Heads Up

A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia


July 19, 1998 #94


by: Doug Fiedor


E-mail to: fiedor19@eos.net

Copyright © 1998 by Doug Fiedor, all rights reserved

This text may be copied and distributed freely

but only in its entirety, and with no changes

Previous Editions at:





The district court, the appellate court and the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court all said that Clinton's Secret Service guards and bodyguards must testify before the grand jury. The Justice Department was, of course, trying to block that testimony. However, Reno was effectively told to kiss-off and stop acting like the Clinton defense team. Only the Independent Counsel represents the United States in this matter, said the Courts.

Denying the administration's application for a stay, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote in part:

The opinion of the court of appeals seems to me cogent and correct. The district court which considered the matter was also of that view, and none of the nine judges of the court of appeals even requested a vote on the applicant's suggestion for rehearing en banc.


As with the Nixon White House, there are audio and (now) video tapes, telephone logs, parking passes and visitor logs to examine. All these are under the direct control of the Secret Service. At one time there were up to four security cameras in the Oval Office alone -- monitored by the Secret Service. That could make for some very interesting news-clips, if rumors of philandering are true and the cameras are still installed.

Also before the grand jury, and further straining the Clintons' envelope of secrecy, is Linda Tripp (http://www.lindatripp.com/). Tripp has already spent six days before Starr's special grand jury and there are more to come. Linda Tripp says of her days before the grand jury, "... the media have inaccurately characterized the content of my testimony, to date, before the federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. … I continue to believe that it is my obligation to testify truthfully and completely and this is what I will continue to do." She also stated: "I fully intend to share this information with the public at a later date, once the investigation has concluded."

Our complements to Linda, who may yet become the hero of the year in all this. We hope that her courage in telling the truth is emulated by all involved.

Also important was the action taken by the "Big Seven" organizations of state and local governments. The so called Big Seven includes the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and the International City/County Management Association. They took issue with Clinton's new Executive Order 13083 on federalism. Therefore, they drafted a letter to Clinton demanding that he withdraw the executive order and backed it up with a visit to Mickey Ibarra, the chief of White House intergovernmental relations.

Part of the complaint, as reported by the Washington Post, was that no state or local government official was consulted in the drafting of the executive order. The directive, the Big Seven officials said in the letter, "calls into question fundamental principles of federalism." That's an understatement. Clinton's executive order just about abolishes federalism.

The Washington Post reports:

White House officials yesterday denied the order signaled any change of policy and scrambled to appease the Big Seven, knowing that almost all the groups will be meeting in the next few weeks and that congressional Republicans are on the trail of the controversy. Indeed, yesterday afternoon, Barry J. Toiv, a White House spokesman, said administration officials had decided to recommend to the president that he issue another order delaying implementation of the first one so officials would have the opportunity to meet and discuss the issues with state and local authorities.


Meanwhile, Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) introduced H.R. 4197, the "State Sovereignty Act of 1998." (www.house.gov/barr/hr4196.htm) The bill reads in part [spelling corrected]:

(a) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT. -- The head of each Federal department and each Federal agency shall ensure that each activity of the department or agency, respectively, is carried out in accordance with all provisions of Executive Order 12612 (as in effect on October 26, 1987) as apply to the activity under the terms of that Executive Order.


Executive Order 13083, issued May 14, 1998 shall have no force or effect.


We support Barr's bill as a first step, but also suggest that President Reagan's Executive Order 12612 be written into federal statute by Congress.

For a side by side comparison of both the Reagan and Clinton executive orders on federalism, visit the Free Republic web site at:


Contact all State legislators and Members of Congress. We must demand that true federalism again becomes the supreme law of the land.



As the "silly season" heats up (campaign season) again, perhaps we should start reporting on the real energy driving politics in Washington: money.

According to a joint study by the Associated Press and the Center for Responsive Politics, there are 14,484 registered lobbyists on Capitol Hill. That is, lobbyists on Capitol Hill outnumber Members of Congress 27 to 1. These special interest lobbyists spend one-billion one-hundred seventy million dollars a year to lobby Congress. And, those are only the professional lobbyists who publicly admit to their activities.

The Washington Times reported that the most heavily lobbied issues last year were the federal budget, taxes, health, transportation, and defense. Spending a whopping $17.1 million, the biggest spender last year was the American Medical Association. Within industry categories, telecommunications was the biggest spender at $63.96 million. The pharmaceutical industry spent $59.7 million for lobbying; oil and gas, $51.7 million; defense, $40 million; the automobile industry, $34.6 million; and business groups, $24.6 million.

On average, about $21.9-million is spent annually lobbying each Member of Congress. And the above numbers do not include Political Action Committee campaign contributions, issue orientated advertising and other such multimillion dollar incidentals.

Anyone see a problem here yet? Because, folks, the above numbers have nothing whatsoever to do with what the individual voters back home kick in to the Congressional campaign funds. All the above was business, union, State and local government money. Foreign government lobbying money is in there too, of course. But don't look for foreign government accountings because such spending is illegal. So, unlike China, most foreigners have some very sophisticated ways of hiding (money-laundering) their contributions.

The functions of the lobbyist are many, but they all revolve around influencing the vote of Members of Congress. This always includes paying for the votes through contributions to campaign (and other) funds, of course. But it can also include actually writing bills to be introduced in Congress, holding special "meet and greet" parties and outings for Members of Congress and, of course, sponsoring those ever-present campaign fund-raisers.

While in Washington, many Members of Congress spend much of their free time attending these functions. They must, because that is how they receive a large chunk of their campaign funds.

Now comes the new campaign finance bill we hear so much about. The bill was written with strong input from Washington special interest lobbyists and, of course, sitting Members of Congress who want what those lobbyists have to offer: money. Therefore, we notice that most constraints proposed by that bill (depending on which version) are placed on small groups and normal people.

But there is yet another very interesting aspect of that campaign finance bill: There are at least three U.S. Supreme Court opinions (controlling legal opinions, in Al Gore speak) that would make some aspects of any version of the bill unconstitutional from the day it is passed -- if any version ever is passed.

Do we need campaign finance reform? Definitely. But it would probably be a good idea if sitting politicians and currently active lobbyists did not have a hand in crafting such reform. Expecting them to restrict themselves is kind of like asking my big male Great Dane to sit by quietly and watch the local raccoon eat the dog food out of his bowl. Even the wild raccoon knows there ain't going to be any days like that.

We certainly need to keep the special interest lobbyists away from crafting campaign finance bills. Keeping politicians out of the process, however, may be a little more difficult. There is a way, but it's not easy to pull off properly.

All politicians should get their campaign funds, 100% of their campaign funds, from voting constituents in their district. Those not registered to vote should not be allowed to contribute to campaign funds. Furthermore, the maximum contribution allowable should be $1,000 per registered voter. Any registered voter in the district should be able to help in an election campaign, just not for pay (excepting those few paid by the campaign funds).

Such an arrangement would make Members of Congress rather attentive to the people in their districts. It would also allow new blood to get elected more often as they would be home and in position to collect campaign contributions easier.

Paid professional lobbyists should be outlawed. Any person may lobby any member of government, so long as they are not paid to do so -- or promising campaign (bribes) contributions.

The federal government was, after all, intended to be a representative government. No more should well-funded lobbyists representing whatever from a state a thousand miles away from your district have the ear of your Member of Congress to propose projects (and laws) you and others in your district may not agree with. There could still be some such requests from time to time, but all constituents would at least be on equal footing with the out of district interlopers. And that $1.17-billion currently spent on lobbying Capitol Hill every year can be distributed to corporation shareholders, union members and/or taxpayers where it belongs.

The problem with the above scheme is that it would probably require a Constitutional amendment.

For more on campaign finance, go to: http://www.campaignfinance.org/



Another proposal for oppression was recently released by the Department of Justice. The report was written by the National Institute of Justice, which is the Justice research division charged with assessing existing Department of Justice policies and recommending solutions. The report states that there is a rampant lack of respect for the justice system among the nation's youth, and that youngsters do not recognize the societal relevance of truthful testimony under oath.

In a number of jurisdictions, statutes against witness tampering, suborning perjury (encouraging perjury by threats or inducements), or obstruction of justice do not carry high enough penalties to either deter or substantially punish witness intimidation . . . defendants are reported to feel they have little to lose -- and a great deal to gain (from perjury and obstruction).


Now, where in the world would American kids learn about things like witness tampering, suborning perjury and obstruction of justice? Could it be that the nightly news of the goings on at the White House has become a national tutorial on such things?

The Clintons and staff lie to the nation regularly. In fact, the White House has a whole stable of talking heads paid to lie to us on television each and every evening. We know they are lying, and the TV newscasters know they are lying. But, as our kids see it, the adults on television humor them along and act as if they were telling the truth.

No one actually expects anyone from the executive branch to commit the truth anymore, and they don't very often. Rather, they often act like the business of conducting the people's business is none of the people's business.

Take FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, for instance. Under Freeh, the FBI adopted a highly restrictive media policy called "Bright Line." Freeh's bright line means that if an FBI agent talks to the press, they will be fired. And, apparently some agents were fired. Although supposedly a public servant, Freeh takes the position that the American people are not to know anything. Period.

These "Justice" people no longer deserve our respect. They can and do tell us, or omit, anything they please. Yet, we note that there is a law about lying to them. Shouldn't it work both ways?

And then there's Congress. Americans watched numerous Congressional hearings in which both Members of Congress and witnesses were fabricating the truth. In the law, that is called perjury. However, no one was ever arrested.

Why in the world should American citizens take any federal law seriously when public officials regularly violate many of them at will? In Detroit, kids saw a Member of Congress smoking a joint, then try to give a speech while looking like he could take a nose-dive off the stage at any point. And, we might add, his best friend, a well known State Senator, went to prison for crack cocaine. A couple hundred Detroit kids know these stories well.

Kids also notice when two Members of Congress are debating an issue from greatly different positions. Publicly debating the issues should be encouraged. But when there are extreme differences on the same issue, it often becomes evident that at least one side must have vacated the arena of truth.

The Department of Justice report is correct. Many Americans feel they have little to lose and a great deal to gain from perjury and obstruction of justice. But they come by that feeling honestly, by watching the actions of public officials. And if it works for public officials, which it does, then why not do it?

As far as the law itself is concerned, it can no longer be obeyed. For, as James Madison admonishes in The Federalist Papers No. 62:

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?


All most Americans want is to be let alone. The volumes of laws, rules and regulations have overwhelmed the ability of the American public to understand. Most in the federal government seem to run government at their own personal pleasure and for their own personal needs. That they are no longer respected by the American people is evidenced by that fact that not even half of America's registered voters will turn out for an election.

Simply put, for government officials to be respected, they must first respect the American people. Stealing our freedom with every new law, rule and regulation is not a way to show respect. Repealing most of them would be a start.



Here comes Ozone-head Al Gore again, spouting that global warming stuff. Now they're saying that we just had the warmest six months ever recorded on Earth, and that July is likely to set a record as well. Here in the foothills of Appalachia, we saw things a bit differently -- like a cold spring and a cool and rainy early summer -- but apparently we don't count.

Anyway, Vice President Al Gore, brought a few federal climate officials to the White House last week to announce his latest global temperature propaganda. He said there was "evidence" of a long-term warming of the planet because of man-made pollution. "How much more proof do we need that global warming is real?" Gore declared as he called for even more and harsher regulations.

One problem is that few atmospheric scientists outside of government agree with Gore. In fact, many of the scientists monitoring the earth's temperature by satellite actually think the earth may be cooling slightly.

The offending pollutant du jour, of course, is the carbon dioxide caused by burning of fossil fuels, breathing, plants growing, and generally most everything else in life. Funny thing about carbon dioxide, it is very necessary for every type of life we know about at this time.

So, it was with great pleasure that we found an excellent report on the subject that was signed off on by quite a few practicing scientists. The text is readable by non-scientists, and we wholeheartedly recommend this report to anyone interested in this issue.

The abstract describes the text thusly:

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.


Or, as I informed our regional federal EPA director, "If you have a little extra CO2, please send it over to us. Local farmers would certainly appreciate it, as their crops would grow larger and faster. And, the acceleration of plant growth would replace the CO2 with oxygen."

The report's discussion section tells the story specifically and should be required reading for all bureaucrats:

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures or weather. To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures have decreased.

We also need not worry about environmental calamities, even if the current long-term natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions. 'Global warming,' an invalidated hypothesis, provides no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 as has been proposed.

Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not measurably warmed the atmosphere, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not significantly do so in the foreseeable future. It does, however, release CO2, which accelerates the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes.

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.

Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.

The report is titled: "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," and was authored by Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, and the George C. Marshall Institute.

Find the paper at: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm The text is actually designed to petition government.



We have wanted to tell Congress to shut up many times and on many issues. We have not, however, because the Constitution gives a Member of Congress the expressed right to say anything they wish on any issue, while on the floor. So, it was with great interest that we read that foreign communists are demanding that the Clinton administration muzzle Congress.

According to the Hong Kong Standard last week, the dictators in Beijing, China demanded the Clinton administration "take steps to rein in the US Congress to put a stop to resolutions it sees as hostile."

Clinton, of course, said things while in China that go directly against our established Taiwan policy. That is, Clinton hinted around that he believes Taiwan to be a wayward Chinese province which should join the mainland communist dictatorship.

China thinks of Taiwan as a rebel province that is still part of China, not a sovereign state. "Taiwan, as a part of China, is not entitled whatsoever to join the United Nations (UN)," a Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman said at a press conference in Beijing. Therefore, China takes the position that foreign governments must not support Taiwan, and says the island is unqualified to join any world bodies, including the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Our House and Senate, still having something resembling common sense once in a while (and respecting those campaign contributions they have received over the years), proposed resolutions in favor of Taiwan independence -- err, in favor of keeping Taiwan as it is, anyway. The Senate's resolution immediately passed, reaffirming US commitments toward Taiwan and supporting the island's entry into the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The resolutions also repeat a U.S. pledge to help Taiwan maintain a sufficient self-defense capability and called on China to renounce the use of force against the island.

Well, apparently the communist dictatorship's Foreign Ministry blew a gasket. "We are strongly opposed and express our dissatisfaction" at the Senate resolutions that were aimed at "interfering in China's internal affairs," Foreign Ministry spokesman Tang Guoqiang was reported as saying.

As reported, the communist dictators said that "some members of the US Congress are 'tabling anti-China resolutions one after the other, trying to obstruct the improvement and development of China-US relations. They will not succeed in their attempts'."

"We hope that the US government will adopt effective measures to eliminate interference and prevent Congress from passing anti-China resolutions so that Sino-US relations will not be harmed." Then they instructed us that: "The US constitution entitles the government 'to adopt effective measures to prevent the Congress from passing such resolutions'."

Yo -- Commie Dictators! We have a real news flash for you. We can't even get Congress to obey our Constitution, which is effectively their job description. Today, the Congress of the United States does anything it pleases. In certain circumstances, the president may veto a bill and stop it from becoming law. But no one -- not the people, nor the president or the Courts -- can make them shut up. They can lie, twist the truth, obfuscate, and hide things from the people. And they do so, regularly. There is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it, either. That is written in our supreme law, the Constitution. So, don't look for them to start listening to a communist dictatorship on the other side of the world. They will not.

Besides, in this matter, Congress has the support of most of the American people. Simply put, we want communism and socialism abolished, not expanded.

"We firmly believe that the issue of Taiwan will eventually be settled properly in accordance with the guideline of 'Peaceful reunification and one country, two systems'," Tang said; adding that the reunification of the motherland is the fundamental guarantee for the interests of the Taiwan compatriots.

"With the accomplishment of the motherland's peaceful reunification, the Taiwan compatriots, together with the rest of the Chinese people from all ethnic groups, will enjoy fully the dignity and glory of the motherland internationally," the communist spokesman said.

That's probably true. If under the communist Chinese government, the so-called "Taiwan compatriots" will either have to conform to the communist oppressors or be told to kneel down and take a bullet to the back of the head.

For more information on the opinions of the communist Chinese dictators, visit their Washington Embassy web page at:







-- End --