A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia
September 5, 1999 #150
by: Doug Fiedor
E-mail to: email@example.com
Copyright © 1999 by Doug Fiedor, all rights reserved
This text may be copied and distributed freely
but only in its entirety, and with no changes
Previous Editions at:
RAMBLING ABOUT WACO
The news made me so proud I dug through my stuff to find my old buddy's badge. Maybe I just wanted to hold it, but I used the excuse that it might need polishing, or something. He gave me the badge just before he died. I always meant to send it back to his department, but never seemed to get around to it.
This was a guy who looked sort of like an old John Wayne -- tall, but you just know he must have done a lot of hard work in his life. I met him in a Michigan bar one night, many years ago. During a bar brawl.
As it turned out, we both knew the establishment's owner. When the fight started, I meandered over to the far end of the bar -- down where the older man was talking with the owner -- to stay away from the action. The man yelled at them to stop. Foolish of the old man, I thought. Then, he looked at the owner and asked if he should stop it.
The next thing I knew, this old guy gets up, briskly walks to the middle of the action and decks the two biggest guys. Everything stopped and he came back and sat down. That was it.
We were introduced. He said he was retired. Over the next few weeks, we became friends.
I was somewhat good with a handgun. He made me look like a Cub Scout at a pistol range. I knew dozens of "come-along" holds, he knew dozens more. I knew boxing and Judo, he quickly showed me how to make that knowledge inoperative. I noticed most of what was happening around me, he missed nothing.
He was a retired Texas Ranger. An officer with a quarter century of street experience.
He died before the Waco killings, and I'm almost glad. If there are more like him down there in Texas, I can imagine the string of expletives over the years. The Texas Rangers screwed up. They allowed those BATF cowboys to attack Texas citizens. Then, they allowed the FBI military squad-fire team and the Army Special Forces to come in and kill even more Texas citizens.
The chain of command was FBI to Webster Hubbell at the Justice Department. Hubbell reported to Vincent Foster in the White House. Foster reported to his favorite squeeze, Hillary. Janet Reno and Bill Clinton are essentially out of this equation.
The Army Special Forces disgraced their uniform by participating -- fully armed helicopters, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, tanks, automatic weapons, grenade launchers, "illumination" and "high explosive" grenade rounds, listening equipment, the whole ball of wax. There was a full company of them there. It was a disgrace. Criminal.
Any cop on the street knows that tear gas canisters cause fire when shot into a building. The Justice Department admits to two large military canisters fired -- they fired them at a "bunker" because they thought it was protecting a group of small children. The sorry fact is, there were over one-hundred of the smaller tear gas canisters used that terrible day, too. All can and will cause fire.
One Special Forces "Observer" drove his Army tank right into the center of the building, where people (read children) were expected to be. That can also cause fire. Death by crushing, too.
The military and FBI shooters then used their guns to pick off those people who tried to escape the fire. That they intentionally killed those people is beyond a doubt. They made war on American people, conducted a full assault, tried to take no prisoners. But, there are some eye witnesses. There also are films, as the American public shall soon see.
In a nutshell, what we saw at Waco was government totally out of control. A group of thugs, with badges, assaulted people who were not bothering anyone. Government agents tried a military-style sneak attack using aircraft, automatic weapons, and grenades. The people defended themselves, as was their right. The BATF was routed. So, Hillary sent in the FBI military trained squad fire team and the Army Special Forces. And, as per their training, they killed everyone they could.
Then, they covered up as much of the evidence as they could. Buried it. Burned it. Destroyed it. But, like the people, not all of it went away.
Suddenly, some Texas Rangers got religion, or something. They started looking at the "evidence." Expletives flowed all around for a while. They had been negligent. They allowed this to happen on their watch. Now, they want to "fix" it.
It's about damn time!
That was not homicide at Waco. It was murder. It was premeditated murder. Just because the men had badges and/or military shoulder patches does not change the situation one iota. They made war on American citizens who were bothering no one. They committed murder.
That "authority" came from the White House does not change anything. That only means that even more people are involved in these war crimes.
And, as for the Texas Rangers: Ain't it time for a grand jury yet? What are you guys waiting on, the FBI to investigate again, maybe? Shame!
If there is to be yet another "investigation," Let's get Judicial Watch and/or Landmark Legal Foundation to act as public prosecutors. Then, swear in a company of Texas Rangers as federal officers. That is the only way people will believe the results. Otherwise, it will just be another Washington cover-up.
Meanwhile, I'll polish that old badge in hopes that it still means something to someone down there in Texas. That badge belonged to an honorable man and shall be treated as such. Do the others?
It would really be nice if we could pick a president who would actually honor and defend the Constitution. But, that seems difficult.
For instance, the Tenth Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Contrary to the current belief of most of those in Washington, the United States Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to regulate our personal firearms. Therefore, that power is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The United States Supreme Court says that we may look to the Federalist Papers for interpretation of the intent of the Constitution's authors. Well, in The Federalist Papers No. 78, Alexander Hamilton instructs:
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.
We find it a problem when, even before winning the primary election, those who would be president admit publicly that they would violate the Constitution -- as some have done by proposing strict federal gun laws. Because, if the Constitution is not their standard for government, someone had better ask them what will be, if elected. Americans have a right to ask these types of inconvenient questions.
Or, maybe that will not be necessary.
There is one person in Washington who seems a consistent friend of the original intent of the Founding Fathers. He believes in all the things the Republican Party once used as a platform: smaller government, less taxes, fewer laws and regulations and personal freedom. He favors the right to "life, liberty and property" for all; the reason our Constitution was written.
Of course, Rep. Ron Paul is not running for president. Not now, anyway.
However, if a group called the "Grass Roots Committee to Draft Ron Paul" for President has its way, that may change.
Our purpose is simple, our goal will take much planning -- to draft sitting U.S. Representative Ron Paul of Texas, a reform and liberty-minded Constitutionalist, to run for President in 2000 as the nominated fusion candidate resulting from an alliance of the Reform Party and Libertarian Party, and any other parties (U. S. Taxpayers?) if they so desire. Our idea is that if we show Dr. Paul enough momentum and grass roots support that he will accept and run in 2000.
Drafting Dr. Paul may be the toughest part of their plan. But, we would bet that if a couple thousand people from each State volunteer to work in the campaign five or six hours a week, it would look very attractive to him. Their idea of combining two or three of the smaller political parties is also workable.
Most interesting, though, would be the campaign itself. What would the American people say of a candidate with a proven track record of protecting and defending the Constitution? We have not had a presidential candidate who actually wanted to run the federal government as intended by the Founding Fathers for a very long time. Do Americans want freedom? Do many of us even know what that means? (Find someone old to ask, it was neat.) What a concept!
As a man mentioned last week, picture someone like Larry Klayman or Mark Levin as Attorney General. A lot of Washington insiders would certainly get real worried very fast and government would sure change in a hurry!
Or. Consider someone like Professor Walter Williams as budget director or in a cabinet position. Then, consider three new Supreme Court justices who actually believe the Constitution shall limit the activities of the federal government.
Such a dream! But, a doable dream. It only depends on how much Americans cherish their freedom.
Our federal government has not just changed over the past few years, it has metastasized. The federal government is now a sick parody of that which was intended by the Founding Fathers.
For instance, consider the Marxist-tyrannical remark made recently by former Clinton advisor Paul Begala: "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kind of cool," Begala said about one of Clinton's executive orders.
No it's not. The unilateral making of law is not only unconstitutional and un-American, it's an outward sign of a trend toward dictatorship.
House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) seems to agree:
With a stroke of the pen, he may have done irreparable harm to individual rights and liberties. President Clinton seems bent on using his powers until someone says stop. President Clinton is running roughshod over our Constitution.
Exactly. The administrative branch is tasked with enforcing the law. Not with making law. "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress," states part of the very first sentence of our Constitution. The words "All legislative Powers" are rather straightforward and easy to understand. No exceptions are granted.
Now, contrast the uninformed remark of Paul Begala, above, with that of a Great American who completely understood our Constitution:
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether on one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
So said James Madison in The Federalist Papers, No. 4. Madison labels the making and enforcement of law, by any one branch of government, as tyranny.
Adding insult to injury, the power of issuing executive orders was invented by an executive order. And, one of the obvious problems with this process is that there are no clear boundaries on how far a President can go. It appears to be government by fiat, much as was the way of kings and emperors.
Clinton vowed to pick up the law making process where Congress leaves off. To that end, Clinton has passed at least 301 formal executive orders since taking over the White House -- or about 46 executive orders a year.
Actually, Congress could pass a bill blocking an executive order. But, if vetoed by the President, Congress would then need a two-thirds majority in both houses to override the veto. Don't hold your breath on that one. It will not be happening anytime soon. Still, there is an element of protest brewing in Congress.
"Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has essentially ruled over time that the executive orders have the force and effect of law," said Rep. Jack Metcalf (R-WA), a leader in the House of a new uproar against executive orders. "Well, they don't, but if nobody's there to challenge them they continue to carry the effect and force of law."
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), filed a bill seeking to designate executive orders only as advisory, without the force of law, unless Congress approves. Paul's proposed "Separation of Powers Restoration Act" would limit their effect except in cases of pardons, military orders or directives required by a specific federal law.
The bill, H. R. 2655, states that, "A Presidential order neither constitutes nor has the force of law and is limited in its application and effect to the executive branch," which is exactly what executive orders should be about.
Because, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress," is the law of the land.
The President, on the other hand, is instructed by the Constitution to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." There is no Constitutional authority for a President to make laws, only to enforce them. The President, as any executive, may send orders (memos) of instruction to those offices under his control. But, these executive orders should have absolutely no effect on the life, liberty or property of the American people.
Last Thursday morning, I received a call from someone from another county who appears to be a charter member of the bureaucratic hall of shame. She called to take me to task for publicly referring to two of her fellow bureaucrats as "idiots" and "morons" because they cannot seem to understand the law they are supposed to uphold.
Unfortunately, this woman called me early in the morning when, due to a physical ailment, I am not in the best of moods and not in top mental form. Therefore, the conversation was a bit terse.
"Some people may take offense at being called an idiot or moron," she started on me.
"Great!" I replied. "That was my intent."
"Now, wait a minute . . . you can't just go around calling people names like that," She continued. "We have to use a little common sense here."
Wrong thing to say to me. . . .
"Why not," I asked. "What are they going to do, arrest me for speech? Besides, there is no such thing as common sense. If common sense were common, everyone would have some and there wouldn't be any liberals."
Evidently she was trying to think.
By that time, I was trying to get coffee and did not want to be bothered any more, so I lit into her a little to make her go away.
"If you liberals would start teaching American government properly in school again, you would know about things like the Tenth Amendment, State's Rights and the separation of powers. It is not my fault if you do not understand and refuse to learn."
Something else was said, but I could not hear it clearly because I was hanging up the telephone at the time. It was time for me to sit down and read e-mail and newspapers until I got to feeling a little better.
Soon I was laughing about the incident because it reminded me of something said in a presidential campaign I worked in 19 years ago:
"I would never accuse our political opponents of ignorance. It's just that there are so many people in Washington who know so many things that aren't true." That was Ronald Reagan at his best, of course. And it still applies to many people in all levels of government.
When it comes to following the law, government officials demand the full compliance of citizens, but public officials usually do as they please. Then, when it looks like they may get exposed publicly, they compound the issue with a cover-up.
The reason there are so many scandals in government is simply because so many public officials sometimes act like idiots and then do moronic things to cover it up.
If every public official were required, under pain of imprisonment, to obey every law completely, we would soon have a lot less laws.
Note: Doug tells it like it really is -- Frank and honest.
Forest Glen Durland
You are encouraged to read author Doug Fiedor's newsletters.
His newsletters are passed along to many.
Newsletters are on this web site at
(This is Forest in northern California)
Back to the Heads Up Contents Page
Go to the Heads Up Index
Back to the Money Is Unreal Contents Page
Back to the uhuh home page
** uhuh **
The President said he is reducing taxes.
Congress says they are balancing the budget.
uhuh. Sez who?
and Force Congress to
Kick the Debt & Taxes Habit with
$$ Money System Honesty for Us People. $$
We demand the whole truth with an honest viewpoint.
Don't send money. Call Jo(e) Congress and send letters.
Forest Glen Durland, CEO. 14675 1/2 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, CA 95070-6081
Voice: (408) 867-4410; Fax: (408)868-9446; Click here for email.
Web Home Page: www.uhuh.com