March 1, 1998
by: Doug Fiedor
Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html
Over the years, I have "aided" in many court actions, some civil and some criminal. Generally speaking, I am very much against running a private investigation against a private citizen. In fact, if someone were investigating me, I would catch them alone somewhere and "teach" them why they should not continue bothering my life.
So, on the few occasions I was retained to perform such a task, it was with the expressed understanding that (except for client information) I would be very open in everything I did. Interestingly enough, this usually worked well for all concerned, and I often traded information with officials -- with the full knowledge and permission of the attorneys concerned, of course.
Public records contain a whole wealth of information on people. They are relatively easy to search, and often provide material that can be quite beneficial to a client's case in court. For instance, when witnesses for the other side have "wants" on them, it becomes the civic duty of all investigators and attorneys concerned to point the person or persons out to the proper officials. My favorite time and place to do that was at the courthouse, just before they testify. That practice was instrumental in positively effecting the outcome of more than one case, as well it should. Criminals should not be used as credible witnesses.
Generally, I would search all public records for everyone expected to be in court on the matter at hand. That includes all attorneys, police officers, investigators and even the judge. Then, it is customary to study similar cases handled by the opposing attorneys and the judge.
All this information allows a legal team to develop an effective presentation for court. No sneaking around is necessary, and it requires nothing more than a little time and an inquisitive mind. Prosecutors and police officers do not usually appreciate being "checked out" by a defense team, but there is really nothing they can do about it. Public information is open to everyone.
But this is not what the White House propaganda team is doing. Not only has Clinton's group of lawyers and investigators performed the "normal" background checks on Starr's team and the identified witnesses, they have also secretly investigated spouses, friends, associates, financial matters, and developed complete life style dossiers on everyone concerned. Furthermore, the White House investigators are also compiling dossiers on any other person speaking out against the administration, including media people.
Clearly, this type of action is wrong. First, many of the people involved in performing these investigations are taxpayer paid White House staff. Consequently, they also have access to IRS records and all of those FBI background check files the White House wrongly obtained. Exactly how much of this information is being funneled to outside investigators is not yet known. However, we can be certain that their information highway has two way traffic. Which would be, incidentally, quite illegal.
The White House "team" directly in charge of this dirty tricks campaign is none other than Hillary's propaganda machine, which is made up of notables like Ann Lewis, James Carville, Paul Begala, Dick Morris, Harry Thomason, Mickey Kantor, and the soon to be indicted Harold Ickes. The expressed purpose of this crew being, of course, to keep Bill Clinton in office by personally attacking anyone investigating, or testifying to, the administration's long series of illegal acts.
Along with publicly attacking Starr and his team, Hillary's propaganda cabal is also compiling complete dossiers on members of the House Judiciary Committee, in anticipation that impeachment hearings may be started sometime soon. Again, this White House group has access to all those FBI background files, so it can be expected that some interesting information may be leaked soon. Which, again, will be an illegal activity punishable by a number of years in prison.
The press is suddenly up in arms over these investigations for a very good reason: They are intimately involved. Some of Hillary's familiars in the media are active in leaking grand jury information and unfavorable contrivances about Starr's team. These media personnel are, in fact, underlings in a group whose expressed purpose is an ongoing conspiracy to obstruct justice. Therefore, they can and should be questioned under oath by the prosecutors. A few others in the media are speaking out against administration wrongdoing. These media personnel are now secretly under "investigation" by Hillary's propaganda cabal.
Media people like to think of themselves as being above all these investigations. They believe they may "report" any information they receive, without consequence. However, somewhere there must be a bright line separating the reporting of news and the interference in an ongoing criminal investigation. It appears that Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr is about to point out that line to some in the Washington Press Corps.
And this is as it should be. The liberal national media has been derelict in its duty to completely investigate and publish the wrongdoings of both Clintons. Worse yet, some in the media actually helped the Clintons get elected and remain in office. They had plenty of time to notice that everyone around the Clintons gets burnt. Now it's their turn to take some of the heat for a while. Let's listen while they squirm and squeal.
For instance, President Clinton wants to hide his conversations with, and the activities of, the taxpayer paid aides in the White House concerning the Monica Lewensky affair. So, he says that his conversations, and corresponding staff activities, fall under "executive privilege."
That's ridiculous! Clinton is the CEO of the business of government. There are certain conversations that must stay in the executive suite: discussions concerning high-level dealings with other countries, potential property acquisitions, the proper application of spies, and plans for war, for instance. But subjects involving fooling with young girls and the intentional involvement in illegal campaign financing should never be protected. Conversations on these subjects are protected with ones defense attorney, not with government employees.
Another trick the administration uses to cover up misdeeds, bungling and out and out negligence is to declare any embarrassing information a matter of National Security. Bugging all rooms of foreign dignitaries attending an international conference on commerce, as the administration did a couple years ago, may loosely fall under the mantra of National Security. It is unprofessional, crass, illegal and dumb. But, that is exactly how our spook agencies act some of the time.
On the other hand, the report recently released outlining the incompetence and negligence involved in the Bay of Pigs operation had zero to do with the security of the people of the United States. Rather, the report was hidden from the public eye for thirty-some years simply to cover up the sheer ineptitude of those involved.
Congress often invokes the "National Security" mantra to cover up government misdeeds, too. Most recently, the Thompson Senate Committee investigating Clinton's illegal campaign finance practices slapped a forty-year National Security protection on information leading to contributions laundered into political campaigns from Communist China. It appears that Senator Thompson believes the American public should not know the particulars of how the Red Chinese government laundered money into the Clinton and Gore campaign fund (and others?) as a way of purchasing favors from our government. Thus, information concerning a criminal activity is now a national secret -- effectively, a political cover-up under protection of law.
Federal Courts are almost as bad. Originally, all matters presented in court were intended to be open to the public. But, that was then and this is now. Some judges have little respect for the law, so they "seal" documents and invoke gag orders.
Certainly, attorneys can find all sorts of favorable "reasons" for this practice. But then, they have a vested interest in such things. That does not make it correct. All citizens should have access to all records of all cases in all courts. Else, they are not our courts, they are "government's" courts.
Congress passed a law making it illegal to lie to a federal investigator. Yet, members of the federal government lie to the people any time they find it expedient. Or, if they do not lie, they just totally refuse to release any information.
What is needed is a law, with severe penalties, that requires all public servants to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to any American citizen. "Real" national security issues may be exempted, but only with a good explanation.
Ndiaye talked with a few death row inmates and met with a few representatives from state and local governments. And, of course, he met with liberal human rights groups. The U.N. says the aim of his trip was to look at how the United States has implemented "world standards" relating to capital punishment. Many others called it part of the conditioning of America to be subservient to a world government.
For instance, when Senator Jesse Helms, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, learned this guy was investigating our legal system for human rights violations, he was less than pleased. Jesse says the United Nations has no business sending an investigator around the United States to look into capital punishment as a human rights abuse. "Please reverse any and all State Department cooperation with this absurd UN charade," Senator Helms said in an angry letter to U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson at the United Nations. "Bill, is this man confusing the United States with some other country, or is this an intentional insult to the U.S. and our nation's legal system?" Helms wrote to Richardson. "It is clear that Mr. Ndiaye's strange 'investigation' is intended to be merely a platform for more outrageous accusations from U.S. critics at the United Nations."
When interviewed by reporters, Ndiaye acted surprised at Helms' letter. "If the U.S. can refuse, all other countries can do the same thing," he told the reporters. "This visit is a clear indication of the government's willingness to cooperate with the U.N. on United States' shortcomings."
Ndiaye actually tried to get appointments to question cabinet secretaries, and he wanted to visit some federal prisons. He was, of course, turned down. Therefore, the U.N. complained, saying the refusals violate a human rights treaty the United States has signed.
So, the U.N. is going to try again. This year it is Abdel Fattah Amor of Tunisia -- a little North African country -- here to investigate religious rights in the United States. This guy arrived here in January and asked to start right at the top: he wanted to interview President Clinton, a few Members of Congress and Supreme Court Justices. Hubris, it's called.
The State Department is the group letting these jerks in, folks. It's the idiots in the State Department who are allowing these third-rate U.N. bureaucrats from one-horse countries with diplomatic U.N. passports to come over here and tell Americans how they are to live in order to conform to the U.N.'s world standards.
It is both absurd and ridiculous for any of these residents of third-world countries to be allowed to "inspect" the greatest country in the world. They should be shouted down and derided by Americans everywhere they go. Somehow, we American Citizens must make it clear that they, and the silly U.N. one world government ideals they represent, are not welcome by the American people.
The U.N. fears the American people because of our private guns. So, one of the best things we all can do is to stay proficient with our weapons. Perhaps we might also schedule some demonstration "shoots" around the country this summer and send the U.N. video tapes of our most impressive guns in action.
However we work it, we must get the U.N. out of the U.S. and the U.S. out of the U.N. But while they are here, in New York City, where they are easy to call, fax and e-mail, perhaps one or two groups might want to spearhead a campaign to let them know exactly how we feel.
This newsletter would be glad to publish a listing of appropriate street and e-mail addresses, along with telephone and fax numbers, if someone has them. We are sure that readers would use the information properly, and not for harassment purposes.
"Easy question to answer," he replied. First, he told me, the highest on the pecking order of power are the few people who control most of the money -- the chairman of the Federal Reserve, the members of the Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve, and the chairman of the largest Federal Reserve banks, most of whom are in league with the leaders of the big, multi-national corporations.
The second echelon of power, Gravel told me, is the bureaucracy, or those highly-placed civil servants who survive from administration to administration. These are the people in position to interpret and influence information going up the chain of command in government. They are also the ones who interpret and influence policy going down the chain of command.
The third layer of power, he said, is the elected and appointed federal government itself: the President, Congress, and the courts. Following in descending order of power are various special interest groups, such as the political parties, the labor movement, the environmental movement, womens' groups, etc. Despite much reading and study since, I have yet to learn anything that causes me to rearrange Gravel's ranking of power.
It should surprise no one that there is such a hierarchy of power. This sort of pecking order occurs among all animals. One also shouldn't be surprised at how vigorously rungs on the ladder of power are pursued, given that the group among which the struggle happens is made up of critters occupying the top of the planet's food chain (literally), a type of animal that is the meanest, scrappiest, most cunning, smartest on the planet. Further, it is totally predictable that there would be people who struggle to the top of this power ladder who fervently desire, more than anything else, to achieve a global government with themselves in charge, as the ultimate expression of their quest for power.
FDR said that nothing that happens in politics happens by chance -- it is all contrived -- it is only a question of who contrives the best and hardest. The same is true in the quest of the powerful for a global government. Those who strive to achieve global government, or a "New World Order" (NWO), with themselves in charge, are already vastly powerful people. These people are sometimes called "global power brokers."
But, there is a hitch. Global government just won't work very well as long as there is a great disparity in two commodities among the people of the globe. Those commodities are standard of living, and personal freedom. If the people of country "A" have a high standard of living, or great personal freedom, they cannot be readily governed together with the people of country "B," who have a low standard of living and/or who are virtual slaves.
So, to prepare the World for global government, it is necessary to level the playing field by evening out the standard of living and amount of personal freedom allowed the people who are the target population of global government, i.e., all the people of the World. It is impossible to generate the standard of living for the people of the World that is enjoyed by the people of the U.S. -- certainly, not any time soon. Also, if the power brokers really expect to achieve a global government, they simply cannot allow most of the people of the globe to exercise the amount of personal freedom that is supposed to exist in the U.S., especially the right of individuals to keep and bear personal firearms.
Since they cannot give others the standard of living we enjoy, and dare not give them the freedoms we enjoy, and since they must level the field to pave the way for global government, their only choice is to dramatically reduce our freedoms and our standard of living.
Thus, most of the great international events of the last two decades can constructively be viewed from this perspective. For example, both NAFTA and GATT are wholesale redistribution of our (U.S.) standard of living. The International Monetary Fund and World Bank are also effective tools for exporting the wealth of the U.S., and thereby effectively reducing our standard of living. Certainly the adoption of the vast amounts of regulation imposed on Americans these last two decades, coupled with the economic bondage inherent in the confiscatory levels of taxation levied to feed all levels of government, serve to effectively reduce our personal freedoms, as well as enhancing our economic bondage. Obvious to most, gun control schemes are also intended by their conceptors to reduce our ability to resist assimilation into a global government.
Before long, our standard of living and personal freedoms will have been reduced sufficiently so as to accommodate merging our society with that of the rest of the World under a global government. This is not a new idea. There is a quiet but busy liberal think tank called the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations that was established (as I recall) in the 1950s. Its purpose was/is to lobby for change in the laws of America, from the ordinances of towns to the laws passed by Congress. Each change advocated by the ACIR shifts power from people to government. The onetime chairman of the ACIR, Mr. Roland Gauthier, once admitted that the real purpose of the ACIR was to so change American society that it could be comfortably merged with that of the (then) Soviet Union with no discernible change.
So, when viewing national and international
events, it is interesting and constructive to view those
events from the perspective of how they will reduce the
freedoms and standard of living of the people of the U.S.,
so as to ease our assimilation into the global governance
of the New World Order.
Gary Marbut (email@example.com) serves as the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, the primary pro-gun political action organization for gun owners in Montana.