Heads Up

A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia

February 1, 1998
Issue #70

by: Doug Fiedor

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


It would have been a great speech for the British Prime Minister. They don't have a constitution in England, so Parliament can do exactly as it pleases. It may have even been a welcome speech in Canada. Canada is basically a socialist country anyway.

But this is the United States. Here, our Constitution sets limits on the authority of the central government. Our Constitution is, in fact, the job description of the federal government. It implies, 'do this, and nothing else.'

So, as we watched Clinton's State of the Union show this year we found it absurd that many elected Members of Congress registered their approval to unconstitutional proposals with applause.

Before coming on, Clinton told the people in the waiting room that he was going to milk that cow for all it was worth. And so he did. Only three of the points made in that one hour speech were constitutional. The others were socialist programs not authorized to the central government.

For instance, Hillary's child care program was there. Apparently the school tax we all pay is not enough. Now our tax money is also to be used to pay for everyone's babysitters. Clinton hit on education too. He proposes getting the central government involved in every aspect of education, including providing free college education for those chosen by government agents.

Clinton did not mention raising taxes, but he does propose giving billions of dollars to the International Monitory Fund to bail out Asia. He also indicated that he wants to further burden business -- and lock kids out of part time jobs -- by increasing the minimum wage. And, he wants to give a few billion of our tax dollars to the United Nations, even though the UN provides no benefit to the American people.

Clinton also mentioned his quest to completely socialize American medical care, although he did not relate it quite that specifically. Then he actually said that candidates for office should get free television time. Apparently, the Clinton's have something against the best health care system in the world, and the administration feels perfectly free to "take" anything from any American business they wish; including freedom.

None of the above programs are authorized to the federal government by the Constitution. Therefore, they are not subjects which the central government should even address. But, Congress seemed to agree with many of these programs. So, it appears that the Constitution no longer applies, even in an election year.

The three Constitutional topics Clinton spoke on were the budget, Bosnia and protecting our borders. However, he then mentioned the hiring of a few thousand more INS officers to help control the flow of illegal drugs into the United States. More INS officers are needed, but drug interdiction is not their function. Someone in the White House should have known that.

Clearly, we have a problem here. Clinton concentrates efforts on cigarette smoking, when illegal drug use among teens has nearly doubled because no one is adequately protecting our borders. We now have oppressive (and unconstitutional) travel and personal money restrictions imposed on Americans citizens, while over 50,000 illegal aliens and tons of illegal drugs flow into the country every day. Clinton imposed harsh antiterrorist laws on the American public, but his friends on the far left are the actual terrorists and he has even invited foreign terrorists into the White House.

Out here in fly-over country, Washington looks schizoid! Not only are most of their laws and programs unconstitutional, many of them do not even make sense anymore. That is, even when we forget the Constitutional aspects of the situation, the actions are still stupid.


Something is really wrong with this Clinton scandal picture. It's something I did not realize because I do not normally think of things in those terms. Then, two telephone calls and a conversation at the local bagel bakery figuratively slapped me up side the head enough to make me pay attention. It may take a modern day Sherlock Homes to figure this one out, but we can at least identify some of the problem.

Many of us feel that Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr must fear Hillary. I can find six or eight easy to prove cases of out and out perjury and obstruction of justice against Hillary, and I'm not even a lawyer. So, Starr would have to be both blind and stupid to not have a dozen or more charges ready for the grand jury. Supposing that Starr is neither blind nor stupid, there must be other forces involved.

Now comes this Monica Lewinsky baloney. Tabloid trash is really what it is. Soap opera material about a young tart from California and a middle aged lecher in Washington. But, now there is a diabolical twist or two mixed in.

For instance, has anyone else noticed that there is a whole set of entangling alliances between the players in this? Every one of them is two or less introductions away from each other. Something is fishy.

Investigation by lawyers involved in the Paula Jones case pointed Starr to the information he needed to start a criminal investigation. The Paula Jones case was set for trial. Now Starr says that the Paula Jones case is interfering with his possible criminal case and he got the judge to rule that nothing in his investigation may be used in the Jones case.

U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright in Little Rock, Ark. ordered in part: "This court must consider the fact that the government's proceedings could be impaired and prejudiced were the court to permit inquiry into the Lewinsky matter by the parties in this civil case."

The problem is, all of the information overlaps. Clinton gave a deposition in the Jones case in which he was said to be asked about Lewinsky. Starr demanded a copy for his own use. Will that now be barred for use at the Jones trial? That was not made clear in the court's order. What is clear is that all information concerning Lewinsky must be deleted.

This is silly. Jones' investigators dug up that information and need it for trial. It is Starr, then, who is obstructing justice by removing a star witness in favor of Jones' position. Starr is, in effect, aiding the Clinton team in this matter.

And, talk about entangling alliances, Lewinsky's attorney, William H. Ginsburg, gave an interview to an Israeli newspaper in which he said that Monica Lewinsky believes President Clinton is good for Israel and the Jews and does not want to see him forced from office. "On the contrary," said Ginsburg when asked by the daily Yediot Ahronot if Ms. Lewinsky wanted to see Clinton step down over their alleged sexual affair, "we are fans of President Clinton and admire his positions and policies concerning Israel. Clinton is very positive toward Israel and the Jews, and Monica and I are Jews," Ginsburg said.

OK, so now we know why Starr did not give Lewinsky immunity. It appears that Lewinsky will not say anything to harm the Clinton presidency. And, if she told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, Clinton would have to leave office. And that, as Ginsburg offered, may harm Israel.

So, I called a boyhood friend who is now a Rabbi. "Worrisome," the man said. "Very, very worrisome." It seems that others have noticed a link supporting Clinton that I almost missed. It's one of these things that people understand to be probable but cannot actually identify as real.

Another Jewish friend, a Democrat who is very politically astute, independently realized it too. "If this (expletive deleted) is true, it is going to blow up in our face (meaning politically active Jews) and might put a black mark on all of us." Indeed.

This deal is still not straight in my mind, and maybe it will never be because there is really nothing there. But there certainly are a few important points to think seriously about:

The Starr investigation seems almost negligent in its inaction against the Clintons. The Jones legal team set up a winning case, and is set for trial in May. The Clintons tried every trick in the book to stop the Jones team of investigators from proceeding. But, the Jones team prevailed.

So, who puts the kibosh on the Jones legal action? Independent Council Kenneth Starr. Why? I think the court was terribly misguided on this. But, if that is truly the law, they must have some really sick puppies writing legal procedure in Washington because it does not make any sense. Either that, or this judge intentionally gave Clinton one heck of a big break.

Oh . . . and as for the conversation at the bagel bakery . . . That was very interesting and informative too. "Buy Clinton a prostitute to live in the White House and have it over with," one couple offered. No comment on this end.


Last week, when Matt Drudge got wind of the spiked Newsweek story on Monica Lewinsky, he ran with it. Then, so did the major media. Or, more correctly, the major media ran with part of the story. In fact, the Washington press corps has a lot of pertinent background information they will never release.

This week, the major media is attempting to recant. Actually, they cannot retract the Lewinsky story because it is true. So, instead, they are blitzing us with stories on how well the president is doing and how the American public respects his job performance. The problem is, most of the polls they quote are very selective and come very close to being out and out lies. "A backlash to a media driven rush to judgment," White House press secretary Mick McCurry gleefully calls the poll numbers.

Well, let's look into a little background here: Last Friday and Saturday, all news reports had Clinton quickly heading south in the polls. By Saturday evening, he was below 50% and still going down.

Yet, Sunday afternoon CNN tried to say that the polls were not that bad. Sunday evening, CNN ran a hit piece on Lewinsky and Tripp at 10:pm. Then they started on Starr, inferring that Starr had no real evidence against Clinton. Other networks followed suit.

Then, Monday morning, Clinton made his "I'm not a pervert" speech with Hillary standing by his side, and the media loved it. Suddenly, the national media went back into their normal "protect the president" mode and the content and tone of most news reports changed.

Hillary's disinformation campaign was prevailing.

You see, over the weekend Hillary called in the troops. Saturday and Sunday, they trotted out Ann Lewis and James Carville to spew their type of venomous diatribe. Lewis was rather tame, because the White House did not have their disinformation spiel written yet. However, presidential pit bull James Carville could not have been more ridiculous last Sunday: "There's going to be a war," he almost shouted. A war between President Clinton and Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.

Lewis and Carville were followed by Paul Begala and aided by Eleanor Clift and others. They even had Dick Morris throw out a few nasty trial balloons to confuse the issues a bit -- like saying that Hillary is a lesbian, which half of Washington already knew.

Behind the scenes were Harry Thommason and his team to help control the press and give the administration's speakers acting lessons. They called in professional legal negotiator Mickey Kantor and his law partnership for who knows what. Harold Ickes was brought in as the taskmaster of the team and to enlist help from the union propaganda experts. And they enlisted the help of a host of aides to badger the hell out of the press. By Sunday night, the White House damage control machine was in full operation. The White House had begun affecting much of the nation's news services and the changes in media reports were evident.

Tuesday morning, Hillary went on national TV and claimed there is a right wing conspiracy out to get her husband. She seemed to criticize anyone carrying the Lewinsky story, which greatly distressed most of the national press and quite a few Republicans. However, the tactic worked. By Tuesday afternoon the major media was presenting polls showing that most Americans are more interested in the State of the Union Address than Clinton's sexcapades. By midnight, Nightline brashly reported that 74% agreed with Clinton's State of the Union address.

Except, as per Hillary's wishes, ABC did not present their data quite correctly. In fact, using a speaker's trick, ABC actually "improved" on the poll data considerably. Their poll showed that 44% supported Clinton. And, of that 44%, 74% actually liked the State of the Union address. Which could, and should, have been presented as only 34% of the American people actually favored the State of the Union address. There's a slight difference there.

Still, Hillary was calling news reports of Slick Willie's peccadilloes a feeding-frenzy. And the White House disinformation squad had many in the media outwardly agreeing with Hillary. Suddenly the current sexual affair scandal involving Monica Lewinsky had been drummed up by a "vast right-wing conspiracy" against her and her husband.

The problem was, as many reporters realized, Bill was the one in complete control of his zipper all along. Nor was anyone on the right obstructing justice by asking others to lie under oath. Also, many in the Washington press corps knew of most of the other women Clinton has accosted -- some of Clinton's peccadilloes actually included members of the press. Yet, the national press refuses to publicize any of this information -- even though they know it has happened many times in the Oval Office.

Are those 900 confidential FBI files now paying off for Hillary? Members of the press are included. That could very well be an untold part of this story.

By Wednesday night, NBC was reporting the Clinton approval rating at 67%. And, CNN did a fluff piece about the negative press coverage, apparently trying to prop up Clinton. By Thursday night, most of the major media occupied its time by attacking all concerned, except Clinton. Independent counsel Kenneth Starr is now labeled as a "politically motivated prosecutor."

By Friday evening, the national media was actually reporting that Clinton had a 70% approval rating. That, of course, is absurd. It's doubtful that Clinton's approval rating is even that high at the Democratic National Committee headquarters.

Saturday the Washington Post reported that the DNC announced a new damage-control operation (propaganda machine) to "stay in regular touch with 'friends and surrogates' of the administration and 'send people distilled information' that they can use to counter the deluge of negative publicity caused by allegations that Clinton carried on an 18-month sexual relationship with the 24-year-old former intern, then urged her to lie about it." Already there are meetings twice a day with Clinton advisors to coordinate information.

The true facts are that the White House personnel are very effective liars and manipulators. Some in the courts are cooperating with the White House. Congress is impotent (pun intended). And the liberal national media cannot be believed because they will tell us only those parts of the "truth" they wish us to know. We must remember that the Washington press corps had all of this information for many months. Therefore, if it were not for the Internet and talk radio, this story may never have seen the light of day.

So, as the administration ratchets up its disinformation counteroffensive, labeling any true news report as a "right wing conspiracy" and a "vigorous feeding frenzy," perhaps there are a few points we should consider.

For instance, who among us would want our mothers, sisters, wives or daughters working with the President of the United States? How is it that women can be accosted in the best guarded house in the United States?

And let's do a little believability check here: Who among us would buy a product advertised by the likes of Ann Lewis, James Carville, Paul Begala, and Harold Ickes? Would any of us even consent to work with these people?

Yet, these are the very people now affecting our government, and the news reports about our government.

Call Congress . . . a lot!


According to 18 USC 1512(b), obstruction of justice can get you a fine, prison for up to ten years, or both.

The elements include the use of intimidation, threat or physical force, or persuading and attempting to persuade another person to engage in misleading conduct with intent to influence, delay, or prevent the testimony in an official proceeding.

So, causing a person to withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document or other information from an official proceeding is obstruction of justice.

That would include hiding information regarding the 900 FBI files, the White House Computer, the Travel Office firings, drug abuse by White House staff, withholding information about the group designing Hillary's medical care insurance fiasco, the gutting of Foster's office after his death, the Communist Chinese campaign contributors visiting the White House, and at least a dozen other administration escapades.

Congressional hearings are official proceedings. In other words, had the obstruction of justice laws been enforced as written, we would have had a new administration years ago.

-- End --