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 --