CONGRESS SUES TO END SERBIAN WAR
Mixmaster
Notable News Now
Excerpts from FCF Programming, and other FCF projects.
May 17, 1999
Inside Stories
* PAUL WEYRICH'S COMMENTARY:
War-Making Is A Serious Matter - 17 Congressmen Take a Stand
* FEDERAL LAND GRABS CONTINUE
The Free Congress Commentary
There is No Substitute for Political Will
by: Lisa S. Dean
>From the "Endangered Liberties" Television Program
"Remember, they are always watching you. Use cash when you can. Do not
give your phone number, social-security number or address, unless you
absolutely have to. Do not fill in questionnaires or respond to
telemarketers....Check your medical records often....Never use
electronic tollbooths on roads. Never leave your mobile phone on - your
movements can be traced."
This is just some of the advice that the latest issue of the Economist
gives to its readers about how to protect their personal privacy. Sound
paranoid? Well, maybe a decade ago we could have said yes, but today,
advances in technology and the way that that technology is used makes
the situation a little different. From databases that keep records on
your medical and employment histories and even your purchases, to
telecommunications providers who can track your whereabouts if you're
using a cell phone, there seems to be very little, if any, personal
privacy left.
But how did we end up at this point? It's the proverbial "frog in the
pot" strategy that got us where we are today. The transportation
department installs a surveillance camera on a street corner, allegedly
to monitor traffic or help law enforcement fight crime. Seemingly
harmless, no one objects. Then more cameras are installed on more
street corners with no objections from the public. As technology
develops, face recognition software is developed (to no one's knowledge)
and used in cooperation with these cameras so now, whoever is caught on
camera is now able to be identified, because those same citizens'
license photos are also in a government database and can be matched to
the person in the camera. Law enforcement or government agencies now
know that you were at street corner X at a specific time and day. All
of a sudden the outcry from the public is deafening - elected officials
are questioned as to why they didn't prevent this from happening,
citizens begin calling organizations in Washington asking why they did
nothing to raise public awareness of the situation.
While these are good questions and certainly ought to be raised, they
are not being raised by enough people in America. So what is to be done
about the erosion of privacy in the Information Age? In a word,
nothing, at least according to the Economist and the CEO of Sun
Microsystems whose comment to that effect a week or so ago caused quite
a stir among privacy advocates, and so it should.
If we begin to believe that nothing can be done about the erosion of
privacy, that living in a fishbowl created by Big Brother is something
that we must become accustomed to, if our response to every topic
discussed on this program and others like it is "So what?", then the
frog in the pot is boiling.
In fact there is much which can be done about protecting privacy.
Technology, such as encryption, has been developed which can protect us.
Other new technological developments can be used as effectively to
protect us as they can to track us. Some in the political community, at
least in this country, are finally getting interested in the subject.
Now that mainstream publications such as the Economist have finally
recognized that there is a problem, perhaps they will ultimately join
those of us looking for a solution.
What is needed is political will. The means to restore and protect
privacy can be worked out by the genius segment of the technology
industry. The public will surely create a market if they are convinced
that the systems will work. But there is no substitute for will.
Statements such as those by the Economist and the CEO of Sun are
designed to break down our will. To make us believe that we can do
nothing about this problem. Well, they were wrong when they said those
of us who raised these issues years ago were paranoid and fringe and
they are wrong now. The only way privacy will end in this world will be
if we permit it to end. We can't and so long as we have this voice, we
won't. Despite what the elites say, the outcome is still up to us.
Lisa Dean is vice president of the Free Congress Foundation's Center for
Technology Policy.
Contact: Lisa Dean 202.546.3000
War-Making is a Serious Matter: 17 Congressmen Take a Stand
by: Paul M. Weyrich
>From the "Endangered Liberties" Television Program
You won't hear much from these quarters advocating the use of
the federal courts to push a particular agenda. The liberals have done
so successfully now for over 40 years, but there comes a time when it IS
appropriate to take to the courts to settle a constitutional problem.
Indeed that is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they
established the federal court system. If one branch of government
exceeded its powers or violated the Constitution, then another branch of
the government could seek redress from the court.
That is what a bi-partisan group of 17 Members of the House has done in
filing an action in federal court seeking to stop Bill Clinton from
prosecuting the war in Kosovo, on the grounds that his action violates
the Constitution and the War Powers Act.
Representative Ron Paul of Texas, who is quickly becoming the leader of
those few Congressmen who want to follow the Constitution, put it this
way: "The President has violated the law and he must be taken to task.
It is a shame that Congress has not done more to stop the President from
this destructive course. So it is therefore incumbent upon us to resort
to the courts to force Mr. Clinton to follow his Oath of Office to
uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States."
Among the 17 is Representative Tom Campbell of California, who tried
unsuccessfully to get Congress to declare war. Campbell is a liberal
Republican. Two Ohio Democrats, Representative Marcy Kaptur and former
Cleveland mayor and liberal gadfly Dennis Kucinich, are also on the
lawsuit. Kaptur is known for her opposition to NAFTA and GATT. Joining
them is an interesting combination of new and long-term Members. They
include Tom Petri, who once was associated with the liberal Republican
Ripon society, Phil Crane who for almost three decades has been one of
the most conservative Members of Congress, Bob Barr of Georgia who has
also been involved with privacy issues and brand-new Republican Tom
Tancredo of Colorado, in whose district the killings in Littleton took
place. It seems that a constitutional challenge crosses both party and
philosophical lines.
In the past the Supreme Court has been reluctant to take cases such as
this. Either the Justices rule that the issue is "political" and
therefore not within the jurisdiction of the Court, or they claim that
Members of Congress don't have "standing." They have at times taken the
position that only an entire body of the Congress has the right to sue
on constitutional grounds. Let us hope in this instance the Court will
make an exception and hear the case.
Of course, should the Supreme Court rule against President Clinton, it
has no practical means of making him stop the war. Still, war-making is
a serious matter. The Framers of the Constitution did not want the
president getting into war on his own. That is what Clinton has done. If
he can make the case that Yugoslavia is somehow threatening the
interests of the United States, then he should have asked Congress to
declare war or at minimum should have notified Congress of his
intention to send commit U.S. airpower, which the War Powers Act
requires him to do.
While the outcome is dubious at best, these l7 Members of the House are
to be commended for taking this action. If nothing else, the ensuing
case, when made in the courts, will further educate the public on just
what the Constitution does say about the president's power to start a
war.
Paul Weyrich is the president of the Free Congress Foundation.
Program Excerpts:
* Federal Land Grabs and Property Rights
"The federal government owns 675 million acres, which is about 29612330f
the country. State and local government own many millions of more acres
in parks and preserves and so on. So we're talking maybe 40612330f the
country is government-owned. So, our two friends from Alaska, Don
Young, chairman of the House Resources Committee, and Frank Murkowski,
chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, very
powerful positions over land use and federal lands, now think that we
should have a lot more federal and state and local owned land," said
Myron Ebell, policy director at the Frontiers of Freedom in Arlington,
Virginia, a guest on the "Endangered Liberties" television program.
Ebell added, "Yes, Don Young and Frank Murkowski have been friends [to
property rights defenders], but the issue here is money for their state.
Offshore oil revenues are not shared with the states that have the
production off their shores. So, Louisiana and Alaska and Texas get
none of the revenues. If it were on-shore, they would get have of the
federal royalty. But because it's beyond the twelve-mile limit, they
get nothing. So, their members of Congress want to figure out a way to
build political support so they can get some of that revenue. And one
of the things that they have done is, essentially, done a deal with the
devil. In order to get some money for Alaska, Don Young and Frank
Murkowski are now in a league with the environmentalists, so that part
of their bill is now what the environmentalists want, which is a
multi-billion dollar government land acquisition program. So that we
can take rural America and get rid of those farmers and ranchers and
timber producers, and replace it with government preserves and parks."
Loretta Herrington from Defenders of Property Rights also joined the
property rights discussion on "Endangered Liberties." Herrington
questioned, "Why does the federal government want so much land? When is
it going to end? ...I think it's extreme when the federal government
takes land and doesn't pay for it. That's extremism to me. And that's
why Defenders exists. We exist to protect the rights of property owners
when government comes in, takes their land and walks away and doesn't
pay for it. I mean, the Fifth Amendment, the Constitution, is very
clear. So I would encourage anyone up on the Hill to read the
Constitution, the Fifth Amendment, the just compensation clause, because
the government has the responsibility to pay for land that it takes.
But on the other hand, why is it taking so much land? It can not manage
the land that it has today." Host Paul Weyrich said, "There is a case
in suburban Washington, a fellow by the name of John Taylor who's in his
70s, and who owns a piece of property. And he was about to build a
house on this property, originally because he wanted it for income -
later because of disabilities, he wanted it for himself and his ailing
wife. But, unfortunately, somebody found an eagle's nest somewhere on
the property, and this poor guy has not been able to build his house on
that property. How do things like this happen?" Ebell answered, "One
of the problems with the Endangered Species Act is that not only can
[it] take people's property, it can tell you 'stop farming' or 'you
can't build a house' or 'stop grazing your livestock'. But it's all
arbitrary regulations ...If you look right, or you have the right
connections, they don't apply the regulations to you. If you're a
powerless individual then they can say, 'Oh, forget it.' Typically,
urban America does not feel the effects of the Endangered Species Act.
For instance, there's a pair of nesting...falcons above a bridge
in...Portland, Oregon. But the Fish and Wildlife Service has never seen
fit to close that bridge to protect the fledglings in the spring. But
if you're in rural America, your entire livelihood can be shut down by
even a potential endangered species. So that's where we are."
Herrington said, "Defenders of Property Rights filed a suit against
Bruce Babbitt on behalf of Mr. John Taylor. And the subject is a bald
eagle's nest located 90 feet away from his house site. And he's been
wrangling with U.S. Fish and Wildlife for the last three years to get
the OK to build a small modular home on a very small lot in Mason Neck,
Virginia, which he owns, which he has built in that area before. So,
for the last three years, there has been this wrangling going on, which
has basically amounted to extortion on behalf of the federal
government." Weyrich stated, "I understand somebody suggested that if
he paid several thousand dollars that maybe the officials could look the
other way, and his position was, 'I'm not about to bribe the federal
government [in order to] build property on land that I own.'"
Herrington responded, "Exactly. And this is a man who is on Social
Security, who supplements his income by building a modular home.
He's...79. And his statement is, 'How much longer do I have to live?
And how much longer do I have to wait?' And at one point during this
back-and-forth wrangling, as I call it, the Fish and Wildlife even
suggested that he donate the land - donate the land - to a conservation
organization.... So, this is where we are with Mr. Taylor. The suit has
been filed, and we think we have a very fine case, where
this...Endangered Species Act has really gone right down in the heart of
the small families and private property owners." Host Lisa Dean asked,
"Is it just the Endangered Species Act that's causing all of this
problem with property rights, or are there other factors involved?"
Herrington said, "Well, you have wetlands issues, you have the Clean
Water Act, you have other initiatives such as Vice President Al Gore's
Livability agenda, which is clearly an attack on private property
rights. That proposal goes right down to the heart of telling local
government how to use property, as well as to the private property
owner."
For more information regarding property rights, contact these
organizations' web sites:
Defenders of Property Rights at http://www.defendersproprights.org
Frontiers of Freedom at http://www.ff.org
Contact: Julie Malone at Free Congress 202.546.3000
Wanted!
Television Studio Audience!
If you live in the Washington D.C. area or are visiting our nation's
capital, the Free Congress Foundation would like to invite you to be a
part of our television broadcasts. As a member of the studio audience
you will take part in the actual broadcast, interacting on camera with
our hosts and guests. Your questions and comments will be an important
part of our show format. The programs will be broadcast nationwide on
75 different stations in over 12 million homes! The three shows are:
Endangered Liberties: Hosted by Paul Weyrich and Lisa Dean. Endangered
Liberties focuses on the people, the policies and the programs that
threaten your liberty. Taping will take place every Thursdays at 10:30
am.
Legal Notebook: Hosted by legal expert Tom Jipping, this program takes a
fresh look at Congress, the courts and the constitution. Laymen, law
students and even lawyers are welcome! Taping time - Tuesdays at 1:00
P.M.
Next Revolution: Hosted by Bill Lind and Cliff Kincaid, this show takes
a critical, politically incorrect view of today's society. Insightful
and thoughtful, Next Revolution offers a more in-depth and challenging
critique of today's culture. Taping time-Tuesdays at 10:45 am.
The studios are located in Arlington, Virginia near the Clarendon Metro
stop. To join us please RSVP at 202-546-3000 ex.357 or send an e-mail
to: tmul...@mail.ameritel.net
Visit Our Website at www.FreeCongress.org.
Copyright * Free Congress Foundation 1999
All Rights Reserved
Secret Squirrel
Program Excerpts:
"The federal government owns 675 million acres, which is about 29% of
the country. State and local government own many millions of more acres
in parks and preserves and so on. So we're talking maybe 40% of the