Heads Up

A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia


November 15, 1998 #111


by: Doug Fiedor


E-mail to: fiedor19@eos.net

Copyright © 1998 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:






The Democrats should be proud of themselves. They gave us the Federal Reserve system, the New Deal, the Great Society and dozens of other unconstitutional socialist programs. The Democrats turned the land of the free and home of the brave into the land of the controlled and the home of the publicly dependent gimmie crowd.

They're not hardly done yet, either. Democrats, with a little help from the miscreants they placed in the courts, have nearly decimated the finest public education system in the world. Talk about dumbing down, many of today's high school teachers cannot even pass the eighth grade graduation test given students in the 1950s. We're talking about the Teachers now, not the kids! Many of the high school kids cannot even read or count money properly.

Education corrupted, the Democrats moved on to ruin the worlds best medical delivery system. That task is still work in progress, but they have a very good start on it. The dictator(ess)-in-chief wants that accomplished before she leaves office.

Now they've started on our American moral code -- what's left of it, anyway. The Democrats have done as much as possible to separate church and state, even though they didn't need separating because they were never joined. So, now that kids are no longer able to talk about religious issues in public, the disruptive Democrats want to make it as easy as possible for them to have sex. Liberals even demand the ability to provide birth control to minor children, without their parents knowledge or consent. That done, they want the ability to provide secret abortions to children, too. They even put a perpetual penalty tax on marriage.

Yes, the Democrats should be very proud of themselves. They took over a country that was founded on the defense of the freedom and liberty of the individual and reworked it into a socialist state where rights are now but permissions allowed by the central government's controlling bureaucrats. Simply put, today, freedom means do as you are told. Nothing else.

The message from the White House is that most deviant behavior is now acceptable. Wife swapping is suddenly permissible, as is the groping of any available woman by senior executives. And, of course, sex in the workplace, including government offices, is nobody's business anymore.

The White House also teaches us that federal prosecutors are now fair game to defame, debase and publicly destroy. We also learned that the grand jury is nothing but an inconvenience, and not to be taken seriously. Court ordered depositions are even less important. And, election laws, secrecy laws and the privacy doctrine are no more than holdovers from Republican administrations, laws that may be violated by Democrats at will.

Acting as the public relations arm of the Democratic National Committee, the liberal national media reaffirms the validity of all of the above nearly every night. Most are a violation of our Constitution, some violate our rule of law, others are a violation of federal laws, and all are a breach of common decency. But today, thanks to the Democratic-Socialists and their media sycophants, this is our established way of life.

Now the Democratic-Socialists are receiving help from the Republicans in Congress. Republicans in the House are chickening out, sending a message that they would prefer to back off from the impeachment action. Soon, we can add perjury, obstruction of justice, intimidation of witnesses and conspiracy to cover up a crime to our list of acceptables above.

As most everyone knows by now, Bob Livingston will probably become the next Speaker of the House. One problem with Livingston is that he has indicated a go-along-to-get-along attitude. Also, as Speaker, he has indicated that he may not permit the full House to vote on articles of impeachment. Therefore, the good people at Free Republic are again spearheading a call and write-in campaign. Rep. Bob Livingston may be contacted at:

(202) 225-0739 for fax,
(202) 225-3015 for voice, or
(800) 335-4949 through the Capitol switchboard.

Incidentally, as we reported in the May 17 (#85) issue, five of the members of the House Judiciary Committee are known socialists who should not even be allowed a seat in Congress. For anyone interested, they are listed on the Democratic Socialists of America web page http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html. The DSA, by the way, is the American arm of Socialist International.

Check these practicing socialists out at: http://www.dsausa.org/pc/pc.members.html There, among the other 53 socialist House Members, you will find the House Judiciary Committee's ranking minority member, Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), along with committee members Barney Frank (D-MA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Robert C. Scott (D-VA), and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).

When these people speak, it should be remembered that their intent is to work against the stated intent of the Founding Fathers. Their function is to install a socialist government in the United States. And, if we -- all of us --do not soon take a decisive stand, they will win. Corruption is rampant. It's as simple as that.



Today, people like George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin would not have a chance in politics. They would be looked upon as strict Constitutional activists, a small political faction disruptive to the wishes of the current administration. No matter that they would be Constitutionally correct in their demands. Today, politics is little more than a popularity contest. And, that popularity contest is primarily driven by the far-left faction in the national media.

"Clinton haters of the far right," some of us are called. Yet, when Newt became Speaker of the House and the media immediately labeled him as being everything bad this side of the anti-Christ, did anyone label them as Newt haters? No, of course not. We Republicans, Constitutionalists and conservatives are much too complacent for that. We grumbled a little, then let it pass without comment.

And when the far-left media started on Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, did any of us speak up? Nope. Nary a peep from us normal folks in the political spectrum. We allow the constant barrage of derogatory remarks by the far-left socialists to go essentially unchallenged. Now Starr, like Newt, has been so slandered in the popular press as to become nearly ineffective. The American public have been effectively indoctrinated with the White House propaganda.

Are these people anything less than Newt and Starr haters? Why, then, do we not label them as such?

America saw honor at work last week; the "duty, honor and country" type of honor so foreign to the White House crew. Newt told the GOPAC meeting: "I had to ask myself: What was right for my country, my party -- and then for myself?" And, because of that answer, he stepped down from his position as Speaker of the House and even gave up his seat in Congress. For the good of the country, for the good of the House of Representatives, for the good of the Republican Party, Newt felt it was time to leave office.

Contrast that with Bill Clinton lying, cheating, obstructing justice, selling out American military secrets to communist China for campaign funds, and continuously lying to the American people in order to stay in office at any cost. And him, supposedly, the chief law enforcement officer of the country.

Now we watch the craven Congress. One side socialists, defending the sleaze in the White House at any cost; and the other side afraid to take a stand lest the national media brand them as right wing fanatics.

That paragon of Constitutional discontinuity, Republican Senator Arlen Specter, proposed last week that Congress drop impeachment proceedings against Clinton so as not to queer Clinton's criminal prosecution when he leaves office. Apparently, to Specter anyway, it's OK to have a known felon as this country's chief law enforcement officer for two more years.

"The matter would then be out of the hands of Congress, to be decided by a court of law, away from public opinion, elections or partisanship," Specter said. Specter also said that he believed a sitting president could not be criminally prosecuted; that any prosecution brought at the end of Clinton's term would be prejudiced if the Senate had already found him not guilty, or the House voted against impeachment.

We've got a better idea. The Supreme Court has already decided that a sitting President may be taken to task in civil court for wrongdoing. So, we recommend giving Clinton a break. Perjury, a felony, is punishable by a sentence of up to five years in prison. So, let's just call Clinton's transgressions "false statements under oath," a lesser and easier to prove offense. Then, give Clinton six months for each. That is, six months in jail, not prison, for each of the 12 most blatant perjuries (false statements) he committed. The jail terms should run in series, not concurrent.

That way, the evidence is immediately available in Clinton's own words, the court need not impose felonies on a sitting president, and he will be out of our hair for at least six years. That should even make Arlen Specter happy. Specter said that he wanted "The matter … out of the hands of Congress, to be decided by a court of law, away from public opinion, elections or partisanship." Our plan fits the bill perfectly.

Congress could then stop all investigations -- except for the Cox Committee's China connection, because that may include treason. All that is necessary is for one prosecutor to charge him with 12 simple false statements charges and everything is over. Quick and easy.

But, to do nothing is to show all Americans -- and indeed, all of the world -- that our Rule of Law no longer exists. It would indicate that our federal law is, as many are starting to suspect, little more than the central government's method of intimidating the American people into compliance with socialist schemes. Taking no decisive action against Clinton proves that our federal law does not apply equally to all American citizens.



Some Republicans are suddenly calling themselves moderate, centrist or middle of the road. The problem with that is the middle of the road, of course, is where the yellow lines usually can be found.

Nevertheless, Republicans are talking about a moderate revolution in Congress; and Democrats are egging them on. So, let's discuss moderate. But first, perhaps we had better define our terms here. Moderate is defined as "being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme."

Sounds good, actually. That sort of fits in with what most of the American people really want, and might work nicely. Our federal government has become way too excessive and extreme, what with all those overbearing laws, rules and regulations. Moderation in government could be our ticket to renewing liberty and recouping some of those Constitutionally protected unalienable rights Washington has stolen over the years. Perhaps the new "moderates" will repeal some of that obnoxious legislation of the past six decades and rein in the overbearing regulatory excesses.

But if the Republicans are going to shut down their conservative right wing, they must first require significant bipartisan compromise. That is, the Democrats must shut down their socialist left wing, too.

Moderate bipartisan legislation could work. There's some very strong legislative precedence for that. Some of this country's greatest legislation came about through moderate bipartisan legislative agreements. For instance, on September 25, 1789, James Madison presented to Congress this country's most significant bipartisan legislation, which was passed by moderates and hawks alike in the very first session of Congress. (Note: Back then, the Founding Fathers would have tarred and feathered socialists and banished them from polite society. There were no liberals.)

Today, we call that legislation The Bill of Rights. And herein we demand that today's Members of Congress honor, unequivocally, each and every amendment comprising our Bill of Rights.

Interestingly enough, this is also the 200th anniversary of some other very famous bipartisan legislation written by two of our country's most celebrated moderates: Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The Kentucky Resolution was presented to the Kentucky General Assembly November 16, 1798. The Virginia Resolution was presented to Virginia's Legislature on December 24, 1798. These resolutions argued that federal powers were limited to those delegated to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States, and that the states should determine the validity of laws passed by the government.

A somewhat similar concept is actually written right into the Constitution: "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." Every Member of Congress took an oath before God and Country promising to support the Tenth Amendment as well as every word in our Constitution. By extension, they also promised to support the intent of the authors of our Constitution as outlined in publications such as the Federalist Papers.

But wait. Could it be that these newly classified "moderate" Republicans have an entirely different definition of a moderate? Maybe their definition of moderate corresponds better to the word "condescending." That is, possibly they plan a go-along-to-get-along posture with the Democrats -- the Socialist-Democrats. If that's the case, they lied while taking their oath of office, they are anti-Constitutionalists and the liberty of the people will suffer even further.

We the People do still have some political power left, though. And the extent and intent of our political power should be related to each and every member of both houses of Congress, no matter which side of the isle they sit.

That is, while they are busy in Washington "moderately" installing big-government socialism, We the People should be scouting around for their replacements. While these elected elite are occupied hobnobbing with lobbyists and other big government loving proponents, we should be busy introducing our chosen replacements for them to our friends and neighbors. And, while they will have no time available to campaign for what would normally be an uneventful primary election, our replacement candidates should be ready to win.

For now, the choice is theirs. If these so called "moderate" Republicans wish to legislate with the ideals of Madison and Jefferson, our national heroes, they too will be embraced as heroes by most Americans. However, if they join with the Socialist-Democrats, consent to more big government programs and steal even more of our individual rights, they should be treated like the disgrace they are.



Often, when I write about federal budget problems and such, I receive a note from members of a small group complaining that I am deceiving readers. There is no American money, they contend. Federal Reserve Notes are not legal currency, according to our Constitution.

So, OK, we'll stipulate the FRN's are not what was intended by our Constitution, but they are our accounting system at the moment -- our accepted method of keeping score in the scheme of things. Still, this is a very worthy subject to explore.

Have you ever wondered where all of our money went? And no, we are not talking Federal Reserve Notes here. Federal Reserve Notes are scrip. Our Constitution intentionally defines money as something other than scrip.

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 scrip 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 study and public discussion.

Meanwhile, if anyone believing that I should not write about budget problems simply because our current dollars are not truly legal tender has a stack of scrip called Federal Reserve Notes they do not want, send them on over here. We have the ability to get rid of them in a hurry.