Heads Up

A Weekly edition of News from around our country

January 10, 1997 #17

by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net

----------------------------------------------------------

Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html

----------------------------------------------------------

STUPID LAWS

What shall we call a legislator who intentionally

proposes a blatantly un-Constitutional law? Last summer,

one submitted such a bill in the Georgia Legislature.

And, unfortunately, it became law.

Georgia State Representative Don Parsons an

employee of a local telephone company, ramroded a law

through the legislature to censor the Internet.

Apparently, without ever having even used the Internet.

Now folks, it's not uncommon for legislators to

propose laws on subjects they know absolutely nothing

about. That happens all the time, especially in

Congress. It is something else, however, when a

legislator proposes a law they know to be in direct

violation of their Oath of Office.

This one was Georgia's HB-1630. The bill

states that: "It shall be unlawful for any person or

organization knowingly to transmit certain misleading

data through a computer or telephone network for the

purpose of setting up, maintaining, operating, or

exchanging data with an electronic mailbox, home page,

or any other electronic information storage bank; . . ."

Now, lets get real here! How much information

transmitted by newspapers and news wire services is

incorrect and/or misleading? Just the editorials could

keep Georgia law enforcement busy. But, there's much

much more. . . .

This law was in effect during the last election

cycle. How many politicians, and groups supporting

politicians, transmitted their "spin" to constituents

over the telephone and/or computer networks during that

campaign cycle? How much of their "spin" was

misleading? Will the State of Georgia prosecute these

people? Of course not. And they wouldn't dare try, for

prosecutors would probably have to include themselves.

The words "or telephone network" are a rather

interesting inclusion, too. Legally, your telephone

handset is part of the "telephone network." So, the

people of Georgia could have a little fun with this.

For instance, Georgia bureaucrats better be very accurate

on the telephone because it seems that citizens now have

a legal way of trapping them for "misinformation."

The law also outlaws the practice of "falsely

identifying" yourself on the Internet. Therefore, the

use of pen names by authors is currently illegal in

Georgia. So too are the use of "handles" while on the

net.

The problem is that this silliness is not limited

to Georgia alone. At least twenty other states are

looking into methods of limiting speech on the Internet.

So is the Clinton Administration and Congress.

Obviously, many in government fear unlimited

communication among the people. Perhaps we should

come right out and ask why this is so. What do they have

to hide?

FALSE STATEMENTS

Those in government tell us exactly what they

want us to hear. They often twist the facts, and

sometimes even tell outright lies. But, other than the

vote, we citizens usually have little recourse.

There is, however, a federal law (18 USC 1001),

titled "Fraud and False Statements," that is sometimes

used against citizens lying to those in government. The

full text of the law is short, but rather interesting:

"Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction

of any department or agency of the United States

knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up

any trick, scheme, or device a material fact (sic), or

makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or

representations, or makes or uses any false writing or

document knowing the same to contain any false,

fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be

fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more

than five years, or both."

The word "whoever" kind of makes the reader

believe that the law would apply to public servants as

well as to citizens. If so, the effective enforcement of

that law could surely bring a little honesty and honor to

the halls of government in a hell of a hurry. Most of

the halls would soon be empty!

But in today's political atmosphere, such

convictions would be virtually impossible. Why?

Well, first consider the Congressional testimony during

the Ruby Ridge and Waco hearings. Then, consider the

probable resulting debacle involved with having Janet

Reno and her assistants prosecuting other government

liars. . . .

For the Washington crowd, any lie, no matter

how outrageous, is justified by calling it "spin." It is

their "opinion," they say, no matter how fraudulent it

may be. Even when they intentionally twist or

misrepresent facts to deliberately mislead the public, it

is still winked at and called an opinion.

It doesn't matter that when the establishment

press reports these intentional fabrications as news, as

they usually do, the lies are often believed to be honest

facts by many in the public sector. Apparently, we

citizens are supposed to know better. Remember that.

You should know better.

Unfortunately, the False Statements law is not

used against federal law enforcement agents either.

A prosecutor, FBI agent, IRS agent -- or any government

bureaucrat or agent, for that matter -- can tell a citizen

anything they wish. They can also accuse a citizen with

any crime they wish. And, other than proving their

innocence in court, citizens have absolutely no

recourse. The only hope is to catch the lying agent with

a perjury charge, if they lie in open court.

It's time for some changes, folks. It's time for

some changes.

TAKE THE NINTH

We've all heard about "taking the Fifth."

Heck, we only need watch the bureaucrats testifying about

their wrongdoings for instructions on how that works.

They'll use their Fifth Amendment right, and any trick

they can think of, to keep from telling the truth, the

whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Well, "taking the Fifth" is not just reserved for

those in government. Citizens also (usually) have a

right against self incrimination. In fact, American

citizens can use a whole host of such "protections,"

if they learn to exert their Constitutional authority.

For instance, the Ninth Amendment states that:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights

shall not be considered to deny or disparage others

retained by the people."

That tells the central government that all rights

belong to us, the people. It also implies that we can

tell government to "kiss off" when they try to violate

any of our rights or liberties the Constitution does not

give them explicit authority to regulate.

So, when government says that we cannot

encrypt our messages to others on the Internet,

Constitutionally we could say, "Tough cookies! I claim

my Constitutional right under the Ninth Amendment of our

Constitution." Or, when government demands that we have

our papers in order to travel within our own country, we

could say, "Buzz off! Our Constitution gives you no such

authority to require that. Therefore, I take the Ninth,

and do not choose to participate in your unconstitutional

rule."

Silliness, you say? Not so. Impractical right

now, but certainly not silly.

To say that demanding our unalienable rights

and liberties is silly is to say that you approve of the

government's practice of picking and choosing which

parts of the Constitution they will honor and which they

may freely disregard. To not demand the liberty that is

Constitutionally yours is to signal the bureaucrats that

they may also do what they will with both your life and

you property.

And do so they will! In fact, it has already begun,

hasn't it.

We citizens must demand that our Constitution

be honored as a whole. That is to say, everything in our

Constitution must be in effect, with equal weight under

the law. Because, if some parts of the Constitution are

arbitrarily not applicable today, chances are excellent

that none of it will be in effect for your grandchildren

and your great-grandchildren by the time they are your

age.

The only reason some parts of the Constitution

are effective and others are not is because we American

citizens do not demand that the federal government honor

and obey each and every word as written.

And that, folks, is 100% our fault.

WHITE HOUSE ATTACKS

Ever notice how anyone disagreeing with the

Clinton, Clinton and Gore administration is quickly

labeled as a right-wing fanatic? Now they're even

starting on the press.

Slick and the Mrs. are now saying that their

Whitewater problems are due to the media. In a 331 page

White House report, titled "Communication Stream of

Conspiracy Commerce," they blame the "media frenzy" on

"right-wing think tanks," and even go so far as to say

that British newspapers help keep the pot stirred.

The White House singled out Ambrose

Evans-Pritchard of London's most prestigious and best

selling newspaper, The Sunday Telegraph, for special

attention. The administration got a little miffed at

Evans-Pritchard's hard-hitting investigative reporting on

the Clinton's antics. So, now they are calling The

Sunday Telegraph a British "tabloid."

Closer to home, the Wall Street Journal

reports that the administration has been interfering with

the free flow of information in the American press for

quite some time. In a January 6 editorial, Micah

Morrison reports that a number of reporters were either

fired or otherwise removed from duty for attempting to

report the Clinton misdeeds.

The White House went after those non-profit

"right wing" organizations, too. Many of them, like the

Heritage Foundation and the NRA, suffered major audits

by the IRS for speaking up about the administration's

excesses. Yet, you do not read much about that abuse of

power in the establishment press.

Most Americans do not realize that the

permanent crew of reporters working the White House beat

must "play ball" with the administration. There can be

no objective reporting from that bunch. Not if they wish

to keep that cushy White House position, that is.

The reporters may be paid by their respective

news agency, but the administration is effectively

running the show. Because, were they to report anything

displeasing to the administration, the offending

reporter(s) would immediately be cut off from all those

interesting "leaks" they so desire. And worse yet, they

would not be invited to any more of the administration's

social functions.

The administration's propaganda was placed

on the Internet by a friends of Hillary group calling

itself the "Back to Business Committee." The committee

is made up of such socialist-leaning luminaries as New

World Order proponent Lynn Cutler and disgraced

ex-congressman Tony Coelho. Anyone interested can find

their spin (and hence, the administration's) on Whitewater

at: http://204.157.211.7/index.html Another of the

committee's propaganda pages is located at:

http://whitewater.back2bus.ibtnet.com/btb.html The

latter is listed by Infoseek, but as is typical for the

socialist left, it seldom seems to work.

Probably, in part, as a result of that politically

stupid White House report on the press, the tide seems

to be turning on this administration. Now that the press

is done with Newt for a while, they will be looking for

new material. And, even the left-leaning establishment

media is starting to realize that there is plenty of good

stuff available over at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

THEY MIGHT CHEER

Hillary is vicious with the Secret Service.

She regularly curses at them, forces them to walk ten

paces behind her, and generally makes their lives

miserable.

Now comes the Whitewater indictments. She

will certainly be charged with a number of things. The

question is, will she be arrested?

And, if Hillary were arrested, would the Secret

Service cheer as she was lead away by the FBI and/or

Federal Marshals?

CONTRASTS

Two hundred years ago a gentleman nicknamed

"His Rotundity" by members of government took the oath

of office as President of the United States.

He had previously been a member of both the

first and second Continental Congress, aided in the

drafting of the Declaration of Independence, acted as an

ambassador for ten years, and served as this country's

first vice-president for eight years.

He is unfortunately known for signing the Alien

and Sedition Acts as president. And, although he fully

supported our Constitution as written, he did not

subscribe to the democratic concept of equality. Rather,

he believed that people were "naturally divided into two

sorts, the gentlemen and the simple men." And he felt

that the gentlemen, being superior in abilities,

education, and other advantages, were more qualified to

rule.

Yet, John Adams was a completely honest man

who believed in liberty and was firmly opposed to

tyranny. So, as the Slickster gets sworn in for a second

term, we cannot help but wonder what the president

preceding him by two-hundred years would comment.

FIAT MONEY

Have you ever wondered where all of our

money went? And no, we are not talking Federal Reserve

Notes here. Federal Reserve Notes are script. Our

Constitution intentionally defines money as something

other than script.

Exactly what is Constitutionally acceptable as

money is unfortunately not clearly defined. Still, it is

quite clear that Federal Reserve Notes are not what was

intended.

Article 1, Section 8 of our United States

Constitution states that "Congress shall have the Power

To . . . coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and

foreign Coin, and fix the standards of Weights and

Measures . . ."

That is not much information. The Constitution

gives the power to coin and regulate the value of money

to Congress. Shall we take the word "coin" literally?

There is much debate on that question.

Article 1, Section 10 of our United States

Constitution gives us another hint: "No State

shall . . . coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any

Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of

Debts . . ."

"No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold

and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." Taken

literally, this presents a rather inconvenient problem.

Gold and silver coin -- or at least bills backed by gold

and silver -- is what the Constitution mandates to be

used as legal tender within the States. Federal Reserve

Notes are quite obviously a "Thing" other than gold or

silver coin.

Therefore, is this script we call money

Constitutional for us to use within the States? It

probably would be legal tender in Washington, D.C. But

in the States too? According to our Constitution, States

are not allowed to "make" anything but gold and silver a

legal tender.

Does this mean "make," as in 'produce' or

"make" as in 'allow to be used'? Should we just forget

that part of the Constitution? The Supreme Court says

that all words of our Constitution apply equally, so

obviously not.

Article I, Section 8 already gave Congress the

power to coin money and regulate its value. Therefore,

Congress, not the states, is charged with producing the

money. So, if we remove all words not needed in Section

10 to answer this question we see: "No State shall . . .

make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in

Payment of debts." This use of the word "make" then,

must mean 'to allow.' So, the only other interpretation

possible becomes: 'No State shall allow anything but

gold and silver coin to be used as legal tender.'

To be sure, the federal government has passed

laws making Federal Reserve Notes legal tender for all

debts public and private. But, so what! Over the years,

the federal government has passed many laws in direct

violation of our Constitution. The point here is that it

is quite obvious that the concept of Federal Reserve

Notes is far from what the Founding Fathers had in mind

as legal tender when they wrote our Constitution.

While it is true that there can be other

interpretations of these words, it is also true the

federal government is in violation of the United States

Constitution. Furthermore, we the sovereign citizens of

these United States continue to allow our servants in the

central government to do that which is not allowed under

our Constitutional form of government. Why?

Clearly, this question of legal tender needs a

great deal of public discussion.

-- End --