Heads Up

DERAIL FAST TRACK

Whew. What a lousy thing to support!

It is the duty of Congress to examine each and every executive order, agency rule and regulation and treaty to: 1.) Assure that it fits in with those enumerated powers allowed to the federal government by the Constitution. 2.) Is beneficial to the people (not just the expediency of government) of the United States. 3.) Does not impose a hardship on any particular class or geographical group of Americans.

The intent of the Founding Fathers -- the reason the legislative branch was designed this way -- was so that it would be difficult to pass many laws, regulations and treaties. Any scheme making the lawmaking process easier and quicker then, would be a direct assault on our Constitutional form of government.

And another thing: Can one branch of government delegate it's duties to another branch? "No," says our United States Supreme Court in "New York v. U.S." (91-543, 1992): "An analogy to the separation of powers among the Branches of the Federal Government clarifies this point. The Constitution's division of power among the three Branches is violated where one Branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached-upon Branch approves the encroachment."

The United States Supreme Court again discussed the separation of powers doctrine just this year, in the "Printz et al v. U.S." opinion (95-1478, 1997):

"Much of the Constitution is concerned with setting forth the form of our government, and the courts have traditionally invalidated measures deviating from that form. The result may appear `formalistic' in a given case to partisans of the measure at issue, because such measures are typically the product of the era's perceived necessity. But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day."

Can the controlling legal opinion ever get any clearer than that?

The President may negotiate treaties. That is an expressed executive branch function. However, the executive branch must then present that proposed treaty to Congress for a complete examination, and potential ratification. If approved by Congress, the treaty then becomes the law of the land, superceding all other laws in the nation except our United States Constitution. Therefore, this duty must not be taken lightly by Congress.

Fast track would also shut off the opportunity for comment by the American public. This puts citizens in a position that would definitely not be acceptable to the Founders. This too would be unconstitutional. In fact, if memory serves correctly, something like that was one of the primary reasons the Founding Fathers went to war with England.

Rush had a good point, though. "Congress has agreed to suspend the Constitution." They've done that a lot lately. Congress suspended nearly all of our Constitutional rights in dealing with the IRS, and other federal agencies. In the process, Congress abdicated many of its legislative duties to the federal agencies -- bureaucrats in the administrative agencies even levy taxes now, with zero input from Congress. That's totally unconstitutional.

And look at the results: Congress' neglect in supporting our Constitutional form of government, as designed by the Founding Fathers, is directly responsible for just about every problem Americans now find with their federal government.

No branch of government, nor all branches of government working in unison, may "suspend the Constitution," or any part of it. All branches of government, whether individually or collectively, are subservient to the Constitution.

Therefore, for Congress to suspend the Constitution would be to suspend their authority to exist as a branch of government. Practically speaking, to suspend the Constitution, or any part of it, would mean that the government is functioning outside of the rule of law -- functioning as an outlaw government, solely by the use of force.

AMBROSE IS BACK

(Anyone not familiar with the writings of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard should check out the April 25 issue of Heads Up to fully appreciate this article.)

We do not do book reviews here. We do recommend, though. So, let's keep it simple: If you only buy one non-fiction book this year, this should be the one. If you like to read mysteries with conspiracy, corruption, lust and deceit, this is better. This story is real. And it's still in progress.

The book opens with the cover-up of aspects of the Oklahoma City bombing, moves on to study a disturbing series of inconsistencies in the official version of the Foster "suicide," and ends with a description of the third-world like political corruption we call Bill Clinton's Arkansas. As usual (for Ambrose) the reporting is impeccable. The book is filled with first hand accounts. Because, unlike many (most?) American reporters, Evans-Pritchard spent a lot of time with the people involved in each of these situations -- and in many cases, he did multiple interviews.

The only downside to the book is some of the words he uses; esoteric words not customarily used in the United States. Even so, once you start reading, this is not a book you will easily put down.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is not a bit bashful about exposing the shortfalls of some in his own profession, either. On page 201 he writes of the Internet that, "A Samizdat media had emerged that resembled the underground network of faxes and newsletters in the Soviet Union in the 1980s -- when nobody believed Pravda or Izvestia any longer." . . .

"If you know where to look, there are real documents to be found on the Internet. When Americans can review the primary material for themselves, they can see with piercing clarity what they long suspected: the American media is incurious, slothful, consensual, pedestrian, biased without acknowledgment, fearful of challenging power, and not particularly honest. In other words, it behaves like the media does in most countries, most of the time, as an adjunct of the governing elite."

We agree, and have said so many times (Aug. 8, July 18, and especially June 20). Our American media is derelict in its duty to the American public. The only part of the Constitution the major media seem to know or care about is the First Amendment -- and then, only as it pertains to the freedom of the press.

Besides the ever-present corruption in campaign finance, the selling of laws to the highest briber, and the out and out lying to the American public by politicians, there are a few hundred Constitutional issues that need to be addressed. But, the American media is not interested. Those issues might offend some of the powers that be. So, America is fed a constant diet of tabloid "news" like the O.J. trial.

"The rule of law was derelict, the press craven," Ambrose wrote on page 174. And that about sums it all up as accurately as anything we've ever written here. When the subject is our national government, "the rule of law is derelict, and the press is craven."

PROTECTING AND SERVING BIG GOVERNMENT

November 4, FEMA announced that 'federal disaster funds worth nearly $2 million have been made available to the city of Detroit for the cost of emergency law enforcement and life-saving measures undertaken in response to the severe storms and tornadoes that struck southeastern Michigan last July.'

The key here is that most of the damage was outside of the City of Detroit, everything that is going to be cleaned up and repaired is already cleaned and repaired, and local public officials are already paid well for this type of work.

Nevertheless, as Al Gore reports: "The President and I applaud the outstanding efforts put forth by the Detroit police force to safeguard the city and its residents during a time of major crisis. The people of Michigan can be assured that we will continue to work together at all levels of government to achieve a full recovery from last summer's damaging storms."

Yes, beyond a doubt they will. The FEMA politburo is already churning out regulations designed to reach its tentacles into many local governments nationwide.

'The funding, totaling $1,800,155, represents the 75 percent federal share of $2,400,206 in eligible costs for emergency services provided by the Detroit Police Department, which included security, traffic control and search and rescue operations.'

Note that not one word was mentioned about that already being the expressed function of the Detroit Police Department. In other words, that is exactly what they are paid to do -- with local funds.

FEMA reports that more than $16.5 million in state and local government aid has been provided to date for debris removal and emergency services in Macomb, Saginaw and Wayne counties. Not said is that most of these are good communities, almost everyone has insurance, and repairs were completed months ago.

Illinois did even better. The same day, a memo came announcing that: "Vice President Announces $6 million FEMA Grants to Reduce the Threat of Future Devastation to Illinois Communities." . . . 'The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is providing more than $6 million to help reduce the threat of personal tragedy and economic loss from future floods in four Illinois communities, Vice President Gore announced today.'

Apparently this is to help pay some of the costs resulting from the damage caused by the Army Corps of Engineers messing with things over the years. They managed to changes some of the watershed characteristics of the area, but Mother Nature keeps trying to put it back the way it was. The result is major floods from time to time instead of little ones often.

'Flood-prone structures in the Village of Montgomery, unincorporated Kendall County, the City of Ottawa, and the Village of Dayton in LaSalle County will be purchased, destroyed and the areas left as open spaces thanks to the partnership of federal, state and local government.'

It should also be noted that residents knew that they were building in a flood plane. Many, however, did not have flood insurance because it was too expensive. No matter, the federal government will pay.

Most interesting, though, is the news that FEMA is now branching out into foreign policy matters. The same day as the above two memos, a third stated that: 'The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the state of Arizona and the Republic of Kazakhstan today entered into a mutual agreement to work together in developing strategies and initiatives to reduce the number of lives and property lost to natural and man-made disasters.'

That's right, Kazakhstan. . . . And it's not the White House or the State Department signing agreements with foreign nations now, it's FEMA.

'FEMA's Associate Director for Preparedness, Training and Exercises Kay C. Goss, who signed today's protocol on behalf of the United States, said "only sustained cooperation on emergency planning will enable both nations to keep ahead of the growth, magnitude and complexity of modern disasters. We need to build dynamic interfaces and linkages needed to strengthen emergency management capabilities for the next century."'

Furthermore: 'The main objectives of the protocol are to develop strategies to increase the capabilities of both countries in emergency management and disaster mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery; establish mechanisms for timely and direct communications; and strengthen the disaster capabilities of international and non-governmental organizations.'

Sure. And the people of Arizona will drive right over to Kazakhstan anytime there's a problem. Something is going on here, and it smells exactly like CIA and NSA. What they did not say is how much it's going to cost us.

FEMA has a police force complete with quite a few SWAT teams, they control a large segment of the military, they have all sorts of dictatorial (unconstitutional) powers and stand ready to take over the nation in time of declared emergency, they promulgate regulations, they pass out tax money (favors) willy-nilly, and now they negotiate international agreements. In other words, the organization acts as a government within a government.

Anyone else see a problem here?

POLITICAL ODDS & ENDS

According to AP, President Clinton sent a letter to 36 state governors last week, urging them to comply with his efforts to create a national registry of sex offenders. This instantly brought forth an idea for the Internet: How about we citizens get together and set up a national registry of Constitution offenders in government. This should identify the name, date (bill number and/or vote), and a running commentary of quotes supporting each and every offensive act (we'll need a Lot of memory). Then, come election time, voters need only access the database for a quick look.

Bill Lann Lee currently spends his time filing legal briefs -- mostly discriminating against white guys -- for the NAACP. Apparently, Bill Clinton must not like white people very much either. Because, he nominated Lee to be the chief civil rights lawyer for the Department of Justice; in charge of 250 civil rights attorneys. That's about as stupid as giving the power of EPA and FDA to Ralph Nader. Lee definitely does not respect our Constitution. But then, neither does the person who nominated him; so apparently there's a fit there.

Of course, over at the Department of Justice, really screwing up can be a good career move. For instance, Robert M. Bryant, the guy who supervised the FBI's botched investigations of both the Oklahoma City bombing and the Vince Foster death case was just promoted to deputy director of the FBI. Earlier, screwing up the Foster investigation got him promoted to the chief of the FBI's national security division. That promotion, of course, put him in charge of investigating (and losing the results) the recent Communist Chinese political spy ring. . . . Still, Congress doesn't seem to care.

Speaking of cops: The Administration now has an armed force of 80,000 on the streets of the United States. They plan to hire another 20,000 more armed agents shortly. They also have at least 200 squad-fire military-style assault (SWAT) teams for use against the civilian population, and these teams are backed up by (and include?) the real Army. Americans are noticing this sudden arming of the federal government. The popular attitude on the street (quietly said) is that "the only ones they have to come after is us citizens." Evidence this popular attitude with the recent vote in Washington State against the un-American activities of the gun grabbers -- 70% overall, and up to 90% in some areas of the State. Americans know that it is time they arm themselves. Many shooting ranges are showing a profit again.

On the other side of the nation, New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, barely squeaked by an obscure Democratic state senator in the governor's race. That was for good reason, too. Sure, she lowered taxes, as she promised to do in the last campaign. However, she also gave a large chunk of the State away to the biosphere wackos and signed into law some of the most stupid and unconstitutional environmental bills in the country. Then, she added insult to injury with a veto of a partial birth abortion bill. Way to disrespect your constituents, Christy! Republicans should have ran a real Republican against her in the primary.

There are more than a few parallels between the Nixon and Clinton administrations. And, this week, Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) added another: a motion to begin impeachment. The motion accuses Clinton of obstruction of justice and abuse of office. So far, there are only 17 Republicans signing on. We'll take that action more seriously when there are 200 names on the motion. Regardless, as much as we would like to see it, impeachment will probably never happen. Democrats like corruption, sleaze and socialism in government too much to cooperate. And well they should. They gave us plenty of it these past 40 years. However, we citizens could force this issue. . . .

Unconfirmed reports in October stated that the First Witch did a pre-Halloween test fly around Washington on her new birthday broom. The hubbub with the local air traffic control watchers, as the story goes, started when she was joined by a flock of legal vultures. Also unconfirmed was the reason the legal vultures were following her so closely. Evidently they wanted to ascertain her exact position on the new federal government controlled babysitter program. That is, they wanted to see what their part -- their new cash-cow -- would be. We're suspect of the flying part of the story. But the rest sounds plausible.

SOCIALISM FOR THE DOGS

Now, before anyone thinks we're cruel to critters around here, I'd like to point out our oversized Great Dane that thinks he's a lap dog. . . .

Anyway, the Kentucky Animal Control Association is pushing for socialism for dogs -- with the money end of it coming from humans, of course. The deal is that they want legislation mandating a special one-percent tax on all cat and dog food sold in the State. And it's for a good fuzzy, feel-good reason too, says the group's leader. Half of the money would go to Kentucky counties based on their population (the human population, evidently). The rest would go to pay for needy counties to open animal shelters.

Part of the organization's propaganda spiel is that half of Kentucky's 120 counties do not have animal shelters. Not said is the fact that many of these counties do not have very many people either. But if that fact gets said very often in public the legislation will not pass. So, never mind.

Also, because there's money involved, someone has to be paid to be in charge. That would be the new State Advisory Board the legislation proposes. Oh . . . and to receive money from this new proposed fund, counties would have to meet certain standards. One standard is that shooting strays in the head with a two-cent 22 bullet would be verboten. Too quick, evidently. Instead, the services of a veterinarian would be required to give them the black needle.

Did we mention that a veterinarian currently paid to administer the black needle is involved in proposing this legislation too? You'd better believe it! The vet says he thinks Kentucky pet owners would support a one-percent tax on pet food if it goes only towards building, improving and operating animal shelters. However, he conveniently neglected to mention what he gets paid for destroying the strays.

"I can't see why pet owners would have a problem with this," said the president of the Kentucky Animal Control Association -- who is, incidentally, also the director of one of Kentucky's largest animal shelters. "I would not be surprised if the pet industry protests, but I do not think it will affect the sale of pet food. . . . You will still have to feed your pet."

Typical liberalism. It's everywhere.

Instead of taxing pet food, how about we slap a really big tax on silly socialist ideas. . . .