Heads Up


A Weekly edition of News from around our country

October 3, 1997

Issue #55

by: Doug Fiedor



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






We're starting to wonder just how many people there were visiting the White House to purchase influence and favors. The list keeps growing. By this time, we all know about the Red Chinese and how they clumsily laundered Chinese government money into the coffers of the Clinton, Clinton & Gore election campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Most of us also know about the usual cast of characters from the governments of Japan, Israel, Taiwan, and wherever -- the ones with the meticulous money laundering procedures. Now we come to find out that at least one large American organization was there paying for favors too.

Really though, we could have guessed. The unions were not running all those attack ads against the Republicans just because they like to spend money. As it turns out, that activity was part of the deal. The TV ads were a type of currency. They were actually buying favors.

Indeed, the Teamsters Union apparently extracted more "favors" from the White House than even the Red Chinese. As The Washington Times reports: "In the months leading to the 1996 presidential election, the Clinton administration granted favors to the Teamsters union nearly every day."

The Washington Times also said that they had memos showing the "interdependence between President Clinton and union President Ron Carey at a time when representatives of both men were conspiring to illegally swap campaign contributions."

Starting at the beginning might make more sense. But the only light we really need to shine on this dark subject to make sense is the background of one high ranking White House aide: Harold Ickes. Ickes is a lawyer. And before going to work in the Clinton administration, he was a labor lawyer. Representing unions.

It seems that some of the same people working in the campaign of Ron Carey for Teamsters president were also working for the Clinton and Gore Campaign Committee. Three of them -- Michael Ansara and Martin Davis, both Democratic political consultants, and Jere Nash of Common Cause -- recently plead guilty of committing fraud in last year's Teamsters election. And rumor has it that they were certainly not the only ones involved.

But that's only a small part of it. It seems that Carey needed Clinton's cooperation to win the Teamsters election against James P. Hoffa. So, as the Washington Times reports: "To offset the threat, Carey campaign consultant Martin Davis conspired with officials from Clinton-Gore, the DNC and the AFL-CIO to swap union funds for Carey donations."

To sweeten the pot some, a large chunk of Teamster and AFL-CIO money was funneled to Common Cause to run those political attack ads against the Republicans. In return, Clinton put his staff on whatever problems the union boys needed handled.

Meanwhile, the unions were contributing union money to the Clinton Campaign Committee and the DNC. Then, the Clinton Campaign Committee and the DNC would return some of the union money as a donation to the Carey campaign. In other words, they laundered a lot of union money, bi-directionally, to help both the Clinton and Carey campaigns.

Except for the union members who got ripped- off, it was a very good deal all around. White House aide Harold Ickes was in a position to continually help his union brothers, Carey got the campaign cash he needed to squeak past Hoffa in the Teamsters election, and Clinton benefited with about $7-million in free campaign advertising and a lot more in cash donations.

The problem is, they got caught. And now Davis, Ansara and Nash, the three who pleaded guilty to felony charges in the scam, are cooperating in the probe.




The Senate is having a good time with these recent hearings. First, they did a cursory three day hearing on the IRS that attracted a lot of press coverage. Then this week, they investigated the FBI laboratory debacle again. Both agencies reek of corruption, negligence and abuse of power. But not everything was exposed by the hearings. A few little known, but very interesting, facts are available that were not brought up (for good reason) by the Senate.

If committed by a non-government organization, legal-eagles would call many of the actions of the IRS and FBI "larceny by trick and device." But since these are "official" government actions, we'll have to be content wth tagging them with terms like malfeasance, perjury and abuse of power -- actions which, incidentally, are the very foundation of tyranny when practiced under color of authority.

One interesting similarity between the IRS and the FBI is that neither seem to be a chartered government agency. That is, neither was formed by act of Congress. Hence, neither has a specific job description in the legal scheme of things. Perhaps this is why both government agencies seem rather open-ended in their powers over the American public. There is no controlling law, no set of operating instructions, nothing either focusing or limiting their power. Hence, they make up their own job descriptions as they go along.

Both agencies also seem to have a strong propensity for military trained squad-fire teams with which to attack the American public. They call them SWAT teams. But what all these SWAT teams amount to is a well armed military trained attack force. An army. (Remember Waco?)

Then there's the larceny by trick and device. The IRS is famous for just taking anything it wants. They'll attach your home, take your car and bank account, and then say that if you want any of it back you will have to take them to court and prove they were wrong to take it. Of course, you will not have any money left with which to hire a lawyer -- and, if you do, they'll put you in prison for hiding money from them. That's pure tyranny.

Other federal agencies, like the FBI, copied the IRS actions. But they call it forfeiture. It's effectively the same thing, though. Government agents come and take anything they want -- including all of your money -- and then demand you prove in court that they were wrong.

Of course, this is all morally wrong and very unconstitutional. But Congress approves of these actions. Even now, at least one new forfeiture bill is winding its way through Congress. This new bill makes it even easier for government agents to take private property. You see folks, no matter what they publicly say, there are many in Congress who want to make it clear to the American public that it is government, not the people, who own and control all money and property in this country. Therefore, at least one of these belligerent forfeiture bills is expected to pass this year.

Federal agencies are very happy with this arrangement, too. One popular sign in federal regulatory agencies is "Forfeiture Fever -- Catch it!" Another at the IRS calls it "seizure fever." That's because Congress allows federal agencies to keep what they take for their own use. And to encourage federal agencies to take even more from the American public, Congress lets the agencies keep the money they take to use as a supplement to their budget. Also, there are big bonuses involved for the agents. . . .

One would think that some of these problems would be corrected in the courts. But, that is not true, either. As was brought up in these last two hearings -- albeit not expanded upon -- some federal agents lie a lot. We already know that the IRS will lie, cheat and change paperwork to extract more money from taxpayers. Many in the FBI are no better.

There are hundreds of cases of federal agents perjuring themselves to get a warrant. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Just as some IRS agents will change data to extract money (fraud), so too do some FBI agents change or make up evidence to make a case (malfeasance). And, after a case is in progress, both agencies characteristically hide exculpatory evidence.

This week we heard Senate testimony concerning the slipshod, unscientific work coming out of the FBI crime laboratory. The obvious question not asked was: Exactly how many innocent American citizens were convicted of crimes due to contrived evidence from the FBI laboratory? No one knows.

The previous week, testimony was on the deceit and fraud at the IRS. No Senator bothered to ask how many innocent Americans had money and property stolen from them as a result of this, either. Again, they evidently didn't want to know.

Perjury is supposed to be illegal in this country. Yet, a continuing practice of perjury is exactly what was identified in both of these hearings. So, when do the arrests of federal agents began? Never. Bureaucrats are above inconvenient laws.

The point is, Congress does not care! The hearings are over. The Senators got their "face time" on camera. They did their job by acting like they were concerned. Effectively, Congress publicly said: "Naughty, naughty you guys. Don't do that anymore." Then, with a wink and a nod, Congress sent the IRS and FBI agents back to work -- with the assurance of ever- expanding powers to follow.




They're in the top 10% income bracket in the country. As a group, they have more millionaires per capita than almost any other group in the country. Yet, they gave themselves a raise in pay anyway.

That's right. Your Congress gave itself a $3,000 a year pay raise. Acting like he's going broke making only $133,673 a year, Rep. Tom DeLay said, "some members of Congress are living in their offices. It is difficult to raise a family and serve under these conditions." Sure!

Most of the American public live and raise a family with an annual family income of from $25,000 to $60,000. And that's without the $100,000 expense account and all those free vacations Congress receives. What Congress should be doing is freeing up some personal income for this segment of society -- lower taxes. Instead, they socked us with another new series of hidden taxes.

We would not care if Congress got a raise if they were doing their job correctly. But, they are not. Instead, Congress passed all kinds of stupid and unconstitutional laws -- censorship of TV and print, gun laws, constraints on liberty, limits on private property, etc., etc. And on top of that, they're growing government with even more property control, education and medical laws. Then, there's all those new regulations. . . .

Come to think of it, maybe we should severely decrease their pay. Perhaps we could work it so that every time they pass an unconstitutional law, we decrease their pay by $5,000 or so a year.

The Democrats in Congress like to say that we have a democratic form of government (they don't know any better). So here's a couple facts for them to consider: If half of the federal bureaucracy were to disappear tomorrow, 80% of the American public would not even notice, or care. And about 65% of America thinks it would be a good thing if we had a part time Congress.

Anyway, if Congress would downsize government, rein in the regulatory bureaucracy and lower the national debt (now, not ten years from now), Americans might agree that Congress deserved more money in their paychecks. Right now, though, it's us taxpayers who deserve the extra bucks. Because, based on their performance review, Congress deserves less pay, not more.




We've all heard of outcome based education, that bureaucratic nitwitery dumbing down American scholastic abilities. But few of us remember that the 1993 Democratic Congress also created an outcome based federal bureaucracy -- complete with "portfolios."

If you didn't remember, don't feel bad. Federal bureaucrats (and their sycophantic national media) are keeping that very quite. That's cause, by law, we taxpayers get to grade the portfolios. And, to put it bluntly, bureaucrats most definitely do not want us to see their reports on setting goals and measuring outcomes! One reason is that the portfolios must explain exactly what each agency is doing and why. The Heritage Foundation summed up the problem nicely in their recent report: "Too many federal agencies do not know and cannot articulate in plain English the reason they exist."

The controlling law is the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act, commonly referred to as the "Results Act." The Results Act requires federal agencies to submit strategic plans to Congress by September 30, 1997 -- reports that clearly specify their missions and goals. The problem is, so far none of the agency honchos can correctly define their mission. Their goals, of course, are to control us serf-citizens. But that often has little or nothing to do with the real reason the agency exists.

House Majority Leader Richard Armey (R-TX) said that the Results Act enables Congress to ask the proper questions, specifically: "What's working, what's wasted, what makes any difference, what's duplicative?" The problem is, federal bureaucrats never had to explain their mission -- their agency's reason for existing -- before. And clearly, the leadership of most federal agencies are showing their ignorance.

For instance, as one federal agency manager told Rep. Armey in a statement, "Why worry about results? Nobody seems to care as long as we spend the money." Wrong answer!

EPA thinks it is a "public health organization." HUD identified one of its two key missions as "restoring the public trust by achieving and demonstrating competence." The Department of Education said their mission includes "monitoring and enforcement of civil rights to ensure that the U.S. education system is accessible and fair for all students." The Army Corps of Engineers said it is there to promote "prosperity and democracy, and to strengthen national security" in conjunction with "responsible stewardship of its water resources infrastructure."

All of these answers were wrong! Which means, folks, that these bureaucratic turkeys have not even read their own agency handbooks.

Anyway, agencies were required to submit their first five-year strategic plans to Congress and the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by last Tuesday. Now, here's where it starts to get interesting for government watchers. Their strategic plans must contain all of the following:

"A comprehensive mission statement on the major functions and operations of the agency; outcome- related goals and objectives for the major functions and operations of the agency; a description of how goals and objectives are to be achieved, including necessary resources; a stated relationship between general and annual performance goals; an identification of those key factors external to the agency and beyond its control that could affect the achievement of the general goals and objectives significantly; a description of program evaluations used in developing the strategic plan and an explanation of how these evaluations will be used in the future; a description of agency functions and programs that are similar to those of other agencies, including an explanation of how they will be coordinated; suggested treatment of major problems of waste, fraud, and mismanagement affecting the agency and its programs; an evaluation of data collection systems used to implement the plan; and, an explanation of how the agency solicited and responded to the recommendations of Congress and other stakeholders."

Next year, these reports will be little more than boiler-plate responses of bureaucratic gobbledygook. It's these first reports, the ones due this week, that we should all be examining. Some will be very funny, in a sick sort of way. Others might even be informative, if you can stomach the justification for oppression bureaucrats will include. But these first reports should all be very enlightening for one basic reason: They will be a direct and rather specific example of the type of mind-set we have to deal with in the federal bureaucracy. And, according to the law, we get to kibitz.

All federal agencies must file these reports. So, feel free to call for the one or two of your choice. Then, please, report what you learn.

A well written Heritage Foundation report on the Results Act is on the Internet at: http://www.heritage.org/heritage/library/categories/ budgettax/bg1141.html

Congressman Dick Armey has more information at: http://armey.house.gov/results/welcome.htm




A Congressman reads his own e-mail? Geeez, what next!

That's what we were told, though -- and by someone in a very good position to know. As we were told by Terri Wells, the page's "Web Mistress," Congressman Jim Bunning's new web page has information for everyone. "Links to learning about the government process, state government, educational institutions, etc. Information on obtaining passports, military academies, ordering American flags, federal and state legislation and links to various agencies."

We were also informed that, "unlike the alarming trend of many of the representatives, Congressman Bunning does not use a 'Write Your Representative' auto e-mailer." According to his aide: "The Congressman reads his e-mail daily, and wants his e-mail sent directly to his computer so that he can see what his constituents are saying about the issues."

Fair enough. We'll write to ask him to support freedom by voting for the Ron Paul bills when they come up again. In fact, we have a list of freedom favorable bills around here somewhere. . . .

Rep. Jim Bunning's web page is located at: http://www.house.gov/bunning/




Is there censorship of the news? Of course there is. And today, even the left-leaning Washington Post noticed -- and, to their credit, reported it.

Many of us saw the series of industry ads on global warming that 'were' airing on CNN and other places. The ads are designed to attack the proposed U.N. treaty that would drastically diminish our American way of life.

Well, yesterday, it seems that Ted Turner abruptly halted that million-dollar industry campaign. Turner of course, is an avid environmentalist, and often speaks on the so called "global warming" problem. He also runs a weekly global warming propaganda program on his CNN network.

Anyway, the ad spots were counterproductive to what the White House wants, so they were removed. It's as simple as that. Political speech -- even paid commercial political advertisements -- may be censored when they run contrary to the propaganda spewed by the Clinton administration.

This is a clear indication of just how tight the synergistic relationship is between the far-left in government and the national media. Remember that when you see other "news" on CNN and the major networks. Most political "news" is sanitized for public consumption.

Luckily, we have another route for information: the Internet. The Global Climate Information Project has a web page at: http://www.climatefacts.org./ Read the facts on the UN treaty for yourself. You decide who loses, who pays, and how such an agreement would affect our American way of life. Then, tell Congress.

-- End --