Last Wednesday, thousands of Americans from coast to coast watched Un-American activities in progress. If our Constitution were truly the supreme law of the land, and violations of the Constitution were against the law, there would have been at least 218 members of the House of Representatives in jail Thursday morning.

But, there they were, in living color on C-SPAN, debating how to best limit the contradictory political speech of the voters back home. Compounding the shame of it all was the vote on an amendment submitted by Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX) which would have prohibited the campaign finance "reform" bill under discussion from violating the First Amendment. You know, the Amendment that starts out with the words, "Congress shall make no law" and then includes, "abridging the freedom of speech."

Throughout our history, political speech has always had the highest protection. Not anymore, though. If HR-2356 is signed into law by President Bush, the only ones allowed to place political ads or publish political commentary will be the media and the campaign committees. Citizens will have to dummy up for the 30 days preceding a primary election and for 60 days preceding a general election. Which means, candidates can tell any lies they wish without fear of contradiction by us pesky little serf- citizens.

Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) nailed it: "Only in Washington could a massive new federal bureaucracy be proposed, and constitutional freedoms stripped away, while supportive politicians are lauded by national newspaper editorials for having the 'courage' to support 'reform' legislation. … More importantly, only in Washington could media-driven support for such an atrocious piece of legislation take precedence over stimulating an economy in crisis and creating jobs for working Americans. … Under this legislation, Americans could actually be sent to jail for airing their thoughts on a particular candidate or policy issue." (1)

The bill passed the House 240-189. It now goes back to the Senate, which passed a nearly identical bill last year. The tally is 41 wayward Republicans, one independent and 198 socialist-Democrats approving the unconstitutional bill. There were 176 Republicans, one independent and just 12 Democrats, opposing.

Does this tell us a little about which political party should be favored next November?

Like Bob Barr, House GOP whip, Rep. Tom DeLay, understands: "This bill does not contain real reform. Instead, this bill strips citizens of their political rights and unconstitutionally attempts to regulate political speech."

Thad Kousser and Ray LaRaja at Cato(2) just published a very informative report on the issue in which they show that soft money to political parties, which disproportionately benefits challengers, is outlawed, as is anonymous soft money that funds advertisements within 60 days of elections.

Exactly. The controlling political class has finally succeeded in limiting the political speech of the people. If the bill is signed into law, it will be illegal to criticize a candidate 60 days before an election.

Also, as David M. Mason, Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, wrote in a Heritage Foundation report, "certain significant provisions of Shays-Meehan are so complex, so vague, or so broad as to be unworkable or unenforceable." Mason also says that, "some provisions of Shays-Meehan (the 30/60 day 'electioneering' black-out, for instance) are flatly unconstitutional" and that other provisions raise significant constitutional difficulties. (3)

The point is, anything affecting incumbents is intentionally very vague. Only those restrictions on citizens are straightforward and harsh. Congress would never pass a bill to limit themselves. They intend to rule the people with a heavy hand, not inconvenience their chance for reelection. Clearly, anyone expecting them to limit themselves is just not paying attention.

However, the glass is still half full. In the face of any adversity, there is usually some opportunity.

These fools evidently do not have any understanding whatsoever of what they just caused. The law of unintended consequences supersedes anything Congress can pass.

For one thing, they will never limit our speech on the Internet. This publication, for one, will continue on as always. But, that’s just a drop in the bucket. The unintended consequences will be far reaching, and potentially very detrimental, for incumbent campaigns.

Remember, there is the new 60 day rule. If citizens' groups cannot place political ads 60 days preceding an election, they will have to place the spots earlier -- at a time when there are very few campaign ads running and more people will pay attention to politically motivated ads. Which means, with a little finessing of the subject material, the ads can be used to implant firm opinions in the minds of many voters before the actual campaigning by the incumbent starts.

Incumbents, then, will have to counter these early ads placed by citizens' groups. Which means, the direction of an incumbent's campaign will then be led by the nose to the topics already set by the earlier spots. This will drastically eat into campaign funds and not allow the incumbent to advertise the message the campaign wants to get out as much as they wished -- such as attack ads on the opponent.

So, as this stupid and unconstitutional new law winds its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court for a unanimous thrashing, we who get involved in campaign activities will develop new -- and as yet unsuspected -- methods to aggravate the incompetents who approved it. They opened a few new doors. We shall enter and be all set up before they have time to get there.

On the other hand, we could all join together to inform President Bush that we feel this would be a very good time to bring out his veto pen. He is supposed to defend the Constitution for us, after all.

1. http://hillsource.house.gov/barr/newsdescr.asp?N=20020207120140

2. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-426es.html

3. http://www.heritage.org/library/lecture/hl732.html

It’s all kind if fun to watch, actually. She thinks she has a “star presence” on Capitol Hill because the far-left media tasked to cover the place fawn all over her. Last week, even CBS Evening News reader Dan Rather stuck his neck out by predicting that New York Sen. Hillary Clinton could win the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2004 if former Vice President Al Gore decides not to run. Rather said that no other Democrat could create enough enthusiasm to mount a realistic challenge to President Bush. "If not Gore, then who else for the Democrats?" Rather told Don Imus on the morning radio program. "Who could develop a national name, a core of people who are willing to work for you and people who are willing to give money for you? If Hillary Clinton were prepared to run this next time around, she might be such a person."

Hillary attracts the money; that is true. Her HILLPAC political action committee plans to raise $170 million for Democrat candidates. At the last filing, her PAC had a million bucks with which to use to buy friends. (1) They had already passed out a quarter of a million bucks.

However, Hillary has not always been a good girl and some of her past is starting to sneak up to bite her. For instance, as retired FBI agent Gary Aldrich wrote: "Hillary's blind spot is not just politics. Here's a woman getting paid more than eight million dollars to recall what happened during her eight years in the White House. The real curiosity about that book deal is that, for nearly a decade, Hillary testified under oath that she could not recollect anything important at all. Now we are to believe that she will write an interesting, fact-filled tome about those very same years? How did she get her memory back?"

Easy. It appears that some people will be refreshing Hillary's memory for her. And, when that task is completed, she can forget President; she may not even be completing her term as Senator.

Remember Linda Tripp? She was there, in the White House, and has first hand information. Linda told CNN that, from the very beginning, the Clintons set out to evade White House gift laws. "Gifts were coming in from everywhere," Tripp said. "I was brought in, because of my institutional memory and my knowledge of procedure. I'm filling out the gift unit form. ... And they didn't want any part of that." Top Clinton aide Bruce Lindsey told her to stop keeping gift records: "Take off your Bush hat," Lindsey ordered. "This is the Clinton White House."

As Linda Tripp reports: One room in the White House "was floor to ceiling stacked with gifts. In the Clinton White House. ... Most of it didn't make it to the gift unit."

Not enough to refresh Hillary’s memory yet? Well, now along comes Rep. Doug Ose (R-CA). In a report released last week by the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Subcommittee on Energy, Chairman Ose says the Clintons accepted $361,968 in unrecorded gifts. (2)

Among the interesting findings from the one-year investigation were "undisclosure of gifts that should have been publicly disclosed; undervaluation of some gifts, which should have been disclosed; the solicitation and coordination of gifts; missing and lost gifts; and contradictory White House/Counsel rulings." Among the dozens of gifts labeled "lost" or "misplaced," investigators examined, were a $4,200 18-karat gold saxophone pin and a $1,200 rug from Pakistan.

Last Thursday morning, Rep. Ose told Fox News that he has proof that at least 14,000 gifts were illegally converted by the Clinton's for personal use. That was a Hillary function, of course. She took command over that and personally went through most of the booty.

Furthermore, there is information that Hillary divided up part of the loot with her aids. That is also illegal.

Whispering among the Hill Rats on Capitol Hill is that there is more than enough evidence to prosecute. So, will Hillary set up yet another of her "war rooms"? The Clinton's still have all those FBI files, after all. That's a major threat against (some) Republicans in itself. It worked well for the impeachment trial.

Can a known felon be Senator? Does anyone care?

Can a known felon be President? Oh … never mind! We covered all that a couple years ago, didn't we. Only a couple members of that geriatric Senate cared. The rest gleefully supported a felon for President so they wouldn't have to be inconvenienced by reading the evidence.

Anyway, while we are refreshing memories here, there's a great book on many aspects of the Clinton Scandals. It's the Alamo-Girl's (Sandra Venable) book: "Downside Legacy at Two Degrees of President Clinton." (3)

1. http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strID=C00363994

2. http://www.house.gov/reform/reg/index.htm

3. http://www.booklocker.com/bookpages/alamogirl01.html

also http://www.alamo-girl.com

There was quite a lot of buzz among the commercial airline driver class last week. They are commonly called "pilots," of course, and some are still incorrectly called "captain." We'll get to the why of the latter later.

Passengers and flight crews have been doing a great job of cooperating to subdue subversives and nut- cases while in flight. Anyone wanting a good ass-whipping need only mention "bomb" while flying at 30,000 feet. They will be pounced on and hogtied almost immediately.

So too with the mental case who attempted to break into the cockpit of a United Airlines flight. As the Boeing 777 jet passed over Brazil on a flight to Argentina, some idiot tried a little kung-fu on the "secure" cockpit door. The door held properly, but he knocked off a bottom panel and tried to crawl in.

That kicking made a lot of noise in the cockpit, of course, which alerted the pilots. The co-pilot grabbed the small fire ax and waited. When the perpetrator's head entered the cockpit, co-pilot bopped him with the ax handle -- "bluntly" in the head.

Perhaps we should take a little time to describe that little "fire ax." It is designed to get through the aircraft fuselage fast, in case of an emergency. The wide blade is razor sharp. The pick end comes to a very sharp point. Which means, any adult male wielding such a weapon could easily lob off body parts with nearly every swing that contacted with a perpetrator.

The above mentioned co-pilot, therefore, should be commended because he did the proper thing by bopping the perpetrator with a blunt section of the ax, rather then burying it in his head.

As soon as the perpetrator's head was treated to stop the bleeding, he was handcuffed and segregated from the rest of the passengers.

Thereafter, we see the effect of strong adult supervision on the part of the Captain. Because, the aircraft continued on to its destination and flight attendants and passengers did everything flight attendants and passengers do on long flights. Drinks and food were served and it was otherwise a normal flight.

Contrast that with a Delta flight out of LA, going to Salt Lake City, last weekend. A frequent flyer was watching himself in a company blurb the airlines ran on the big screen and was talking with friends.

He had to go to the restroom, so got up and went. Nothing was said about that. On the way back to his seat, a flight attendant demanded he take his seat -- which is where he was going, anyway. This frequent flyer executive looked at the flight attendant (she said menacingly) like she might be some kind of nut. But, he did return to his seat without comment.

Apparently, "someone" at FAA passed a new rule that passengers may not leave their seats in the last 30 minutes of a flight into Salt Lake City. The executive in question may not have known that -- even though the pilot announced it.

Anyway, now comes three young "sky marshals." One wearing shabby clothing and a baseball cap backwards on the aircraft. These observant bright lights said the frequent flyer -- who had just been celebrated on the large cabin screen -- looked suspicious because he glanced to the back of the aircraft a couple times. One of the "air marshals" said the passenger gave what appeared to be a "thumbs up" to another passenger as he returned to his seat. That was enough of an excuse for the marshals to "take control" of the cabin.

The very young (and shabbily dressed) marshals then hassled the passenger, as well as every other passenger. Because of this "serious incident," the young marshals ordered all passengers to put their hands on their heads for the duration of the flight.

No drinks. No snacks. No reading. "Simon says" everyone must put hands on their heads. And, since these Simple Simons were the only ones aboard with guns, passengers were intimidated into compliance.

Ultimately, the passenger was arrested for his major crime. Not for long, though. Cooler heads prevailed and the man soon went on his way. We might also note that if he has a good lawyer he may soon be owning a lot of Delta stock. The sky marshals were clearly idiots and should be fired.

Because, generally speaking, the Captain is said to be in charge of the ship. Not the sky marshals. If a commercial airline pilot cannot control the actions of these so called "sky marshals," then the pilot is no longer "Captain," but just the driver. That means the guy dressed like a young punk in the back of the aircraft is actually the captain of the ship.

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh and GR Force, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 2001 by Forest Glen Durland, subject to Fiedor's rights.

fron261.htm. Revised 2-16-02. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.