August 1, 1997 #46
by: Doug Fiedor firstname.lastname@example.org
Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html
First, we must admit that all the information is not compiled yet. We already have more than enough information to bind into a fat book. But there is still a lot more data available. However, while we do not yet have every piece of available information, we now have more than enough cold hard facts to sound-off publicly. And we can conclusively prove everything we write here.
The fact is that someone (more likely, a group) obviously has a plan to control large portions of the land mass of the United States. Their plan was originally slow in realizing results, but it is getting good results lately.
Apparently, the group's first problem was to get their people in place within the various federal regulatory agencies. Unfortunately, that part of the plan has been very, very successful. They (or like minded people) now control most or all of at least 15 federal regulatory agencies. This is done openly too. In fact they are so blatant about it, and they trade personnel so often, that it's almost like there is a revolving door between certain activist groups and some of the regulatory agencies.
And lest anyone have to guess what we mean here, the answer is an unequivocal "Yes!" The federal government makes it a practice to hire well known far- left environmental activists into federal regulatory agencies. Worse, the function of these activists within the regulatory agencies is both to write regulations, and to ensure that you obey them.
The second problem was to restrict land usage. At least thirteen federal agencies and the Army (Corps of Engineers) joined together to accomplish that. We see the land use restrictions in the form of federal rules and regulations -- almost all of which are written and enforced by the different federal agencies themselves, with only minimal input and involvement from those elected to Congress.
The euphemistic terms for the most severely regulated land areas currently include wildlands, wetlands, monument areas, heritage sites, cooperative zones, wilderness zones, etc., etc.
An important one is missing, you say? Yeah, we know.
The point here is that government (in this case, federal agencies) need to tag these "special" areas of interest with some type of designation. It's kind of a "you name it and you own it" type mentality. And they can't all have the same designation, either; else people would start catching on. Anyway, exactly what that special designation is called this week is not even important. What is important is the implications on the citizens of the United States.
All of these "areas" or "zones" have one very important thing in common: You (or any of us) cannot do much of anything there. In fact, we cannot even enter many of these areas! Some of these huge blocks of land are totally restricted, forbidden to (normal American) humans. Your dog, cat and bird can go there, but you may not enter.
Hundreds of thousands of square miles of American land are already restricted by these federal agencies in some way. But that's just the beginning. You see folks, the federal agencies tried this property regulation thing out on the American public a little at a time, and the American public took the bait and accepted the impositions. Now we Americans think things are supposed to be this way, so they're planning to come at us full force.
In other words, we relinquished our third most important unalienable right, our right over our property, to unelected federal bureaucrats. Now, when bureaucrats say words like "wetland" or "endangered species," American property owners go cower in the corner. We have been trained.
That was part of the plan. And look at the time-frame in which all this happened: Twenty years.
Now, here's where things start getting interesting. The restricted areas -- the wildlands, wetlands, monument areas, heritage sites, cooperative zones, wilderness zones, and what have you -- were not picked at random. Each and every one of these areas was designated years ago by the U.S. & UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Program as proposed biosphere reserves.
Oh. They didn't tell you? Uh huh. Well, don't feel left out. They didn't tell anyone. They didn't even tell elected officials -- but we will.
Anyway, the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere people designated their areas of interest long ago. The function of their minions in the federal regulatory agencies is to create reasons to place strict land use regulations on these areas so they will meet the UNESCO qualifications for the biosphere reserve program. In other words, they have to get us pesky American citizens away from the land first, and they have enlisted the aid of federal regulatory agencies to do exactly that.
That's why the Army (Corps of Engineers), the very same group that converted most of this country's original "wetlands" to farm land, will now go after citizens with a vengeance for even rerouting a ditch or filling a puddle. It has absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong or preserving the environment. These "enforcement" actions are little more than an authority thing. American citizens must be trained to comply.
Same with the EPA. Those idiots now want us to clean up the environment to a point that is cleaner than it would be if there were no humans on this continent! Yet, we sit back and accept this foolishness as being a normal function of government. We're trained.
It's time for this foolishness to come to a screeching halt. Towards that end, some of us have a plan too. Our plan is not as grand as theirs, by any means. But it may work.
Because, simply put, we Americans must recoup our property rights. There is no Constitutional authority for most regulatory agencies to even exist. And most certainly, there is no Constitutional authority for federal regulatory agencies to impose their will on the American public.
Our right to own and use property is an unalienable right, which means that it is a right that is incapable of being given up, taken away, or transferred to another. That right is untouched by the Constitution and reinforced within the Bill of Rights. Therefore, it may not be violated by federal law. And our right over property certainly should never, ever be even discussed in bureaucratic edict.
That said, it is time to contemplate action. More on this later.
The UN Security Council recently posted Press Release SC/6397 -- dated July 4, incidentally -- on their web site (www.un.org). It begins by declaring:
"Noting the increasing role and special functions of civilian police in United Nations peace- keeping operations, the Security Council this morning encouraged States to make appropriately trained police available to the Organization at short notice, if possible through stand-by arrangements. It also encouraged the Secretary-General to guide States, in order to promote a standardized approached to the training and recruitment of civilian police." . . .
"According to the Council, civilian police performed indispensable functions in monitoring and training national police forces. They could play a major role, through assistance to local police forces, in restoring civil order, supporting the rule of law and fostering civil reconciliation. The Council saw an increasingly important role for them in helping build confidence and security between parties and among local populations, in order to prevent or contain conflicts or to build peace in their aftermath."
It will be very interesting to see which American police organization the Clinton administration "volunteers" for UN duty. Most of us would, of course, like to volunteer the whole of the BATF and the IRS for overseas duty. But alas, that will never happen. Ten to one, this administration will send street cops from major metropolitan areas overseas.
By the way, does anyone know if Clinton gets to keep his Secret Service bodyguards when he becomes Secretary-General of the United Nations? That sounds like it would be a conflict of interest for Treasury employees.
Anyone interested in looking up UN documents may want to save a little time by starting with their search engine at: http://www.un.org/search/
Meanwhile, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has that "get the UN out of the U.S. and the U.S. out of the UN" bill ready to go. Perhaps we could encourage him to take a lesson from the antics of Senators Kohl and Lautenberg last year. You know, sneak his bill into a larger bill while no one is watching. The new appropriations bills immediately come to mind. No one on Capitol Hill ever reads them till long after they are passed.
Anyway, by Wednesday, there was Clinton and Lott, together, smiling for the cameras. The fix was in. They were celebrating the big lie called the budget agreement.
Oh sure, publicly they are saying that this budget agreement "cuts" our taxes by $91-Billion. Sounds like a lot, huh? An average of eighty-five bucks per taxpayer is how we calculate it. Compare that with the $280-Billion + that Clinton raised taxes a few years ago and it doesn't look good at all.
The new agreement balances the budget, too. Maybe. It might if the economy stays good, and if later Congresses do not change it. In other words, the budget might balance someday, about six years down the road; when (hopefully) most of these people are out of office.
The lead editorial in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal stated: "In our view the best that can be said about this budget is that it doesn't include a tax increase, except of course for smokers and airline passengers."
That's right. If you smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, you'll be giving them back $71 a year in new taxes. Yup. They raised our taxes again. We know about the tobacco and airline ticket taxes already. Wait. There will be at least a dozen new tax increases to come.
One very expensive "tax" increase is the new Clinton-Gore "clean air" rules -- the stupid ones Congress refused to do anything about. That foolishness will cost the American economy many hundreds of Billions of dollars. Who do you think is going to pay for that?
Another hidden expense is the tax code itself. The tax code will be even more complicated now than it was last year. Therefore, accountants will need to charge more to file the same statements. The Wall Street Journal's front page 'Tax Report' section said the "Mind-Numbing Complexity of the budget is good news for tax advisers." No doubt!
Funny thing about that tax code: Millions of words have been written about our income tax laws. And the shame of it all is that most of these words were written by lawmakers and bureaucrats; and they ARE our income tax law! Consequently, no one -- not even the IRS -- understands it all.
And Congress just made it worse! Typical.
In The Federalist Papers No. 62 James Madison admonishes: "It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?"
Madison was exactly correct. For, when the volume of law enacted by government far exceeds the ability of the governed to comprehend, there is, in effect, no law. The unexpected consequence, then, is selective tyranny.
Enter the IRS. . . .
And another thing: When the subject is private property -- our money, in this case -- there seems to be a tyrannically pervasive attitude in Washington. That is, they seem to act like they, not us, own all money in the United States. It's almost like they believe that we citizens only get to use "their" money as along as "they" give us permission.
For instance: At least 15 times on news broadcasts announcing the new budget we heard terms used like "let people keep more of what they earn." They all seem to characteristically use words like "we will permit," "we allow," we give," and "we let," when they are talking about our money.
Much of today's tax code is totally unfair to the majority of the American population. Because, if there is not equal responsibility under the law to finance government, some citizens will then ultimately be legally benefiting from the efforts of others. Besides the implications of welfare, married people are taxed differently than unmarried, so too with those with children, those who own homes, those who own farms, those who own businesses, and so on.
Besides socialist programs like "earned" income tax credits, there seems to be a dozen or more programs within the income tax code designed to redistribute the wealth. Most of us are familiar with the programs that route our money to the poor, but few middle class Americans know that part of their money is also distributed to the very rich. For instance, there are thousands of millionaires, like the members of the Kennedy and Rockefeller clans, on Medicare.
So what's the big picture here? The federal budget is still not balanced, which means that we are still imposing debt on (stealing from) our great- grandchildren. The tax code is still a mess and the IRS is still out of control -- and, in practice, unconstitutional. And, our total cost of government is increasing. What's to like about this new budget deal?
None of this is what the majority of the American people want. We elected a group of people to Congress because they promised to downsize and decentralize government. Most of us still want that to happen.
So folks, let that be our clarion call: "Downsize and Decentralize." Maybe if they hear the words "Downsize and Decentralize" enough times from us they'll actually get started on it. It ain't likely. But maybe.
The federal government tells us that we have a strong economy. That's good. Because, while federal workers are able to easily find jobs in the private sector, this would be an ideal time to cut federal staff across the board by 15%.
Downsize. Eliminate the Departments of Education, Commerce and the EPA. Then cut those 114 independent federal agencies back to about 25 agencies. Cut those hundreds of "commissions" back to six or eight, with sunset clauses in their mandates.
Downsize and Decentralize. That is what is necessary to balance the budget properly. That is what we were promised. That is what we voted for. And that is what we now demand.
Tell them so.
Damn, there goes life as we know it!
Sure, most of us knew that could happen sooner or later. But what with all the advances in technology, and everything, we kind of thought man would have plenty of time to work around that problem. And, as a practical matter, we still believe that man will.
In fact, by the time our sun (the ultimate source of all our energy) expires, man might already be gone from this earth. Who can say? That will be a few million years from now.
But right now, at this point in human existence, we have many more energy sources around than we know what to do with. Forget oil for a moment. Water alone can provide more energy than we will ever need. Every kid who even blew up laboratory utensils in first year chemistry (and a lot of us did!) knows that.
Oh, you want your energy to be safe, too? Well, OK. But even the oil "problem" is not a problem. We know of at least two-hundred years worth (at current consumption) of oil right here in the United States -- about 500 years worth world-wide.
Let's look at this from the common-sense approach. A hundred years ago we calculated horsepower a little differently. If you had two-hundred horse-power back then, you also had a big feeding job everyday. Now we just pull up to the pump for five minutes.
So, what's it going to be a hundred years from now? Anybody think we will still be roaring along the highways powered by oil-based fuel ignited by spark plugs? That is not very likely at all; and the reason has absolutely nothing to do with available oil reserves.
We will probably be powered by fuel-cells that generate electricity. And those fuel-cells will probably operate with water and something else. They already exist in various forms. Spacecraft use them. Ford, Chrysler and GM all have them in working prototype form. At least two companies in Japan have them. And at the present time they're all different iterations of the same basic idea -- generate clean and cheap energy.
Electric cars are even in production today. All they need is an efficient power source to make them practical for distance commutes. In the interim, the Japanese are going hybrid. That is, they will also build an electric car, powered by a bank of batteries. However, they will install a gasoline engine powered generator onboard to charge the batteries and/or power the electric motors driving the vehicle's wheels in a pinch.
Look for that in your neighborhood within the next few years. The hybrid is the best of both worlds right now. Internal combustion engines all seem to have a peek efficiency speed. That is, at some speed, they will use the least fuel per power delivered and emit the least pollutants. And, when used as a power source to run a generator, only one speed is necessary. Better yet, that gasoline engine can then be much smaller than an automobile engine. It will be quieter and run smoother, too.
The only drawback of an electric vehicle is the need to charge the batteries often. The addition of a very efficient gasoline engine, coupled to a generator producing electrical power, satisfies that need.
When power generating fuel-cells are perfected, many of our current energy needs will be met. Along with inexpensive vehicle power, we will also be able to have fully powered homes that are self-sufficient.
So, we have no energy problem. Very efficient hybrid vehicles are already being tested on the road by major corporations in Japan and a few small companies in the United States. Powerful fuel-cells have also been available for quite a few years. If put in mass production, both of these products would probably be less expensive than what we now use. The attractive benefit is that they would also be much more efficient, cleaner and quieter.
And as long as it looks like the sun will continue operating properly for a while longer, engineers may keep perfecting those solar cells, too.
All these Chicken Little energy depletion stories should be a laugh and a half to anyone following technology. We have no more reason to worry about the energy supplies than our great-grandparents did. Because, just as we no longer use our great-grandparents mode of transportation, neither should we expect that our great grandchildren will be using ours.
That presents another interesting problem: What will we do with all the existing power and oil companies? Inconvenient, that.