The Clinton Administration learned a big lesson from the defeat of its plan to take over the entire U.S. health care industry. Releasing its plan as a single 1,342-page bill in 1993 gave conservatives a large target to hit at and enabled them to identify at least a dozen fearsome features against which Americans could rally.
When health plan author Ira Magaziner and other Friends of Bill and Hillary developed a parallel plan to take over the entire U.S. educational system, they used a very different strategy. They dispersed its coercive mandates among several federal statutes, bureaucratic regulations, a strange relationship between the Departments of Education and Labor, state legislation (whose authorship traces to a common source), and grant applications submitted by states seeking federal funding.
The master plan for the health industry was developed by what became known as the Jackson Hole group, which met for several years at a private residence in Wyoming, according to an expose in the New York Times Magazine published after the Clinton plan was dead.
The master plan for the federal takeover of public schools is contained in a remarkable 18-page "Dear Hillary" letter written on November 11, 1992 by Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). It lays out a plan "to remold the entire American [education] system" into "a seamless web that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone," coordinated by "a system of labor market boards at the local, state and federal levels" where curriculum and "job matching" will be handled by counselors "accessing the integrated computer-based program."
Tucker's plan would change the mission of the public schools from teaching children knowledge and skills to training them to serve the global economy in jobs selected by workforce boards. His letter confirms that his plan is the result of meetings with leftwing gurus, including Ira Magaziner, David Hornbeck, and Lauren Resnick. NCEE has been able to milk the public treasuries of many states for millions of dollars to pay for copies of his "reform" plan and "standards" for the public schools.
Nothing in these comprehensive plans has anything to do with teaching schoolchildren how to read. Although most Americans think that is the number- one task of schools, and it is obvious that the schools' failure to do this is our biggest education problem, teaching children how to read is not even one of the eight national education goals in Goals 2000.
The implementation of Tucker's ambitious plan was contained in three laws passed in 1994: the Goals 2000 Act, the School-to-Work Act, and the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The final piece in the Tucker plan to convert the school system into job training to serve a managed workforce, which was called "Careers" in the House version and "Workforce Development" in the Senate version, didn't pass in 1996 but will certainly be revised this year.
Specific mechanisms of control are an essential part of the Tucker- Clinton-Magaziner plan to restructure the public schools:
(1) Bypass all elected officials on school boards and in state legislatures by making federal funds flow either (a) to the Governor and his appointees on workforce development boards (as projected in the Careers/Workforce Development bill), or (b) to a new entity called a "consortium" of several district superintendents.
(2) Use a computer database, a.k.a. "a labor market information system," into which school personnel will scan all information about every schoolchild and his family, identified by the child's social security number: academic, medical, mental, psychological, behavioral, and interrogations by counselors. The computerized data will be available to the school, the government, and future employers.
(3) Use the new slogan "high standards" to cement national control of tests, assessments, school honors and rewards, financial aid, and the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM), which is designed to replace the high school diploma.
(4) Control the vocabulary of education, so that many words have double meanings. Thus, when parents hear the words "outcome-based" or "performance- based," they think the outcomes must be skills such as reading and the multiplication tables, but the educators mean "accepting diversity" or "being environmentally sensitive."
(5) Coopt the Governors and the CEOs of large corporations to front for these "reforms" by promising the former some control over the flow of federal funds and the latter some free teenage labor. Once a Governor or CEO signs on, all decisions are actually made by the same education bureaucrats who gave us the problems in the first place.
"In 1991, [Vice President] Gore cited Bush's China policy as a reason he should be defeated for reelection, charging Bush 'sent his emissaries to toast the butchers of Tiananmen Square.'" - Deborah Orin in the New York Post, March 26, 1997, the day after Gore drank champagne with Chinese Premier Li Peng, who helped plan the Tiananmen massacre
Today was the single strangest day in recent memory, at least since our days in Waco, Texas. Members of the Colorado 1st. Lt. Infantry arrived at the U.S. Courthouse in Denver at 06:10 this morning, armed with pamphlets and video tapes to give to the media.
Within 15 minutes, we were both accosted by ill-tempered Denver Police officers *and* a chief Denver Police detective invited me to lunch. During the day, we were constantly harassed by police, while between these very unpleasant encounters, some police officers were engaging me in such pleasant conversation that we now call each other by our first names. It was definitely a "good cop, bad cop" day.
Members of the Colorado Minutemen arrived by 09:00 and began to hand out Fully Informed Jury Association pamphlets. Security was to so tight that nobody could stand in one spot for more than a few seconds at a time unless they were being interviewed by the press. I was able to stand in one spot for two hours thanks to this exception to the security rules.
The media presence was almost as impressive as the security, and all of us who were interviewed were pleased at the information we were able to get out.
One member of the Colorado Minutemen was arrested by police for refusing to give officers his full name. As of this time he has reportedly been charged with obstruction and giving false statements.
We are still learning about this incident, as it occurred late in the day, and Capt. Paul Graham, Commander of the Colorado Minutemen, is still at the Courthouse.
Events inside involving the jury selection process are not worth reporting, except that the testimony might not begin for another 4 to 6 weeks.
FACT OR FRAUD? A Memorandum by David Moore
This memorandum will be construed to comply with provisions necessary to establish presumed fact (Rule 301, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and attending state rules) should interested parties fail to rebut any given allegation of fact or matter of law addressed herein. This position will be construed as adequate to meet requirements of judicial notice, thus preserving fundamental law. Matters addressed herein, if not rebutted, will be construed to have general application. This memorandum addresses authority and jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission.
INTRODUCTION
The growing interest in and popularity of "low-power" radio stations in the AM and FM broadcast bands in America is a phenomenon with the potential of sweeping the nation. Thousands of people are operating "low-power" transmitters (typically capable of generating less than 100 watts) in an effort to provide an alternative to the type of broadcast programming which currently dominates the airwaves offered by the well-funded media giants. It appears, however, that many do so ignorantly, believing themselves and their fellow-broadcasters to be unlicensed "pirates" violating the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and surviving only because of the FCC's limited ability to enforce the "law."
Are these people "pirates," criminals flaunting the law at the expense of others, or have they simply been led to believe this by a government agency that capitalizes on the ignorance of the general population? Is the FCC enforcing the law when it prosecutes low-power broadcasters, or is it engaged in perpetrating a grievous fraud against the American people?
These questions can only be answered by following one simple rule: believe nothing unless you can prove it in your own research.
This memorandum should neither be considered exhaustive nor as legal advice, but only as a starting point for one's own research. It is hoped that others will expand upon this memorandum and dig even deeper to further expose the true nature of the FCC.
NOTE
All common definitions of words are taken from Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, and shall be referred to simply as "Webster's." All legal definitions of words are taken from Black's Law Dictionary with Pronunciations, Sixth Edition, and shall be referred to simply as "Black's."
PART ONE: CREATION AND PURPOSE OF THE FCC
47 CFR Sec. 0.405 Statutory Provisions
The following statutory provisions, AMONG OTHERS, will be of
interest to PERSONS HAVING BUSINESS with the Commission [emphasis added]:
(a) The Federal Communications Commission was created by the
Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064, June 19, 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 151-609.
(b) The Commission exercises authority under the Submarine Cable
Landing Act, 42 Stat. 8, May 27, 1921, 47 U.S.C. 34-39....
(c) The Commission exercises authority under the Communications
Satellite Act of 1962, 76 Stat. 419, August 31, 1962, 47 U.S.C. 701-744.
(d) The Commission operates under the Administrative Procedure Act,
60 Stat. 237, June 11, 1946, as amended, .... the provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act now appear as follows in the Code:
Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 2-9 - 551-558
Sec. 10 - 701-706
Sec. 11 - 3105, 7521, 5362, 1305
Sec. 12 - 559
This section of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) lists items pertinent to the FCC which have been provided for by statute. Let us examine some of them in detail.
47 U.S.C. Sec. 151 Purposes of Chapter; Federal Communications Commission Created
For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio...there is created a commission to be known as the "Federal Communications Commission"....
The FCC was created by an ACT OF CONGRESS (we will get to that later) "for the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce...." The power of law is in the details, especially the definitions of words and phrases. Just what is "interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio"?
The common meaning of the word "interstate" is "of, connecting, or existing between two or more states...."
"Commerce," in this context, means "the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place."
"Foreign" means "situated outside a place or country."
When thinking of "foreign commerce," most people would imagine trade with China or Spain. However, definitions in law are often different from commonly understood definitions, as we shall shortly see.
Black's has separate definitions for "foreign," "foreign nations," "foreign states," "foreign commerce," "commerce with foreign nations," "nation," "country," "interstate," "commerce," "interstate commerce," "interstate and foreign commerce," and "state." The serious researcher should examine all of these definitions, as their thorough study could easily fill an entire book, and will not be attempted here.
In Black's we find:
Interstate commerce. Traffic, intercourse, commercial trading, or the transportation of persons or property between or among the several states of the Union, or from or between points in one state and points in another state; commerce between two states, or between places lying in different states....
Also from Black's:
Interstate and foreign commerce. Commerce between a point in one State and a point in another State, between points in the same State through another State or through a foreign country, between points in a foreign country or countries through the United States, and commerce between a point in the United States and a point in a foreign country or in a Territory or possession of the United States, but only insofar as such commerce takes place in the United States. The term "United States" means all of the States and the District of Columbia. 49 U.S.C.A. Sec. 10102.
Note the differences between these two definitions -- subtle, yet distinct.
What is the difference between a state (not capitalized) and a State (capitalized)? Are they the same as one of the "several states of the Union"? Why is the word "state" capitalized in one place and not in another? What is the difference between the "United States" and the "several states of the Union"?
It is no accident that the alternate use of "state," "State," "United States," and "several states of the Union" is found throughout the entire American law, as well as Black's; yet neither offer clear reasons for this important situation. Again, a thorough study of this subject could easily fill an entire book, and will not be attempted here. However, a clue may be found in one particular definition from Black's:
State/Foreign state. A foreign country or nation. The several United States are considered 'foreign' to each other except as regards their relations as common members of the Union.
In essence, the "several states of the Union" are foreign and sovereign countries, with different laws, etc. That is why people living in Kansas are not subject to the laws of Texas, and vice versa. In fact, further research indicates that the "several states of the Union" are foreign to the "United States," and the federal government!
Even further research indicates that people living in "the several states of the Union" are not subject (except in specific, limited cases) to the laws of the "United States," any more than they are subject to the laws of France! (The astute researcher will notice that the definition above does not mention the "several states of the Union," but instead mentions "the several United States," indicating that, just as there is more than one "state," there is more than one "United States." These concepts are quite astounding to most people and, in an effort to unravel and understand them, the unprepared researcher may rapidly develop a headache!)
If words are to have meaning, and laws made up of words are to be enforced, there must be a way to understand the meanings of the words used in the law. Many court decisions have stated this concept, such as the following:
(The) correct format for evaluating (the) constitutionality of (a) statute is: is (the) expression of crime so clearly explicit that every person of ordinary intelligence may understand specific provisions thereof and determine in advance what is and is not prohibited. -- Whaley v. State, Okl. Cr., 556 P.2d 1063 (1976).
In other words, if the ordinary man on the street cannot understand the law, then that law is probably unconstitutional!
How can the law relating to the FCC be understood? The answer lies, among other places, in the DEFINITIONS of words contained in the law itself. Words contained in law can have meanings other than those commonly understood, as long as those definitions are PART of the law. Therefore, "green" can be defined as "blue," as long as that definition is contained in the law, and this is all perfectly "legal."
Since 47 U.S.C. Sec. 151 uses the phrase "interstate and foreign commerce," then we will adhere to that definition, as it is different from the definition of "interstate commerce."
47 U.S.C. Sec. 152 Application of chapter [CHAPTER 5]
(a) The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all INTERSTATE
AND FOREIGN communication by wire or radio and all INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
transmission of energy by radio, which originates and/or is received within
the United States, and to all persons engaged within the United States in
such communication or such transmission of energy by radio, and to the
licensing and regulating of all radio stations as hereinafter provided....
(b) Except as provided in Sections 223 through 227...and Section
332...and subject to the provisions of Section 310...and subchapter V-A of
this chapter, NOTHING in this chapter shall be construed to apply or to give
the Commission jurisdiction with respect to (1) charges, classifications,
practices, services, facilities, or regulations for or in connection with
INTRASTATE communication service by wire or radio....[emphasis added]
The above section seems clear enough -- 47 U.S.C. Chapter 5 applies only to interstate (between states) and foreign matters, and NOT to "intrastate" (within a state) matters. Notice, however, the word "except" in (b). "Except as provided in...." The sections mentioned in (b) deal with the following:
Sec. 223 - Obscene or harassing telephone calls....
Sec. 224 - Pole attachments (connecting wires, etc. to utility
poles)
Sec. 225 - Telecommunications services for hearing-
impaired and speech-impaired individuals
Sec. 226 - Telephone operator services
Sec. 227 - Restrictions on use of telephone equipment
Sec. 332 - Mobile services (such as car phones)
Sec. 301 - License for radio communication or transmission
of energy
Subchapter V-A - Cable communications
Only Sec. 301 deals with radio and its pertinent sections read as follows:
47 U.S.C. Sec. 301 License for radio communication or transmission of energy
It is the purpose of this chapter, among other things, to maintain the control of the United States over all the channels of radio transmission...but not the ownership thereof....
No person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy for communications or signals by radio (a) from one place in any State, Territory or possession of the United States or in the District of Columbia to another place in the same State, Territory, possession, or District; or (b) from any State, Territory or possession of the United States, of from the District of Columbia to any other State, Territory or possession of the United States; or (c) from any place in any State, Territory or possession of the United States, or in the District of Columbia, to any place in any foreign country or to any vessel; or (d) within any State when the effects of such use extend beyond the borders of said State... EXCEPT UNDER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS CHAPTER and with a license in that behalf granted UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER. [emphasis added]
This section is one that is pointed to by many ham radio operators, who proudly proclaim they have complied with "the law," by working so hard to obtain their Amateur Radio "License." But, if they had carefully read this statute they would have discovered what appears, on the surface, to be a glaring contradiction.
If the purpose of the FCC is to regulate "interstate and foreign commerce," and the provisions of 47 U.S.C. Chapter 5 "apply to all interstate and foreign communication," and NOT "intrastate communication," then how can a person be forbidden to broadcast "from one place in any State...to another place in the same State" without first being granted a license?
The key to understanding Section 301 lies in the definitions found in Section 153, and an understanding of the word "includes."
47 U.S.C. Sec. 153 Definitions
(e) "Interstate communication" or "interstate transmission" means
communication or transmission (1) from any State, Territory or possession of
the United States (other than the Canal Zone), or the District of Columbia,
(2) from or to the United States to or from the Canal Zone, insofar as such
communication or transmission takes place within the United States, or (3)
between points within the United States but through a foreign country; but
shall not, with respect to the provisions of subchapter II of this chapter
(other than Section 223 of this title), include wire or radio communication
between points in the same State, Territory, or possession of the United
States, or the District of Columbia, through any place outside thereof, if
such communication is regulated by a State commission....
(cc) "Station license", "radio station license", or "license"
means that instrument of authorization REQUIRED BY THIS CHAPTER or the rules
and regulations of the Commission made PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER....
[emphasis added]
Why the authors of this statue used the word "means" in one place and the word "includes" in others remains a mystery. However, they do have distinctly different definitions which must be understood in order to unravel the purpose of the law.
The question is: how can a person be forbidden to broadcast "from one place in any State...to another place in the same State"?
47 U.S.C. Sec. 153 Definitions
(g) "United States" means the several States and Territories, the
District of Columbia, and the possessions of the United States, but does not
include the Canal Zone....
Note the use of the word "means" here. Since Black's contains no pertinent definition of the word, we will turn to Webster's:
Means. Usage 2: (1): to have in mind as a purpose: INTEND (2): to serve to convey, show, or indicate: SIGNIFY...
If "United States means the several States," does it MEAN Texas or Ohio? Does it MEAN "the several states of the Union"?
47 U.S.C. Sec. 153 Definitions
(v) "State" includes the District of Columbia and the Territories
and possessions....
Does (v) contain the words "Texas" or "Ohio"? NO! It most definitely does NOT.
But, one might say, aren't Texas and Ohio "States"? Doesn't this definition "include" them by inference, along with the other 48 "several states of the Union"?
The answer once again is a resounding NO!
Let us examine the words "include" and "includes."
According to Black's:
Include. (Lat. inclaudere, to shut in, to keep within.) To confine within, hold as in an inclosure, take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve. Term may, ACCORDING TO CONTEXT, express an enlargement and have the meaning of "and" or "in addition to," or merely specify a particular thing already included within general words theretofore used. "Including" within statute is interpreted as a word of enlargement or of illustrative application as well as a word of limitation. [emphasis added]
This definition may surprise the novice researcher, who may also argue that the term should be interpreted as an enlargement. This must, however, be done "according to context," "and with a different intention apparent."
From the "Legal Thesaurus," Deluxe Edition, by William C. Burton, MacMillan Publishing Company:
Include, verb -- absorb, (Lat.) "adscribere," be composed of, be formed of, be made up of, begird, boast, bound, bracket, circumscribe, classify, close in, combine, compass, (Lat.) "complecti," comprehend, (Lat.) "comprehendere," consist of, consolidate, contain, cover, embody, embrace, encircle, encompass, engird, envelop, girdle, hold, incorporate, involve, merge, put a barrier around, span, subsume, surround, take in, unify, unite.
And from "A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage," 2nd Edition, by Bryan A. Garner, Oxford University Press:
Included. See "Including".
Including is sometimes misused for "namely." But it should not be used to introduce an exhaustive list, for it implies that the list is only partial. In the words of one federal court, "It is hornbook law that the use of the word 'including' indicates that the specified list...is illustrative, not exclusive." .... See "Including but not limited to."
Including but not limited to; including without limitation. In "drafting", these cautious phrases are often essential to defeat three canons of contruction: (Lat.) "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" ("to express one thing is to exclude the other"), (Lat.) "noscitur a sociis" ("it is known by its associates"), and (Lat.) "ejusdem generis" ("of the same class or nature"). .... Even though the word "including" itself means that the list is merely exemplary and not exhaustive, the courts have not invariably so held. So the longer, more explicit variations may be considered necessary....
Note that the definition in 47 U.S.C. Sec. 153 does not use the word "including" as a term of enlargement, but rather uses the more limiting word "include(s)." In the absence of an apparently different intention and based upon some understanding of the rules of construction of law, it is the conclusion of this author that there is NO contradiction between Section 301 and Section 151 and 152, because the definition of "State" in 47 U.S.C. does not "include" Texas, Ohio, Kansas, or any of the other "several states of the Union."
In the context of 47 U.S.C. and the FCC, the "United States" includes ONLY the District of Columbia and the Territories and possession of the United States.
This brings up an interesting situation in which it can be argued that "interstate and foreign commerce" and "communication" or "transmission" takes place ONLY among the District of Columbia and the Territories and possessions! Therefore, commerce, communication, or transmission between someone in Texas and someone in Kansas is not "interstate"! This may, however, be pushing the legal "envelope" a bit, and should, for now, be considered only as icing on what appears to be a well-defined cake.
CONCLUSION OF PART ONE
The FCC exists solely to regulate "interstate and foreign commerce"; that is, commerce between states and other states and/or countries. Pertaining to low-power radio broadcasters and stations, 47 U.S.C. Chapter 5 applies ONLY to interstate and foreign communication or transmission, and clearly does NOT apply to commerce, communication, or transmissions taking place solely within the confines of one of the several states of the Union.
[CONTINUED NEXT WEEK]