Heads Up

The weekly view from the foothills of Appalachia

December 7, 1997
Issue #62

by: Doug Fiedor

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


Even mouthing the words identifying this ideological position is only done in the privacy of elite circles. Because, to do so is to give a hint as to the real reason behind what is happening in Washington nowadays. But it happened. They not only said the words, they put them in print. They almost gave themselves up; their plan, that is. Twice within as many years, they made that mistake.

It's a secret, you see. We taxpaying serfs, we workers who pay the bills for government, we the great American unwashed, are not even to have a hint of this information. Without paying close attention, most of us would not even notice when they're speaking of this ideological position, anyway. And the so called ruling elite want things to stay that way, too.

So, it was very interesting to see, buried in the middle of a long article by John Harwood in the November 26 Wall Street Journal, this sentence: "There is room for a Republican 'Third Way,' says conservative magazine publisher William Kristol, invoking Mr. Clinton's term for his own ideological approach."

We're betting there were some very uneasy moments in the White House when they saw that!

The "Third Way" ideology is much more than just 'another way' of doing things. Rather, it is the specific ideology of the political elite and their multinational industrial paymasters. And, if you study this ideology closely, you may soon learn the real reason behind all those very oppressive laws, rules and regulations coming out of Washington these past few years.

Simply put, the intent of the "Third Way" ideologues is to design a classed society -- made up of us worker serfs and our elite controllers. To do that, it is necessary that the elite have general control over money, training, medical treatment, associations, religion, living arrangements, and liberty of all the workers. One need only examine federal laws, rules and regulations for the past decade to see how they're moving right along with that program. Another hint would be the recent massive arming of federal personnel necessary to enforce all this new law.

Oxford trained Bill Clinton, of course, is a major part of this "Third Way" program. In fact, that is exactly what the Rhodes Scholar program is teaching over at Oxford University. These are the movers and the shakers of both business and politics -- but with an ominous twist.

The "Third Way" is a form of government said to be a blend of the "best" of both capitalism and communism. The "Third Way" is a "Financial-Political Oligarchy," as some describe it. And, because of the many Rhodes Scholars around the world, it's tentacles reach internationally, as well as exerting local and national control.

We now have dozens of "Third Way" supporters in the federal government. At one time, it was not difficult to pick them out. But lately, a similar ideology is also being taught at Harvard University, and other American schools. So, Clinton is only the most visible of the group now in government.

To keep the best of capitalism in a "Third Way" society, private property must be allowed. Rather than government owning all property and the means of production, as in pure socialism, an alternative is used. In a "Third Way" society, property and business is heavily controlled by government regulation, rather than government ownership.

However, in a "Third Way" society, the laws to keep us citizens in line come from the communist model of government -- which means complete government control of everything from womb to tomb. We are to have a semblance of freedom. But the working class people must never have enough freedom (or accumulative power) to interfere effectively in either commerce or government.

The moneyed elite, however, work under the capitalist system, and capitalist rules, so as to continue generating wealth. The elite get the freedom, the workers get strictly controlled.

At the 1995 Democratic Leadership Council Annual Conference in Washington, DLC President Al From spoke on "Building A New Generation of Democratic Leaders." He wound up his speech by saying:

"So the stakes are high. I hope that you will join us in what I think has to be a national crusade to restore progressive politics in America, to define and build support for a 'Third Way' agenda so that we can enter the new century with progressive politics once again as the dominant political force in America."

Communism never worked. And socialism does not work very well either, unless government is willing to give special dispensation for the capitalist wishes of the moneyed elite. But communism and socialism are not the only ways of controlling a society of worker-serfs. And, these multinational corporations know that they can buy just about anything they want in Washington. Therefore, the federal government is well along on its quest to give us a "Third Way" society.

So, when you hear of harsher laws being passed to crack down on drugs, defend against terrorists, protect the environment, provide fair medical treatment, raise the scholastic ability of children, or protect against global warming, just remember that it's all part of the same program. It's all a scam!

You think not? Ask your grandparents. Many of us remember that this country, and its citizens, did much better without any of these laws. Follow the money trail in Washington and you will see that these modern crises are created for one reason and one reason only: so that more laws may be passed -- laws which are necessary only to control us, the people.

And so it continues now, in Kyoto, Japan. The idea is to produce a world economy, an economy that is equal worldwide. Think about it.


As if Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt is not already in enough hot water -- what with campaign finance irregularities, lying to Congress and whatnot -- he had to go and insult our country's largest State, too.

The Department of the Interior is supposed to be made up of relatively benign things like Smokey the Bear, and helpful park rangers who occupy themselves by raking leaves and stocking lakes and fishing ponds when not helping vacationers. Oh sure, there was always the odd game warden or two lurking in the background somewhere, but they never really bothered anyone when we used the parks years ago.

Things changed! Wow, did they ever change. Now, instead of game wardens, the Department of Interior has SWAT teams backed up by the military. Worse yet, they are also interfering with the operation of State governments.

And so it came to pass that one Interior special assistant named Deborah Williams took on the whole State of Alaska. Turns out Williams does not like the fishing industry in Alaska. She carps that Alaskan fishermen do not follow the federal regulations set down by her department.

The fishermen say they are fishing legally, as per their State Constitution. The Department of Interior says too bad, change your State Constitution to conform to our regulations. And, if that doesn't happen, Williams warned, the Interior secretary would "exercise extraterritorial powers" and the Coast Guard would come north and attack the fishermen.

Good! Finally, we're getting down to the nitty-gritty of it all. The federal government claims control over most of the State of Alaska, just as it does with large tracts of land in many other states. And, characteristically, federal agents do not give a damn what the State legislatures or the neighboring citizens think. Federal agents control public lands with the iron fist of a dictator.

But, this time, they went way too far. Armed intervention by the Interior Department against a sovereign State to force compliance with federal regulations is almost guaranteed to cause widespread public interest in the problem States are having with the federal bureaucracy. Therefore, Alaska should encourage it.

"Extraterritorial powers" indeed! Someone better teach Debbie, and the whole of the Interior Department, the concept of sovereign governments under our United States Constitution. The federal government may not order States to do anything. Period! (See last article this week.)

It's time the Interior Department again confined it's activities to raking leaves, clearing old trees, stocking fishing ponds, and helping campers. In fact, it sounds to us as though Interior people have way, way too much free time on their hands. Therefore, we recommend that Congress take a very hard look at this department, cause it sounds like downsizing is definitely appropriate.

On the other hand, there could be a very interesting little war brewing here. . . .


We visited the "ICE" page and found it both well written and very interesting. Among other things is the Buck v. U.S. appeals court opinion and some of Attorney Larry Becraft's reports. So, we asked "ICE" to write a little for Heads Up readers, and received back a very nice introduction:

ICE -- Investigating Curious Evidence -- is a site dedicated to posting information, documents and opinions which make it possible for visitors to do just what the site name suggests: Investigate Curious Evidence, mostly relating to the behavior of government in America today and an agency known as the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, the evidence is so curious and unsettling that some visitors' lives are never quite the same, particularly those who actually accept the challenge to either disprove or act upon what they find.

ICE does not claim to have all the facts, nor even the most important facts on the issues touched upon. ICE does not suggest that all presented material is necessarily correct or flawless, nor that the meaning of the material should be obvious to anyone. ICE does not give advice -- of any kind. ICE reminds all visitors that any conclusion or action based upon the material provided by ICE is the sole responsibility of the one staring back at them in the mirror!

Exercising a right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, ICE does offer quite a number of opinions. For instance, ICE believes that for the better part of this century, aided and abetted by their own ignorance, apathy and moral decline, the American people have been lied to, robbed and fraudulently deprived of their God-given, Unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and Property. Investigating Curious Evidence is a way of determining the sources and reasons for the lies, robbery and fraud. It is the first step in curing the problems faced by Americans today. The first thing you do when you have a physical injury is put ice on it, right? Let's put ICE on America's injuries and hope that Investigating Curious Evidence will speed the recovery process.

The ramifications of this situation go way beyond the scope of any one Web site. It is, however, the opinion of ICE, that nothing (with the possible exception of television) more directly enslaves the American people and better exemplifies the corruption of her leaders than the day to day misapplication of law by the Internal Revenue Service and the ignorant and/or treasonous support of that misapplication by American courts.

You are invited to help usher in a new ICE AGE by Investigating Curious Evidence for yourself. Become an ICE CUBE. Join the ICE mailing list, if you wish, for updates on new information, documents, etc., and sprinkle a little CRUSHED ICE here and there amongst your friends and neighbors.

There are those who fear a new Ice Age. ICE hopes that those who ignore or misapply the law will soon feel the cold shoulder of Americans Investigating Curious Evidence, and choose to return to the burning principles of Life, Liberty and Property upon which America was founded. ICE will be happy to melt away in that event!



Below is a December 8 letter to Winston Smith, Director, Air, Pesticides & Toxics Division of EPA for Region 4 -- Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8909. We thought readers might enjoy seeing one approach taken against bureaucrats.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky is suing the U.S. EPA on this matter. The case is currently in the U.S. Court of Appeals. Heads Up will report on that case as soon as a decision is reached.

Meanwhile, below is the letter in it's entirety -- minus four pages of accompanying U.S. Supreme Court opinion quotations, but including a few "scientifically oriented" jabs at their lack of technical credibility. As always, we recommend that everyone flood federal bureaucrats with letters and telephone calls, and copy everything to your respective Members of Congress.

The news just trickled down through our Elected Legislators that you, as the bureaucrat in charge of the Air, Pesticides & Toxics Management Division of EPA for Region 4, have been telling people that our air, here in Kentucky, is polluted. Worse, we learned that you are demanding that officials of the Commonwealth of Kentucky impose strict air quality control regulations on the people of our area. Herein, I take issue with that action for two important reasons.

First, I am a homeowner in the area in question. I am also a retired research physiologist and an engineer. It is my considered opinion that our air is just fine the way it is. Therefore, I find the concern and efforts of your office to be significantly misplaced.

Oh sure, there are a couple little things that could use some attention. But, as it turns out, both of these problems are under the direct purview of the federal government -- and the federal government fears acting on either. For instance, there's a major airport nearby. And I note with interest that not one of those huge jet aircraft has a catalytic converter installed. We also have a major U.S. Highway system in the area. This allows 140,000 out-of-state cars and trucks to pass through our area daily. These trucks (27,000 daily) and hundreds (1,900 landings and takeoffs daily) of aircraft, of course, spew tons of soot and pollutants into our local atmosphere -- totaling many times more pollutants than local automobiles.

That's where any pollution we may have originates. So, no amount of restriction on the local population will be of any significance. Close down that airport and block off the major highways the federal government routed through here and this will quickly become one of the most pristine areas of the country. Place further constraints on area residents, however, and it will be about as productive as trying to push a bowling ball up a hill using a feather.

You claim that we must lower the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in our atmosphere. And, to do that, you demand that the Commonwealth of Kentucky order tail-pipe testing of all local automobiles. I find that action to be in error; an error probably compounded by the fact that you do not know this beautiful area of the country.

The source of the foul smelling air near our roads is directly attributable to your EPA regulations. EPA, not us, mandated that stinky gasoline for this area. The second source of whatever smell we might have in the air from time to time is methane. That comes naturally, because of all the cows, horses, other livestock, and wild animals in this area. God did not provide barnyard animals and deer with catalytic converters, and I am quite sure that you cannot hire a company to tail-pipe test them. So, again, there is no productive action to be taken.

I might also note that EPA has a monitor station near the airport. That equipment shows that we have been well within the specification you call "attainment" for a decade! Also, U.S. EPA recently required that a million-dollar environmental impact study be performed before the local airport is allowed to expand (and give us 200 more flights by huge aircraft daily). That environmental impact study shows, not only constant attainment, but also a steady improvement in air quality in this area over the last decade.

This environmental impact study data, which the United States Environmental Protection Agency approved as correct, clearly shows that someone is not telling us the truth. Either the impact study is wrong, and the U.S. EPA was wrong for approving expansion of the airport; or, U.S. EPA is now wrong, this area of Kentucky has no significant pollution, and hence, no action need be considered. Take your pick. Because, either way, there was a legal and moral wrong perpetrated on the people of Kentucky by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

All we can believe, then, is that this current action by your office is little more than a control thing -- a grab for power -- by federal bureaucrats. That, or the U.S. EPA negligently approved a million-dollar environmental impact study, using false EPA data, so the airport can expand. Which is it?

My second point is a matter of law. Two-hundred and twenty-five years ago the cry in America was: "No taxation without representation!" Now it will soon be: "No regulation without representation!" Again, there will be war -- albeit, this time without the muskets, because it appears that we citizens now have the United States Supreme Court on our side.

But before I get to that, perhaps you could advise me on a legal point: Is the United States Supreme Court still the controlling legal authority on the law for the regulatory bureaucracy? Because, if it is, Kentucky officials may not promulgate any of the regulations you demand. In a recent series of rulings, the United States Supreme Court ordered that State officials are not required to -- and may not by law -- enforce Federal laws, rules and regulations. Even if State officials agree with federal laws and regulations, they are still not allowed to enforce them because, as the Supreme Court said in "New York" (91-543, 1992):

"A departure from the Constitution's plan for the intergovernmental allocation of authority cannot be ratified by the 'consent' of state officials, since the Constitution protects state sovereignty for the benefit of individuals, not States or their governments, and since the officials' interests may not coincide with the Constitution's allocation."

A little later in the "New York" opinion the Court said:

"But whether or not a particularly strong federal interest enables federal regulation, no Member of the Court has ever suggested that such a federal interest would enable Congress to command a state government to enact state regulations. No matter how powerful the federal interest involved, the Constitution simply does not give Congress the authority to require the States to regulate."

It is evident that the EPA makes all of it's rules and regulations (laws) ad lib nowadays, without any consent from Congress. But, I have a feeling that the Court is not going to accept the EPA as a law unto itself. Most probably, the federal court system will require the whole of the federal regulatory bureaucracy to adhere to these rulings.

In fact, I'm almost sure of it. Because, just last summer, the United States Supreme Court was again very specific in it's opinion. As, Justice Scalia writes for the majority in Printz (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." . . .

"The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the State's officers or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty."

As you may have noticed, the Supreme Court did not mince words with this Tenth Amendment decision. Justice Scalia can write quite clearly when he wishes. And as we see, the rule of law is now clear enough for all to understand. Simply put, federal bureaucrats may not order, demand or request anything of State or local government officials. Period. End of story. The Court has spoken. That is the controlling legal opinion for all of these United States.

However, as I alluded to above, it appears there have been some major changes in the way laws are promulgated and enforced since I studied our Constitution some 40 years ago. So I ask: are federal regulatory agencies still required to obey the Constitution? If so -- and I note there have been no Constitutional Amendments to the contrary -- I believe these Court opinions apply equally to every person throughout the country taking the oath of office as a public servant. This means, they even apply to EPA officials.

Also, under federal law it is my legal duty as a citizen to point out serious violations in the law to the proper officials. Let this letter, then, suffice as that notice. To insure I am covered, I will copy this letter to my Members of Congress, a few of our State Legislators, and the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. And, to guarantee that everyone is current with the orders of the United States Supreme Court on this issue, I will add a few more very applicable quotes on attached pages.

So, on behalf of my family and friends, I thank you for your concern for our beautiful Kentucky area. However, as I pointed out, our air is clean and healthy, the land is fertile and all the little critters around are multiplying like rabbits.

There is one matter with which you could help our area, though. This is primarily a "mixed" rural area that was heavily dependent on tobacco for income. But, as you may know, because of federal government interference, the tobacco market is now starting to dry up. Therefore, people around here are experimenting with a number of alternative cash crops.

EPA, through it's public relations department (CNN and the Associated Press), has indicated that it believes some areas of the country have an excessive amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We could, of course, use that excess CO2 here. As you may know, CO2 accentuates crop growth, and we'll be needing all the help we can get if we want to keep our area farms profitable enough to pass on to the children. Our crops will, of course, replace your excess CO2 in the atmosphere with oxygen -- a substance not yet regulated (I hope) by the federal bureaucracy.

So, speaking for my friends and neighbors, any help you could provide in the CO2 matter would definitely be appreciated.

-- End --