Bill Clinton is getting to be unbelievably crass. Apparently, he actually thinks he can beat this impeachment rap; and maybe he can. However, he may have to do it in the Senate. It's beginning to look like the House may impeach, at least on a perjury charge.

Clinton says that he wants to get this behind him so he "can get on with the people's work." What he cannot seem to understand is that is exactly what we are afraid of. Let's look at a little of what he thinks is "the people's work."

Clinton cut the communist Chinese a sweetheart trade deal, then allowed them to purchase all kinds of sophisticated military hardware. Now we hear that China is using that fancy equipment we sold them to build a laser to shoot down our satellites. And, we should remember, Clinton's commie buddies in China threatened to nuke LA if we "interfere" with their attempt to takeover of Taiwan.

So, what's Clinton's reply? Nothing. He fears them. They have information concerning illegal campaign contribution money laundering to hold over him. Consequently, a subsequent President will have to clean up that mess, probably through war.

Clinton's Iraq policy is also sickening to watch. Saddam Hussein plays Clinton like a yo-yo. That's because Clinton hired magazine writers, newspaper reporters and a college teacher to handle foreign policy.

Who would have ever thought, under Reagan or Bush, that little North Korea would threaten to attack the United States? Well, as the Korean Central News Agency of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea reported last week:

It must be clearly known that there is no limit to the strike of our People's Army and that on this planet there is no room for escaping the strike. . . . Now that the U.S. imperialists, having thrown off the mask of 'dialogue' and 'negotiation,' are bringing the situation to the brink of war, we solemnly declare with the dignity of Juche Korea that our revolutionary armed forces will never pardon the challenge of the U.S. imperialist aggression forces but answer it with an annihilating blow.

The aggressors will never escape the fate of forlorn wandering spirits.

[ <http://www.kcna.co.jp/contents/02.htm#1> The source of the above excerpt is stored at <http://www.kcna.co.jp/calendar/frame.htm> The main page is <http://www.kcna.co.jp/> Apologies if these links do not work, but we can't help it. This is where the original was. ]

Apparently they have no fear of this president. Probably, too, North Korea is benefiting from all that new military technology Clinton let China have. It could, after all, be in China's interest for Korea to keep us busy with a little war. And, even if Korea was to send us over a nuke or two, it probably would not bother China's bottom line hardly at all.

We, of course, have no defense against ICBM's because Clinton voted that project down about the same time he started gutting our military.

Even Israel, our so called friend, is showing public disrespect for the United States. We have sent them enough foreign aid over the years to buy their whole country twice over. Yet, they still spy on us. Worse yet, they acted upset a couple weeks ago when Clinton would not immediately hand over Pollard, their spy and an American traitor. Great friends!

Somehow, Clinton even managed to get both India and Pakistan angry at us. With a little help from Clinton's Russian (liberal magazine writer turned national security honcho) expert, we see that the Russian government is going back to the communists. That one year trip our military was supposed to take to Yugoslavia is lasting a few years longer than expected. Haiti is back to the same old mess again. And the largest export from South America to us is still illegal drugs.

In other words, Bill Clinton has been a major disaster in the arena of foreign policy.

Domestic policy wasn't very much better. Clinton came into office saying he wanted to raise taxes. Yet, had he studied the budget, he would have known a tax cut was more appropriate. Then came the socialist programs, like education and medicine. It's been all down hill from there -- even to the point of killing American citizens at Waco. The sorry fact is, there are not many sections of the Constitution that this administration has not intentionally violated.

The Clinton administration is so bad, so corrupt and such a disgrace, that the few patriotic adults still in government will no longer allow the White House crew access to sensitive information lest they trade it for campaign contributions. FBI, CIA and Justice actually schedule frequent meetings to decide which national security and Justice Department information they can trust the Clintons with.

In other words, not only is Bill Clinton a terrible president, he is not even a complete president.

Just as a pertinent aside here: The Drudge Report recently pointed out a line in the Starr Report from a conversation between Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp. In it, a panicked Monica tells Linda, "My mother's big fear is that he's going to send someone out to kill me!"

Now is the time for each of us to contact our Representative in Congress. It is time for the impeachment. Tell them to get it done. This month.

Police officers and prosecutors have gotten away with it for years. All judges know about it, and most tolerate a certain amount of it in their courtrooms. After all, if they didn't, the jails would be full with the "good guys."

Usually, but not always, it's a practiced art form. Testilying is also very common. In fact, I have personally attended arraignment proceedings where the testimony of police officers was so outrageous that dozens of street-wise people in the court burst out laughing. Even the judge, on one occasion, had to call for recess, lest he crack up in front of a court room full of people.

No matter, the perpetrator is usually bound over for trial. Prosecutors want to win, police usually get the benefit of the doubt, and that's the way it is in most busy big city courts.

Remember the FBI laboratory story? (See Issue #31, "Investigating the FBI" 4-18-97) That fiasco is not over yet. It is unknown exactly how many times FBI agents lied in court. They will not say. We would estimate that it was quite a few hundred times, though. No matter. No one will be punished and, sooner or later, some of the wrongly convicted may get out of prison. Maybe.

Lying under oath has consequences. Just not very often for police officers and never for the prosecutors who allow it to happen. It's the person they're railroading who feels the consequences.

All that should be changed. We must force that change. And, this looks like a very good time to start.

Any person lying in court -- or, in the case of prosecutors, any person putting a liar on the stand -- should be prosecuted for a felony and do some time. That's rather simple to comprehend. No free passes for anyone. Period.

We can call it the Slick Willie rule. After all, he's looking for a legacy. There it is. The liar's legacy. Perjury gets you prison.

Bringing part of the problem to the forefront was the House Judiciary Committee's hearing on perjury last week. At that time, Committee Chairman Henry Hyde said:

If citizens are allowed to lie with impunity, or encourage others to tell false stories or hide evidence, judges and juries cannot reach just results. At that point the courtroom becomes an arena for artful liars, and the jury a mere focus group choosing between alternative fictions.

By their very nature, these kinds of crimes attack the integrity of the judicial system," Hyde continued. "Indeed, that's why they're crimes. To argue that in certain instances these crimes mean little is to say our judicial system means little. I reject that notion.

 

Harvard Law school professor and professional Clinton apologist Alan Dershowitz apparently did not agree:

Now we're seeing incredible hypocrisy introduced into the debate. Oh, we care so much about perjury, what a terrible thing perjury is. The only reason the majority of this committee cares about perjury is because they believe that President Clinton, their political opponent, is guilty of it.

 

Worse yet, A. Leon Higgenbotham, a former federal appeals judge, told the House Judiciary Committee: "Perjury has gradations. Some are serious, some are less." He added that, for impeachment purposes, lying about a sexual affair is about the same as lying about exceeding the speed limit in a car.

Is this guy saying that lying in court can be justified? Apparently. He later indicated that Clinton's perjury might also be forgiven because Clinton was the first president in quite some time to appoint Black federal judges. Unfortunately, no one challenged him on Justice Clarence Thomas and at least six lower court judges I can think of.

Dershowitz and Higgenbotham epitomize all that is wrong with our legal system. Both frequently use race and religion as tools to stifle opposing views and both are very liberal supporters of a large central government. Worse, they actually teach law students these appalling opinions.

George Washington University Law School Professor Stephen Saltzburg summed it up nicely, though: "I think that throughout history, every time the name Bill Clinton is mentioned, the name Monica Lewinsky will be mentioned also, and that, for any president, has to be the ultimate tragedy."

Exactly. So too will the words liar, perjurer and obstructer of justice. And that's without even proving that Clinton sold our military secrets to the communists for campaign funds and other considerations.

The point is that perjury is now highlighted in the popular press. People are speaking of it. That's because people are starting to realize that perjury and/or suborning of perjury by public officials is common. For instance, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette is just completing a 10 part series (http://www.post-gazette.com/win/) on the misconduct of federal prosecutors and law enforcement officials. They also report that seldom, if ever, is any federal official punished for that type of wrongdoing.

So yes, there should be a Slick Willie rule. Give him his legacy. Let the lying president have the liars rule named after him. It seems very appropriate.

Then, convict him with it. Testilying must end.

For those of us interested in law, the new United States Attorneys' Manual is out. And, as expected, the Fourth Amendment has been all but completely gutted.

For instance, section 9-7.111 instructs prosecutors on the new concept of roving interceptions, as in wiretaps. We won't bore you with the complete text, but a couple highlights are quite instructive:

http://www.uhuh.com/laws/elecsurv.htm

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2518(11)(a) and (b), the government may obtain authorization to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications of specifically named subjects without specifying with particularity the premises within, or the facilities over which, the communications will be intercepted. (Such authorization is commonly referred to as roving authorization.) As to the interception of oral communications, the government may seek authorization without specifying the location(s) of the interception when it can be shown that it is not practical to do so. . . . An application for the interception of wire and electronic communications of specifically named subjects may be made without specifying the facility or facilities over which the communications will be intercepted when it can be shown that the subject or subjects of the interception have demonstrated a purpose to thwart interception by changing facilities.

 

 Section 9-7.112 then lists occasions where warrants may not be necessary. Look for the available loopholes. There are many:

Title III contains a provision which allows for the warrantless, emergency interception of wire, oral, and/or electronic communications. Specifically, under 18 U.S.C. 2518(7), the Attorney General (AG), the Deputy Attorney General (DAG), or the Associate Attorney General (AssocAG) may specially designate a law enforcement or investigative officer to determine whether an emergency situation exists that requires the interception of wire, oral, and/or electronic communications before a court order authorizing such interception can, with due diligence, be obtained. As defined by 18 U.S.C. 2518(7), an emergency situation involves either: (1) immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury to any person; (2) conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest; or (3) conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime. The only situations which will likely constitute an emergency are those involving an imminent threat to life, i.e., a kidnapping or hostage taking. . . . The emergency provision also requires that grounds must exist under which an order could be entered (viz., probable cause, necessity, specificity of target location/facility) to authorize the interception. Once the AG, the DAG, or the AssocAG authorizes the law enforcement agency to proceed with the emergency Title III, the government then has forty-eight (48) hours, from the time the authorization was granted, to obtain a court order approving the emergency interception. 18 U.S.C. 2518(7). . . . Failure to obtain the court order within the forty-eight-hour period will render any interceptions obtained during the emergency illegal.

 

The rule then goes on to list a few occasions where no search warrant would be necessary. That includes situations when one person to the conversation is aware of the wiretap or listening device, which was always the case. However, it now also includes anyplace where the targets might not expect their conversation to be private. You can use your own imagination for that. However, consider, bars, restaurants, shopping malls, parking lots, open fields, churches, etc.

Of course, they're going after computer communications and cell phones, too. In fact, FCC already wrote the rule on that and comments are being solicited now. [Federal Register: November 16, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 220)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 63639-63654] The summary states:

This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further NPRM) addresses alleged deficiencies in industry-developed technical requirements for wireline, cellular and broadband Personal Communications Services (PCS) carriers to comply with the assistance capability requirements prescribed by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA, or the Act). The Act authorizes the Commission to establish, by rule, technical requirements or standards that meet the assistance capability requirements, if industry or standards setting organizations have failed to set such standards, or if any party believes that an industry standard is deficient.

 

Comments are due December 14, 1998. For further information contact: Rodney Small, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2452.

Just for kicks, let's take another look at that Fourth Amendment to our Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

 Apparently, the words "shall not be violated" must mean something different now than they did 207 years ago when the Amendment was ratified. Or, perhaps We the People have been hiring the wrong people for government service. Because, any government official supporting this new wiretap action would be in direct violation of their oath of office.

Every so often, so we are told, we are to disclose ownership and finances for this newsletter. Not that there are any. It's just that we are supposed to say something.

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.

All that is necessary to subscribe to Heads Up is to send a message saying you wish to be placed in the list. There is no charge. All we ask is that subscribers pass the newsletter on to friends -- with no changes or additions. Current subscribers come 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. Therefore, there is absolutely no way to keep count.

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 permission to use the newsletter on the air.

We have nothing to offer here except ideas -- our viewpoint on the facts moving the news. I do not expect that all 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, a viewpoint 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. My 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 an old judge and his retired lawyer friends over too, and we can all have an interesting afternoon discussing Constitutional issues.

In 115 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 do, however, sometimes write in disagreement. Some have even subscribed.

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 their 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, this newsletter cannot be censored. Unlike other publications, Heads Up is in the unique position of being distributed primarily 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 also has most issues posted on his new site. We may also have our own small web page someday soon, but I think we only get a couple megs of space.