Heads Up

LEST WE FORGET

"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.

What Panetta neglected to say was that a huge chunk of that money came directly from the Chinese Communist government. It was laundered money; illegally gotten and illegally spent. And everyone at the Clinton- Gore Campaign Committee and the DNC knew it.

Now we understand that the FBI finally got around to releasing some of their information concerning the illegal campaign contributions from China. This week, the FBI briefed the members of the Thompson Senate Committee, saying that there was conclusive proof of an ongoing conspiracy to affect American elections.

So, lest we forget exactly what this is all about, let's again take the time to review just a few of the applicable laws blatantly violated by the administration and the leadership of the Democrat Party.

And, while you are reading, remember that Clinton approved putting aside at least one-million dollars in campaign contributions to pay the fines they knew would be forthcoming when they were caught. 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.

It is unlawful to make contributions in the name of another person, (2 USC 441f) or to knowing accept such a contribution. That would include those fifty-some fictitious contributors whose addresses are all listed as the DNC headquarters.

It is a crime (18 USC 201) for a public official to seek or demand, directly or indirectly, anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of any act. This was included as a joke, folks. Sure, it's a real law. But were it ever enforced there would be no more then four or five elected officials left in Washington (not entirely a bad thing!).

It is a crime (18 USC 219) for an officer or employee of the United States to act as an agent of a foreign principal. Again, this is a joke law. Clinton and Gore obviously represent China. About one-third of Congress is more worried about Israel than their constituents. And thousands of bureaucrats are actively involved in imposing UN and UNESCO directives on the American public.

"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!).

This law would also apply to EPA Politburo Chairwoman Carol Browner. Browner just offered a quid pro quo to many Democrat Reps. and big city mayors. That is, she promised them that if they support her new draconian air quality regulations, the EPA would give a free pass to any non-compliant activities in their districts. Those not supporting the new regulations, evidently, are to have their districts and cities punished.

It is unlawful (18 USC 601) to prohibit collecting political contributions by threatening to withhold a government benefit. (?)

It is a crime (18 USC 607) for "any person" to solicit or receive a campaign contribution in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an officer or employee of the United States. That includes Bill and Al "dialing for dollars" from the White House. Accepting campaign donation checks in the White House is obviously illegal too.

Another interesting law (18 USC 1001) prohibits false statements in connection with any matter within the jurisdiction of a federal agency. That would include all the perjury at last year's Congressional hearings as well as the lies told to all investigators.

Another federal law (18 USC 1510) criminalizes interference with a criminal investigation. That would include just about everyone in the administration and a few in Congress. In fact, the White House hired (taxpayer paid) lawyers specifically to run interference in the (taxpayer paid) investigation.

"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.

Of course, these are laws imposed on "citizens." Government officials, and their friends, are held to an entirely different set of standards. They all know very well that, without "special arrangements," the Department of Justice will not arrest even one public official for any of the above laws. Else, the finger pointing would start, and most of the officials in Washington could ultimately be indicted.

MEDIA CENSORSHIP

These are the very same twits who, a couple years ago, managed to play the "slow speed chase" of a has-been football player on five channels of national TV during prime time. That, the idiot television producers thought, was big news.

Then, apparently because he played parts in a few "B" movies after football, we suffered a full year of murder trial as "news." New television programs were even started to explain to America the intricacies of the trial, the national information controllers thought the trial so "newsworthy."

Politics, however, is a totally different subject. And, the possibility of the liberal media disseminating information leading to the possible impeachment of a liberal president is, evidently, verboten. Therefore, the Thompson Senate hearings are said by the news controllers to be not newsworthy. Not for public consumption. The hearings are not suitable for the American people to see. There is no interest.

Instead of the Thompson Senate hearings, we see the same Clinton media apologists on nearly every "news" talk show telling us how frivolous and inconsequential the hearings are. Instead of a logical discussion of the material covered in the hearings, these media apologists hurl personal attacks at Republicans, obfuscate and intentionally steer the conversation away from any meaningful exchange of information.

In other words we, the American public, have been cut off from information by the very news media that is supposed to report it! Worse, even the few shows that will discuss the hearings present the subject in such a way that American viewers will believe that the hearings are little more than a ridiculous partisan charade.

Committee Chairman Fred Thompson's (R-TN) opening remarks clearly depicted the Communist Chinese government as implementing a counterintelligence move to subvert the 1996 presidential election. When questioned, Thompson said his opening statement was derived from information gathered by U.S. counterintelligence agencies.

Did that make the news? A little. But it was never used as a stand alone item. Rather, Thompson's opening statement was always mixed and watered down with at least two opposing responses.

So, this week Senator Thompson called in the FBI agents involved in the investigation to brief the complete Senate committee. The FBI told the committee members that they do in fact have counterintelligence information substantiating that Chinese government officials were able to influence the U.S. political process. The FBI reported that part of their evidence is in the form of Justice Department [actually NSA] telephone wiretaps. Chinese embassy officials were taped actually discussing the strategy to funnel Red Chinese government money through conduits to the 1996 Clinton- Gore Campaign.

Big news, right? It should be headline news! But ABC, CNN and NBC didn't seem to think so. They reported it, all right, but buried in the second half of their evening news reports. And both Crossfire and Nightline boycotted the subject and ran some frivolous fill in topic instead. Liberal censorship!

Proof that Clinton "recommended" John Huang for the position at DNC made the news; but only because Clinton was asked about it at a press conference.

Documents proving conclusively that John Huang was laundering Communist Chinese money for use as campaign contributions hardly made news at all. Both the Washington Post and the New York times ran it on page six. Even when quite a few senators suddenly "returned" campaign donations this week, little was reported.

Tuesday, the committee showed proof that, while working at the Department of Commerce. Huang called his controllers at Lippo 400 times. Again, the news controllers didn't think that very important news. In fact, we could not find it reported anywhere.

It wasn't till the end of this week that the print media started taking the hearings seriously. But, at this writing, there is very, very little on television.

It is beginning to look like all of the television networks are Clinton sycophants. We know they are pro big-government socialists. But when all major networks completely and intentionally boycott the information revealed at the hearings, it surpasses the ridiculous and really smells of collusion!

It also smells like there was considerable behind the scenes White House pressure applied. . . .

EVERYTHING IS A SECRET

For instance, ask the FAA how many bombs have been found in and around American aircraft in the past couple years. They'll say none. In truth, however, at least five have been found.

Terrorists? Naah. As Heads Up readers will remember, it was just bomb squads training dogs . . . and loosing their bombs in the process.

Ask the FBI a question. In fact, ask the FBI just about any question. If the question is more complicated than the current time, you will not be answered. Yet, the FBI readily shares information with other branches of government, and even with businesses and foreign governments. But the FBI will not give information to American citizens. Of course, if something is favorable to the FBI, ten to one it will "somehow" get leaked to the press -- as in the Jewell case, for instance.

Even the courts are at it. Trials are supposed to be public. Which means that at some point all information pertaining to that trial is also public information. So, why are the attorneys involved in the Oklahoma City bombing case still under a gag order? Or, even more amazing, why are people involved in that trial under a gag order that includes information that was not even presented at the trial?

And by the way, how could there have been an honest trial if part of the information was not used at trial, and is still not allowed to be released? Obviously, there is a problem here.

David Sentelle is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit, and John Butzner and Peter P. Fay were senior appellate judges. Back in 1994. They issued a ruling in a case involving The Wall Street Journal in which they told the Journal -- and the rest of the American press -- that it can't even print what the court's ruling is.

Got it? A court ruled in an important case (this concerned the Whitewater investigation) and then told the press it can't tell the American public anything about the case, or even that the court ruled.

It's the same with Congress. Information at "open" hearings, like the Thompson Senate hearing, is shared with nearly everyone in Washington. China knows all about it. Great Britain knows all about it. The White House knows all about it. The senators favored reporters receive the information early so they can have their stories written up and ready to go before deadline -- and often before the event actually happens. Only the American people are kept out of the knowledge loop.

This week, a CIA briefing clerk testified before the Senate Committee about briefing John Huang. Everyone in Washington knows exactly who the CIA worker is. Foreign governments also know who he is -- every foreign agent in D.C. probably knows the guy on sight. Yet, he's testifying behind a screen so American citizens cannot see him. Why?

The federal government has tons of secret documents. Six or seven foreign governments know almost everything in most of those documents, too. In fact, foreign governments regularly trade American "secrets" back and forth. The only people not allow to see this "secret" information, the people from whom government protects itself, are the very same people who pay the bills. Us.

Isn't it about time we redefine the term "public servant" again? It appears that too many government bureaucrats have forgotten their place in the Constitutional order of things.

NEWSLETTER HOUSEKEEPING

However, big government has not been interested in us yet. No, we got it from a local judge. A friendly, retired local judge. His complaint was that we have been running a publication for over eight months without once stating the customary ownership and liability criteria.

We tried to tell him that we do not have any. He asked, "which, ownership or liability?" We replied, "both." He ordered: "Write something anyway." So . . . here goes:

Heads Up is not owned by anyone because it really does not exist. By that we mean that it has no office, has no finances, offers nothing for sale, and hence makes no profit. We print no issues, therefore, we use no supplies.

Current subscribers of Heads Up number almost 300 Americans from all walks of life. From aircraft pilots to zoologists; from Militia members to politicians; a good cross section of American is represented.

The total number of readers, however, is unknown and may never be known. Most original subscribers pass the newsletter on to a list of friends. And a number of these "friends," in turn pass it on to their friends. No accounting was ever requested or offered.

The newsletter is not copyrighted. All we ask is that it be passed on in its entirety, and without changes. To the best of our knowledge, everyone does that.

Certain print publications have asked for permission to use selected pieces from the newsletter. To date, we have agreed to all but one request. Radio talk show hosts have also requested permission to use selections from Heads Up. There too, we have extended permission and thanks.

We at Heads Up have nothing to offer except ideas -- our viewpoint on the facts driving the news. We do not expect that even all Heads Up readers will agree with everything we write. And that is as it should be. Our intent -- our only reason for writing -- is to offer a Constitutional perspective of current events not offered anywhere in the major media.

Some have said that we are a little too hard on the central government and could receive a "visit" if we don't take it easy. We jokingly say fine; just have them call ahead so we bring the dog in first. Then we'll put on a pot of coffee and "visit" a while. In fact, we'll invite the old judge and his retired lawyer friends over too, and we can all have an interesting discussion on Constitutional issues.

But seriously, other than the view of the countryside -- and maybe the conversation -- there is nothing of interest for them here.

The secret of Heads Up is you, the readers. You are the ones who keep it going simply because you are the ones distributing the newsletter. I write from a Constitutional perspective -- my viewpoint. If someone in government does not like that perspective, let them reply. We will print the reply.

So far, the only replies we have received from public officials (and there have been a few -- more on this next month) have been positive.

So, for you IRS agents who may be chomping at the bit looking for an excuse to visit the Heads Up office: Don't. Not one penny has been involved in this publication, and you are the reason. You have no business here.

KEEPING THEM BUSY

Pick one aspect of any law, rule or regulation, break it down into three or four direct questions that will require some thought and time to answer, and send it in.

Anytime a writer indicates that they also sent a copy if their questions to their Members of Congress, the letter provides a double duty. The agency then takes the correspondence more seriously, and the writer will almost assuredly receive a thoughtful reply.

And, the agency will also copy their reply to the Members of Congress indicated by the questioner, hopefully piquing their interest on the subject too.

Below is a copy of a letter that was sent this week. We'll also run the reply, if there is one.

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

Kathleen A. McGinty, Chairperson
Council on Environmental Quality
Old Executive Office Building
Room 360
Washington, D.C. 20501

RE: American Heritage Rivers Initiative

Dear Ms. McGinty:

You have requested comments on your Proposal for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which was rewritten and toned down somewhat from your initial proposal. I will take it on faith that you are sincere in wanting suggestions for your initiative and this is not just public relations posturing for what is already a fait d'compli and your proposal has already in motion.

I have a few questions regarding this proposal which I believe deserve answers.

You have indicated that the Council has no intention of allowing this initiative to be influenced or controlled by foreign influences. I would suggest that this language be strengthened to state that any such control or influence could come only with the express consent of the states or people who would be affected by such control.

In your summary, you state, "These designated rivers will receive special recognition and focused federal support" and that the initiative contains "no new regulatory requirements for individuals or state and local governments."

I would like assurance that "special recognition and focused federal support" isn't a code word for "regulations." Also, I am not comforted with your promise of "no new regulations," since your existing regulations are already stifling enough.

Your "River Navigator" designation is extremely colorful, conjuring up boyhood images of Lewis and Clark forging new frontiers. The River Navigator, in your proposal, would be the controlling individual for the communities as they emerge under your proposal. The important question is who will appoint these Navigators and who will they be answerable to? Will they be appointed by the President or by a popular vote of the people? If the community served by the Navigator should include more than one state, what effect will this have on state sovereignty? Of more importance, don't we already have effective "River Managers"? We know them as City Councils, Mayors, state and Congressional representatives and Governors. This division of powers has been the backbone of our nation for over two hundred years. I assume you don't intend to do away with them.

You also indicate that your council will provide technical assistance in the form of aerial photography. I trust that isn't a code word for "surveillance."

In your opening, you characterized the Rivers initiative as being empowered "from the bottom up," that is to say controlling power for these new communities would flow from the people to the community leaders to the Navigator to the President of the United States. In contrast, however, your proposal describes a reversal of this thrust of power, flowing instead from the top down.

Under your item 5, "MEASURABLE RESULTS," you state that your initiative will implement "sustainable development within the river area." "Sustainable Development is an old familiar phrase, used in the controversial "Man and the Biosphere" program now under heavy Congressional fire. The fear present in this language is that "sustainable development" implies replacing cities and states with sprawling self-sustaining fiefdoms, independent of one another and protected by an overriding monarchy. I'm sure you agree that this is a preposterous suggestion. Therefore it would be best if you include language that would avoid any such inferences.

Finally, and of utmost importance, I saw no reference to Congressional approval for such an initiative, which is mandated by our Constitution. Any funding for this initiative surely is in the hands of Congress. In the last State of the Union address, the President told us, "the era of big government is over." If we are to take the President at his word, then he would be diametrically opposed to such an initiative which does nothing but expand the role of big government.

Thank you for your attention to my suggestions and I'll look forward to hearing from you.

/s/ Craig M. Brown, Mentor, Kentucky