Some things never end. The Burton Committee had hearings on illegal campaign finance contributions last week and, of course, Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Tom Lantos (D-CA) did their very best to obstruct everything. Both of these socialists have a vested interest in keeping campaign finance wrongdoings hidden, and one only need follow the money trail to understand why. For instance, Waxman runs his own personal political action committee, which he uses to purchase votes on Capitol Hill. Lantos helps.

Down the road, on Pennsylvania Avenue, the White House is still up to its same old obstruct and delay tricks, too. Most recently, Clinton tried to claim attorney-client and executive privilege for some of the taxpayer paid White House lawyers.

Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr subpoenaed one of Bill Clinton's oldest friends and confidants, Bruce Lindsey, to answer questions before the grand jury. Lindsey is known around the White House as "the enforcer," and probably has personal knowledge (and presumably personal involvement at some level) of every White House scandal. So, obviously, Clinton would not want Lindsey hauled before the grand jury. But, Starr won, and Lindsey must testify.

Another White House attorney subpoenaed was Lanny Breuer. Starr obviously wants Breuer because Breuer heads the seven-member damage control team at the White House. One of Breuer's duties is to help shape media coverage behind the scenes with the White House press corps. He's the professional leak-meister, in other words -- most recently involved in the Lewinsky matter.

Both Lindsey and Breuer have been privy to many of the secret scandal discussions with the president. They also debriefed colleagues who had previously been called before Starr's grand jury. Part of their function is to anticipate the line of questioning by the grand jury and to help prepare witnesses.

All this would have been covered by attorney-client privilege were it not for one little detail: These two, and the other thirty-some lawyers working the cover-up, obstruction of justice and damage control programs in the White House, are public servants. We taxpayers pay them. Therefore, the people of the United States own their services and all resultant information developed by their services.

The Clintons, obviously, do not agree with that arrangement. Clinton believes all administrative lawyers are his private attorneys, and he's been using his White House lawyers as his private legal counsel. In fact, White House lawyers work so closely with his private attorneys that the functions of the two groups are almost indistinguishable from each other.

This is a rather interesting development historically. Because, when Hillary worked on the Watergate investigation committee as a young attorney, it was her opinion that White House personnel should not even be allowed attorneys.

Anyway, as with the Secret Service subpoenas and the White House claim of executive privilege a few weeks ago, the courts ruled against Clinton. As a last ditch effort to delay, Clinton petitioned the Supreme Court. And again, Chief Justice William Rehnquist quickly turned him down. All public servants must testify when summoned by the independent counsel. Executive privilege does not apply at all in a criminal investigation of the president. So says all courts. Nevertheless, Clinton persists with this foolishness.

The gig is up for Clinton. He'll be testifying before the grand jury in a few days and, no matter what he says, it will wound him badly. If he admits to Lewinsky, Paula Jones takes action because he will be admitting to perjury and Clinton will be accused with yet another wrongdoing in that case. If he denies Lewinsky, Starr will have him for perjury. The only real choice Clinton has is to take the Fifth.

Meanwhile, the real scandal is the China connection, and the other campaign fund-raising and money laundering activities of the Clinton, Clinton & Gore and Democratic National Committee campaign funds. But, to allow that cat out of the bag will damage the careers of many Washington Democrats. Therefore, neither Congress nor the Justice Department want to allow that to happen.

FBI Director Freeh, and former Justice Department campaign finance investigation task force chief, Charles La Bella, specifically identified Clinton and Gore as subjects of the campaign finance probe before the Burton Committee last week. Implying that the public only knows a small segment of the problem with the illegal China connection, both men again admitted they had urged Reno to appoint an independent counsel.

La Bella left his Justice Department post last month to become interim U.S. Attorney in San Diego. La Bella had hoped to get a permanent appointment as U.S. Attorney but, after writing a report rumored to be fingering both Clinton and Gore and calling for an independent counsel, he was told by Justice Department officials he would not get the job.

These Clinton scandals are a great example of how the law actually works in this country. Most law, obviously, does not apply to the controlling elite.

Our recommended position is simple: Because Charles LaBella now probably knows more about campaign finance wrongdoing than any other person, he should immediately be appointed as the independent counsel investigating the matter. Congress, by law, resolution, or whatever, should see to that immediately. Otherwise, little if anything will ever be done.

Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution mandates that: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."

Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states that:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: -- "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."

Now comes the Clinton Executive Order 13083 on Federalism.

Federalism is defined as: A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units, such as between the States and the federal government. Clinton's Executive Order on Federalism was intentionally designed to drastically change that relationship and to favor the central government. [Go to: http://www.uhuh.com/laws/list-law.htm for more information]

"This is part of a systematic effort to subvert the Constitution," Rep. Bob Barr, (R- GA) said last week at a House hearing on the executive order.

The National Governors' Association (NGA) called the order "wrongheaded and unacceptable."

"Where all previous executive orders on federalism aimed to restrain federal actions over states, the current version is written to justify federal supremacy," said Governor Michael O. Leavitt (R-Utah), who serves on the NGA's executive committee.

Four bills were entered in the House and Senate within the last two weeks to repeal the order. However, a negligent Senate went home on break without taking definitive action.

Last week, the Washington Times reported that Jacob J. Lew, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, defended the executive order in a letter dated July 22 to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). "That same day, the Senate approved by unanimous consent, and without debate, a nonbinding resolution asking the president to repeal the order," the Washington Times reported. The House also voted 417-2 to nullify the executive order.

"Bowing to criticism, Mr. Lew said the White House delayed by 90 days, until November, implementation of the executive order: time the administration is using to explain the move to state and local governments," the Times reported.

White House Press Secretary Michael McCurry admitted that not consulting with state and local governments first was a big mistake. "Obviously, in agreeing that we were going to have an additional 90 days, we're more or less conceding that point," McCurry said. Now the White House will "seek the views of organizations that represent state and local levels of government, take into account their views and then move forward." However, a little later Mr. McCurry also admitted that the White House does not plan to change the executive order.

On August 5, 1998 an Executive Order titled: "Suspension of Executive Order 13083" was issued.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America and in order to enable full and adequate consultation with State and local elected officials, their representative organizations, and other interested parties, it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 13083, entitled 'Federalism,' is suspended.

 

The key word there is "suspended," not repealed. As Mike McCurry admitted, the White House does not plan to change the executive order.

Enough background. Now let's get down to where the rubber meets the road.

By signing that obnoxious executive order into law, Clinton violated Article II, Section 1 and Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution. Furthermore, Clinton violated both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution and a whole series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that are currently the controlling legal opinion.

One of the U.S. Supreme Court opinions we are quite sure the White House has studied recently is "New York v. U.S." (91-543, 1992), in which the Court writes:

The Constitution's division of power among the three Branches is violated where one Branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached-upon Branch approves the encroachment. . . . The constitutional authority of Congress cannot be expanded by the 'consent' of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States.

 

Conversely, the executive branch may not make law.

A more recent Court opinion violated by Clinton's Executive Order 13083 is "Printz et al v. U.S." (95-1478, 1997), where the Court orders:

Much of the Constitution is concerned with setting forth the form of our government, and the courts have traditionally invalidated measures deviating from that form. The result may appear 'formalistic' in a given case to partisans of the measure at issue, because such measures are typically the product of the era's perceived necessity. But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.

 

The executive branch may not make law; nor may it interfere with the activities of State governments.

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the interpretation of the Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court is the controlling legal authority.

In one executive order, William J. Clinton violated much of what has been our American form of government for 210 years. He should be impeached immediately.

Rick Ganulin, an attorney employed as assistant solicitor for the City of Cincinnati, took a day off from work last week to file a federal lawsuit to ban the biggest holiday in the United States. Ganulin said it's been bugging him for years, and he finally decided to do something about it.

He wants to ban Christmas as a public holiday. Yeah, Christmas.

"The statute that declares Christmas to be a national legal public holiday creates the endorsement of the Christian religion by the federal government," Ganulin told the Cincinnati Post. "I think most people know in their hearts that this is not what the Constitution meant when it said church and state should be separated."

"I don't know why nobody stepped up before to address this issue. I felt strongly that the integrity of the Constitution and the First Amendment was worth it."

When asked about his own religion, Ganulin said that he was a "progressive Jew, but not in the traditional sense. I draw upon Hindu and Zen and I believe in things and practice things that don't find an origin in Judaism."

Ganulin received a master's degree from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, which perhaps explains his mistaken view of the Constitution. From Harvard, he went on to receive a law degree from George Washington University.

What the Constitution actually says about the relationship between government and religion can be found in ten short words in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Other than banning religious "Tests" or oaths in Article VI, nothing else is said. So, effectively, all we need remember is "Congress shall make no law."

Making Christmas a legal holiday in a country that is over 80% Christian, in one form or another, does not seem to violate the Constitution. All it does is to make things more convenient for a very large segment of society. No person is ordered to celebrate.

Ganulin claims his lawsuit is, "partly a function of being familiar with constitutional law and First Amendment issues and it's partly a function of my own maturing beliefs. I've been drawing upon different ideas and trying to consolidate them in a way that makes sense for my own life and something I can try to teach my children.

He said that legalizing the Christmas holiday, "creates a hierarchy of religious values in the country. It says, for example, the United States favors Christianity over Buddhism. It endorses a particular religion and Congress is just not allowed to do that."

Again, this is based on false logic. The word "Christianity," as we know it in the United States, encompasses many religious denominations. Some are quite large organizations, others are no more than a single store-front church. All have the freedom to profess what they wish. So too may Buddhists, Jews, Moslems and anyone else. Such is our American way.

Ganulin continues: "Minority denominations, of course, have freedom in this country, but I have the sense that in the eyes of the law they have second class status. I consider this an imperfection in our law and for the past few years I've felt that someone ought to be clarifying it. I don't want to spend the rest of my life thinking about it. I wanted to do something about it."

Over the years, many religions have grown and prospered in the United States. And, for the most part, they all stand equal in the eyes of the law. That some are "minority" must always be the case when there are many. But none have second class status under our law. All religions deserve one thing and only one thing from non-practitioners and government alike. That is, to be let alone.

"I'm not trying to declare Christmas illegal," Ganulin said. "Christmas can exist. It should exist. The lawsuit doesn't mean that churches can't have as many masses as they want, or that stores can't sell Christmas stuff, or that people can't have Christmas trees in their homes."

Folks, does anyone else get the impression that this liberalism thing is getting way out of hand in this country? This publication usually stays away from religious issues because it is too easy to push too many emotional hot buttons. But, in this case, we think that Rick Ganulan is not only stretching the envelope of liberalism way out of shape, he has also gone well beyond the boundaries of common sense and good taste. Furthermore, this is a poor use of the court system.

Christmas is a national holiday simply because the vast majority of people in this nation celebrate it. Anyone protesting that right of celebration should be immediately corrected. Loudly.

[Information for this article was gleaned from the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Kentucky Post and an interview with Ganulin on WLW Radio.]

This week, America may have an excellent lesson on just how obedient that liberal propaganda machine some collectively call the national media actually is. Remember now, there are only a very few days until the First Prevaricator and Chief himself must testify before Starr's grand jury. And the subject of that testimony is to be (primarily) the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Therefore, the claws came out, the fangs are showing and the fir is soon going to fly. It's time for Hillary to extract her few pounds of flesh. Retribution. Yes folks, it's time to start the "Trash the Tart" program.

Hillary's secret police have been investigating Lewinsky for weeks. The White House and DNC disinformation teams already have their talking points prepared -- with sources paid, coached and willing to talk with the media. Some of what will be said has basis for truth. Much of it will be greatly exaggerated out of proportion. All of it was known by reporters months ago, but not widely reported.

But now it's time. The liberal media must protect their liberal president with any means they have available. When the "facts" are not all that newsworthy, they will be supplemented with fabrication. Anything even remotely favorable to Lewinsky will no longer be reported.

The fix is in, folks. We'll have ten full days of programming, produced and directed for your indoctrination by Hillary's propaganda and disinformation cabal in the White House. They, not news directors, will control large segments of the news in the few days to come.

We'll learn how a twenty-one year old vamp sinuously stalks her prey and deviously zeros in for the sensuous capture. We'll learn how an unsuspecting, middle-aged adult male in a high position of power can have his life debauched and confused by a young, yet very sophisticated, tart from California. And we will be shown, repeatedly, exactly how experienced this young trollop is at enticing her chosen objective.

Ah yes, it will all be great theater. Because, it will be theater expertly crafted and produced by the propaganda team in the White House to justify and mitigate the zipper problem of the First Leach. Therefore, any similarity to actual events should be greatly suspected.

Oh sure, they'll definitely go after Starr, too. But, that may not be nearly as outrageous, and certainly not as interesting to watch.

Watch the show and learn. Spread the word to others. This may develop into a fine example of how the media attempts to control the opinion of the American people. This time it will be obvious, and probably funny. Our function should be to understand, as best we can, how it is done. Because, next time, this type of media propaganda blitz may be on a matter that directly affects our lives. Like the elections, for instance.

We've all heard ad nauseum the chorus by James Carville, Lanny Davis and the other White House hand puppets that goes, "everybody's tired of hearing about this two-bit sex scandal, so why can't we just get this behind us and move on?" Indeed, they've repeated this so many times that I'm beginning to agree with them. Why don't we move on to more important things?

The talk shows and the press have been so obsessed with Monica -- her missing dress and the "pesidue" on it -- that they have lost sight of what has been going on, almost in secret, in the White House.

While our eyes are trained on the comings and goings of Monica, Linda and Ken, we seem to forget that more than thirteen China based nuclear missiles are trained on our cities. For God's sake, yes, let's move on! Let's quit worrying about who put stains on an airhead's dress and pay attention to those missiles aimed at us, how they got there and who's responsible.

About the only place where we seem to find any curiosity about this subject is on the Internet. Certainly the TV networks, the press and even Congress don't show much interest in China and its steady intrusion into our daily lives.

Insight Magazine has been publishing the chilling story of the handover of national security by the Loral Aerospace Company and treasonous complicity by the Department of Commerce. But hardly anyone besides people on the Internet seem to be watching.

Insight's Tim Maier has told the story of a group of courageous Loral employees, lead by a lady named Marj Walker, who have exposed the theft of top-secret technology developed by Loral and passed on to Chinese agents of the People's Liberation Army. You can label this what you want, but whatever it is, it sure tops Monica gazing. [See "China Scandals" in the Investigative Reporting section for more information at: http://www.insightmag.com/index.html -- ed.]

The nation and the media gang should have been tipped off early, during that two hundred dollar haircut that tied up LAX for two hours. Right then we should have known that we had elected a man who considered himself an Emperor. Ever since then, it's been apparent that the only thing that matters to Bill Clinton is Bill Clinton. After all the other things he's done -- too many to mention here -- on his own behalf, we finally come to China. Bill Clinton doesn't really care about China any more than he cares about national security. The only difference here was that national security had no money to offer him for reelection and China did.

Selling out his country? So what? It's his country and he can sell it if he wants to.

The trouble is that poor Mr. Clinton couldn't shake the notion held by the little people that this is a nation of laws. Even an imperial President couldn't overcome that. And, when it comes to laws and the Constitution of our country, there are many people out here calling him to account. People like Marj Walker and Linda Tripp. People like Larry Klayman and even Matt Drudge and all of those netziens. People who love their country more than they love Bill Clinton.

Call it what you will, Mr. Clinton. But to us, this is what is collectively known in the United States Constitution as "high crimes and misdemeanors."