CONGRESS ACTION
Lawrence Kennon
Subject: C-NEWS: Congress Action 08/11/96
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 96 21:14:06 -0800
To: CONSERVATIVE NEWS <C-N...@WORLD.STD.COM>
CONGRESS ACTION August 11, 1996
===============
By Kim Weissman
Internet BEV...@worldnet.att.net
POLICE STATES OF AMERICA: The assault on Freedom of Speech by this
administration has been well documented. It began shortly after the
Clintonites came into power, when the Department of Housing and Urban
Development worked out a plan to force what they defined as
"equality" down the throats of American homeowners. In 1994, HUD was
prepared to begin its attack to destroy family neighborhoods, and
decided to plant a rehabilitation center for recovering alcoholics
and drug addicts in the midst of a family neighborhood in Berkeley,
California. Several residents of that traditional bastion of free
speech decided to exercise their Constitutional rights as Americans
under the First Amendment. They distributed pamphlets. They
testified before the Berkeley City Counsel. They filed a lawsuit
(ultimately unsuccessful) to try to stop HUD's plans. The
politically correct elites at HUD decided that this type of peaceful
activity would not be tolerated in Bill Clinton's America, so HUD
began a campaign of harassment and intimidation, threatening the
group (which came to be called The Berkeley Three) with federal
lawsuits for housing discrimination, fines, and potential jail time.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, drug abusers are
considered disabled, under the Fair Housing Act, disabled people are
protected from housing discrimination, and opposition to any
protected group is considered discrimination. Thus the residents of
Berkeley had to welcome alcoholics and drug addicts, to wander the
streets on which their children played. Ultimately, the force of
public ridicule over this incident forced the bureaucrats at HUD to
issue guidelines which essentially commanded HUD to obey most (but
not all) of the First Amendment. Conspicuously absent from the
activity which HUD grudgingly acknowledged as protected is the
filing of lawsuits to enjoin HUD actions.
Then came the case of the Bakersfield Five. Once again HUD
decided to attack a middle class neighborhood, by planting a
residential facility for 6 retarded adults, operated by a private
business enterprise and paid for with Medicaid money, in the midst
of a community of single family homes. This plan was in direct
violation of that community's covenants and conditions which
prohibited the operation of businesses within the community, and
which limited residences to single families. A lawsuit in State
court issued an injunction against the HUD plan, which prompted HUD
bureaucrats to begin discrimination proceedings against the state
court plaintiffs. The Justice Department got involved, demanding
information from the Bakersfield Five which included, among other
things, the identity of "each person who attended any meeting of any
residents of Stockdale Estates" regarding the group home.
Both of the major political parties are apparently cooperating in
another limitation on free speech. In San Diego the Police
Department designated a parking area three blocks away from the
republican convention as a site for free speech activities. Many
protesters would have preferred to be closer to the convention site,
and the RNC wanted to move the protests further away. To be clear,
it was not the RNC which initially established the limitation on
protests, it was the San Diego Police Department. A federal judge
struck down the more distant protest zone proposed by the RNC, but
did accept the concept of designating a specific free speech zone
proposed by the police department, and it now appears that protests
will be permitted across the street from the RNC site. In Chicago,
the Democratic National Committee is trying the same thing. Protests
at the DNC convention were originally planned to be restricted to a
vacant lot two blocks away from the convention site; now there is
talk about moving the protest site at least eight blocks away. The
ACLU is suing the cities of Chicago and San Diego over these protest
restrictions. Where in the language of the First Amendment is free
speech limited to certain "zones" designated by local bureaucrats?
All of these activities might be dismissed as warped excesses by
power drunk bureaucrats, were it not for the evidence that the
willingness to use such oppression extends all the way to the top of
the Clinton administration. In an incident which should have had all
the usual defenders of free speech mounting the ramparts, this
administration recently attempted, and in some measure succeeded, in
stiffling the speech of one of its critics. The case involved the
public appearances of former FBI agent Gary Aldrich on various
television programs to discuss his book "Unlimited Access", which
details his experiences with numerous penalties which he witnessed
during his duty in the Clinton White House. Aldrich was scheduled to
appear on ABC's "This Week with David Brinkley", CNN's "Larry King
Live", and NBC's "Dateline".
There is a long series of Supreme Court precedent which looks very
critically on what is called "previous restraint" of free speech,
that is, the preemptive prohibition of a media outlet from
disseminating words and opinions which may be offensive to those in
power. "The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature
of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints
upon publications..." (Near vs. Minnesota, 1931).
Prior to Aldrich's appearances, senior White House advisor George
Stephanopoulos put pressure on the TV networks not to allow Aldrich
to appear. CNN and NBC canceled the Aldrich appearances. Recall the
reaction when the Nixon White House put pressure on the New York
Times to prevent it from publishing the Pentagon Papers, which
arguably had national security implications. This is an indication
of how far we have come since then: the issue now has nothing to do
with national security, only with the embarrassment of Bill and
Hillary Clinton. Of course, based on Bill Clinton's invocation of
Executive Priviledge to cover up the Travel Office fiasco, we may
reasonably conclude that the Clintons equate their own embarrassment
with a danger to the national security. Aldrich's story may have had
no credibility at all (although it is difficult to dismiss a 30 year
veteran of the FBI as some fringe wacko), and the media involved may
have decided on their own that they did not want to present his
story. This would have been entirely proper from the perspective of
the proper role of government in a free society, and would have
simply raised the question of media bias in discounting the word of
such an inherently credible eyewitness. The line was crossed,
however, by pressure from an official government source, George
Stephanopoulos, which may have and was certainly intended to
influence the media's decision, indeed, which constituted government
pressure to subvert the independence of the media and censor a
critic.
Nor will this administration stop at silencing its critics. It
has now begun to jail those who dare criticize Bill Clinton. Clinton
was working the crowd at an appearance in Chicago when a woman,
apparently upset at the terrorist bombing in Saudi Arabia, shouted
to him "You suck, and those boys died." At the request of the Secret
Service, the Chicago police arrested the woman because the remark
was taken as a threat to the president. They also arrested the
woman's husband who was standing nearby. In this country, we condemn
those foreign dictatorships which arrest critics of the government.
We express outrage when those dictatorships go so far as to arrest
the families of those critics. We have now, apparently, arrived at
that same condition here in America. When such outrages occur in an
overseas dictatorship, the usual litany of people in this country
mount boycotts, demonstrate, stage protests. Where are those voices
of protest now, when similar outrages occur right here in America?
Or are such police state tactics acceptable now?
The assaults on free speech by HUD discussed above occurred early
in the Clinton administration, and it might be natural to assume
that such offensive activity would cease, or at lease lessen, as the
November election approaches. After all, it is one thing for Clinton
to be seen trampling the Second Amendment. Disregard for that
Constitutional right has an honored tradition in radical liberalism.
It is another matter entirely, however, for Clinton to be seen
trampling the First Amendment, particularly the free speech clauses
contained therein, for which liberals have traditionally championed
the widest possible latitude. Yet, judging by the lack of reaction
to the latest outrages from liberals in general, the commitment to
civil liberties by the self-proclaimed defenders of civil liberties
must be re-evaluated. It appears free speech rights are only for
those who agree with the politically correct dogma. The selective
application of the Constitution is nothing new for liberals. The
Equal Protection clause, to cite one example, is marvelously useful
to prohibit discrimination against the mascots of the anointed
(blacks, women, gays, drug addicts, etc), but is not applicable to
prevent discrimination against whites or males. And if these are
examples of the extremism to which Bill Clinton will go when he is
facing re-election, it is chilling to contemplate the lengths to
which he will go if he is elected this November and will not face
the electorate again. This is a factor which should concern not only
republicans, but followers of the Libertarian party and other third
parties as well. Those third party adherents who have announced
their intention to dilute the conservative vote, regardless of the
consequences, should seriously consider those very consequences.
Bill Clinton won election in 1992 with 42% of the electorate because
the anti-Clinton vote was split between George Bush and Ross Perot.
Should Clinton win again with less than a majority, having voted for
a third party out of conscience will be cold comfort to anyone who
disagrees with liberal big-government policies. Anyone who is not in
love with big-government liberalism will be a target for a
re-elected Bill Clinton and his allies in the media.
Although the lapdog media and the partisan liberal establishment
are smug right now in their belief that they will strengthen their
grip on the levers of power in this country, by retaining the White
House and retaking the majority in Congress, they should consider
the implications of the police state tactics which they now endorse.
The power to arrest critics, the ability to stifle the press, and
the oppression of people who do not toe the correct party line, are
all two-edged swords which cut freedom indiscriminately.
Conservatives are the targets today. Once the precedent is
established, anyone could be the target tomorrow. Those who stand
silent at the abuse of civil liberties today, because in their minds
the end justifies the means, will have no basis to complain when the
assault is directed at them.
"The tyranny of the legislature is really the danger most to be
feared, and will continue to be so for many years to come. The
tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, but at a more
distant period." -- Thomas Jefferson
Kim Weissman
BEV...@worldnet.att.net
Congress Action is available on its own web page at
http://www.aimnet.com/~jbv/congress_action.html
and on FTP site at
/pub/users/jbv/congress_action/
-------
To subscribe from c-news, send the message SUBSCRIBE c-news to
majo...@world.std.com. Contact owner-...@world.std.com with questions.
Jay Fisher
Funny, you failed to mention the Republican attempts to silence
freedom of speech, such as a ban on the transmission of abortion
related information in the Telecommunications Bill. The Republican
convention is another attempt to quash freedom of speech concerning
the moderate pro choice issue. Furthermore, under the Reagan
administration sweeping changes were made to restrict disclosure of
information under the Freedom of Information Act. 'Course you don't
want the truth.... you just want to bash democrats.
Mr. Jones
These extreme bills will never get passed. Don't worry, republicans (even
with their solid ideals that everyone wants to see in our government), still
have to appeal to the voters.
Tim