Heads Up

A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia

June 7, 1998
Issue #88

by: Doug Fiedor
E-mail to: fiedor19@eos.net

Previous Editions at:


As the suspect-in-chief flies off to continue relations with his second most famous campaign contributor, Clinton may be about to learn a new political word: Blackmail.

Communist China's President Jiang Zemin sees Santa Claus coming in the form of Bill Clinton. But, in this case it's Jiang who's making a list and checking it twice. And a very expensive list it will be. For instance, Jiang has already said he will seek a pledge from Clinton that the U.S. will not interfere with Red China's dealings with Taiwan.

Red China wants Taiwan back in the communist fold. Soon. And now they have a military strong enough to force that -- as long as we stay out of it. And, evidently, the Clinton Administration will.

Last week, the South China Morning Post reported Jiang as saying: "The US side has very clearly pledged not to support . . . the independence of Taiwan or its re-admittance into international organizations." And sure enough, word is that White House aides have already started indicating informally that Washington does not support Taiwanese independence or its re-entry into the UN.

So, what's the quid pro quo here? What will Clinton get in return for giving up Taiwan to communist dictators? China will not give Clinton up, that's what.

We already know that one laundering route for illegal Chinese campaign funds the Democratic National Committee accepted ran through Ted Sioeng of Indonesia. Sioeng, an operative of the world's largest producer of cigarettes -- Pagoda Red Mountain, which is a Chinese government-owned tobacco company -- ponied up at least $400,000 in illegal funds. The Senate hearing report says that Ted Sioeng "worked, and perhaps still works, on behalf of the Chinese government," and that $200,000 of the $400,000 given to the Democrats by Sioeng and his family was directly "funded by transfer from overseas accounts."

Ted Sioeng just happens to be a close friend of Mochtar and James Riady, who own the infamous Lippo Group. Both Riadys are friends of Clinton from the Arkansas days. They are also, interestingly enough, partners with the communist Chinese military in at least two major ventures.

So, the Riadys felt confident to help by acting as go between for at least that $400,000 contribution. And, as of now, the Riadys and Sioeng are all suspected of serving as intelligence agents for Beijing.

Cozy, isn't it? So, if Clinton does not give up Taiwan, it would be very easy for the communist Chinese government to give up Clinton.

There's more, though. A lot more.

Already indicted for money laundering Chinese funds to the Democratic National Committee campaign war- chest are Johnny Chung, Maria Hsia and Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie.

Conveniently, while James Riady lived in California, he had close ties with Maria Hsia -- who is best remembered for laundering money in conjunction with Al Gore at the California Hsi Lai Temple fund-raiser. Hsia has also worked for a People's Republic of China diplomatic post in the U.S.

Riady saw contributions to U.S. political campaigns as a way of advancing his family's Asian business concerns. Huang served as Riady's lieutenant for political matters and Hsia provided Riady and Huang with access to Democratic politicians -- a number of Democratic politicians over the years. The Buddhist temple proved to be a ready cash cow for campaign funds that they milked often. That was all quite illegal, of course. But, there was Al Gore anyway.

Johnny Chung is now in the news for admitting that he received $300,000 from Red Chinese Army Colonel Liu Chao-ying, who also happens to be an executive with a Chinese government owned aerospace company. Her father was China's chief general, and a member of the politburo. He wanted American technology. Chung introduced Liu to Clinton at a California fund-raiser.

Charlie Trie, of course, is another Arkansas friend of Bill. Trie, along with his good buddies John Huang and Johnny Chung, were responsible for contributing at least $2.2 million in illegal campaign contributions, much of it coming from foreign businessmen with strong ties to the government of Communist China.

Friend of Bill, John Huang, was the head of U.S. operations for the Riady's Lippo Group before Clinton installed him as a mid-level Commerce Department official. Huang was said to enjoy extraordinary access to Clinton. And as part of the Commerce Department, he attended dozens of briefings and was privy to all types of classified information -- all along maintaining close ties to the Lippo Group. Along with Maria Hsia, Huang set up the fund-raiser at the Hsi Lai Temple near Los Angeles, where they laundered $140,000 in illegal campaign funds with Al Gore.

The Riadys have been friends and supporters of Clinton since his days as Arkansas governor. At the same time, as the Thompson Senate Governmental Affairs Committee report on campaign finance abuses states, the Riadys: "have had a long-term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency."

Yeah. And as always happens when a number of government officials are involved in wrongdoing, the specific intelligence information on which the report's conclusions are based are said to be withheld from the document 'to protect sources and methods' used to gather it. In other words, the dirt was swept under that huge carpet of "national security" so the voters will not learn exactly how filthy some in government actually are. The FBI and CIA have agreed on a watered down report, but the Justice Department does not want even that released to the American public.

However, we did learn that the Riadys relationship with Chinese intelligence is primarily "based on business interests." Which means that the Riadys trade communist Chinese assistance for business opportunities "in exchange for large sums of money and other help," like spying and compromising politicians.

Just as an aside here: If this very same scenario had happened back in the 1960's with agents of the Soviet Union involved, rather than communist Chinese agents as are today, dozens of Americans and Russians would still be buried deep in some federal prison. Yet today, the Department of Justice performs a slip-shod investigation only including the periphery players, no one is in prison, and no elected officials are under investigation. And, to date, Janet Reno refuses to appoint an independent counsel for this matter.

Knowing all this, and knowing that Communist China's President Jiang Zemin knows all this as well as the activities of a couple dozen other Chinese nationals involved in campaign money laundering, Clinton goes to China.

Therefore, expect the whole of the Chinese wish list to be filled.

-- For more information, visit the Senate campaign finance report at: http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/sireport.htm


Over the past two years we have pointed out numerous inconsistencies between the "original intent" of the authors of our Constitution and the actions of today's central government. Even when we consider that the "shall nots" in the Constitution have been interpreted down to "maybe nots," there are still gross inconstancies between the written text and the actions of government. This makes understanding the law of the land very difficult for the average American citizen, and needs to be corrected.

Over the years we, along with thousands of others, have asked numerous elected officials why they do not obey the Constitution, and have never received an adequate reply. The fact is, were government to follow the Constitution to the letter, 90 or more regulatory agencies would instantly disappear, hundreds of federal programs would end, and the central government would lose much of it's power over the American people and State and local governments.

Therefore, those in Washington have no intention of ever again obeying the Constitution. And, unless we the people are ready for civil war, we may as well quit asking.

That being said, perhaps we should take another approach.

Below are proposals for a few simple amendments to the Constitution of the United States. These amendments would go far in adjusting our Constitution to better reflect the way today's central government is actually operated.

Towards that end, we suggest that all readers copy this text and send it to their three Members of Congress:

** Congress shall take careful notice of the limits on legislative authority enumerated in the Constitution, except that Congress may also legislate on those matters it determines could or would help a segment of the American people.

** The right of the people to move about in society and function as they please unimpeded by police shall not be violated, except at airports and other public areas where police feel the necessity to stop and search citizens.

** Certain controls being immediately necessary to the internal control of the people of the United States, the President may unilaterally legislate instantly by executive order.

** The timely collection of tax moneys being necessary for the efficient operation of the central government, the safeguards guaranteed the people by the Constitution shall not apply to tax collectors.

** State and local governments being incompetent in the stewardship of their regional areas, all land management shall be controlled by the central government.

** A well organized state requiring that crimes against government be enforced to the fullest extent of the law, government shall always brandish arms superior to those allowed the people.

** The expediency of the police being necessary to a perfectly controlled society, a well armed paramilitary standing federal police force shall be maintained.

** Technical issues requiring control being above the competency of Members of Congress, the executive regulatory agencies shall unilaterally legislate in the form of rules and regulations.

** Government agents shall respect the Constitutional rights of all citizens equally, except in those matters where legislation or regulation or executive orders have suspended or altered specific Constitutional rights.

** Challenging candidates being difficult to beat in a fair election, the incumbent shall be authorized to accept campaign contributions from those with business before government.

** The restraints of the Constitution impeding the investigation of crimes in some circumstances, policing agencies shall unilaterally impose fines in the form of asset forfeiture on suspects not able to be charged with a crime.

** All tax moneys collected shall be used to benefit the citizens of these United States, except for that part of the budget the legislative and/or executive branch determines shall be given to foreign governments and/or multinational businesses and organizations.

** The central government shall respect all Constitutional rights in respect to all citizens, except that the President may suspend all or part of the Constitution at any time by emergency executive order.

** The American people being unable to shop intelligently, the central government shall regulate all products and the means of commerce.

** Local school boards having demonstrated an inability to conform to proper education standards, the federal government shall regulate all schools.

** A well regulated citizenry being necessary to the security of the state, the authority of government shall not be questioned.


In our form of government, it is said that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the United States Supreme Court is the interpreter of that law. Originally, all law enforcement agencies and other departments of government were required to follow the opinions of the Supreme Court as if they were the written text of the Constitution.

That system worked rather well until Franklin D. Roosevelt became president. FDR's fights with the Court are legendary, and it is because he ultimately won over the Court that we now have strict central government control of everything.

Nevertheless, legally speaking, all departments of government are to honor all Supreme Court opinions. One would think that the legal-eagles at the Justice Department would know this, and they do. However, when Justice does not wish to honor the opinions of the Supreme Court, they just ignore them.

A case in point is the Brady Act. Last year in "Printz et al v. U.S." (95-1478, 1997) the Court said that the central government may not require that county sheriffs and other public officials perform background checks to screen purchasers of handguns.

"We held in 'New York' [91-543, 1992] that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the State's officers or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty."

That lasted about two weeks. Then the central government, through the Justice Department and the BATF, requested that the Brady checks be completed anyway. And, in most areas of the country, they still are.

Now comes the next step in oppressive gun control. The Attorney General announced it in the Federal Register of June 4, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 107) http://www.jya.com/doj060498.txt

"The 'Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act' (Brady Act), requires the Attorney General to establish by November 30, 1998, 'a national instant criminal background check system that any [firearms] licensee may contact, by telephone or by other electronic means in addition to the telephone, for information, to be supplied immediately, on whether receipt of a firearm by a prospective transferee would violate section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or State law.'

"The United States Department of Justice is publishing a proposed rule for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to establish policies and procedures for ensuring the privacy and security of this system and to implement a NICS appeals policy for persons who have been denied the purchase of a firearm because of information in the NICS they believe to be erroneous or incorrect. Specifically, this rule will detail policies for validating NICS data, storing, accessing, and querying records in the system, retaining and destroying NICS information, and correcting erroneous data in the system.

"Written comments must be received on or before September 2, 1998.

"All comments concerning this proposed rule should be mailed to: Mr. Emmet A. Rathbun, NICS Project Manager, Federal Bureau of Investigation, CJIS Division, Module C-3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306-0147." Telephone number: (304) 625-2000."

The problem is, the central government has no Constitutional authority to do this. "U.S. v. Lopez" (93-1260, 1995) was right on target here: "To uphold the Government's contention that [the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990] is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States."

When an object is no longer in interstate commerce, it may not be regulated by the central government. And anyone of reasonable intelligence would quickly realize that your local gun shop is not an interstate commerce concern any more than is the neighborhood restaurant frying up chicken that was purchased from a vender who originally bought them in another state.

However, based on past history, we must believe that the Justice Department is serious about these new oppressive rules. When Randy Weaver altered the length of a couple gun barrels about a half-inch shorter then government allows, the Justice Department came to kill him -- and did kill members of his family. And the massacre at Waco was brought about simply because government agents "suspected" the church residents neglected to pay the required $200 tax on weapons they were "thought" to possess.

These gun control laws are but an outward sign of the malignancy permeating the central government. When we add willful disobedience of the Constitution and indifference to Court opinions to the mounting evidence of numerous large government concentration camps and the fact that rogue Army and Marine units are practicing attacking American citizens, it appears that we have a serious problem looming.

This, in turn, is evidenced by the attitudes expressed in recent statements of the President and Attorney General. Today, they freely, publicly, and without question, label Americans who support our Constitution as anti-government extremists.


You can't help but feel sorry for those kids. I mean, how would you like to be a seven or eight year old kid and moved to a different country, with different customs and a new language? Bummer. Then, how about they tell you that you have to go to school anyway, that it's the law. Worse yet, you know that you're going to stay in the new country, but the teachers teach you in the old- country's language anyway.

That's got to be scary. Damn stupid, too. As a child growing up in the old neighborhood, most neighbors spoke a language other than English. It was Polish next door and with most of my friends. At the little market on the corner, it was Italian. One friend stumbling with English was from Germany, another was from the French area of Canada. We had a number of Russians around and even a family from Turkey.

But, in school, we all -- no matter what nationality our parents were -- struggled to diagram those very same complex sentences in English. No student ever got a break on that. I can still remember the teacher's words when once there was a minor protest: "You are here. You will learn proper English." And so we did.

So, by 12 years old, we all had a working command of the English language. Not perfect, of course -- we were still kids, after all. But every kid in the neighborhood knew all the words to at least a dozen patriotic songs and the Fats Domino, Bill Haley and Elvis songs. And there were no accents to be heard among the young teen set. We took pride in that.

Better yet, when the next wave of immigrants came they were encouraged to learn English even faster.

It was the same with prayer in school. We did it. Every day. Just after the Pledge of Allegiance.

We all had to say the words to the Pledge of Allegiance, and we took turns leading the class for that. But no one even had to say the words to a prayer if they didn't wish. Everyone was expected, however, to stand and bow their head.

That prayer was never a problem for any of us because there was an accepted rendition that (we thought) was used by all. That is, till a substitute teacher said it differently one day. We laughed.

But, that turned out to be a good thing, too. Kids asked questions of parents, priests, ministers and rabbis. And, from that we learned new things about other people.

I guess the point of all this is to relate that once upon a time there was a better way. Government schools were actually local school board and PTA run schools that supported the neighborhood. When someone wanted to bow their head and say Grace at lunch, the polite response from those of us who did not say Grace very often was to stop eating and respect their moment. This everyone did -- as long as the person saying Grace didn't take too long about it.

And even when the Jewish kids did something differently, no one ever said anything because every Polish and Russian kid in the neighborhood knew all about the Warsaw Ghetto.

It took government to change this relationship. Generally, when I was a kid, if you spoke a language other than English in front of people who could not understand what you were saying, someone might smack you up-side the head for being impolite. However, if you bothered someone's religion, getting smacked was probably a sure thing. That was called meanness, and not tolerated.

I took government meddling to change that.

When I was a young adult traveling, they called people visiting a foreign country the ugly Americans when they could not speak the language. Today, people from those very same countries come here and refuse to learn English. So I ask: What shall we call them?

If we are to keep an English speaking country, all government business must be conducted in English only. That includes the issuing of all licenses, voting, and especially teaching in government schools -- extracurricular tutoring excepted.

And, if we are to keep a country with freedom of religion, government must not even comment on the issue. Else, we have some sort of hybrid.

Hundreds of students of many nationalities still remember Mrs. Sharon's English class, Mr. Gazley's American government class and our Principal, Mrs. O'Hara, leading a prayer and enforcing discipline with a stern kindness not often found lately. There was no need for them to be our nationality or religion. That was not important to anyone. It was simply because they were outstanding teachers that everyone prospered.

Times have changed, but not for the best.

-- End --