Former House member (R-MI) and President, Gerald Ford, apparently joined with the Democrats in agreeing that an administration reeking with sleaze may continue to represent the United States. How unfortunate.

As we have pointed out many times, and in many ways, no one may believe anything any of the Clinton, Clinton & Gore team says. Rather than list their numerous lies, it would be much easier to list their few truths. But, even when relating an element of truth, the administration never gives the whole truth, the exact truth and the honest truth. The Clinton administration seems to figure that whenever they get somewhere close to the ball park with the truth, it is good enough for the American people.

Therefore, this administration is discredited in both domestic and foreign affairs. Simply put, they cannot be believed. That is, unless they are being paid to act.

And, that is the other major shame of this group: The corruption of the China connection and the union connection. Except in its periphery, the campaign money laundering problem is not even being investigated. Yet, everyone in Washington knows of the many felonies committed by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton and Gore Campaign Committee. The cold hard fact is that many in Congress are also involved as perpetrators, obstructers of justice and cover-up artists.

Last May 24 (Issue #86) we listed many of the "Crimes Against the People" committed by the Clintons and their minions. Since that time, information provided by the Burton Committee in the House, the Thompson Committee in the Senate and Judicial Watch has proven most of this list to be exactly and specifically true. Perhaps it is time we all copy that list of proven violations and send it to our respective Members of Congress. Obviously, they still need a lot of direction.

Anyway, we now see some in Congress moving towards what they call an "acceptable resolution." That is, they are starting to agree with Former President Gerald Ford's proposal for "condemning the President in the well of the House" and forgetting any discussion of the impeachment process. Censure.

Except, censure is not a viable option available to Congress by the Constitution. Therefore, for Congress to censure Clinton would itself be a violation of our rule of law. Remember that when you vote in November -- some Members of Congress support censure, an unconstitutional activity.

Almost as bad, House Judiciary Committee chairman Henry Hyde admitted a willingness to conclude his committee's deliberations by the end of the year. That's a totally stupid move. As with the Thompson Committee in the Senate, all Democrats will need do is obstruct the hearings until the clock runs out.

Hyde (R-Ill) was asked on last week's "Meet the Press" if the Senate will vote to remove Clinton from office: "No, because it requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate, and you won't get that two-thirds bipartisan vote in the Senate to find him guilty of impeachment," he answered. "They won't do that until the American people move, and they have to move from where they apparently are if the polls are true."

And herein lies the crux of the whole situation: We voters should badger the hell out of every Member of Congress while they are in their districts these next three weeks. We must tell them to get it done. Not ask them. Tell them.

Last Thursday's vote on the floor of the House to begin an open-ended impeachment inquiry was 258 to 176. All of the 176 voting "no" are Social-Democrats and deserve to be removed from office. In fairness, though, we must report that 170 of those Social-Democrats voted in favor of an impeachment inquiry in some limited form. The primary difference seemed to be that the Social-Democrats wanted restricted hearings that could be more easily obstructed.

Also, Hillary and cabal had been strong-arming the House Democrats for a few days before the vote. She implied that those Democrats voting in favor of the impeachment inquiry would not receive the $33,000 campaign "donation" slated for incumbents by the DNC. In real life, that's extortion and/or bribery, but it's also Democratic politics as usual. And, 176 Democrats took the money rather than do what is right.

Furthermore, many Democrats were required to sign a letter stating they would behave as Hillary instructed and would use the approved daily White House scripts anytime discussing the administration's problems in public.

Expletives deleted. Enough said. . . .

Rep. Henry Hyde and his Judiciary Committee are moving right along as expected. As expected, they disregarded the American peoples' request for true and complete information from the Independent Counsel. What was released was significantly censored. As expected, we find Members of Congress who never, ever refer to the Constitution as a guide to legislation now embracing those parts they feel expedient to their cause in the impeachment matter. And, as expected, to date the Committee has totally disregarded all major felonies committed by the Clintons, except those recently presented to the House by the Office of Independent Counsel.

Chief Majority Counsel, David Schippers -- some still remember Schippers as a hard hitting prosecutor who ran the Justice Department's busy organized crime and racketeering section in Chicago -- followed the mandate from the Committee and reviewed only that material from independent counsel Kenneth Starr.

Starr had referenced only 11 potentially impeachable offenses by Clinton. Schippers deleted Starr's counts alleging Clinton abused his office by invoking privilege claims to withhold testimony and refusing to appear voluntarily before the grand jury. However, Schippers added his own counts of conspiracy and misprision, which increased the total count to 15 felonies.

"Specifically, the Constitution of the United States imposes upon the president the explicit and affirmative duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed," Schippers reported to the Judiciary Committee last week.

Moreover, before entering upon the duties of his office, the president is constitutionally commanded to take the following oath: "I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The president, then, is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Although he is neither above nor below the law, he is, by virtue of his office, held to a higher standard than any other American. Furthermore, as chief executive officer and commander in chief, he is the repository of a special trust.

[M]any defendants who face legal action, whether it be civil or criminal, can honestly believe that the case against them is unwarranted and factually deficient. It is not, however, in the discretion of the litigant to decide that any tactics are justified to defeat the lawsuit in that situation; rather, it is incumbent upon that individual to testify fully and truthfully during the truth-seeking phase.

It is then the function of our system of law to expose the frivolous cases. The litigant may not with impunity mislead, deceive, or lie under oath in order to prevail in the lawsuit or for other personal gain. Any other result would be subversive of the American rule of law. The principle that every witness in every case must tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is the foundation of the American system of justice, which is the envy of every civilized nation.

The sanctity of the oath taken by a witness is the most essential bulwark of the truth-seeking function of a trial, which is the American method of ascertaining the facts. If lying under oath is tolerated, and when exposed is not visited with immediate and substantial adverse consequences, the integrity of this country's entire judicial process is fatally compromised and that process will inevitably collapse.

The subject matter of the underlying case, whether civil or criminal, and the circumstances under which the testimony is given, are of no significance whatever. It is the oath itself that is sacred and must be enforced.

 

The full report to the Committee by David Schippers is located at: http://www.house.gov/judiciary/schippers.htm. Other impeachment material is also located on the House Judiciary web page at: http://www.house.gov/judiciary/.

For history buffs, the complete "Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment" report, written by Peter W. Rodino, Jr. in 1974 -- currently called the Rodino Report -- is located on Rep. Bob Barr's web page at: http://www.house.gov/barr/.

Democrats demanded that the Rodino outline for impeachment inquiry be used for Clinton. The request was granted by vote. Nevertheless, Democrats appointed themselves as the defense team for the sleaze in the White House, and so continue to do everything possible to disrupt the hearings. The only saving grace, at times, is that the Judiciary Committee's ranking minority Member, John Conyers (D-MI), is not very bright and often does not really know what is going on. Therefore, things often get past him before he can object.

We now have three short weeks to inform and convince all Members of Congress that we expect these impeachment hearings to be all inclusive and very aggressive.

Congress is busy divvying up land usage on federal land within the States again. This time it's the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, Rep. Jim Hansen (R-Utah) presiding.

They're proud of their 400+ page "Hansen bill" which, in it's present form, is actually an omnibus public lands bill combining dozens of smaller public land bills concerning most federal land nationwide.

As usual, Republicans buckled under pressure from the eco-whackos and included more "wilderness" areas that ban human use -- an interesting concept for so called "public" lands. Environmentalists got their wish for no new roads in these "public" park lands and they can continue removing perfectly good existing roads.

The Hansen bill doesn't matter, though. The administration still wants more, and so plans to veto the bill. We, of course, think a veto is a very appropriate idea, albeit not for the same reasons as the White House.

The next Congress may have a veto proof House and Senate, which could allow totally abolishing such things as biospheres and wilderness areas. These areas are useful, but not when their total area exceeds the land mass of the area of the State of Colorado, which they already exceed. Also, as it turned out, the bill failed in the House anyway. But, that's not the point here. The point is that there's also an important Constitutional issue being violated. Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution instructs the federal government on how it may regulate land usage:

The Congress shall have power to . . . exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings.

 

That's rather clear. If a State gives the federal government permission to purchase property for use as a military base, dock yard, or other needed building, the Congress may make all laws, rules and regulations governing the area.

Not one hint about parks, biospheres or wilderness areas yet, though. So, we move on to Article IV, Section 3:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Jurisdiction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

 

So OK, the federal government may make all laws governing the properties owned by it, including Territories like Puerto Rico. That makes complete sense.

The problem is, excluding territories and D.C., the property allowed to the federal government seems to be only that needed for the "Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings."

Yet, the federal government claims control over more than 25% of the land mass of the United States. Territories are said to become States and enter into the United States as a State on equal footing with all other States. However, that seldom happened. The thirteen original States have no large areas owned by the federal government. Most of the States joining later have massive areas "owned" by the federal government. For instance, Alaska is said to be our largest State. It is not. Not really. Most of the State of Alaska is actually owned by the federal government. Therefore, the people of Alaska may not use most of "their" own State.

That's not equality. That is possession. States were intended to be sovereign governments and, except for that short list in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, in control of everything within their borders.

Perhaps while Congress is home these next three weeks, we voters should take a little time to school them on our Constitution. At the very least, we should all ask them why they seldom if ever obey it.

They're calling the Congressional race in Northern Kentucky "a campaign of national importance." Both candidates claim to be "conservatives." Both candidates claim to be "for the people." Both candidates claim that they are running to "help their area."

We say, cut the rhetoric, and let's see what they've actually done in life to make them attractive as a Member of Congress.

We don't have many questions. But, our questions are pointed. For instance: What is the difference between an unalienable right, a civil right, liberty and freedom? How can we stop the federal government's interference in business, farming, mining and our everyday lives? How can we get taxes lowered? What will they do to protect the freedom of the people of Kentucky? And, how, exactly, do they expect to do that?

These are questions we should ask all candidates for Congress. We need to know if they wish to get elected simply because they want the pomp and circumstance of the position, or if they can be trusted to actually do something to protect our individual rights and liberties. We need to insure that the person we choose for Congress will be the one to best protect freedom for our children and grandchildren. That's a tough call, unless we ask questions of the candidates.

In Kentucky, we have background on both candidates to use as a guideline. Both held elected office, so both have extensive records to scrutinize.

As a Republican State Senator, Gex (Jay) Williams always received the A+ "taxpayer's friend" rating from Taxpayer's United. In fact, Gex lowered taxes $350-million while in the Senate. And, not only did Gex support our right to bear arms, he put forth great effort to adamantly oppose every bill that even hinted at violating any of our personal rights.

Outwardly, Ken Lucas, a Democrat, doesn't have a really bad record as Boone County Judge Executive. However, Lucas did a lot to oppress our gun rights. And, in just his last four years as judge executive, he grew the county budget by 150%. Lucas also raised the taxes of the people of Boone County three times. Add in dozens of bothersome ordinances, and one may see a pattern developing.

Some call Gex Williams too conservative. But that doesn't add up when the record is examined. Even though busy as a State Senator and computer consultant, he still managed time to help home school his six children -- the oldest of whom is just starting college. Charlton Heston came to support Gex Williams a couple weeks ago, and it's a real trip to turn on the radio and hear "Moses" doing a political spot.

Ken Lucas had a very important guest too -- or rather, Lucas partied with him at fund raisers -- Bill Clinton. Twice, in fact.

So, here's our two "conservatives." One is a wealthy tax and spend liberal a la the Kennedy's. He lives in a home worth $1.2-million -- which is assessed at only about $750,000 for tax purposes, by the way. The other is a tax cutting State Senator with a whole host of supporters like Rep. Ron Paul, Bill Bennett and, or course, Moses. (Sorry . . . couldn't resist that just one more time!)

Gex (Jay) Williams is dedicated to the protection of our personal rights. So dedicated, in fact, that Gex recently sold off ten of his fifteen acres to support his family during the campaign. He's a guy of normal means, but as he proved to the controlling Democrats in the Kentucky State Senate, he is also a guy with a supercharged legislative ability.

Better yet, when last we talked, Gex Williams asked that we do all we can to insure Ron Paul wins in Texas because Ron is to be Gex's mentor in Congress. (Which brings us to a recent nasty rumor that the Democrats will target Paul with an $800,000 contribution to his opponent.)

And yes, folks, I have asked Gex Williams the above questions and many others over the past few years. Gex can be expected to honor our Constitution as written. That's why we need him and many others like him in Congress.

So, in a nutshell, that's the "nationally important" Congressional race in Northern Kentucky. The liberal national media say it is between two conservatives. We think the national media is about as far away from the real truth on this issue as they are on most political issues.

We might also add that Gex has received Heads Up on his home computer for quite some time. He also knows that we pay attention and, when liberty is concerned, will not cut anyone any slack. However, as with Rep. Ron Paul, we think that we'll only have good things to write about Gex Williams as a Congressman.

There is more information at the Gex Williams for Congress web site located at: http://www.gexwilliams.org/.