Heads Up

A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia

April 26, 1998
Issue #82

by: Doug Fiedor
E-mail to: fiedor19@eos.net

Previous Editions at:


They're lining up, choosing sides, developing strongholds, amassing ammunition, and readying to attack. It's the socialists against the conservatives, the Democrats against the Republicans, Clinton supporters against everyone else. And, in this case, it's crooked against legal, corruption against ethical, wrong against right. In other words, it's business as usual in the United States House of Representatives.

Rep. Dan Burton's House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight (http://www.house.gov/reform/hearings.htm) is up and running again. And, unlike some other Congressional committees, Committee Chairman Burton (R-Ind.) decided that a wealth of information will be provided to the American public. Already, their web page is good reading.

The Clinton disinformation team has, of course, targeted Burton for a number of dirty tricks. They have investigated everything in Burton's life and even sicced the Department of Justice on him. Obviously, Rep. Dan Burton must be one of the cleanest Members of Congress, else anything Hillary's diabolical cabal of secret police and truth-fabricators found would be plastered on the front page of newspapers from coast to coast.

All this White House harassment has probably taken it's toll on Burton, too. Just a few days ago, in an interview with the editorial board of The Indianapolis Star, Burton committed the truth when he said: "If I could prove 10 percent of what I believe happened, he'd (Clinton) be gone. This guy's a scumbag. That's why I'm after him."

We should note here that a number of politicians are saying that Burton should not have publicly called Clinton a scumbag. But, as of this writing, not one politician -- even the rabid Clinton supporters -- is saying that Clinton is not a scumbag. Their only argument is that Burton should have not pointed it out publicly.

Rep. Burton needs our moral support. A postcard (2185 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515; 1-(202)-225-2276) of thanks that can be read by everyone along the way seems very appropriate right now. Many thousands of postcards of support could certainly frighten those corrupt Democrats into cooperating rather than obstructing.

And, while we're thinking of corrupt Democrats, Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the committee's ranking Democrat, also needs attention. Why the people of California would want to inflict someone like him on the American public is beyond me. Waxman is a socialist from way back. Now, as he aggressively defends corruption in government and shows his true colors to all, perhaps the good people of California will notice and get rid of him.

Meanwhile, a House Member whose legislative record shows little more than contempt for the Constitution of the United States is now using the Constitution in defense of his illegal activities. And, the leadership of the House is clearly letting him get away with it.

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) recently asked a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit filed against him by Rep. John Boehner (R-OH). McDermott, if you remember, is the person responsible for illegally leaking an illegally taped cellular phone call between Newt Gingrich and John Boehner (and others). They say that call "was illegally recorded" from a police scanner by "a Florida couple active in Democratic politics," who gave the tape to McDermott. A number of electronic surveillance experts suspect that professionals actually recorded that call. But the fact remains that the Florida couple pled guilty to the action in open court.

Discrimination of information acquired from illegally recorded calls is also illegal. However, McDermott argues that the First Amendment protects his right to leak the contents of the tape recording to newspapers.

Boehner said that: "By continuing to deflect attention away from his illegal conduct, McDermott brings shame and dishonor on the very institution he has sworn to serve."

Yes! Exactly. So censor him.

McDermott's lawyers reply: "The government's undisputed interest in protecting the confidentiality of telephone conversations is not enough to justify punishment for a citizen who lawfully obtained and disclosed to the news media an audiotape of such a conversation." . . .

"The basic question presented is: May a person be subjected to legal penalties for providing the news media with truthful and lawfully obtained information on a matter of substantial public concern? The First Amendment allows only one answer to that question: No."

Apparently, Washington lawyers operate under a greatly different set of laws than the rest of America. Because, if any "citizen" recorded a newsworthy conversation by a federal prosecutor and provided it to someone to deliver to the press, the person doing the recording, the person delivering the information, and the editor publishing the material would be carried away wearing stainless-steel bracelets just as soon as that prosecutor could get to them!

The newspapers printing the conversation between Newt and Boehner will get away with it free and clear, too. The newspaper editors surely knew that they were acquiring illegally gotten material. But, because that conversation, when twisted enough, could be embarrassing to Gingrich and Boehner, they printed it anyway.

Now, here comes a flash from the past: Former White House chief of staff Leon E. Panetta practically admitted on NBC in March of 1997 that the 1996 Clinton reelection committee illegally spent $35-million to $40-million in Democratic National Committee "soft money" contributions on campaign commercials. Federal law prohibits the use of that money in an election campaign. Yet, to date, there have been zero arrests.

Clearly, the Washington cadre violate the law continuously, intentionally and with impunity. Many of these people belong in a federal institution all right, but it ain't the halls of government.


Most Americans are familiar with that capricious morass we know as the federal regulatory bureaucracy. That's the alphabet soup agency domain based inside the Beltway where arrogant bureaucrats wield "Administrative Law" with tyrannical expertise. Administrative Law is to American citizens, of course, that unconstitutionally despotic branch of law where one is always guilty until able to prove themselves innocent.

Today's federal regulatory bureaucracy controls nearly everything in the life of nearly every American citizen. The system was unconstitutional from it's inception, and the U.S. Supreme Court correctly labeled it as such. It took the antics of FDR, the closest thing the United States has had to a full dictator, to intimidate and harass the Court into granting approval. Since then, it's been a Washington control thing. The administrative and legislative branches have learned to like these unconstitutional regulatory powers, and so refuse to give them up.

So, it was with great surprise that, while wandering through federal government organization laws in Title 5 that we stumbled on Part 1, Chapter 7, which pertains to judicial review of federal agencies.

Specifically, the law is 5 USC 706, which describes the scope of review of the courts. This may be dry stuff, but this law is also short, to the point and potentially very useful. Check it out:

To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall --

(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and

(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be --

Pay close attention to section 2, parts A and B. "The reviewing court shall" . . . "hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be" . . . "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion" or . . . "contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity."

Congress wrote this law and a President signed it. Therefore, at one point in time anyway, we can assume that they meant it to be enforced. And, that being the case, we citizens have cause for some very serious discussion with the federal regulatory bureaucracy!

"The reviewing court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency action . . . contrary to constitutional right." Federal courts must enforce Constitutional rights? Wow, what a concept! Now, how do we get them to do it?

As an aside here: Congress inflicts stiff penalties for civilians violating laws, but very few for public servants. That must be changed. There should be at least a five year prison penalty for any judge, prosecutor or bureaucrat breaking or ignoring a law which causes a wrong to an American citizen. Else, they will continue doing exactly as they wish, to the detriment of all of our rights and liberties.

Lawyers feel perfectly free to go after physicians and other professionals for negligence and malpractice. Judges, prosecutors, bureaucrats and lawyers are also negligent and malpractice from time to time. It's time they stop getting a free ride from the legal system. Their mistakes adversely affect people's lives. Therefore, they must also be held legally accountable for their wrongs.

Otherwise, we have two classes of citizen.


While reading of the drastic increase (it tripled) in the abuse of hard drugs by American teens these past five years, the evening news was showing President Clinton down in Santiago, Chile hobnobbing with "34 Leaders of the Western Hemisphere's democracies."

Yup, there he was, big as life; surrounded by some of our hemisphere's currently active tyrants, murders, cocaine and heroin suppliers, and soon to be (says Clinton) major free-trade partners with the United States.

Free trade? Like with Mexico? Just say no! We tried that with Mexico. Today, Mexico's largest "free trade" export to the United States is cocaine, with heroin still running far behind in dollar value but advancing quickly.

"Here in Santiago the ground has been broken for the largest free trade area in history," Chilean President Eduardo Frei told the summit session. Then, as he announced that the combined economies would total $9 trillion, these "world leaders" proceeded to sign the "Declaration of Santiago."

Clinton managed to interject that democracy was still fragile in many parts of the hemisphere. "We must continue to stand fast for democracy ... with no holdouts and no backsliders."

By "democracy" Clinton means, of course, a central government in strict control of everything. Many South American leaders are quite good at that. Others, like Chile's President Frei, are having a bit of a problem. Vast areas of Chile are controlled by rebels, who make a considerable amount of money growing coca for cocaine to send here.

It has often been said, and still bears repeating from time to time, that the national sport of South America is revolution. And, because hundreds of federal agents have been interfering in just about everything down there for the past 50 years, there are vast segments of the population who are not very friendly to United States citizens.

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien was there, too. Canada -- if there still is a Canada then -- will host the next Summit of the Americas in 2000.

Anyway, disregarding all the problems he has at home, Chretien said economic integration was now an established fact. "My colleagues, let us tell our people, let us tell the world, loud and clear, once and for all, as we turn the page to a new century, that the era of building walls is over," Chretien said.

Then, he waxed even more rhetorical for a moment. Completely forgetting about Quebec, Chretien said: "The new century that is dawning, the global century, will be a time of building bridges."

Before he was done, Chretien, and thirty- three other "leaders" openly criticized the United States for opposing the inclusion of Cuba in the agreement. In fact, the Canadian Prime Minister announced he will visit Havana next week, specifically to discuss human rights and trade with Cuba -- and maybe to pick up a few pointers on the application of socialism.

Clinton wishfully mentioned "fast track" again. However, even most of these third world leaders knew perfectly well that Clinton was just blowing smoke. There is no way that Congress will give him fast-track negotiating powers. Clinton tried to gloss over that, and at one point even tried to say that he would bargain such a deal through Congress. Fat chance!

These countries may be in the "American Hemisphere." But, they (Canada excepted) certainly are not what people in other parts of the world think of when the word "America" is mentioned. There are many real reasons for that. And we do not need any of those reasons imported here.


Some people get really picky. Especially lawyers when they get to be judges.

One judge (a subscriber) called "on another matter," as they say, and mentioned that it has been quite some time since we disclosed ownership and finances for this newsletter. We flippantly tried to tell him that we do not have any. He asked, "which, ownership or finances?" We replied, "both." But, like last year, he ordered that we: "write something anyway." So . . . here goes:

Heads Up is not exactly owned by anyone because there is really nothing to own. By that we mean that it has no office, has no finances, offers nothing for sale, and hence makes no profit. We print no hardcopies, therefore, we use no supplies.

Current subscribers of Heads Up number almost 700 Americans from all walks of life. From aircraft pilots to zoologists; from Militia members to legislators; a good cross section of America is represented.

In truth, we have no idea how many people read this newsletter every week. That is because most subscribers send the newsletter to their friends and/or post it somewhere.

Also, a number of print publications -- like Media Bypass and The Idaho Observer -- have blanket permission to reprint whatever they wish. A few broadcasters also have the same permission.

We have nothing to offer here except ideas -- our viewpoint on the facts moving the news. I do not expect that readers will agree with everything I write. And that is as it should be. My intent -- my only reason for writing -- is to offer a Constitutional perspective on current events not found anywhere in the major media.

Many people have asked if we are ever harassed for what I write. Others have said that Heads Up is a little too hard on the central government and we could receive a "visit" if I don't take it easy. Our standard answer for that is simple: I jokingly say fine; just have them call ahead so we bring the Great Dane in first. Then I'll put on a pot of coffee and we can "visit" a while. In fact, I'll invite the old judge and his retired lawyer friends over too, and we can all have an interesting afternoon discussing Constitutional issues.

Interestingly enough, we receive mail every week from elected officials and bureaucrats. Sometimes it's because we know them personally, but usually it is to trade information. In 82 weeks of publication, not one person from any branch of any government has ever done or said anything that could possibly be construed as retaliation for what I write. They sometimes write in disagreement, which is their right; but that is all.

On the other hand, two very good Constitutional lawyers and a number of elected officials from around the country took the time to read the "State of the Union 1998" report and they read this newsletter regularly. And, I am happy to report, they agree with most of what they read.

Severe criticism comes from liberal journalists, members of a number of far-left "Non-Governmental Organizations," and a certain bureaucrat at the United Nations. But, because I'm seen as trying to disassemble their nests, one twig at a time, that can be expected. Another problem is that this type is used to having normal people suck-up to them. When they call here and get brash with me, I'll as often as not tell them to shove their socialist ideals someplace that's inconvenient -- and probably physiologically impossible anyway.

These socialist activists would love to have a forum to contradict this newsletter. I tell them that they already do. We call it the national media. Still, some have actually asked for equal time here. That'll never happen.

Whatever success this newsletter has is due directly to the readers. As some readers will remember, I was censored two years ago because I wrote about the UN's plan to tax American citizens and the UN operation of biosphere reserves in the United States. Those articles elicited letters of complaint from international lawyers, law professors and a weird array of one world government bureaucrats from around the world. That, as was the intention, caused the people distributing my writing quite a lot of problems. As it turned out, I was exactly correct in what I wrote. But that didn't help much at the time.

Today, the newsletter cannot be censored. Unlike other publications, Heads Up is in the unique position of being distributed by the readers -- a whole lot of readers. And for that, I thank you all.

We also thank Jeff in Michigan for archiving the newsletter, and Forest in California who will begin posting current issues on his new site as soon as it is up. We may also have our own small web page someday soon, but I think we only get a couple megs of space.

-- End --