Time: Fri Nov 22 18:54:22 1996 To: minutemn@pcl.net (Mike Kemp) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Re: Heads Up Cc: Bcc: reading you 5 by 5 now, Mike. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 08:36 PM 11/22/96 -0800, you wrote: >Doug Fiedor wrote, Mike Kemp <minutemn@pcl.net> forwards, endorsed: >> >> Heads Up >> >> A Weekly edition of News from around our country >> >> November 22, 1996 #10 >> >> by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> Please Distribute Widely >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> >> PROHIBITION OF SPEECH >> It's amazing how selective our "freedom of speech" >> has become. We live in a society where watching murder >> and human mutilation are classed as a form of entertainment. >> Yet, viewing the natural and normal human body is taboo. >> Religion and speech are said to be free in our country. Yet, >> if a child combines the two to say a prayer in school it is >> deemed inappropriate. >> Isn't something a little backwards here? >> Now a member of the Kennedy clan plans to censor >> even commercial speech. You know, advertising. >> Massachusetts Representative Joseph Kennedy plans >> to introduce a bill to ban liquor ads from television. >> Something is wrong with this picture, folks. >> First, the Kennedy family made their fortune >> during Prohibition, from selling illegal liquor. Later, >> they locked in the contract for importing certain >> alcoholic beverages. The Kennedy money is alcohol >> money. >> So, don't be surprised if this bill somehow provides >> some benefit to the Kennedy family, and their friends. >> The excuse for banning liquor ads on television is >> that children may see them. But, that's a lame excuse >> when thousands of gigantic billboards in metropolitan >> areas display liquor advertising -- many of them near schools. >> Yup, there must be something in this for Joe >> Kennedy, and family. >> The First Amendment instructs that "Congress shall >> make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." >> Our dictionary defines the word abridge as: "to reduce >> the length or extent of." Perhaps Joe Kennedy's >> dictionary says something different. >> >> MAYBE SHE CAN'T READ >> IRS Commissioner Margaret Milner Richardson >> is on the warpath because some Members of Congress >> propose that the burden of proof in all tax cases be shifted >> to the IRS. The IRS already has to show proof in >> criminal cases, but not in civil cases. >> Richardson said that proposal, if enacted, would >> make life even more difficult for taxpayers. "The >> ultimate irony of the solution is that it would require >> the IRS to gather considerably more information and >> talk to even more people that it currently does during >> an audit," she said. Uh huh. >> Ms. Richardson, the Supreme Law of the >> Land -- our Constitution -- clearly states: "The right >> of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and >> seizures, shall not be violated . . ." Which part of >> the words "shall not" do you need explained to you? >> And Margaret, do you see any words differentiating >> "civil" from "criminal" offenses in there? We do not. >> Nor do we see an exception for the tax collector. >> Last session, Congress passed a law which >> required that they, too, must follow all federal laws, >> rules and regulations, just as everyone else must. >> Obviously, we need the same law applicable to the >> administrative branch. >> It's a damn shame that we now need a law >> requiring the federal government to honor and obey >> the United States Constitution! But, that is evidently >> the case today. The law should impose stiff prison >> sentences for all violators, too. >> >> NO CONGRESS NEEDED >> Ohio Representative John Boehner received >> an "in house" EPA memo that details a method of >> removing Congress from the lawmaking process. The >> memo details plans, by administrative fiat, to increase the >> federal tax on gasoline by 50-cents a gallon. The memo >> also proposes a host of other hefty taxes on fossil fuels. >> Apparently, we've been consuming too much folks. >> So, the tree-huggers want to shut us down. They call for >> a "carbon tax," a "BTU tax," an "at source ad valorem >> tax," and a few other "greenhouse gas taxes." The memo >> estimates that the cost to the economy will be $47-billion >> annually by the year 2000. >> The memo states that, "the administration has the >> authority to begin rule-making on its own, without >> legislation." >> How, you might ask? >> Well, it seems that some obscure provision in >> Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 gives the >> administration authority under national security >> considerations. EPA says that the new gas tax "can be >> implemented relatively easily and quickly since the >> legal mechanism and authority exists." >> Rep. Boehner calls the memo "a rewrite of Al >> Gore's book, Earth in the Balance -- a radical, extremist >> approach that would put most working Americans on >> bicycles." >> Yeah, but if Slick Willie is impeached, that is >> exactly what we are going to get! Al rides in the big >> limo. We get the bicycle. >> >> TURKEY'S TALKING >> Last August, the Meat and Poultry Hotline >> office of the Department of Agriculture issued a >> warning that "strongly advises against stuffing the >> turkey." They said that "cooking the dressing inside >> the bird could cause serious illness or even death." >> Folks . . . clearly, there are people working for >> the federal government who do not have enough to do! >> This all started with a research study at the >> University of Georgia. The study recommended that >> "stuffing" be cooked "outside" the bird. No word, >> however, on what that should then be called. . . . But, >> "stuffing," it ain't! >> Anyway, the Turkey Federation, a trade group >> of turkey farmers and processors, protested. So, the >> Department of Agriculture backed down some. Now they >> say that "cooking a home-stuffed turkey can be somewhat >> riskier than cooking one not stuffed." >> Well, at least they did not pass a law or regulation. >> This time. >> >> BY GHALI GOOD BY >> Well well. Last Tuesday's vote in the UN Security >> Council was 14-1 in favor of keeping old Boutros Boutros >> Ghali. The problem is, the United States' vote against is >> not exactly a vote. It's a veto. >> News reports say that the American no vote sets the >> stage for a prolonged battle over his future, and opens the >> way for new compromise candidates. >> Yeah. And it also ousts him. By, by Boutros! >> "Do I represent a danger to the security of the >> United States?" he muses. "No. Did I smuggle >> something? Am I Noriega or Saddam Hussein?'' >> he complains. >> No, Boutros, you are none of those things or >> people. What you are is someone who covets our >> country. You want control over our military, you want >> billions of our tax dollars, you want authority to tax us >> directly, you want your regulatory agencies to regulate >> American land usage, you want to affect our education >> system, and you want to redefine the rights of American >> citizens. >> Did that about sum it up, Boutros? >> By, by Boutros. Good by. >> And hey, on the way out, please take the rest of >> the United Nations with you. >> >> NO STANDING FOR CITIZENS >> During the 1992 drought, the federal government >> cut off irrigation water to farms and ranches around >> Oregon's Lost River. Because of this, farmers watched >> their hay, grain and sugarbeets die in the fields. The >> damage was estimated at about $75-million. >> This action also caused many ranchers to sell >> off cattle, because there was no feed for them. >> Consequently, many farmers and ranchers went bankrupt. >> Oh. Why was the water supply discontinued? The >> EPA, of course. They thought it more important to save >> an endangered sucker fish. Federal government officials >> decided that fish are more important than the livelihood >> of a few humans. >> The farmers and ranchers tried to sue the >> government. No dice, said the court. So, they appealed. >> Adding insult to injury, the 9th U.S. Circuit >> Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that only >> environmentalists, and others who want to increase >> protection for wildlife, can sue under the Endangered >> Species Act. Those wanting to reduce it, or to protest >> an EPA action, cannot. >> Like the EPA, the judges apparently felt that the >> fish were of greater value to the country than the people. >> This week, the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the >> case. It should be interesting to see which they think most >> important. >> Something else comes to mind that is only >> somewhat applicable to this case: If these well financed >> environmental groups really wish to do good, why don't >> they purchase a little property of their own and breed >> more of the little critters they so wish to save? >> It is just as ridiculous to say that these little scrub >> fish need millions of gallons of free running water in >> which to live and breed as it is to say that each spotted >> owl needs five square miles of natural forest in which >> to nest. The owls have been found nesting in a K-Mart >> sign -- with people watching! The fish will do well in >> a tank. Free them later, when the water is up. >> >> MORE CORRUPTION >> It's time for EPA to pay the piper. >> You see, it is against the law for federal >> agencies to interfere in elections. >> But, they did. And, some of the Members of >> Congress they opposed were re-elected. Now, the stuff >> is about to hit the fan in Washington. And it's going to >> be lots of stuff, and a very big fan! >> It seems that the EPA joined with labor unions >> and environmental groups to compile a "hit list" for >> the last election. Republican Members of Congress >> were rated as "vulnerable," "persuadable" or "prodigal >> friends." And, 11 of the 25 congressmen targeted >> were defeated. >> When they were found out, EPA officials >> dismissed the criticism as "partisan sniping" -- which, >> in itself, gives a major hint of exactly where EPA is >> coming from. >> The fact is that, through grants, contracts and >> other payment transfers, taxpayer money was used to >> influence political races. That is enough to get them >> some serious prison time. >> Because of all the financial mischief in the last >> election, look for the 105th Congress to be very >> aggressive in pursuing improper lobbying and campaign >> violations by federal agencies. >> >> INSTRUCTIONS FROM HAMILTON >> What do you think the Founding Fathers would >> say about the oppressive legislation, rules, regulations, >> and executive orders emanating from today's federal >> government? Luckily, in The Federalist Papers No. 78, >> Alexander Hamilton gives us a pretty good idea: >> "There is no position which depends on clearer >> principles than that every act of a delegated authority, >> contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it >> is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, >> contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this >> would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his >> principal; that the servant is above his master; that the >> representatives of the people are superior to the people >> themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do >> not only what their powers do not authorize, but what >> they forbid." >> Strong stuff! "No legislative act, contrary to the >> Constitution, can be valid." Hamilton may have been a >> lawyer and a politician, but there is certainly no >> equivocation there! That is quite a concept, especially >> coming from a man who actively participated in the >> Convention that wrote our Constitution. >> It should be noted too that Hamilton was a bit of >> an authoritarian. At the Constitutional Convention, and >> within the Cabinet of the Washington Administration, he >> was a major proponent of a strong central government. >> Yet, not even Hamilton would ever dream that a >> president would unilaterally legislate by executive order. >> Nor would he tolerate the dozens of little Politburos the >> federal government calls "administrative agencies" >> passing thousands of regulations annually, each with the >> full force of law. >> And surely, if the Founding Fathers saw the state >> of today's federal court system, and learned how the >> courts have allowed police search and forfeiture far >> exceeding the powers imposed on Americans by King >> George . . . Well, suffice to say, they would not be >> pleased! >> We do not have the government intended by the >> Founding Fathers. Some call today's government a sick >> parody of that intended by the Founders. But it is not >> even that. >> Today's federal government is, in truth, a leviathan >> of citizen control. It is a government designed to control >> everything in our lives from womb to tomb. And we >> citizens are the ones responsible for letting it get this way. >> Two years ago, the Speaker of the House, Newt >> Gingrich, suggested that we read and understand the >> Federalist Papers as a description of the government we >> should have. He was right! It's time for that trip to the >> bookstore, folks. >> Next year, a national citizen's movement will begin >> in support of those great ideals of freedom, liberty and >> personal expression defended in blood by the Founding >> Fathers. And like the Founding Fathers, we will also >> fight for those ideals. But this fight will be in the arena >> of public opinion, rather than on the battlefield. And >> again, freedom will win. After all, what American is >> not in favor of personal freedom and liberty? >> But first, we must all take the time to understand >> the government we should have, as told by three of the >> Founders themselves. >> It has been a while since we have had a truly >> Constitutional form of federal government. It's been so >> long, in fact, that many Americans are not even sure >> exactly what was intended in the Constitution. When >> we all understand that, this will be both an enjoyable >> and fruitful movement for all Americans alike. >> Freedom is fun. Patriotism is also fun. And, it's >> time we enjoyed that type of fun in America once again. >> The Federalist Papers, by the way, are often cited >> by the United States Supreme Court as a source of >> Constitutional law. An inexpensive paperback book >> version can be found in any bookstore for less than five >> bucks. That text should be studied by every American >> citizen. >> >> EDITOR'S NOTE: >> This is only the tenth issue of "Heads Up," but >> already the response has been overwhelming. Periodicals, >> such as "Media Bypass," have asked to reprint selected >> pieces. Radio broadcasts often use articles, the "Anti >> Statist" web page posts weekly editions, and "Heads Up" >> will soon be archived in at least two places on the Internet. >> Whole editions of "Heads Up" have even been >> reprinted in main-stream Republican newsletters. And >> two Libertarian groups have also asked for reprint >> permission. >> The reception has all been quite amazing, and I >> thank you one and all. Because, in reality, it is you >> who pass it along. >> To date, I have had reports of two errors in the >> publication. One was an error in the interpretation of a >> section of the Constitution. When it was reported to me, >> I agreed that the sentence could have been worded >> better (more correctly) and promised not to do it again. >> Another reader mentioned that I was a fraction >> of one-percent off on a statistic. He was also right. >> But, by far, the largest response was from the piece >> about the Citizen's Militia last week. Clearly, many >> Americans are interested in that topic. My mailbox has >> been full for a week. >> Eighty-five percent of those replying agreed -- the >> militia needs a definable organization, and a code of >> conduct. Only about five percent said that the citizen's >> militias should not exist. >> So far, only one reader was displeased enough to >> make disparaging remarks about my family heritage, and >> such. That same person also invited me to kiss a part of his >> anatomy not normally displayed in public. I politely >> declined. >> For future editions, a method needs to be devised to >> send out the newsletter in a narrower format. That will >> keep the text formatted properly no matter how many times >> it is passed along via e-mail. If anyone knows how to do >> that properly, I would certainly appreciate hearing about it. >> I thank all of you who sent such kind words of >> encouragement. And, I want you to know that I will >> always be open and receptive to (polite) suggestions. >> -- Doug >> >> -- END -- > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail