Heads Up

A Weekly edition of News from around our country

June 20, 1997 - #40

by: Doug Fiedor - fiedor19@eos.net

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


Here's a list of felonies you're all going to love. And these felonies have hardly anything to do with the White House, either. "Hardly," of course, is the Clintonesque weasel-word in that last sentence. . . .

In this case, we have misappropriation and misapplication of public funds, misconduct in office and misfeasance. There is also an ongoing conspiracy of long duration to carry out the above. Any good lawyer could probably add a few more crimes to this list, but those will get us going for now.

Oh, and just to add a little flavor to the story, most of the conspirators, and the majority of at least one House of Congress (most of them are not directly involved), admit this is true.

Among the conspirators are the past and present Secretary of State, certain members of the Army and Air Force, certain employees of the EPA, and a number of management-level employees in at least twelve other federal agencies.

Many members of government don't seem to see the "crime" here. Or, at least publicly they won't admit they do. So let's define our terms enough to show them that there is clear-cut wrongdoing deserving of prosecution.

Our Barron's Law Dictionary defines misappropriation and misapplication as: "The use of funds or property for a purpose other than that for which they are intended or legally required to be used. Misapplication and misappropriation particularly apply to acts of fiduciary [one in a position of trust], including public servants as well as private trustees. The term can include the misapplication of funds intended for another purposes, e.g., the misapplication of public money. . ."

Misconduct in Office is defined as: "Corrupt misbehavior by an officer in the exercise of the duties of the office or while acting under color of the office; includes any act or omission in breach of a duty of public concern by one who has accepted public office."

Misfeasance is "the doing of a proper act in a wrongful or injurious manner; the improper performance of an act which might have been lawfully done."

With that taken care of, now we can get to the particulars.

Back in the Carter Administration there was a big international agreement which many countries signed onto. The United States agreed, in part. And, like always, the American taxpayer got stuck paying big bucks for something that had zero benefit for the American public.

The key word there was "agreement." It was not an international treaty. President Carter agreed, in part, and implemented part of the agreement through an executive memoranda. The administration then secured minimal program funding from Congress.

A committee was formed, made up of members of various federal agencies, the State Department, the Army, and the Air Force.

But, Carter lost the election. Reagan became President. And this agreement was costing us big bucks. So, out it went. Funding was stopped, and the program was over.

Well, on the books -- as far as Congress knew -- the funding was stopped, anyway. In reality, little changed.

The story gets a bit foggy during the last two years of the Reagan Administration and throughout the Bush Administration. But, based on the actions of the committee running the program -- as you will see shortly -- it's obvious that they did not lack for funding.

The State Department kicked in a million dollars a year or so to keep the project going. The Army and Air Force contributed big bucks most years. So did at least thirteen federal agencies involved in the project. The committee proceeded on for thirteen continuous years that way.

Every year, Congress designated funds for specific needs of these federal agencies and departments, and every year, for thirteen years, bureaucrats from these different federal agencies and departments diverted a part of their funding to support a project that was legally canceled.

Nothing ever showed up on the federal budget, but every year the U.S. National Committee for the Man and the Biosphere Program was well funded with misappropriated and misapplied taxpayer dollars.

Members of the military have a shortage of fuel and ammunition with which to train. But still, the Army and the Air Force found money to help fund an illegal bureaucracy. Some of the ambassador's residencies around the world are in such disrepair that the roofs leak and the plumbing will not work. Yet the State Department poured millions of taxpayer dollars into a project that was legally canceled.

Federal agencies with mandated duties . . . err . . . well, let's just say that they had no authority to spend the money that way. Actually, it would be to our benefit if most federal agencies were totally defunded -- but that's another story.

The point is, EPA, BLA, and the rest of those agencies misappropriated money. And it ends up totaling a lot of money!

Now comes the Man and the Biosphere Committee itself, and even different offenses. Because, this was the group -- most of whom work for federal agencies and know better -- that intentionally received the misapplied and misappropriated money thirteen years in a row.

They knew they had no authorization to exist. They knew the funds they received were legally designated for other programs. Yet, they participated in this illegal program anyway.

Now comes the opinion of the majority of Congress:

On April 24, 1997, Rep. Coburn offered an amendment to the National Science Foundation budget stating that: "No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act shall be used for the United States Man and Biosphere Program, or related projects."

Coburn spelled out the law for the House:

"It is important that the people recognize that the Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage sites are under the guidance of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization also known as UNESCO. The United States withdrew from that Organization in 1984 because of gross financial mismanagement.

"Over 68 percent of our national parks, preserves, and monuments have been designated as United Nations World Heritage sites, Biosphere Reserves or both. There are currently 47 of those sites [94 actually] in the United States, covering an area the size of Colorado. Under the relative agreements, the United States is promising to manage lands in accordance with international guidelines. Many times local governments, [and] private property [owners] are never consulted in these management plans. This is a clear violation of private property rights. The biosphere programs, including the United States Man and Biosphere Program, have never been authorized by any Congress, never been authorized, but still received [funds] this past year and this year will receive over $700,000 of taxpayers' money.

"The National Science Foundation distributed more than $400,000 in grants to this unauthorized program despite the fact that the program has never had a consideration or vote in Congress and has never been approved by a body of the Congress."

The amendment easily passed.

That was last April. On June 5, the liberals responded with a correction for the problem. Reps. Brown and Miller, both liberal Democrats from California, introduced H.R. 1801: A bill "To authorize the United States Man and the Biosphere Program."

But, even if that bill were to pass, it would not be retroactive. All biosphere reserves that exist today would still be illegal. So too are all those UNESCO signs at the entrance to many of our parks. Not even H.R. 1801 would authorize involvement in a UNESCO program.

So, Mister and Misses American Citizen, now what do we do about those bureaucrats who misappropriated all that money and bothered thousands of American families with their totally unauthorized project?

Quite obviously, prosecution is warranted.

Your responsibility, then, is to tell them so.


"Is the fourth estate for UNESCO?" was asked us in one form or another nearly a dozen times these past three weeks. "This subject is important to people! Why doesn't the national press pick up on this biosphere story?"

Why indeed!

Better asked would be why doesn't the national media ever discuss Constitutional issues. There's a simple answer for that -- and it's not necessarily because they're all a bunch of socialists, either. All are not. The answer is a whole lot simpler than that.

First, most members of the national press -- the political reporters, anyway -- live in Washington. And most of them are a bunch of party-people. They like to hang out at the good bars, dine at the fancy restaurants and attend all the good parties. Understandably, they want to be seen hobnobbing with the movers and shakers of the nation.

And duty in Washington is a good place for that. Washington is a political town, to be sure. But intermixed with all the political stuff is what seems like a never ending series of cocktail parties. And these parties all have free food and drink, which reporters like.

Even fund-raisers supply free food and drink for those attending. And all parties have politicians attending. Which, of course, are the very same people the reporters were sent to Washington to write about.

If a reporter writes in opposition to a position taken by a lobbyist, that reporter might not be welcome at the fund-raiser parties that lobbyist throws for politicians. That's usually not a big deal, because there are numerous parties going on every week -- usually more than any one reporter could attend.

But, for a reporter to anger the political power structure in Washington is an altogether different problem! That would mean no more hobnobbing with the powers that be. That could mean no more invitations to the power-elite parties. That could mean no more of those little leaks most politicians like to give "off the record" at cocktail parties.

It could also mean that a reporter would have to actually dig to get a story, rather than just "report" verbatim from press conferences and the supplied press releases.

It's much easier to be friends with elected officials and their staffs. That is what reporting is all about in Washington: Passing on the information you are told. Oh sure, some so called "journalists" might actually rewrite a line or two and add an interesting tidbit not offered on that particular press release. But if you read the reports from a number of different Washington reporters attending the same press conference, you will always see the exact same words used in all of the reports.

There's a reason for that. They all write their "news report" from the script provided by the politicians. And, for the most part, they follow the script exactly.

So, what if the politician is a bold faced liar and crazy as a loon? Well, there are a few of them in government, and they do not seem to have a problem getting their "spin" printed, no matter how preposterous it may be.

And what about those Constitutional issues? Yeah. What about them?

Ninety percent of the officials in Washington obviously have no intention of obeying the Constitution. If they did, the federal law books would probably all fit on one shelf. So, how can anybody expect a reporter with a permanent post in Washington and lots of political friends to want to rock that boat?

Get real!

In a nutshell, that's the problem.

The politics of our nation's Capital is made up of entangling alliances. So there is no surprise to find a synergistic relationship between politicians and the reporters making up the national press corps. The fact is, they need each other. And simply put, the needs of both groups are best met when they get along with each other.

But a reporter is the more expendable of the two. So, when reporters don't get along with the political types, they are usually transferred. That's because many politicians also know the media bosses. Therefore, it's little problem to have a reporter who is "rocking the boat" too often transferred to another city.

Consequently, the "approval rating" of the national media is only slightly better than that of Washington politicians. Both are down around 20% in believability. They should be, too. Because in many cases, Americans would receive exactly the same news if politicians just e-mailed us all their press releases and eliminated the media people altogether.

So when Heads Up readers ask why stories like the biosphere reserve scam never seem to make the major news . . . well, it's because all the Washington media does is "report" what they are told nowadays. There are no "journalists" covering the waste, fraud and abuse in government anymore. And there most certainly are not any "journalists" willing to report any of the thousands of violations of our Constitution every year.

If they did, they wouldn't be invited to any more parties.


by: Craig M. Brown

There was a lot of noise made recently, both in and out of the Senate, when the Kentucky State Senate voted unanimously for a resolution opposing the yet- unratified Biological Diversity Treaty.

Since this has a lot to do the recent federal land grabs of property in Kentucky, I decided to read the treaty. It's not what you'd call a "fun read" for the kids at bedtime, but I'd recommend that you take two aspirin and look it over. Then ask your Congressman to read it. If you don't, you may find that what you can or can't do with your property -- or even if you can live on it -- will be decided by a bunch of guys who live in Paris. That's Paris, France, not Kentucky.

After plowing through ten pages of legal gobbley- gook you will find that the Biological Diversity Treaty is all based on the dubious premise that the survival of our species is dependent on turning over the basic human rights that we as Americans have come to expect to a "contracting party." These "contracting parties" will be appointed by UNESCO and their decisions will directly affect you and me, bypassing all our federal, state and local governments.

When this treaty was first submitted in 1992, then-President Bush didn't like it and never presented it to Congress for ratification. Then along came President Clinton. He kind of liked this one-world idea, so he went about signing Executive Orders and Initiatives to take over state lands without passing it through Congress for ratification.

He didn't tell us why he bypassed Congress, but it's safe to assume that he was afraid that Congress, which is supposed to be representative of the people, might not agree with him. So there it stands. Forty seven large hunks of sovereign state land, stretching through all fifty states, including Kentucky, have been designated by the federal government to be used by UNESCO to study biological diversity, free from "contamination" by people.

This is our sovereign land, soaked with the blood of patriots who centuries ago wrenched it from the hands of tyrants to give to a free people with a free will and a constitution to guide them. Now, by Executive Orders and an unratified treaty our land will be transferred back to the tyrants.

Or will it? It's your call.


The more we blab on about socialism -- and the decline of freedom --in the United States, the more politicians seem to say things that prove our point. See if you can guess which famous politicians these quotes are from.

"Imagine an army of 100,000 young people restoring urban and rural communities and giving their labor in exchange for education and training. . . . We will harness the energy of our youth and attack the problems of our time. It literally has the potential to revolutionize the way young people all across America look at their country and feel about themselves."

That quote, should be easy. It pertains to "national Service," or paid "volunteering." So now let's try a quote from an equally famous person. The following quotation will not be published in the national press for reasons that will become obvious momentarily.

"We must organize all labor, no matter how dirty and arduous it may be, so that every [citizen] may regard himself as part of that great army of free labor. . . . The generation that is now fifteen years old must arrange all their tasks of education in such a way that every day, and in every city, the young people shall engage in the practical solution of the problems of common labor, even of the smallest, most simple kind."

The first quotation should be easy. That's Bill Clinton encouraging paid volunteers -- by whatever means he can use to force people to do his bidding. The second quotation is a little harder to read because it is a translation. Vladimir Lenin did not intend to pay his "volunteers." In those days, if you did not follow orders you could be shot.

We have not yet declined to the point where citizens will be shot for not volunteering. However, if the Clinton program continues, we can be sure that there will soon be fines, assessments and other punishments inflicted on those who do not "volunteer" as directed.


Yesterday, the Senate Commerce Committee approved the McCain-Kerrey "Secure Public Networks Act" (S. 909). This bill would impose severe restrictions on the ability of Americans to protect their personal privacy. It is an outright threat to the privacy and security of Internet communications.

In this bill, Senators McCain and Kerrey outwardly and intentionally violate both the intent and meaning of the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution. Although S. 909 "allows" Americans to minimally encrypt files transmitted over the Internet, the federal government is to keep the encryption keys, and a search warrant will not be necessary for agents to use the keys. The bill also calls for a whole slew of new criminal penalties for the use of encryption that is inconvenient for government agents to break.

The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) has provided a full text of the bill, along with a detailed analysis of S. 909, and an analysis of the constitutional issues raised by the key-recovery provisions. The text is online at: http://www.crypto.com

We could provide a discussion of applicable court cases here, but CDT covers all that very nicely on their web page. So instead, we provide a very applicable story we ripped off (with permission) from the "Weekly Update" Internet Edition, Volume 4 Issue 20, June 9, 1997, a publication of The Michigan Militia Corps'.

Because folks, our position in this matter must be "Just say No!" It's time we told them to back off, shut up, and don't ever speak of that again! It is neither the business nor the concern of government to monitor what we communicate to each other.

It is, however, our responsibility as sovereign American citizens to instruct our servants in government to cease and desist. We must be loud and clear with our warning that they have overstepped their Constitutional boundaries, and so must stop.

Please take the time to instruct your three Members of Congress next week. S. 909 is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and hence a violation of the inalienable right to privacy of all American citizens.

And now the message from Jeff, editor of the "Weekly Update:"

The following article was taken from a newsletter called "The Resistance," put out by the National Smokers Alliance. Although this article concerns smoking laws in particular, this course of action is probably the most effective approach to dealing with bad laws, and I can guarantee that when you announce such intentions, in advance, to those who pass such laws, they are absolutely dumb-founded. Since our legislators, local, state and federal, no longer seem to listen to the people or abide by Constitutional limitations, this may be our last resort.


Does Resistance Work?

Just ask the people of Toronto who successfully defeated one of the most severe smoking laws in North America.

"Bad laws should not be obeyed," advised Toronto Star columnist Rosie Dimanno of the bylaw that banned smoking in almost all restaurants and bars citywide as of March 3 of this year, "Rebel, revolt, resist." And that's just what the citizens of this Canadian city did.

Faced with revenue losses of up to 30 percent, restaurant owners openly defied the law. Some refused to enforce the ban even in the face of hefty fines that ranged from $205 to $5,000.

"What am I going to do when the inspectors come around?" said the proprietor of one Toronto cafe. "I'm going to say [that] I'm not complying with this law and you do whatever you have to do." "I've talked to a lot of restaurateurs in town ... and nobody's respecting it (the bylaw)," said the owner of a popular restaurant. "I've visited seven of my friends in their restaurants and everybody smokes. There's ashtrays everywhere. Nobody cares."

"Waiters are playing a little game," commented a pub owner. "They tell people they are sorry there is no smoking and then get them a menu and an ashtray." Some restaurateurs, fed up with the law, put their establishments up for sale, while others closed their doors in protest. Individual smokers also resisted the law. Left with nowhere to go, many wound up smoking in sections that had once been reserved for non-smokers.

"We used to be able to accommodate non-smokers, now people smoke wherever they feel like," said a saloon owner. "A lot of peoples' attitude is, 'Come and give me a ticket,'" said another. Ontario Restaurant Association President Paul Oliver noted that "I had a call from a 70- year-old woman who said she went out today and broke the law for the first time in her life, and she'd do it again. It's like the wild west out there," Oliver concluded.

The resistance of citizens and business owners surprised city officials, who had been advised by anti- smoking activists in the United States that things would settle down within six months. "It didn't work the way we had hoped it would," commented Toronto Mayor Barbara Hall in The Globe and Mail.

The issue was resolved within six weeks. After restaurant workers showed up at an April 14 city council meeting in T-shirts that said, "Save our jobs" and "Let the consumer decide" -- and began chanting, "We won't comply" -- the Toronto City Council backed down and voted to allow restaurants and bars to have smoking sections.

"Elected officials in the United States should learn a lesson from our neighbors to the North," said NSA President Thomas Humber. "When they go too far, the people will resist."

-- End --