it before we can negotiate meaningful changes.