May 10, 1998
Issue #84
by: Doug Fiedor
E-mail to: fiedor19@eos.net
Last week, Rep. Dan Burton played the political talk show route reporting on the obstruction of justice (and Congress) by the Democrats. Burton took the badgering by the liberal talking heads in stride and made some good points -- particularly that there are 92 Clinton cronies who have either taken the fifth or fled the country. The TV talking heads accused him of editing the Webb Hubbell prison tapes. "Release all the tapes," the Clinton surrogates repeated in a well-rehearsed chorus. Burton did. Now they're complaining about that.
There was a big sign above that jail house telephone Hubbell used to talk with his wife and others. It informs all telephone users that their conversations are being recorded. Hubbell was a sneak thief, a crook, a felon. That's why he was in prison. That's why he needed to be watched. And that's why he knew he was being watched. So, shall we believe this past chief justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court, partner in the Rose Law Firm and number three man in the Justice Department is stupid? No, he's a crook. He's not stupid. He knew his conversations were being recorded. He knew the Clinton White House would be scanning those tapes. Therefore, he played to that audience.
And, as the Washington Times editorialized on May 6 about Social-Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman's antics in defending the criminal class in the administration: "Exactly what part of Hubbell's declaration, 'So, I need to roll over one more time,' does Mr. Waxman not understand?"
Hubbell owed a couple hundred thousand dollars in back taxes on the money he stole from his partners and clients at Rose. Yet, when he pulled in $700,000 the year before going to prison, he only paid $30,000 of it in income tax. His excuse? They needed the money to pay bills. Actually, they also needed it for fancy vacations, housekeepers, new expensive clothing, and generally to maintain the lifestyle for which they had become accustomed while ripping off all that money at the Rose Law Firm.
The sorry point is that, were it not for Starr's investigation, the Hubbell's would have gotten away with that income tax fraud.
Now Hubbell is using Susan McDougal's script. Starr wants him to lie about the Clintons, he says. Funny thing is that both Hubbell's and McDougal's lawyers are playing from the same script, too. We also expect both attorneys to get the same results for their clients: prison.
Others in the Dixie Mafia got nailed, too. Charles C. Owen, Hubbell's friend, and a veteran Little Rock tax lawyer, was indicted in Washington for helping the Hubbells pay next-to-nothing in income taxes on three quarters of a million bucks.
Funny thing, too; last week Owen conducted an Arkansas Bar Association seminar in Little Rock on "ethical considerations in tax and business matters." The seminar, as was reported, had special emphasis on "the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion." The Arkansas Bar Association advertises Owen thusly: "His practice focuses primarily in the areas of advising businesses in corporate and partnership income tax planning and individuals in wealth preservation, income, estate and gift tax planning with emphasis on legal strategies to preserve assets from lawsuits, creditors' claims and taxation."
Now folks, we know there are some honest people in Arkansas. There must be! It's just that things look really bad for that state right now. They let Bill Clinton teach Constitutional law, Joycelyn Elders teach medicine, Hillary Clinton become a partner in a major law firm, and made Webb Hubbell Chief Justice of their Supreme Court. Then there's the drug running at Mena Airport, massive money laundering, a long series of untimely deaths associated with Clinton, flimflam land deals, and massive bank and S&L fraud.
Yup. Just your typical Democrat controlled little State. Incidentally, anyone interested can listen to the Hubbell tapes. They are posted at: http://www.cspan.org/guide/executive/investigation/hubbell.htm and http://www.audionet.com/news/hubbelltapes/
Many of today's Lords and Ladies of The Hill try to act surprised and outraged when told in hearings that the Internal Revenue Service uses fear as its main tactic against the American public. They act like they didn't know the IRS uses military-like assault teams to break into unsuspecting citizen's homes. And they would have us believe that they are not aware the IRS makes it a practice to hound innocent Americans into forking over money they do not owe, just so IRS collection reports will look good.
This smells even worse than the wet manure I spread out back yesterday! Every Member of Congress was informed of these very common illegal IRS tactics thousands of times by their constituents. No Member of Congress acted on these atrocities because they chose not to act. Simply put, Congress did not care.
Worse yet, Congress changes the tax law every year, causing there to be so much poorly written income tax law that not even the tax attorneys in the IRS understand it all. Then Congress gave the IRS a high profile police position in the "war on drugs." Now, the current tax bill in Congress has at least 100 more changes in the law to "help" the American public. When will this foolishness end?
In the last Senate hearings, specific questions were asked but never answered. For instance, one IRS collection officer actually stole over 20 automobiles from the government. Yet, the man was not prosecuted or even fired. Nor would the IRS give his name when asked. The Senate committee, with their typical lack of cojones, dropped the issue.
It was reported that IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti "inspected" the New York office. IRS examiner Maureen O'Dwyer testified that senior managers in her office carefully controlled what Rossotti was able to see: "As the commissioner watched and listened, selected employees told of great accomplishments. Hidden in the back rooms was the ineptness and discord." O'Dwyer and others testified that they have heard IRS managers say that reforms ordered by Congress don't mean a thing. And it's true. For instance, the IRS still uses collection quotas for promotions.
The whole culture in the IRS, starting from the top on down, is rotten. There is no fix available for that mess. Senators Phil Gramm (R-TX) and Connie Mack (R-FL) suggested that the only way to change that oppressive culture would be to fire the executives. Rossotti refused, saying instead that it will take years to change, and require continuing help from Congress. So, Congress gave the IRS executives a big raise (to $175,000).
Rossotti, evidently, has no intention of changing anything anytime soon. Congress can, though. Easily. Last week, we described the "deprivation of rights under color of law" law (18 USC 242):
"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both . . ."
All Congress need do is to pass a bill stating that all public servants must honor every section of the Constitution and respect all rights and liberties of the people while enforcing any law, rule regulation or executive order. No exceptions. Period. Violation should require mandatory prison time.
Who's the idiot saying the tax man has a general search warrant? Lest anyone forget, the issuing of general search warrants was one of the main reasons we had a revolutionary war. That is why the procedure is unconstitutional today. So, who's the idiot who gave the IRS unconstitutional powers? Congress, that's who. And they can fix it with one simple bill. Any enforcement officer or bureaucrat of any branch of government who violates the rights of a citizen should go to prison.
And, while we're thinking about idiots: The IRS spent many billions of taxpayer's dollars on a new computer system that does not work. Finally they admitted it. It will never work. They wasted billions of dollars. Yet, no one was ever fired for this incompetent negligence.
Worse yet, these rocket scientists at the IRS didn't even know that we have a century change coming up. Their computers will not work after January 30, 1999.
Breaks my heart.
So, what is Congress' fix for all these problems? Congress is going to give the IRS an $18-Billion raise for modernization.
Only in government.
For more on the IRS, the new bill, and other such foolishness, visit the Senate Committee on Finance web page at: http://www.senate.gov/~finance/fin-pres.htm
Hint: Keep sharp objects and guns away from the desk while reading.
Back in 1978, President Jimmy Carter signed into law the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). That gave federal agents authority to secretly bug any individual suspected of, or knowing someone suspected of, being an agent of a hostile foreign government. Today, potential terrorists, or those who may know or have contact with potential terrorists, are included. In other words, the targeted person need not be suspected of any crime.
This secret spying on American citizens is handled by secret federal agents, authorized by warrants issued by a secret federal FISA court and both the procedure and the results are, of course, secret.
It gets better, though. Clinton's Executive Order 12949 gives the secret FISA court authority to approve black-bag operations, and allows the Department of Justice to conduct physical, as well as electronic, searches -- without first obtaining a warrant in open court. Nor would they have to notify the subject, or provide an inventory of items seized. That's secret.
Actually, this secret FISA court is more or less the court of last resort for federal agents. That is, when federal agents don't have Constitutional basis to obtain a warrant in a real court, they go to the secret court. Because, unlike regular courts, there is no requirement for probable cause for FISA judges to issue a wide-sweeping surveillance authorization against a citizen, or group of citizens, of the United States. And, issue they do. The secret court has cooperated 100% of the time so far. The court, conveniently located on the 6th Floor at the Department of Justice Building, has approved over 10,000 requests for surveillance since 1978. According to records provided to Congress, it never turned down a request to snoop.
In 1995, 581 such surveillance and bugging operations requests were honored by all federal judges throughout the country. The secret FISA judges issued another 697. And remember, these are wide reaching surveillance and bugging operations, in that they include any and all associates of the "targets," as well as their relatives and casual contacts.
Because of its "special" status, this court need not honor the Fourth Amendment. But it gets worse yet. Suspects charged in this court are not normally allowed to see any of the information gathered on them. Neither are their lawyers. How that works is also secret.
The only information that the Department of Justice is required to give to Congressional oversight committees is the number of applications approved. Not even the members of the intelligence subcommittees are allowed to review any secret court cases, or any information at all, evidently.
So, there you have it: A secret federal court that authorizes secret black bag jobs and secret wide- spread surveillance and bugging operations, produces secret reports, holds secret trials, and keeps court records secret.
Apparently the Constitution and its first ten amendments must be secret from this court. Because, they certainly do not honor any of them. Nor do the judges get anywhere near honoring their oath of office.
And, as usual, Congress is negligent. Instead of providing oversight, Congress passed those oppressive anti-terrorist bills. The anti-terrorist bills in turn gave the secret court more secret powers (and more reasons to use them) to allow federal agents to operate secretly against the American people.
None of this is Constitutional, by any stretch of the imagination. But then, not much that happens in Washington is Constitutional anymore.
Evil can loosely be defined as something that is morally bad or wrong. Is breaking the law morally bad or wrong? Is supporting those who break the law morally bad or wrong? There's a little soul searching to be done here, folks; and that's a personal thing, so don't look for the ultimate answers here. You decide. We only provide information.
We know that the labor unions laundered millions of illegal dollars into the last campaign cycle. Something like $35-million was used to present the Social-Democrat's position to the American public -- a position totally foreign to the expressed intent of the Founding Fathers of our nation. Furthermore, nearly a third of Congress received the bulk of their campaign funds from union associated groups. Is it any wonder, then, that the sparks are flying in Congress when committees investigate illegal money laundering by these groups? What we are seeing is that two thirds of the Democrats in Congress are publicly defending an ongoing criminal enterprise.
Both Clinton and Gore (and at least a dozen of their aids) were involved in this very same criminal enterprise, as was nearly half of Congress in some way. No wonder, then, that the Democratic Party members are upset. They can't really get out of it, either. Some of the union activists most involved in illegally laundering money to the Democrats already pled guilty in open court. They also promised to cooperate in exchange for mercy.
There were millions of illegal dollars laundered into campaign funds from the communist Chinese, too. A couple dozen Congressional Democrats already publicly pled guilty to receiving that money. Of course, they are the protected class and so were not prosecuted for receiving the illegal campaign donations. Rather, as a public relations gimmick, some of them returned some of the illegal funds. "Some" of them returned "some" of it.
A major function of the federal government is the protection of the people of the United States. Yet, Clinton and Gore, with the acquiescence of many Democrats in Congress, gave communist Chinese access to top secret ICBM nuclear missile technology for use against us. Now, huge nuclear missiles are again pointed at many of our cities.
If it is morally bad or wrong to support known criminal activity, what then shall we think of the national media? They are in full assault of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, Rep. Dan Burton and others investigating wrongdoing. That is most evident in the recent media support for Susan McDougal and Webster Hubbell, two convicted sneak thieves. The national media bashes the investigators and protects the perpetrators in the White House and Congress. Should we accept that?
You will have to decide which of these acts are good and which are evil. It's time to sort it out. But, whatever your personal determination may be, please act on it. Changes must be made. Now is the time to force the issue.
-----------------------------
Just as an aside here: Last week, we
recommended that everyone send a simple postcard of
support to Rep. Dan Burton. This week, KSFO Radio (San
Francisco) morning talk show hosts Lee Rodgers and Melanie
Morgan are suggesting that listeners put a buck in an
envelope and send it to Burton as a show of grass roots
support for his investigation, and to counter the vicious
anti-Burton campaign of the Clinton Crime Syndicate. The
response is said to be quite good. One report states that
Congressman Burton has called the Lee Rodgers show twice
and sent a personal e-mail to thank him. He indicated
that they are getting a lot of "Bucks for Burton" and they
are quite overwhelmed by the expressions of support.
I wish someone would explain Fox to me. Rupert Murdoch is the antithesis of Ted (who am I?) Turner. The Fox News Channel was trumpeted as the great alternative, the Populist News Channel to answer the cries of the millions upon millions of Americans, lately known as the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy." Fox would be the network that would lay bare and let the sun shine on the festering treason of our current administration and the Congress that has abandoned its duty to the people. It was to be all of this and had Fox kept its promise, it would have been rewarded with a following unheard of in this age of communication.
So what happened? Rather than fulfill its promise, Fox News dropped into lock step with the other Administration lackeys. They competed with them for the best coverage of Monica Lewinsky while ignoring the treasonous payback to China for its help to the Clinton campaign fund. While Fox devoted itself to Monica watching, Mr. Clinton quietly signed Executive Orders designed to strip away our Constitutional rights.
With the Fox Network, Mr. Murdoch has an opportunity to make a great difference in the salvation of this country. The shame . . . the utter shame . . . lies in not using it.
-----------------------------
Note: For more on the socialist-supporting
antics of the liberal national media, visit The Media
Research Center web page often. The site is located at:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/
First their spiel: American drivers apparently are sick and tired of cars running red lights, with 65 percent saying in a poll released last week that they favor installing cameras at intersections to take pictures of those who fail to stop. And, sure enough, along comes Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater announcing a nationwide crackdown on red-light running. Who says hefty campaign contributions and bribes don't work in a free society. . . .
In 40 years of driving, I have to admit that I have seen a few people run red lights. Most of them, however, were emergency vehicles with lights and sirens on. Others were police cars, probably late for the donut shop.
Never mind, though. Government is going to fix it anyway. Big government plans to install cameras to take pictures of people who run red lights. That way, all they need do is mail a ticket to the vehicle owner. The problem is that in most jurisdictions an officer must actually see an offense happen to issue a citation. But that type of legal inconvenience is irrelevant to the controlling class. As always, long-standing conventional practices must fall to the expediency of the police.
Another problem is that most municipal areas have a lot of traffic control lights, which will require a lot of cameras. That could get very expensive. So, we've got a better way. More foolproof, too.
The controlling elite should require that all vehicles be equipped with a small computer. Traffic signals could then send a signal to the vehicle computer stating the signal light's location and the status of the light respective to that oncoming vehicle. Run a red light, and the computer sends a signal off to the local cop-house, giving vehicle information and location, as well as the date and time of the offense.
And, how will they know who the driver is? Easy. A card reader mounted in the dashboard. We'll all soon be required to carry big brother's identification card at all times. Inserting the card in the vehicle should be a requirement to drive. That way, the police will know who, what, where, and when.
Better yet, if traffic speed signs were also encoded with bar-codes or whatnot, the computer could also snitch on speeders. It could regulate restricted drivers, too.
So you see, the controlling class is missing the boat by installing cameras. It's much less expensive for government to make the vehicle owners foot the bill for the necessary computer upgrades. The corresponding upgrades to the traffic light systems, then, would only cost forty to sixty bucks a copy, rather than hundreds of dollars each for cameras. And the ancillary duties this same system can handle are only limited by the imagination of the masters.