Heads Up

A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia


August 16, 1998 #98


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 primary reason the Washington press corps supported Clinton in 1992 was that they thought Bush was boring. The administration was basically an older lot. There were few good parties. No fun. After eight years of Reagan and four of Bush, the media people wanted some social excitement around town.

One problem, back in 1992, was that Ron Brown was Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Brown had been Jessie Jackson's campaign chairman during Jackson's failed presidential campaign four years previously, and giving Brown the chairmanship of the DNC was part of a package deal made with Jackson to get him to shut up so a viable candidate might have a chance.

Another problem was that no one bothered to properly vet Ron Brown before giving him the DNC job. Then came Clinton, who no one bothered to vet properly, either. The two were what is called in the business world, "a good fit." Unfortunately, Clinton was running for President of the United States at the time. The Washington press corps wanted someone who would be "exciting and fun." Consequently, everything derogatory was overlooked.

Somewhere back then (the exact time frame is still secret), the National Security Agency, through their Echelon communications listening network, began intercepting some very interesting messages between communist China and the Chinese Embassy in Washington. NSA passed the information on to the FBI, and the FBI warned a few involved Members of Congress. Communist China was laundering illegal money into Congressional campaign funds and some Members of Congress had taken the money.

No one would be arrested, because the government had come by this information illegally. Therefore, the FBI did no more than pay a courtesy call on the targeted Members of Congress and "warn" them. Five years later, the Senate Committee Chairman in charge of investigating illegal campaign finance money laundering was privately briefed on this very same information. For reasons of "national security," Senator Fred Thompson decided to keep the information under wraps. Permanently.

Now we learn that, not only did Bill Clinton know of the illegal China campaign finance money laundering connection, he personally knows many of the players. Many of them have been to the White House numerous times. A few of the lower echelon players have already been indicted. Numerous others have fled the country.

The Chinese connection was playing with some big bucks, too. Published accounts show that there were easily four to five million dollars illegally made available to affect political campaigns. And, that's just what we know about right now -- the money that was laundered improperly. There is no telling how much more illegal money was laundered into campaign funds more expertly, and undetected.

But the Chinese know. It would be a good bet that they have a very good accounting of how much was offered, and exactly who got it. That's the problem.

Without comment, let's look at a few well published events since the 1992 Presidential election.

Ron Brown became Secretary of Commerce. Suddenly Asia, and especially China, was on the top of his commerce list. Two of Clinton's foreign born Asian buddies were placed in position of influence, one with top secret clearance, in the Department of Commerce. Ron Brown was "selling" seats on his Asian excursions for campaign donations. The largest "American" Democratic contributor of campaign funds just so happened to want to sell high tech equipment to communist China, and was almost indicted for doing so improperly -- until Clinton "fixed" it.

We probably shouldn't forget White House approval for the fancy machine tooling necessary to make nukes to point at us, sophisticated encryption equipment and software, super computers, high tech communications equipment for their military and police, satellite and cell phone technology, and lots and lots of military technology. Communist China (and/or, their agents) was also allowed to buy a few banks here and float over $8 billion is potentially worthless bonds in our market.

The fact is, there is not much communist China did not get from us under the Clinton administration. They spread around a few million dollars in illegal campaign funds and bought the right to buy enough top secret military technology to make their military a direct threat to the United States. Thanks to the Clinton administration, communist China can now nuke any American city any day they wish.

Lately, Chinese Ambassador Li Change even had the audacity to warn the United States against going forward with the Strategic Defense Initiative, or star wars program. Clinton, of course, dutifully came out against star wars. So did some of communist China's friends in Congress.

Yet, all we heard from the media this past week or two is how much Clinton should or should not lie about his sexcapades in his up-coming grand jury testimony and address to the public. Congress is no better. Congress wants the China connection kept quiet because many of them are involved in it too.

"It's the economy, stupid!" Yeah. The campaign finance economy. And, by their neglect, the national press corps is covering it up.


Due to the outright negligence and dereliction of duty of the Treasury and Justice Departments, Congress received a lot of complaints from constituents and State officials. The problem was the alarming number of illegal aliens taking up residence in many States.

However, instead of conducting hearings and calling the negligent agency directors in for some dully deserved chastising, Congress compounded the problem by piling on more stupid laws.

In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. That law requires all states to make their driver's licenses comply with the strict guidelines set down in the act. That is, as of Oct. 1, 2000, States must provide specialized identification cards, such as a driver's license, to all citizens. The new ID cards are to include digitized biometric information such as fingerprints, retina scans and/or DNA prints. Which means, all Americans must have their papers in order three months before the next president takes office.

Also, there is to be a federal database of American workers. Which means, some minor federal bureaucrat will have the ability to keep an American citizen from getting a job.

All this came about simply because the federal government does not do its job of protecting our borders. Because public servants are negligent, all Americans are expected to suffer the loss of liberty.

Also in 1996, two Congressional socialists joined to further suspend liberty in an atrocious piece of legislation called the Kennedy-Kassebaum health-care bill. The proposed intent of that bill was to allow workers to carry their health insurance with them when they leave a job. However, the law also requires that a "unique health-identifier" number be assigned to every American citizen. It matters not whether a citizen has public or private health-care insurance, either. Everyone is to get the identification number.

Everyone is also to have their complete medical history -- womb to tomb -- stored in a federal government database. No word yet if federal bureaucrats will also be able to deny medical treatment, but one can bet that will be the case within a few years. There is already concern that law-enforcement officials will be able to gain access to the database. This type of database would be a gold mine of information for the IRS and FBI. There will be no medical privacy in the United States. Nearly everything any nosy bureaucrat wants to know about any American citizen will be just a couple mouse clicks away.

Also passed in 1996 were the Welfare Act and the Welfare Reform Act. These laws require a federal database for Social Security numbers, commercial driver's licenses, professional and occupational licenses, marriage licenses, welfare benefits, divorce proceedings, and child-support orders. There is also something about a National Directory of New Hires registry, which is intended to allow bureaucrats in the new Federal Parent Locator Service to easily hunt down deadbeat parents.

These databases tie in with all of the government's other databases, of course. Therefore, all welfare agencies, the Social Security Administration, the IRS, the Treasury Department, Health and Human Services, and the Justice Department will have instant access to all data on all American citizens.

Last year, Congress noticed that it forgot an agency. So, Congress passed the Computer Assisted Passenger Screening System (CAPS). CAPS, so they say, allows the FAA to develop a profile of every aircraft passenger, complete with lifetime travel patterns. FAA says that will protect us against terrorists. It must be working. We don't have any aircraft terrorists.

All of the above programs have two rather interesting aspects in common: None are authorized powers allowed the federal government by the Constitution. Worse yet, all are a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.


Clearly, any Member of Congress voting for any of these laws violated their oath of office. So too did the President for signing the bills into law. Likewise with any bureaucrat implementing the acts.

We need a new law all right. But, one that states that any public servant violating the Constitution, and hence their oath of office, shall immediately be removed from office without pay and, if convicted, serve at least five years in prison.


Usually, when we hand over $155 to an Asian company, we receive something like a TV, VCR or microwave oven in return. But, these are unusual times. This time, they want approximately $155 from each American taxpayer simply so the Asian industrialists will not need to decrease their high living standards.

The reason: They made a lot of bad investments. Very, very bad investments. Japanese banks alone are holding over a trillion bucks in bad debt. That's just in Japan.

So, of course, they want to borrow more money. It's where they go to borrow all that money that affects Americans. They go to the International Monitory Fund to borrow. The IMF can lend them money cheap because IMF gets the money from "member nations" free.

Who is this IMF we hear so much about in the news? An Executive Board of 24 representatives oversees the daily affairs of the IMF. The five largest contributors to the IMF are the United States, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Each appoints one representative to the Fund's Executive Board. The remaining 19 directors are elected by different coalitions of countries.

The Fund is directed by Michel Camdessus, a French Socialist. Camdessus' stated intention is to increase the Fund's resources by about $160 billion. That means, beyond a doubt, that he will soon come to Washington asking for a lot more of our money.

As established in its Articles of Agreement, the only authority over the IMF is its governing body. More specifically, all assets, archives, and employees are immune from searches and requirements demanded by member countries. That is, they have complete diplomatic immunity. They are beyond the authority of any national government. Member countries are forbidden from placing restrictions, regulations, controls, and moratoria of any nature on the property and assets of the IMF or its employees.

The United States is the largest contributor to the IMF. We contribute about 18.25 percent of the IMF's total quota subscriptions, which comes out to more than $36 billion -- or $517 per American family. This is money that will never, ever be returned to the United States Treasury.

Recently, Clinton asked Congress to appropriate yet another $18 billion for the Fund. That is to include a $14.5 billion increase in our quota subscription and an additional $3.4 billion to fund a new credit line called the "New Arrangements to Borrow." President Clinton, of course, wants Congress to appropriate the money immediately, in one lump sum, and with no conditions attached.

The Senate already approved this request last March. The House, however, is holding out. Last June, the House Republican leadership advised President Clinton in a letter that the House required more information in order to consider expanded funding for the IMF. Thirty-nine Representatives signed a letter to the Speaker, supporting the statement and requesting a full floor debate on the IMF.

There is good reason for the House to balk at turning over taxpayer money to this international piggyback. Their results have been dismal. Of the 89 less-developed countries that received IMF loans between 1965 and 1995, more than half are no better off today than they were before receiving the IMF loans. In fact, the Heritage Foundation reports that 32 are poorer than they were before receiving IMF loans. And, of these 32 countries, 14 have economies that are down at least 15 percent from when they received their first IMF loans.

U.S. contributions to the IMF are regarded as an exchange of assets. That is, they are an off-budget item and are not considered when calculating annual budget deficits or surpluses. Never mind that these expenditures put the U.S. deeper into debt, funding for the IMF is exempt from budget caps.

Another matter seldom reported by the national media is that little of our foreign aid benefits American citizens, or even national security, in any way. According to a June 12, 1998 Heritage Foundation report, "U.S. Foreign Aid," by Bryan T. Johnson: "74 percent of U.S. foreign aid recipients voted against the United States in the UN a majority of the time. This was up from 68 percent in 1996 and 64 percent in 1995. Thus, nearly three out of every four foreign aid recipients vote against the United States in the UN most of the time."

Clearly, this foreign aid fiasco needs some immediate attention.

For more information, visit the Heritage Foundation's publication library at: http://www.heritage.org/library/



It appears that Congress gave the President the ability to confer upon foreigners (and presumably, some American citizens) "privileges, exemptions, and immunities" never available to the normal American citizen. In other words, the President may, and regularly does, legally create an elite group among us that is immune from many of our laws and privileged to break them at will. And they do.

We usually think of that "privileges, exemptions, and immunities" language as something that is extended to diplomats (diplomatic immunity) while they are here as official representatives of their respective countries. That was rather straightforward and easy to understand until the United Nations was allowed to set up shop here. All UN "ambassadors," and many workers, get diplomatic immunity. Now, unfortunately, the UN also confers diplomatic immunity, and is currently considering extending it to environmental-wackos to make them above the law in the United States.

Anyway, on August 7, 1998, Clinton issued yet another of his executive orders, this time giving the Interparliamentary Union representatives diplomatic immunity within the United States. Executive Order 13097 reads in full:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and having found that the Interparliamentary Union is a public international organization in which the United States participates within the meaning of the International Organizations Immunities Act, I hereby designate the Interparliamentary Union as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act. This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect privileges, exemptions, or immunities that such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreements or by congressional action."

The obvious question here is: Who the heck is the Interparliamentary Union, and why should we care? That wasn't easy to track down.

We found the Interparliamentary Union best described in a UNESCO publication dated October 1997. Apparently, Miguel Angel Martinez, President of the Council of the Interparliamentary Union (IPU),

declared to the General Conference, the supreme ruling body of the Organization, that UNESCO's action [in promoting education] was crucial for democracy because without education there can be no responsible citizenry nor lasting democracy. . . . By recognizing that parliaments and the organization which represents them have a role to play in relaying world-wide public opinion to UNESCO, you have broadened and enriched your debates while reflection on the reform of international institutions is gathering momentum and democratization and globalization are spreading. Democratization is an irreversible global trend which corresponds to the most basic and imperative aspirations of peoples: equality and dignity, the rejection of a unipolar world, of the hegemony of the rich over the poor, of prosperity for the few based on the marginalization of the rest.

If that sounds like a bit of socialistic propaganda, it's because that is what it is. UNESCO reports that,

the IPU was founded in 1889, with headquarters in Switzerland, to promote contacts and exchange of experience amongst parliaments and parliamentarians world-wide. Its membership is composed of 138 national parliaments and three international parliamentary assemblies.


IPU wants UNESCO to provide the necessary education to train more and better workers throughout the world. The President of the IPU Council also spoke of globalization:

born of the historic rise in trade, globalization appears irreversible. There is no point in fighting the process but, in order to thwart its harmful effects, it is absolutely essential to organize it and to set new and more acceptable ground-rules for it.


Among other things, the IPU demands that the U.S. back off on Iraq, elect more women to Congress, and participate in UNESCO. As a group, they seem to get along very well with the communists of the former Soviet Union and the dictators running Red China.

The IPU is said to represent "138 national parliaments." However, that's just political hyperbole. Actually, at any one time, they have a sprinkling of members from a few parliaments around the world. They "represent" no one.

But now, thanks to Bill Clinton, IPU members and workers will have more rights and liberties than American citizens while visiting here. IPU represents no country, only an idea some call the Third Way. But, in today's political atmosphere, that idea is enough to get the IPU representatives full diplomatic immunity.

Just as an afterthought here, we think that all American citizens should receive all "privileges, exemptions, and immunities" intended us by the Founding Fathers when they wrote our Constitution. And, if that's not also good enough for these foreign bozos while visiting here, let them stay home.

For more information on the topics discussed above, go to: http://www.uhuh.com/laws/hu98-law.htm



[Note: The text below is their advertising blurb. Nevertheless, The Federalist Digest definitely is recommended reading.]

Recommended Reading. I receive "The Federalist" free by email, and suggest you take a moment to subscribe. The Federalist is e-mailed directly to me (very convenient) in two parts: the Brief on Tuesday and the Digest on Friday. Both can be read in only minutes. They are an invaluable resource for staying current on important issues. See the endorsements and description below, and sign-up today.

"The Federalist Digest is a good read for informed conservatives." -- Ed Feulner, Jr., President, Heritage Foundation.

"The vision and legacy of the Reagan Revolution flourish on the pages of The Federalist." -- Michael Reagan, Syndicated Radio Host.

"I never miss reading the Federalist Digest -- it sticks to the truth." -- Gary Bauer, President, Family Research Council.

"The Federalist is an exciting and thoughtful forum for keeping up with a broad range of sound conservative opinion." -- R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., Editor, The American Spectator.

"The Federalist interprets current issues in the conservative context of history, people and ideas that went before, along with the principles in which they believed and why those principles worked, and will work again." -- Cal Thomas, Syndicated Columnist.

The Federalist is a concise, highly acclaimed email journal of anecdotal rebuttal to contemporary political, social and media liberalism. Compiled each week by a national editorial board, The Federalist's condensed, quick reading format provides efficient access to a wide spectrum of reliable information from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations. Its content is carefully selected to provide Constitutional Conservatives with a brief, informative and entertaining survey and analysis of the week's most significant news, policy and opinion. The Federalist is an advocate of individual, family and community governance, rights and responsibilities, as originally intended by the Founders, and the authors of our Republic's Constitution. The Federalist is emailed in two parts: the Brief is distributed on Tuesday and the Digest is distributed on Friday.

Subscribe to the Federalist Digest at: http://www.FederalistDigest.com/forminfo.asp

(NOTE: Using the above URLs is the most reliable method for subscribing. If you don't have Internet access, send your name and email address to: Subscriptions@TheFed.com)







-- End --