Legacy of the Impeached Rapist
Brian
abracadabra wrote:
> > Well, BJ certainly did screw up alot of foreign policy matters for the
> > next president, no matter if the next was Gore or GWB. Considering
> > the FACT that BJ had mismanaged US responses to AlQueda (and
> > associated) attacks
>
> horse-shit.
> The terrorist attacks against the USA were crimes, and as I recall criminal
> investigations have led to convictions in some cases andd arrests in others.
What about willieboys recent admission that he had several opportunities to
catch bin ladin but "didnt think it was that important"?
> It was the Clinton administration that told the BUshies that terrorism would
> be ttheir biggest problem, but the BUshies couldn't be bothered t listen.
Or such is your opinion.
> > BJ had mismanaged the relationship with Russia,
>
> WHat? Got an example of that? Or are you blowing shit?
>
> > and BJ had let the Saddam problem fester
>
> As did Dubya's daddy. And with good reason it turns out. Getting rid of
> Saddam has cost us a lot, and accomplished nothing for the USA.
Wrong.
Less support for terrorists benefits the whole world.
> Now Iraqis huddle in thier waterless, powerless homes
As many of them did before the invasion.
> in fear of the rampent crime in
> Baghdad, while the sites that had nuclear materials have been looted.
> Terrorists might well have nuclear materials, thanks to Dubya's screw ups.
Thats the way the blindly partisan like to put it, anyway.
Thinking people of course, understand that there was a war on.
> > BJ made an impossible
> > and incompetent deal with N Korea, it is fairly clear that
> > BJ's mismanagement set us up for alot of problems.
>
> More bullshit.
Actually quite accurate.
Had willieboy taken some kind of meaningful action in response to each of the
terrorist attacks (Cole, first WTC attack, etc) or accepted any of Sudans 3
offers to turn bin ladin over no strings attached, 9/11 likely would not have
happened.
> It is certainly
> > accurate to claim that GHWB didn't adequately follow through with
> > sufficiently aggressive Iraq policy, but there was ABSOTLUTELY NO
> > EXCUSE for BJ allowing the situation to continue to fester.
>
> Yes there is. Saddam was a terrible manager of Iraq, but getting rid of him
> is leading to more problems in the region.
Remains to be seen.
Especially now that the sanctions have been lifted.
> GHWB
> > had the excuse of being ill during the last portion of his presidency.
> > Perhaps BJ Clinton's problems were also based upon illness, but of
> > a psychiatric type.
>
> That's total bullshit.
abracadabra
"Brian" <olins...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3ECCFD9C...@erols.com...
>
>
> abracadabra wrote:
>
> > > Well, BJ certainly did screw up alot of foreign policy matters for the
> > > next president, no matter if the next was Gore or GWB. Considering
> > > the FACT that BJ had mismanaged US responses to AlQueda (and
> > > associated) attacks
> >
> > horse-shit.
> > The terrorist attacks against the USA were crimes, and as I recall
criminal
> > investigations have led to convictions in some cases andd arrests in
others.
>
> What about willieboys recent admission that he had several opportunities
to
> catch bin ladin but "didnt think it was that important"?
SOmehow even if that were true, President CLinton would never say that.
WHere'd you hear that - RUsh or some other liar?
> > It was the Clinton administration that told the BUshies that terrorism
would
> > be ttheir biggest problem, but the BUshies couldn't be bothered t
listen.
>
> Or such is your opinion.
As was reported in TIME, idiot.
> > > BJ had mismanaged the relationship with Russia,
> >
> > WHat? Got an example of that? Or are you blowing shit?
> >
> > > and BJ had let the Saddam problem fester
> >
> > As did Dubya's daddy. And with good reason it turns out. Getting rid of
> > Saddam has cost us a lot, and accomplished nothing for the USA.
>
> Wrong.
> Less support for terrorists benefits the whole world.
1) NO evidence that Saddam supported Al Qaeda
2) Because of Dubya's mismanagment of the "war", all the nuclear materials
were stolen from the nuclear sites, either because OIL was more important to
us or because there was never a serious nuclear threat to the USA. Either
way, those nuclear materials are doubtless in thehands of terrorists. That
is not safe, nitwit.
> > Now Iraqis huddle in thier waterless, powerless homes
>
> As many of them did before the invasion.
uh, no. Before the war, they had power and water, and it was a lot safer of
Iraqis to be out and about. Face the facts - a terrible government like
Saddams is better then what we've replaced it with - anarchy.
> > in fear of the rampent crime in
> > Baghdad, while the sites that had nuclear materials have been looted.
> > Terrorists might well have nuclear materials, thanks to Dubya's screw
ups.
>
> Thats the way the blindly partisan like to put it, anyway.
> Thinking people of course, understand that there was a war on.
We KNEW where the nuclear sites were and we didn't secure them.
That's Dubyas fault.
Learn to think sometime.
> > > BJ made an impossible
> > > and incompetent deal with N Korea, it is fairly clear that
> > > BJ's mismanagement set us up for alot of problems.
> >
> > More bullshit.
>
> Actually quite accurate.
> Had willieboy taken some kind of meaningful action in response to each of
the
> terrorist attacks (Cole, first WTC attack, etc) or accepted any of Sudans
3
> offers to turn bin ladin over no strings attached, 9/11 likely would not
have
> happened.
More bullshit. The whole thing about Sudan offering to turn over Bin Laden
is crap, and everybody knows it.
> > It is certainly
> > > accurate to claim that GHWB didn't adequately follow through with
> > > sufficiently aggressive Iraq policy, but there was ABSOTLUTELY NO
> > > EXCUSE for BJ allowing the situation to continue to fester.
> >
> > Yes there is. Saddam was a terrible manager of Iraq, but getting rid of
him
> > is leading to more problems in the region.
>
> Remains to be seen.
No it doesn't. We have more terrorits bombings, chaos in Iraq, and Iran
tring to nose their way into Iraq.
Ted
>>> >Is Oral Sex Really Sex?
>>> >That's What Montrose High School Newspaper Asks
>>> >
>>> >The debate about oral sex appeared to have been fueled with the
>>> >statement by then-President Bill Clinton who told reporters that he did
>>> >not have "sex" with intern Monica Lewinsky and later said that oral sex
>>> >was not "sex."
What I'd tell kids about oral sex is that it's like smoking; the fact that
a lot of people do it doesn't really make it a SMART thing to do. The one
part of the human body most apt to pick up germs is our mouths, unless you
make sure to expose everything you ever eat to gamma rays... That says
that oral sex is basically a program for inventing new kinds of social
diseases. The VD version of herpes is really nothing more than a
particular case in point. In 1950 before the Kinsey Report when the vast
majority of people were far more apt to be playing golf than engaging in
oral sex, nobody ever heard of genital herpes.
"Well, suh, ya-honnah, she used to suck on my JOHNSON a lot, but we
nevah had nothin what you might call a SEXUAL relationship..."
"Now, boy, when ya say somethin like that, you gotta make ya eyes go
real wide, like this, see, an ya gotta have a sorta dumb look on ya
face, like this, see, an hold yer mouth open a bit, yeah, that's got
it, that's jus about right..."
(The ghost of Andrew H. Brown coaching Slick Klintler on his grand-jury
testimony)
Dave Simpson
a) Worst president ever -- managed to make both Carter and Nixon look
better
b) Most corrupt administration ever
c) Shame
d) Disgrace
e) The outrage ended when he finally got the hell out of the White
House, so that doesn't count as a legacy. The history of a perverse
soap opera of outrages and scandals, however, is also a core
constituent of that ugly, filthy legacy, along with the disgust
associated with him and his administration.
Dave Simpson
Brian
abracadabra wrote:
> "Brian" <olins...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3ECCFD9C...@erols.com...
> >
> >
> > abracadabra wrote:
> >
> > > > Well, BJ certainly did screw up alot of foreign policy matters for the
> > > > next president, no matter if the next was Gore or GWB. Considering
> > > > the FACT that BJ had mismanaged US responses to AlQueda (and
> > > > associated) attacks
> > >
> > > horse-shit.
> > > The terrorist attacks against the USA were crimes, and as I recall
> criminal
> > > investigations have led to convictions in some cases andd arrests in
> others.
> >
> > What about willieboys recent admission that he had several opportunities
> to
> > catch bin ladin but "didnt think it was that important"?
>
> SOmehow even if that were true, President CLinton would never say that.
> WHere'd you hear that
WABC news.
Played a tape of an interview.
Heard willieboy say it himself.
> - RUsh or some other liar?
>
> > > It was the Clinton administration that told the BUshies that terrorism
> would
> > > be ttheir biggest problem, but the BUshies couldn't be bothered t
> listen.
> >
> > Or such is your opinion.
>
> As was reported in TIME,
Cite?
> idiot.
Of course.
DNC creedo; When you have no facts, name call.
> > > > BJ had mismanaged the relationship with Russia,
> > >
> > > WHat? Got an example of that? Or are you blowing shit?
> > >
> > > > and BJ had let the Saddam problem fester
> > >
> > > As did Dubya's daddy. And with good reason it turns out. Getting rid of
> > > Saddam has cost us a lot, and accomplished nothing for the USA.
> >
> > Wrong.
> > Less support for terrorists benefits the whole world.
>
> 1) NO evidence that Saddam supported Al Qaeda
Except the training camps, records, admissions of high ranking saddam
supporters.
>
> 2) Because of Dubya's mismanagment of the "war", all the nuclear materials
> were stolen from the nuclear sites,
OR so the blindly ignorant say.
Thinking people know that in a war zone there is no security on anything.
> either because OIL was more important to
> us or because there was never a serious nuclear threat to the USA. Either
> way, those nuclear materials are doubtless in thehands of terrorists. That
> is not safe,
Of course it isnt.
But they no longer have that source.
> nitwit.
Yes, keep proving your childishness with your name calling.
> > > Now Iraqis huddle in thier waterless, powerless homes
> >
> > As many of them did before the invasion.
>
> uh, no. Before the war, they had power and water,
Some of them.
> and it was a lot safer of Iraqis to be out and about.
Oh, of course it was.
Having your tongue cut out and being tied to a post to bleed to death because
someone thought you spoke against saddam is therefore safe, according to you.
OR having your kids locked in prison and tortured for not joining the ba'ath
party is safe, according to you.
> Face the facts
You should take your own advice.
> - a terrible government like Saddams is better then what we've replaced it
> with
Thank you for admitting that you think murder and rape and torture are better
than freedom.
> - anarchy.
>
> > > in fear of the rampent crime in
> > > Baghdad, while the sites that had nuclear materials have been looted.
> > > Terrorists might well have nuclear materials, thanks to Dubya's screw
> ups.
> >
> > Thats the way the blindly partisan like to put it, anyway.
> > Thinking people of course, understand that there was a war on.
>
> We KNEW where the nuclear sites were and we didn't secure them.
Ok, so what part of "war zone" dont you understand?
Do you have the slightest clue what goes on?
According to you, I guess we were supposed to ask the iraqis not to shoot at us
while we were trying to secure their nuclear sites and etc.
> That's Dubyas fault.
To the blindly ignorant maybe.
> Learn to think sometime.
Thank you for again proving that you lack the capacity for intelligent
conversation.
> > > > BJ made an impossible
> > > > and incompetent deal with N Korea, it is fairly clear that
> > > > BJ's mismanagement set us up for alot of problems.
> > >
> > > More bullshit.
> >
> > Actually quite accurate.
> > Had willieboy taken some kind of meaningful action in response to each of
> the
> > terrorist attacks (Cole, first WTC attack, etc) or accepted any of Sudans
> 3
> > offers to turn bin ladin over no strings attached, 9/11 likely would not
> have
> > happened.
>
> More bullshit. The whole thing about Sudan offering to turn over Bin Laden
> is crap, and everybody knows it.
Ok, thank you for admitting that you havent got a clue what is going on in the
real world.
You have just proven beyond any doubt that you are too clueless to waste any
more time with.
Sid9
------------------------
"Dave Simpson" <david_l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:23e7f86e.03052...@posting.google.com...
Mr. Bill
"Dave Simpson" <david_l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:23e7f86e.03052...@posting.google.com...
Cochella
retarded, that he asked them to save his pie for him until AFTER the
execution.
Nice going, CLINTON.
"Mr. Bill" <kf4...@spam.yahoo.com.> wrote in message
news:BQLza.2976$IK4....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
Lyndsay
"Cochella" <no...@none.com> wrote in message news:<HrYza.7024$8i4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
Lyndsay
How true. Good thing we have GWB.
D.G. Porter
news:23e7f86e.03052...@posting.google.com...
> As of 2003, Clinton's legacy is mainly known for this:
Only among the looniest of LOONS. Lies repeated are still lies.
> a) Worst president ever -- managed to make both Carter and Nixon look> better
Keep repeating the lie, but it won't stick. You guys have both Nixon
and Reagan, the most scandal-prone presidents in the last 50 years. And
before that it was Harding.
> b) Most corrupt administration ever
That would be Reagan's. Want the hard data?
> c) Shame
Just in the eyes of loonies like you.
> d) Disgrace
Ditto the above.
> e) The outrage ended when he finally got the hell out of the White
> House, so that doesn't count as a legacy. The history of a perverse
> soap opera of outrages and scandals, however, is also a core
> constituent of that ugly, filthy legacy, along with the disgust
> associated with him and his administration.
You're a total fucking LOON, up there with Gatry Aldrich. You guys just
can't stand the fact that he kicked your ass ove and over again, and you
couldn't do anything except a purely pasrtisan impeachment to get after
him. History will decide that there was no "there" ther and that you
guys are totally insane.
>
> Dave Simpson
Up there with Homer in brains.
--
Now on the Porter-Niekum menu:
FRENCH fries (from Idaho probably)
FRENCH-roast coffee (from South America most likely)
FRENCH'S mustard (pretty lame-n-tame but WTF)
FRENCH dip sandwiches at the corner greasyspoon
NO "Freedom ticklers," NO "Freedom kissing," and NO "Mr. Freedom" on
reruns of "Family Affair"!
Gene
news:cd0b8bfb.03052...@posting.google.com:
Dave,
Do you break out in a cold sweat upon hearing a zipper drop? Funny how
most historians think his (Clinton) term will be in the top ten even
considering the problem he had with his zipper. 14 Presidents that we
know of have had problems of the nature Clinton had. The only ones I'd
put my money on for being faithful was Lincoln - just to damn ugly, and
Washington - wooden teeth could give a girl a sever case of splinters.
The biggest disappoint to me was how a smart man - a Rhodes Scholar - A
Fulbright Scholar - thought he could play around in the most visable
piece of realestate in the world and not get caught. That and she wasn't
that goodlooking. Now Governor Robb, he did have good taste.
I really don't understand men wondering how a man could get himself in
that situation. Throughout history men have done some really stupid
things just to get laid. Think it changes when someone has a title? Ya'll
sound like a bunch of prudes discussing the latest soap opera. It belongs
in a knitting circle. Do you Knit?
Gene
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
news:3ED157...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> "Dave Simpson," loonie, <david_l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:23e7f86e.03052...@posting.google.com...
> > As of 2003, Clinton's legacy is mainly known for this:
>
> Only among the looniest of LOONS. Lies repeated are still lies.
>
> > a) Worst president ever -- managed to make both Carter and Nixon look>
better
>
> Keep repeating the lie, but it won't stick. You guys have both Nixon
> and Reagan, the most scandal-prone presidents in the last 50 years. And
> before that it was Harding.
So do you equate a good president to a lack of scandal or to what he did
that was positive for the nation?
You named President's Nixon and Regan both of which were very good
presidents.
You also seemed to be trying to use one of the favorite tactics of liberals,
moral relativism ... trying to point to president's that you consider to be
scandalous and in doing so attempting to lessen the horrific legacy of
Clinton.
>
> > b) Most corrupt administration ever
>
> That would be Reagan's. Want the hard data?
I would like to see your data and the sources it comes from so we could all
compare.
>
> > c) Shame
>
> Just in the eyes of loonies like you.
Only the ignorant can believe that Clinton was not criminal and disgraced
the office of the president.
>
> > d) Disgrace
>
> Ditto the above.
Same for me .... the above.
>
> > e) The outrage ended when he finally got the hell out of the White
> > House, so that doesn't count as a legacy. The history of a perverse
> > soap opera of outrages and scandals, however, is also a core
> > constituent of that ugly, filthy legacy, along with the disgust
> > associated with him and his administration.
>
> You're a total fucking LOON, up there with Gatry Aldrich. You guys just
> can't stand the fact that he kicked your ass ove and over again, and you
> couldn't do anything except a purely pasrtisan impeachment to get after
> him. History will decide that there was no "there" ther and that you
> guys are totally insane.
History has already decided and the decision is that Clinton was a horrible
president. The man is a pathological liar, a sexual predator has criminal
tendencies and he totally mismanaged the nation and led us into the horrific
mess we now face with both terrorism and economic woes. All the liberal
propaganda in the world can not erase or cover up Clinton's LONG list of
errors.
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
news:3ED157...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> news:23e7f86e.03052...@posting.google.com...
> > As of 2003, Clinton's legacy is mainly known for this:
>
> Only among the looniest of LOONS. Lies repeated are still lies.
>
> > a) Worst president ever -- managed to make both Carter and Nixon look>
better
>
> Keep repeating the lie, but it won't stick. You guys have both Nixon
> and Reagan, the most scandal-prone presidents in the last 50 years. And
> before that it was Harding.
>
> > b) Most corrupt administration ever
>
> That would be Reagan's. Want the hard data?
This list is only up to 1997 so it does not include much of the cash for
favors and pardons Clinton was involved in after 1997 and it won't include
much of the renting out of the Lincoln Bedroom for favors stuff .. etc.
THE MOST ETHICAL ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY
Summary of Alleged Crimes and Abuses of Power by the Clinton Administration
Updated Oct. 27, 1997 -- For reasons of brevity, titles of
individuals are omitted and allegations are listed in summary
style only. Each allegation has been described in detail in the
Washington Weekly over the past few years.
BILL CLINTON
(1) Conspired with David Hale and Jim McDougal to defraud the
Small Business Administration of $300,000.
(2) Used State Police for personal purposes.
(3) Abused his position as governor to extort sexual favors
from employees.
(4) Directed State Police to fabricate incriminating evidence
against political opponents: Steve Clark, Terry Reed, and
Larry Nichols.
(5) Knew about drug importation and distribution by a friend
and campaign contributor, Dan Lasater.
(6) Allowed drug money to be laundered through ADFA.
(7) Appointed and protected Arkansas Medical Examiner Fahmy
Malak who repeatedly obstructed justice by declaring
murders as "suicides" or "accidents."
(8) Has never accounted for his actions during 40 days behind
the Iron Curtain during the Vietnam War.
(9) Tipped off Governor Tucker about upcoming criminal
referral.
(10) Violated Arkansas campaign finance laws.
(11) Violated the Constitution by signing into law an ex post
facto law, a retroactive tax increase.
(12) Fired RTC chief Albert Casey to allow his friend Roger
Altman to monitor and block Whitewater investigations.
(13) Fired FBI director William Sessions and the entire top
management at the FBI to prevent an autonomous FBI from
investigating the suicide of Vince Foster and other scandals.
(14) Fired all U.S. Attorneys to appoint Paula Casey who
prevented Judge David Hale from testifying against Clinton.
(15) Offered State Troopers federal jobs in return for their
silence about Clinton's crimes.
(16) Blocked Justice Department indictments after
Inspector General Sherman Funk found "criminal violations of
the Privacy Act provable beyond reasonable doubt" when
former Bush employee files were searched and leaked to the
press.
(17) Appointed friend and felon Webster Hubbell to number 3
position in Justice Department in order to be able to block
Whitewater criminal referrals by RTC investigator L. Jean
Lewis.
(18) Blocked the criminal trial of Representative Ford, a
Tennessee Democrat.
(19) Appointed a campaign activist to head the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, without the mandated "advice
and consent" of the Senate, to derail a probe of his and
Hillary's financial dealings.
(20) Committed witness tampering by causing bribes to be paid
to Webster Hubbell.
(21) Committed witness tampering by causing a job with the
NSC to be offered to former Trooper L.D. Brown in return for
Brown's silence on several Clinton crimes.
(22) Rifled through L.D. Brown's personnel file at the CIA in
an attempt to find damaging information on Brown, a witness
to many Clinton crimes.
(23) Blocked Justice Department prosecution of Arthur Coia, a
union Mob puppet and heavy Clinton donor.
(24) Made fund-raising calls from the White House, a federal
property.
(25) Accepted a bribe from the Government of China, hidden
from federal election inspectors by laundering it through Ng
Lap Seng, the Bank of China, Charlie Trie and his relatives,
and his Legal Defense Fund.
(26) Accepted a $50,000 bribe from the candidate for
president of South Korea, in return for a written endorsement
of the candidate.
(27) Engaged in a criminal scheme to launder illegal
contributions for the president of Teamsters campaign and in
turn laundered illegal foreign contributions through the
"Teamsters for a Corruption Free Union" fund.
(28) Subverted federal campaign spending limits through a DNC
slush fund used for television advertising planned by
political consultant Dick Morris.
Bill Clinton is under investigation by an Independent Counsel
and by Congress.
AL GORE
(1) Made fund-raising calls from the White House, a federal
property.
(2) Participated in an illegal fund-raising event at the Hsi
Lai Temple were campaign contributions were laundered through
nuns.
(3) Accepted a $50,000 bribe from a waste disposal company,
Molten Metal Technology, in return for helping it get federal
contracts.
Al Gore is under investigation by Congress and by the Justice
Department.
HILLARY CLINTON:
(1) Accepted a $100,000 bribe, laundered through cattle
futures, from Tyson Foods Inc.
(2) Speculated in Health Care industry futures while
overseeing legislative reform of same.
(3) Failed to correct false testimony by co-defendant Ira
Magaziner in the Health Care Task Force trial.
(4) Ordered members of the Health Care Task Force to shred
documents that were the target of a court probe.
(5) Obstructed justice by ordering the removal and shredding
of Vince Foster's documents on the night of his death.
(6) Hired Craig Livingstone to conduct a political
intelligence operation against her opponents.
(7) Defrauded the U.S. Treasury of more than $10 million by
funneling Community Development Financial Institutions grants
to financial institutions in which she has an interest.
(8) Ordered Treasury officials to cover up the fraud by
fabrication of false documents.
Hillary Clinton is under investigation by an Independent
Counsel.
WEBSTER HUBBELL
(1) Convicted for defrauding the federal government (FDIC
and IRS).
(2) Executed obstruction of justice in the Justice Department
in several cases: The Inslaw case, and the RTC criminal
referrals on Whitewater.
Webster Hubbell has resigned.
IRA MAGAZINER
(1) Violated federal law when he held Health Care Task Force
Meetings in secret and refused to release documents.
(2) Lied in court about the composition of the Health Care
Task Force.
A criminal referral by Judge Royce Lamberth was not acted
upon by the Clinton-appointed U.S. Att. Eric Holder
BERNARD NUSSBAUM
(1) Obstructed justice in the Foster suicide investigation by
blocking access, removing documents, lying about his removal
of documents, and by retrieving Foster's pager from Park
Police.
(2) Attempted to quash a Whitewater investigation at the RTC
through White House liaisons.
Bernard Nussbaum has resigned.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
(1) Accepted a $600,000 loan below market interest and with
insufficient collateral from NationsBank, a bank having
business before the Clinton Administration.
(2) Lied to Congress during Whitewater hearings.
(3) Obstructed justice by attempting to have Whitewater
investigator Jay Stephens at the RTC fired.
George Stephanopoulos has resigned.
MIKE ESPY
(1) Accepted bribes from Tyson Foods Inc. and other companies
which were under regulatory control of his Agriculture
Department.
Mike Espy has resigned and is awaiting indictment by a
special prosecutor.
ROGER ALTMAN
(1) Lied to Congress during Whitewater hearings.
(2) When caught, lied to Congress about having lied to
Congress.
(3) Instructed Ellen Kulka and Jack Ryan at the RTC to block
the Whitewater investigation by L. Jean Lewis.
Roger Altman has resigned but is still carrying out
assignments for the White House
RON BROWN
(1) Negotiated a $700,000 bribe with the Vietnamese
government
(2) Accepted a $60,000 bribe from Dynamic Energy Resources.
(3) Sold seats on foreign trips to DNC contributors.
Was under investigation by an independent counsel when he
died in a plane crash.
LES ASPIN
(1) By denying them military protection equipment, Aspin was
responsible for the death of Army Rangers in Somalia.
Les Aspin resigned and died before he could be held
accountable in a public forum.
WILLIAM KENNEDY AND DAVID WATKINS
(1) Fabricated charges against White House Travel Office
personnel to have the business taken over by Clinton friends.
(2) Coerced FBI and IRS agents into complicity with this
scheme.
Kennedy and Watkins have resigned.
CATHERINE CORNELIUS
(1) Removed documents from White House Travel Office.
Because those documents later became the subject of a trial
against Office Director Billy Dale, that became an
obstruction of justice.
PATSY THOMASSON
(1) Lied to Congress about the composition of the Health
Care Task Force and the size of its budget.
(2) Obstructed justice when she removed documents from the
office of Vince Foster.
(3) Fabricated charges against White House Travel Office
personnel to have the business taken over by Clinton friends.
MARGARET WILLIAMS
(1) Obstructed justice when she removed documents from
the office of Vince Foster.
(2) Solicited and accepted a $50,000 campaign contribution
from Johnny Chung in the White House in return for Hillary
Clinton meeting with Chinese businessmen.
Margaret Williams has resigned.
JOSHUA STEINER
(1) Lied to Congress about conversations with White
House personnel about the RTC.
Joshua Steiner has resigned.
LLOYD CUTLER
(1) Lied to Congress about the contents of redacted
documents.
(2) Attempted to withhold vital information from
Congress, a felony.
(3) Obtained a confidential Treasury report and showed it to
witnesses before they testified before Congress in the
Whitewater hearings. Lied to Congress when he denied
having coached witnesses.
Lloyd Cutler has resigned.
MACK MCLARTY
(1) As chairman of Arkla, was responsible for the bribing of
public utility officials.
(2) Conspired with Democratic Congressional Leadership to
block access by investigators to vital documents in a
Congressional hearing.
Mack McLarty escaped prosecution when a lobbyist working for
him was convicted of bribery.
HAROLD ICKES
(1) Broke into New York Republican headquarters in 1970. Has
never been indicted for this crime which was similar to what
the Watergate Plumbers spent time in jail for.
(2) Had contacts with the Arkansas-based Park-On-Meter
company which received questionable loan from Clinton's ADFA
and was alleged to be involved in arms manufacturing.
(3) Worked for Mafia-controlled labor unions.
(4) Set up a $56 million slush fund by Union Mobsters for use
in Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign.
(5) Arranged meeting between Mob figure and Clinton campaign
contributor Arthur Coia and Bill Clinton.
(6) Lied to Congress during Whitewater hearings.
(7) Improperly discussed a $500,000 contribution in a memo to
businessman Warren Meddoff, using White House computer,
telephone, and fax. Faxed instructions on how to launder
contributions through tax-exempt organization to evade
scrutiny of FEC.
(8) Attempted to obstruct justice by orchestrating an
approach to Whitewater witness Beverly Basset Shaffer.
Harold Ickes was fired.
BRUCE LINDSEY
(1) As treasurer for the Clinton gubernatorial campaign
in 1990, he signed withdrawals from Perry County Bank, the
president of which was indicted for conspiring to
conceal these withdrawals from the IRS and FEC.
MARIAN BENETT
(1) Covered up credit-card fraud by USIA Inspector General
staff.
(2) Launched a politically motivated investigation of Radio
Marti, a staunchly anti-Communist radio station run by the
government.
FEDERICO PENA
(1) State and federal contracts were awarded to companies
in which he had a financial interest.
The Justice Department found insufficient evidence to
appoint a Special Counsel.
HENRY CISNEROS
(1) Lied to the FBI about payments to former lover.
Henry Cisneros is under investigation by a Special Counsel.
JANET RENO
(1) Fabricated charges of child molestation against the
Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas.
(2) Ordered the use of military equipment against citizens
of the United States
(3) Ordered the use of chemical agents against citizens of
the United States.
(4) For more than a year stalled the appointment of a special
counsel to investigate clear evidence of campaign fundraising
illegalities.
ROBERT REICH
(1) Lied to Congress when he wrote that there were no memos
circulating in the Labor Department instructing staff to
gather political material against the Contract with America.
Such memos were later published.
Robert Reich has been replaced.
DONNA SHALALA
(1) As Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at Madison
instituted speech codes which were found to be
unconstitutional in federal court. Instituted thought-police
star chamber proceedings to drive politically incorrect
people off campus.
CAROL BROWNER
(1) Used the EPA to campaign against Republicans running
on the Contract with America, an illegal use of the executive
branch for political campaigning.
Carol Browner is under investigation by Congress.
ROBERTA ACHTENBERG
(1) Violated the First Amendment when she ordered HUD
lawyers to silence citizens who spoke out against planned
housing projects.
(2) Exceeded her authority when she had HUD staff threaten
Allentown County to withdraw an "Use of English language
encouraged" ordinance.
Roberta Achtenberg has resigned.
DEVAL PATRICK
(1) Used extortion to force banks to give
preferential treatment to minorities. Congress is
investigating the possibility of impeachment based on abuse
of power.
(2) Was found by the Supreme Court to have been abusing his
position to subvert the election process in a manner that
created more safe "black" seats.
Deval Patrick has resigned.
BRUCE BABBIT
(1) Paid a penalty for violating campaign finance laws during
his 1988 presidential campaign.
(2) Accepted political donations as a bribe to kill an Indian
casino proposal.
The DOJ is considering appointing an Independent Counsel to
investigate the bribe.
VALERIE LAU
(1) Started a criminal probe of Secret Service agents John
Libonati and Jeffrey Undercoffer after they had testified
that the Secret Service was not the source of the list used
to compile FBI files in the Filegate scandal
(2) Provided confidential depositions of White House staffers
to White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler ahead of Whitewater
hearings in 1994.
HOWARD SHAPIRO
(1) Leaked information to the White House Counsel's office
that FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene had revealed in a
confidential FBI interview that it was Hillary Clinton who
hired Filegate operative Craig Livingstone.
HAZEL O'LEARY
(1) Accepted $25,000 from Johnny Chung in return for meeting
with members of the Chinese Government.
(2) Paid outside consultants to prepare a list of "hostile
reporters."
ERIC HOLDER
(1) As U.S. Attorney stonewalled repeated criminal referrals
of Clinton administration employees by courts of law and by
Congress.
Eric Holder was rewarded with a promotion to Deputy Attorney
General
ANTHONY LAKE
(1) Gave the green light to an illegal arms pipeline from
Iran to Bosnia. The pipeline was reportedly used to smuggle
drugs.
(2) Lied to Congress about the illegal pipeline.
Anthony Lake withdrew his name from consideration for
director of the CIA.
JOHN HUANG
(1) Committed espionage on behalf of Lippo Group and the
Chinese government.
(2) Facilitated payments from the Chinese government to Bill
Clinton and the DNC through Charlie Trie and others.
John Huang has resigned and is refusing to testify to
Congressional investigators.
Summary: The only Clinton Cabinet Secretaries who are not under
investigation for criminal acts and have never had criminal
allegations raised against them in public are Richard Riley,
Secretary of Education, and Madeleine Albright, Secretary of
State.
Published in the Oct. 27, 1997 issue of The Washington Weekly
Copyright 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com)
Reposting permitted with this message intact
AND:
More illegalities
in Clinton administration
TUESDAY
AUGUST 03
1999
.
Joseph Farah,
editor of WorldNetDaily.com
and executive director
of the Western
Journalism Center,
It never seems to stop.
I think that's one of the secrets to the longevity of the
Clinton
administration. Had there been one or two major scandals on
which
the public and press could have focused over the last six years,
the
president probably would be history. But his administration has
overwhelmed the senses of the nation with corruption, crime and
cover-up. At some point, it became too much to absorb. Sensory
overload has allowed the executive branch of government to abuse
power in unprecedented ways.
Here are the latest outrages. Impeachment hearing hero David
Schippers told Bill O'Reilly on the Fox News Network that former
Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary gave marching orders to halt all
scheduled promotions of white males in her vast federal
bureaucracy.
"Now you know something about Hazel O'Leary in your capacity
as --
looking over everything, and ... that there was an ongoing ...
conspiracy to make certain that no white males got promoted to
any
offices of responsibility and got -- indeed got no promotions at
all," he said.
"Really?" questioned O'Reilly. "So Hazel O'Leary, then the chief
of
the Department of Energy, you're saying that your client told
you,
was knocking out all white males that -- when they -- when they
were
up for promotion?"
"As I understand it -- this is secondhand. As I understand it,
when
Hazel O'Leary got into the office, she asked for the promotion
list
and then asked them to strike the names of all white males,"
charged
Schippers.
"That's against the law," observed O'Reilly astutely.
"Well, this information's been furnished to the -- to the
Congress.
They have it," said Schippers.
Is it hard to believe? Not with the bunch in this
administration --
not with what I know about the political nature of Hazel
O'Leary,
who personally targeted me and my organization for extinction as
well. She's the former Cabinet official who made phone calls to
my
news organization's donor base threatening individuals with
government retribution if they continued to support the Western
Journalism Center, parent company of WorldNetDaily.com.
Were white men really actively discriminated against at the
Energy
Department? We'll probably never know for sure. Who has time to
investigate the constant avalanche of corruption emanating from
this
administration. It's impossible. And there's no will to do it in
Congress or in the establishment press.
One thing's for sure, if the white men in the Energy Department
were
gay, they would have fared better than heterosexuals. Catch this
excerpt from Webb Hubbell's book (page 325) -- yet another
example
of the criminal politicization of every facet of the Clinton
administration: "A friend of Suzy's at Interior ... was Bob
Hattoy,
the well-known AIDS activist and Clinton supporter. The FBI
said,
'You used to work in the White House personnel, didn't you?'
"'Yes I did.'
"'One of your jobs at the White House was to place gays and
lesbians
in the administration, wasn't it?'
"'Yes,' he said. 'Very successfully, as a matter of fact. And I
also
placed a lot of them in the FBI.'"
This excerpt from a book by one of Bill Clinton's best friends
and
most loyal supporters -- a guy who took a bullet for him --
raises a
number of questions: How would Hattoy have known that the people
he
placed were gay or lesbian? Why would somebody in the White
House
personnel be making FBI appointments?
Do you think Congress cares? Do you think the establishment
press
gives a darn?
Corruption overload. That's what we got from the "most ethical
administration in the history of the United States." We can't
even
see the forest for the trees. And that's why, once again, I
believe,
my documented case of the administration's overt political abuse
of
the Internal Revenue Service is hardly attracting a radar blip's
worth of attention in Congress or the establishment press.
It's all too much for them to take. And, of course, if you are
willing to accept that this much evil is perpetrated by the
executive branch with impunity, thus far, you have to maintain a
lot
of courage to expose it and challenge it. Clinton's gang plays
rough. It plays for keeps. It plays to win.
Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm not giving
up.
I'm not stopping my full-court press on this kind of corruption.
I
don't care what anyone else says or does about it. For those who
still care about preserving something of this country's
integrity
and freedom, it's time to demand accountability.
A daily radio broadcast adaptation of Joseph Farah's
commentaries
can be heard at http://www.ktkz.com/
(c) 1999 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.
Published in Washington, D.C. 5am -- August 3, 1999
www.washtimes.com
Interior official hit for on-job politics
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
An Interior Department official told his boss in a secret
memo about his covert on-the-job political campaign
aimed at unseating House Republican leaders in the 1998
election, according to a document obtained by The
Washington Times.
In a 1997 memo, David North, policy director for
the Office of Insular Affairs, asked the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee for information on how
to assist Democratic candidates, and sent a copy of the
memo to his boss, Allen P. Stayman, then director of
Insular Affairs.
Mr. North and other federal employees are under
investigation by the House Resources Committee for using
official equipment and time in an unsuccessful
attempt to unseat at least four House Republicans and
one GOP senator.
Mr. North drafted press releases for Democratic
candidates, provided derogatory information about
Republican members to campaigns and reporters, and wrote
letters to the editor for constituents to submit to
local newspapers, investigators say.
"We have been asked for the names and phone numbers
of the Democratic candidate [sic] for Congress in these
district [sic] if they have been identified for 1998,"
Mr. North said in the memo.
"Some friends have asked for this information
because the incumbents (Armey, DeLay and Rohrabacher)
have been giving the Clinton Administration a hard
time," Mr. North said, referring to House Majority
Leader Dick Armey and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay,
both of Texas, and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California.
Mr. North quietly retired as policy director of
Insular Affairs 10 days after his office computer hard
drive was subpoenaed by the House Resources Committee on
July 13. Reached at his Virginia home, he declined to
comment on the investigation or the timing of his
retirement.
Mr. Stayman could not be reached for comment.
"Based on the wording of some of Mr. North's memos,
the committee is extremely concerned that more members
of the department were involved in the activities than
just one person," said Steve Hansen, committee
spokesman.
"The administration and its allies have committed a
lot of crimes, but they usually know enough not to brag
about it in print," Mr. Rohrabacher said.
"They're not going to get away with this," he
added.
According to a confidential memo from committee
Chairman Don Young to House leaders and other documents
obtained by The Washington Times, Mr. North was actively
campaigning against certain Republicans, working with
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).
"As a one-time candidate . . ., I understand the
utility to all hands of Administration-candidate
communications on such matters," Mr. North said in the
memo.
In another memo targeting California GOP Rep. Brian
P. Bilbray, Mr. North wrote, "My motivations are: to
elect Democrats to the House and to punish the handful
of obvious GOP sweatshop allies, such as Mr. Bilbray. .
. . My long-term reward, Mr. Bilbray's defeat."
"I look forward to working (very quietly) with
you," he said.
Mr. Bilbray said, "This smacks of the enemies list
used during the Watergate period. This is dirty politics
at its worst. This poor man was so blinded by partisan
hatred, he was shooting at anyone with an 'R' next to
their name.
"It's sad that some people in this town are willing
to officially put this on a government computer and is
willing to break the law and put himself in jeopardy,"
he said.
The committee has subpoenaed all of Mr. North's
files, in addition to his computer hard drive.
Those materials show Mr. North spent a significant
amount of time on political and lobbying activities.
He asked one Democratic campaign aide specifically
to contact him at his Interior Department office, rather
than at home.
Mr. North targeted four House members and Sen.
Frank H. Murkowski, Alaska Republican, because of their
positions on trade and immigration in the Northern
Mariana Islands.
The Insular Affairs office is responsible for
coordinating federal policy in the U.S. territories of
American Samoa, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
"Federal employees should not feel free to use
their offices to punish members of Congress whose views
they disagree with," Mr. Young said in a memo last week
to his committee members.
"Regardless of your views on the Marianas dispute,
this committee must ensure that the process has not been
tainted by improper political and lobbying use of
federal resources, targeting certain members in
retaliation for their beliefs," the Alaska Republican
said.
The committee is investigating whether Mr. North's
activities violated the Hatch Act, the Anti-Federal
Lobbying Act or the Privacy Act.
Records from the DCCC pertaining to Mr. North also
have been subpoenaed by the committee.
The DCCC initially refused to cooperate. Mr. Young
threatened to hold David Plouffe, executive director, in
contempt of Congress if the DCCC does not comply. The
two sides met yesterday and a committee staffer said
they hoped to reach a compromise, but that a contempt
vote is still scheduled for tomorrow.
"I fail to see why the DCCC cannot follow the
example set by their fellow Democrats in the Interior
Department on this issue, and help us fulfill our
obligations to ensure that federal resources . . . are
not misused for illegal or improper purposes," Mr. Young
said.
AND:
THE LONG LIST OF CLINTON
INIQUITIES, VICTIMS & ACCOMPLICES
(More or Less)
Incorporating Prosecutions of and Persecutions by Officials of the Clinton
Administration, Indictments, Convictions, Flight to Avoid Prosecution,
Physical Violence & Intimidation, Financial Intimidation, Character
Assassination, Criminal Associations, Contradictory Testimony, Apparent
Payoffs, Taking the Fifth, Use of Government Resources for Political
Purpose, Abuse of Executive Orders, Abuse of Executive Privilege,
Stonewalling,
Self-Contradiction, Flight to Avoid Testifying, Smoking Guns, Compilations
of
Corpses Created by Means Fair & Foul, and much, much more. (Not included are
examples of anger, envy, gluttony, greed, lust, pride & sloth, too numerous
to
mention).
Small wonder Clinton did not visit the confessional before taking
Communion in Africa -- there just wasn't time for all that.
-- EZ
Retrieved using the Dogpile:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Topic: Clinton's Rogues Gallery
Downside Legacy at Two Degrees of President Clinton
Various Free Republic Posters
4/23/98
CLINTON'S ROGUES GALLERY:
DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
The following list is a compilation from Free Republic posters, edited
by Free Republic posters. It is dynamic, subject to continuing
authentication, editing, correction and expansion. The list seeks to
exclude
emotion, judgment and rhetoric by using minimal qualifiers and gentler
words -
such as "contradiction" over the more inflammatory alternative. Please help
to keep the list up-to-date, draw your own conclusions, and use it as
you
wish.
CONVICTIONS
Webster Hubbell
Jim McDougal
Susan McDougal
Gov. Jim Guy Tucker
Stephen Smith
David Hale
Eugene Fitzhugh
Charles Matthews
Robert W. Palmer
Chris Wade
Neal T. Ainley
Larry Kuca
Henry Espy
James Lake
William J. Marks, Sr.
John Latham
John Haley
Michael Brown (Ron Browns son)
Eugene Lum
Nora Lum
Johnny Chung
Tyson Foods
Sun Diamond Growers
Richard Douglas
James Lake
Ron Blackley
Smith Barney
Crop Growers Corporation
Brook Keith Mitchell Sr.
Five M Farming Enterprises
John J Hemmingson
Alvarez T. Ferrouillet, Jr.
Municipal Healthcare Cooperative
Ferrouillet & Ferrouillet
Linda Jones
Patsy Jo Wooten
Allen Wooten
Roger Clinton
Dan Lasater
Bill McCuen
Dan Harmon
Roger Tamraz (Lebanon by default)
INDICTMENTS AND TARGETS
Ron Brown (indictment was pending at time of death)
Herby Branscum
Robert Hill
Mike Espy
Henry Cisneros
Jack Williams
Archie Schaefer
Charlie Trie
Maria Hsia
Nolanda Hill
Bruce Babbit
Ron Carey
Monica Lewinsky
Webster Hubbell, Wife and 2 Others (new charges)
Hillary Clinton
Bill Clinton
Roger Tamraz (France)
PRIVILEGE CLAIMS
Bruce Lindsey
Sid Blumenthal
Hillary Clinton
Secret Service
Fosters Law Firm (Hamilton?)
INTIMIDATION, BEATEN OR THREATENED
Gary Johnson, Beaten
L.J. Davis, Beaten
Russell Welch (Anthrax Poisoning)
Larry Nichols, Threats (Several Attempts)
Dennis Patrick (Four Assassination Attempts)
Linda Tripp, Threats
Sally Perdue, Threats
INTIMIDATION, IRS AUDIT
Paula and Stephen Jones
David Horowitz, head of Drudge defense fund
The American Spectator
Billy Dale (Travel Office)
Texe Marrs
Joseph Farah (World Net Daily)
Chuck Harder (Peoples Network Inc.)
Western Journalism Center
Citizens for a Sound Economy
Manufacturing Policy Project (Pat Choate)
American Life League
Christian Film and Television Commission
National Rifle Association
National Review
American Spectator
National Center for Public Policy Research
American Policy Center
Heritage Foundation
American Cause
Citizens Against Government Waste
Citizens for Honest Government
Freedom Alliance
Progress and Freedom Foundation
Council for National Policy
Concerned Women for America
Center for Bioethical Reform
Free Congress Foundation (warning?
Fortress America (warning?)
INTIMIDATION, CHARACTER
Ken Starr and prosecutorial staff - press materials, Carville declared
"war," and White House officials "our continuing campaign to destroy Ken
Starr" and "stand up to Starr" campaign.
Gary Aldrich
Matt Drudge - $30m Sid Blumenthal suit
Linda Tripp - Pentagon information to New Yorker
David Hale - David Pryor
Rep. Barr & Judicial Committee Members - Mulholland
Billy Dale (Travel Office) Malicious prosecution on trumped-up charges
State Troopers via Buddy Young (Clinton) - (testified to procuring women)
Three state troopers testified that they or their families were threatened
if they talked.
Dolly Kyle Browning testified her brother, a 1992 Clinton campaign
worker, warned "we will destroy you" if she talked.
Jim Robinson - lawsuit threats
Chris Emory
Bruce Bates
Jeff Evans
Margie Gray
Patricia and Glenn Mendoza (shouted remark at president)
William E. Kelly (Chicago)
Kent Masterson Brown
Walter Gazecki
Shelly Davis
INTIMIDATION - TAX EXEMPT STATUS
Christian Coalition
Christian Coalition, California chapter
San Diego Chapter of Christian Coalition
Three chapters of American Family Association
Life Legal Defense Foundation
Pierce Creek Church (Vestal, NY)
Second Baptist Church (Lake Jackson, Texas)
OTHER CRIMINAL ASSOCIATES
Jorge Cabrera
Dan Lasater (Pardon by Gov. Clinton)
Roger Clinton (half brother Pardon by Gov. Clinton)
Arthur Coia
Wang Jun
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCES
2300 FBI Files improperly acquired (White House) - Marceca testified
about these used in White House claims in the firing of the White House
Travel Office.
Terry Lenzer and firm (Private/White House)
Jack Palladino and firm (Private/Campaign)
TESTIMONY IN CONTRADICTION TO THE PRESIDENT
Monica Lewisnky (on the tapes)
Paula Jones
Kathleen Willey
Christy Zercher
Gennifer Flowers
Dolly Kyle Browning
Elizabeth Ward Gracen
Sally Perdue
Pamela Blackard
Debra Ballentine
Larry Patterson
L.D. Brown
Roger Perry
Danny Ferguson (cuts both ways)
David Hale
Jim McDougal
APPEARANCE OF QUID PRO QUO
Loral/Hughes - China Missile Guidance
Indonesia/Riady - Sweet Coal
Webb Hubbell - $700,00 in business in 6 months
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - via Harry Thomason
Teamsters/DNC - Mutual Financial
Larry Lawrence - Buried in Arlington
Goverment Jobs for Sexual Favors - Various Testimony
Paying for Silence - Jones (via Thompson) .
Monica Lewinsky - Jobs/Vernon Jordan
Monica Lewinsky - Job/U.N. Bill Richardson
Larry Lawrence - Switzerland appointment (wife)
Federal contracts to unionized companies (pending)
CLAIMING THE 5TH OR REFUSING TO ANSWER
Susan McDougal Contempt of court
Susan Thomases Clinton Advisor, 108 non-answers
Webster Hubbell Former Associate Attorney General, 112 non-answers
Maggie Williams Hillary Clintons Former Chief of Staff, 96 non-answers
Bruce Lindsey, Advisor, 70 non-answers
Neil Eggleston, Associate Counsel, 106 non-answers
Roger Altman, Deputy Treasury Secretary, 208 non-answers
Hillary Clinton, 58 non-answers
Bill Clinton, 37 non-answers
John Huang
Jane Huang
Johnny Chung
Man Ya Shih
David Wang
Keshi Zhan
Gin F. J. Chen
Siuw Moi Lian
Yi Chu
Mark Middleton
Seow Fong Ooi
Joseph Landon
Bin Yue Jeng
Hsiu Chu Lin
Larry Wong
Duangnet Kronenberg
Jen Chin Hsueh
Na-chi "Nancy" Lee
Chi Rung Wang
Hueutsan Huang
Jou Sheng
Yue Chu
Yogesh Ghandi
Judy Hsu
Man Ho
Steven Hwang
Jane Dewi Tahir
Manlin Foung
Gilbert Colon
Maria Mapili
Yumei Yang
Irene Wu
Jie Su Hsiao
Arapaho/Cheyenne Indians
Mike Lin
Hsiu Luan Tseng
Hsin Chen Shi
Zie Pan Huang
Mark Jimenez
Shu Jen Wu
Michael Brown
Woody Hwang
Charles Intriago
Simon Chen
Sioeng Fei Man
Jessica Elinitiarta
Kent La
Craig Livingstone
FOREIGN WITNESSES, REFUSING TO ANSWER
Ng Lap Seng
Stephen Riady
Roy Tirtadji
Ken Hsui
John Mu cy
James Lin
Eugene Wu
Mochtar Riady
Stanley Ho
Suma Ching Hai
James Riady
Daniel Wu
Ambrose Hsuing
Lay Kweek Wie
Li Kwai Fai
Bruce Cheung
AVOIDING TESTIMONY BY LEAVING THE COUNTRY
Elizabeth Ward Gracen
Pauline Kanchanalak
Ming Chen
Antonio Pan
John H.K. Lee
Agus Setiawan
Ted Sioeng
Dewi Tirto
Subandi Tanuwidjaja
Soraya Wiriadinata
Felix Ma
Susanto Tanuwidjaja
Suryant Tanuwidjaja
Subandi Tanuwidjaja
Yanti Ardi
Nanny Nitiarta
Yopie Elnitiarta
Maureen Elnitiarta
Sandra Elnitiarta
Sundari Elnitiarta
WITNESS THAT LEFT THE COUNTRY, REASON UNKNOWN
Arief Wiriandinata
GOVERNMENT FACILITIES FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES
Lincoln Bedroom v Contributions
Queens Bedroom (overflow from Lincoln Bedroom)
Trade Mission Seats v Contributions
Coffees v Contributions
Fund Raising Calls from White House
White House Legal Office - Personal Defense
Camp David
Air Force One
Kennedy Center
USE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES FOR POLITICAL PURPOSE
FBI/Travelgate
INS/Pack the Vote 96
Justice/Firing all US Attorneys
Presidential Counsel's Office/Personal Work
BYPASS BY EXECUTIVE ORDERS
Assault Weapons
Domestic/NSC
Greenhouse (executive order threat)
American Heritage Rivers Initiative
American Heritage Rivers Initiative - Biodiversity Treaty
American Heritage Rivers Initiative - Council on Sustainable Development
(Agenda 21/92 R o Earth Summit)
Designation of 1.7 Million Acres in South Utah Off-limits to Development
(Sweet Coal)
STONEWALLS
Billing records missing for 2 years (subpoenaed, crucial to FDIC
investigation) appeared in White House living area and turned over
several days after statute of limitation expired.
Bruce Lindsey's notes, subpoenaed but not turned over until the day
after the Senate's Whitewater Committee authorization expired.
Hillary Clinton and White House lawyer talks claimed as executive
privilege, then attorney client privilege, appealed to Supreme Court -
ordered turned over.
Existence of diaries subpoenaed in April 97, were "concealed" to October
97 and have not been released. Second set also not disclosed until three
weeks before committee's deadline expired.
Existence of videotapes subpoenaed in April 97 (coffees and
fund-raisers) was not disclosed but then turned over October '97.
FBI files from 91 (Chinese efforts to influence U.S. elections) were
turned over five days after the Senate committee ended its hearings.
White House continues to be unresponsive (from June 96 o date) to
requests by Rep. Dave McIntosh, R-Ind., concerning its 300,000-name
database.
White House tried to delay the Paula Jones case until after Clinton left
office, appealed to the Supreme Court, turned down unanimously.
Existence of letters from Willey, subpoenaed by Jones' attorney was
denied, but 15 were produced in response to 60 Minutes interview, by
personal
approval of president.
Lewinsky proffer: Clinton told her that if she were in New York, she
might be able to avoid testifying in the Jones lawsuit. Lewinsky proffer:
Clinton told her she would not have to turn over the gifts, subpoenaed by
Ms.
Jones's lawyers, if she did not have them in her possess on.
Lewinsky proffer: Clinton told her that she could explain her White
House visits as trips to see Ms. Currie. (Only Currie was on vacation
during some of them).
Clinton met with Ms. Currie on a Sunday in January, the day after his
deposition in the Paula Jones case, posed and answered a series of
questions to guide her through an account of his relationship with
Lewinsky. The president placed Betty Currie at the center of all
Lewinsky-related matters. Mr. Clinton took Ms. Currie on his recent trip
to Africa.
Lewinsky tapes: she claims Clinton directed her to testify falsely in
the Jones case. Under oath Ms. Tripp said she was told by Lewinsky to "lie
and deny," Lewinsky passed along to Ms. Tripp three pages of "talking
points" giving her inst uctions on how to lie under oath.
Clinton/Flowers tape: Clinton says "deny it" Flowers says "The only
thing that concerns me . . . at this point, is the state job," to which
Clinton replies, "Yeah, I never thought about that. . . . If they ever ask
if
you've talked to me about it, you can say no." Refusal to allow access
to medical records.
SELF CONTRADICTION
The president's videotaped statement to donors that he was raising soft
money (illegally) to pay for reelection ads v his previous denials.
Publicly pledging cooperation v strategy of stonewalling Jones and Starr
and House/Senate Fictitious claim by president that he could not comment
on the Lewinsky matter because he was legally required to keep silent.
Clinton in January 98: "You and the American people have a right to get
answers. I'd like for you to have more rather than less, sooner rather
than later. So we'll work through it as quickly as we can and get all those
questions out there to you" v February 98, "I've told the American
people what is essential for them to know about this."
's has changed from 'never having met Jones' to admitting that
they may have been in the same room alone.
Feb. 22 denial that White House "or any of President Clinton's private
attorneys has hired or authorized any private investigator to look into
the background of . . . investigators, prosecutors or reporters" v next day
Terry Lenzner said that his firm, Investigative Group Inc., had been
retained by the law firm representing Mr. Clinton in Mr. Starr's
investigation.
Clinton's statement he had "no specific recollection" of his meeting
with Ms. Willey, v a later statement that he "has a very clear memory"
of the meeting.
Clinton denials in 1992 60 Minutes interview regarding Gennifer Flowers
(6 six years later) answering yes under oath.
Clinton's 1994 statement on executive privilege, "It's hard for me to
imagine a circumstance in which that would be an appropriate thing for
me to do" and counsel (Cutler's) statement that (1994) it is practice "not
to assert executive privilege" in circumstances involving communications
relating to investigations of personal wrongdoing by government
officials executive privilege claims.
A SMOKING GUN?
The president has denied, under oath and in public statements, any
sexual relations with Lewinsky. There are 20 hours of tape recordings
between
Lewinsky and Tripp, which details her affair with the president.
Lewinsky proffer confirms a sexual relationship with him. Lewinsky told
others
about her encounters with the president. Others claim to have heard
Clinton's
messages left on her answering machine. The president gave Lewinsky
gifts.
Lewinsky sent courier packages to the president. Lewinsky turned the
gifts over to Betty Currie, who gave them to Mr. Starr's investigators.
Lewinsky made at least 37 visits to the White House after she was
reassigned
to the Pentagon, and Clinton met with her after she was subpoenaed by
Jones.
ANOTHER SMOKING GUN?
President's deposition concerning Arkansas McDougal related bank fraud
was denial.
Susan McDougal's refusal to answer question "Did the president
testify truthfully?" resulted in jail time.
Bank documents found in trunk of abandoned car.
RECENT RESIGNATIONS
George Stephanopoulos
David Gergen
Dee Dee Myers
Dick Morris
Robert Reich
Ira Magaziner
Frederico Pena
Harold Ickes
Mike Espy
Roger Altman
Les Aspin
Leon Panetta
Hazel O'Leary
Warren Christopher
Lanny Davis
Franklin Raines (pending)
Richard Riley (rumored)
Robert Rubin (rumored)
Mike McCurry (rumored)
Thomas ("Mack") McLarty (rumored)
DEATHS - "SUICIDES"
Vincent Foster (Whitehouse Deputy Counsel, Gunshot to mouth)
Admiral Boorda (Clinton's Chief of Naval Operations) Official version:
He killed himself out of mortification because Newsweek didn't like
his medals. Unofficial version: Boorda was chagrined at the way the
Clinton administration abused distinguished career naval officers and
was contemplating resignation. Gunshot to heart.
Kathy Ferguson (ex-wife of Clinton co-defendant, Gunshot to head)
(Had told friends Clinton sexually harrassed her; had knowledge of
Clinton's
"regulars.")
Bill Shelton (Arkansas state trooper, Kathy Ferguson's fiancee, Gunshot
to head)
Susan Coleman (Alleged Clinton Girlfriend, 7.5 months pregnant, Gunshot
to head)
Jon Parnell Walker (RTC Investigator on Whitewater, fell from top of
Lincoln Towers)
Ed Willey ( Democratic Fundraiser, Gunshot to head)
Danny Casolaro (Reporter investigating Clinton Scandals) Slashed wrists
DEATHS - HOMICIDES
Mary Mahoney (Former White House intern shot multiple times in a
Starbucks, no money taken)
Luther "Jerry" Parks (Provided security for Clinton's campaign, multiple
gunshots)
Florence Martin (Accountant -- had documents on Mena accounts) Three
gunshots to the head
Don Ives (Witness to Mena, gunshot/left to be run over by train)
Kevin Henry (Witness to Mena, gunshot/left to be run over by train)
DEATHS - "ACCIDENTS"
Ron Brown, Plane Crash (Commerce, Pathologists question wound to head on
xrays)
Victor Raiser, Plane Crash (National Finance Co-Chair Clinton for
President)
R. Montgomery Raiser, Plane Crash (Clinton campaign)
Herschell Friday, Plane Explosion (Presidential Campaign Finance
Committee)
Dr. Ronald Rogers (Plane crash) Was enroute to tell Clinton "dirt"
to Ambrose Evans Pritchard
Stanley Heard, Plane Crash (Clinton Health Care Advisory Committee)
Steven Dickson, Plane Crash (Clinton Health Care Advisory Committee)
Paula Gober, Car Accident (Clinton Speech Interpreter)
Johnny Lawhon, Car Accident (Found Whitewater Canceled Check in Car
after Tornado)
Betty Currie's brother, Car/Pedestrian Accident (Key Witness brother)
Shelley Kelly, Survived Brown Plane Crash - died hours later
(Stewardess)
Judy Gibbs, (Alleged Clinton Girlfriend, Witness)
DEATHS - "NATURAL"
Jim McDougal, Heart Attack in Solitary (Witness in Whitewater)
DEATHS - UNKNOWN
Barbara Wise (Mickey Kantor's press secretary found dead, nude, in a
locked office at Commerce)
Paul Tulley (Democratic National Committee, in Hotel Room)
Paul Wilcher (Attorney who investigated Mena) Cause of death not reported
DEATHS - UNRECORDED
Various "Partial Birth" abortions since veto
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AND:
Geoff Metcalf
Exclusive commentary
Stall, Obfuscate, Belittle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
©1998, WorldNetDaily.com
Even NBC's Tim Russett has acknowledged the Clinton strategy of "Delay,
delay, delay." The longer the Clintonistas are successful in stalling,
postponing and exhausting procedural tools to put off any final requirement
to respond to the growing litany of scandals, the better (for the
Democrats). If the beleaguered Democrats can maintain the complicity of the
mainstream media, the cooperation of the courts, along with the ethical void
and malaise and demonstrated lack of courage or moral outrage of the alleged
Republican leadership, President Bill Clinton's richly earned political
downfall will disappear like a puff of cigar smoke in the wind. If (and it
remains a potential "if") the president can eat up time with stalling
tactics, his significant worries could all evaporate in the wake of a
Democrat congressional windfall. If the balance of power in the House of
Representatives shifts, and the Democrats recapture the majority and the
speakership, stick a fork in it -- the game is over.
History books will eventually be written about these dark days, and the
shameful malfeasance of the press will suffer significant critics which,
frankly, they have richly earned.
Before anyone dared mention treason, or even impeachment, before Monica
Lewinsky and before the smoking gun of the China revelations, there was
bunches and a lot to question. And it wasn't.
As each new scandal erupts, the spinmeisters quickly attach the messengers,
seek to discredit the sources, and blame the flap on mere petty partisan
bickering. Space prohibits a more detailed listing of scandals linked with
the current administration, but here's a fast 50 to view as a "body of work"
rather than an isolated scandal:
Vince Foster document handling.
The "alleged" suicide of Vince Foster.
Obstruction of Justice.
Travel Office firings.
Treasury Department contacts (Roger Altman)
Mike Espy ethics problems
Henry Cisneros ethics problems.
Ron Brown ethics problems.
Webster Hubbell ethics problems,
Harold Ickes ethics problems,
George Stephanopoulos ethics problems.
White House operations (drugs, security passes, misuse of assets).
Passport/State Department files search.
Legal defense fund solicitations.
Hillary Commodities trading.
Health care task force illegal secret meetings.
Rose law firm work for Madison S&L.
Whitewater.
David Hale.
Presidential immunity.
Jim and Susan McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker.
Dan Lasater (Clinton buddy, convicted drug dealer, and brother Roger's
connection).
Mena Airport drug smuggling and gun running.
Use of taxpayer paid public employees for private Clinton work.
Troopergate.
Women problems (not counting Hillary).
Value partners.
Presidential AND Gubernatorial campaign irregularities
Arkansas Development and Finance Agency (use of public funds for political
favors).
Possible/probable perjury.
Filegate.
Computerized enemies list database.
Hillary short sale of pharmaceutical stocks while she attacked the industry.
Failure to create a blind trust for personal holdings until long after
presidency.
Underpayment/nonpayment of taxes.
Offering to pay legal fees of targeted associates, which some legal
commentators have likened to illegally attempting to influence witnesses
(others consider it subornation of perjury).
Witness tampering.
Hazel O'Leary.
Zoe Baird/Nannygate.
Janet Reno activities regarding Branch Davidians and Ruby Ridge.
Iranian arms shipments o the Bosnians in violation of the U.N. embargo,
approved by Clinton.
Connections between organized crime and labor union head/Clinton buddy.
The reappearing missing Rose Law firm billing records.
Security breaches regarding White House clearances and passes; and Dick
Morris' hooker, who was privy to secret discussions and data.
45. DNC links with Indonesian financiers, the Lippo Goup, Mochtar Riady,
BCCI, Arkansas power brokers, Web Hubbell, Bill Clinton and DNC
contributions.
DNC links with Indonesian financiers, the Lippo Goup, Mochtar Riady, BCCI,
Arkansas power brokers, Web Hubbell, Bill Clinton and DNC contributions.
Threats and violence against assorted witnesses to past impropriety and
critics.
Pension fund abuses in Arkansas.
Castle Grande.
Somalia abuse of military.
Fast track qualification of aliens for citizenship including large numbers
whose criminal records were never checked; done over the objections of the
INS who viewed it as a blatantly political "pro-democratic voter mill"
according to a memo to Bill Clinton from Al Gore.
If the Democrats can recapture the House, all the above (and more) goes
"poof".
Here are two quotes in closing. Edmund Burke noted "The only thing necessary
for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Edward Albee once
observed (and this may prove prophetic), "What is gained is loss."
AND:
``I see the White House is like a subway -- you have to put in coins to open
the gates,'' -- Johnny Chung, Democratic Fundraiser.
WASHINGTON (Reuter) - Contradicting accounts by the Clinton administration,
one of the Democratic Party's biggest campaign donors says he gave a $50,000
check to the first lady's chief of staff on White House grounds in 1995 in
direct response to solicitations by Hillary Rodham Clinton's aides, the Los
Angeles Times reported in Sunday's editions.
Southern California entrepreneur Johnny Chung said he was seeking special
treatment for a delegation of visiting Chinese businessmen when he was asked
to help the first lady defray the cost of White House Christmas receptions
billed to the Democratic National Committee.
Chung told the Times in interviews that he realised such special treatment
hinged on his willingness to make a political contribution.
``I see the White House is like a subway -- you have to put in coins to open
the gates,'' he said.
Chung, a Taiwan-born businessman, contributed $366,000 to the Democratic
Party between mid-1994 and last November's election.
He has denied Republican allegations that he may have funnelled Chinese
government money to the DNC, but has refused to cooperate with campaign
fund-raising investigators unless granted immunity from prosecution.
Margaret Williams, the first lady's former chief of staff who has
acknowledged accepting Chung's check, is the subject of a pending inquiry by
the agency charged with enforcing the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal
employees from soliciting contributions, as well as by congressional panels
probing campaign finance abuses.
White House communications director Ann Lewis disputed Chung's account,
telling the Times, ``At no time did they (the first lady's aides) solicit a
contribution from Mr. Chung.''
Lewis also denied the check had anything to do with White House perquisites
extended Chung and the Chinese delegation.
She said the first lady's aides may have gotten Chung and his guests into
lunch at the White House mess and arranged a photo with Hillary Clinton, but
that any such efforts on his behalf were ``a courtesy we could do and have
done for friends.''
Chung's version of events, his first public comments on the episode,
challenged the administration's insistence that Williams played ``a
completely passive'' role in relaying an unsolicited check for $50,000 to
the DNC, the Times said.
07:37 07-27-97
AND:
These are a few of his Favorite Fiends. (Apologies to Julie Andrews.)
By now it is well known that Bill Clinton has been associating with some
highly unseemly characters. As usual, it comes out in "dribs and drabs", so
the full impact of the character of the people hob-knobbing with the First
Felon isn't immediately striking. Well, here is a list of just a few of the
scoundrels who have been granted access to the most powerful man in the
world.
Juan Jorge Cabrera. Convicted drug kingpin. Photographed with Bill Clinton
in the WhiteHouse. Currently in jail.
For $20,000 Democrats will bow down to drug dealers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
DNC and President Clinton miseries surrounding political donations continue.
A convicted Drug Dealer and Violent offender bought access to the President
and Vice President for $20,000. The man's name is Jorge Cabrera. Shortly
after meeting the Leaders of the Democratic Party, Cabrera was arrested once
again, caught with over 5800 lbs of Cocaine.
The DNC did finally give back the money donated by Mr. Cabrera only after a
report in Newsweek put the spotlight on the donations, dispite the fact the
donations were given last November.
Currently the Justice Department is attempting to confiscate all photographs
of Jorge and the President and VP. The Republicans have filed petitions
asking the Justice Department to either release the photos, which there are
no legal presidence for holding, or state what legal grounds they are using
to justify the confiscation of Personal Private Property.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Grigor Loutchansky. Russian Nuclear arms smuggler.
GOP Criticizes Democrats For Inviting Businessman To Dinner
November 3, 1996
8.29 pm EST (0129 GMT)
[Image]
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republicans and a former CIA director on Sunday
criticized the invitation to overseas businessman Grigory Loutchansky
to attend a Democratic Party dinner, saying Loutchansky is another
example of someone with an unsavory background becoming involved in
Democratic politics.
Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey said that at a congressional
hearing in April, current CIA Director John Deutch identified
Loutchansky's company, Nordex, as an "organization associated with
Russian criminal activity.''
"At bare minimum, any (Democratic Party) invitation to Loutchansky ...
would show a severe lack of scrutiny and appalling bad judgment,''
Woolsey said in a statement. "It would be unwise in the extreme for
there to be any ties between the U.S. government and Loutchansky or
Loutchansky's company, Nordex.''
CIA spokesman David Christian said he would review the agency's files
to determine if Deutch had testified that way. Woolsey, who headed the
CIA from 1993 to 1995, was Deutch's predecessor.
Loutchansky, a Russian who is an Israeli national, was photographed at
a Democratic National Committee dinner in 1994 standing with President
Clinton.
DNC spokeswoman Amy Weiss Tobe said Sunday the party sent Loutchansky a
letter inviting him to a subsequent event, but the DNC discovered some
"problems'' in his background and "we let him know he was no longer
invited.''
Tobe declined to say what those problems were.
Dole-Kemp campaign chairman Donald Rumsfeld said on "Fox News Sunday''
that he received a call Saturday from "a former, very senior official
of the CIA who told me about Mr. Gregori Loutchansky, and he is
described as a very unsavory individual.'' Rumsfeld was a secretary of
defense under President Ford.
Joining the attack, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., said the U.S.
government had determined Loutchansky was an international arms dealer
who had shipped SCUD missile warheads from North Korea to Iraq.
A week ago, Republicans attacked the Clinton administration for
allowing a convicted felon -- Democratic Party contributor Jorge
Cabrera -- to attend a White House function last year.
1996 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Assorted Islamic terrorists. Numerous cases documented in this article.
TERRORIST TIES OK AT WHITE HOUSE
By Steven Emerson
SPECIAL TO THE TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Imagine the president of the United States inviting to the White House the
comrades of one of the top international terrorists in the world, a
terrorist chieftain who has orchestrated mass murder against scores of
innocent civilians, including American children. Or visualize a picture of
first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton warmly greeting a top leader of an
American branch of a radical Islamic terrorist front group. Or think of
the vice president of the United States happily embracing a top Islamic
militant leader who has championed the terrorist mastermind behind the
World Trade Center bombing, a plot that was designed to kill 50,000
American people.
Unfortunately, you do not need a wild imagination to conjure up these
images. These meetings actually occurred within the past year, as
evidenced by the photos that accompany this article. These pictures were
reprinted from the pages of radical Islamic periodicals.
Although the administration of President Bill Clinton has publicly touted
its war on international terrorism, which has included new
counter-terrorism laws and resources for the FBI, it has simultaneously
courted and embraced militant Islamic groups in the United States. These
groups have openly promoted, supported and championed Islamic terrorist
groups that have targeted Jews, Christians and moderate Muslims around the
globe. Indeed, during the past year, the Clinton administration has openly
welcomed into the White House known U.S.-based representatives of foreign
Islamic militants - even arranging special receptions for these guests.
During the past decade, radical Islamic groups representing the entire
spectrum of militant terrorist organizations - including the
Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah, Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Algerian
Islamic Salvation Front and Egyptian Jihad - set up shop in the United
States to raise funds, recruit new members, publish and disseminate their
propaganda and even organize terrorist operations.
"These radical terrorist groups found that the United States, the freest
country in the world, was the best place to organize and build up their
terrorist movements,'' said Oliver Revell, former head of the FBI's
counter-terrorist investigations. He added: "In recent years, Hamas and
other terrorist groups found they can manipulate the American public and
politicians hiding under non-profit `religious charities,' self-defined
religious umbrellas and the politically correct buzzword of `human
rights.'''
Unlike the stereotypical picture of gun-toting terrorists, American-based
militants set up "front'' organizations projecting the false facade of
representing all Muslims or pretending to serve as "human and civil
rights'' organizations for Muslims. But, says professor Khalid Duran, a
Muslim specialist in fundamentalist Islam, "The only rights these groups
are protecting are the rights of terrorists to carry out mass murder.''
TWO MAJOR GROUPS IN U.S.
Among the two major groups fronting for or championing radical Islam in
the U.S. are the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR, and the
American Muslim Council, or AMC, both headquartered in Washington, D.C.
Records and documents obtained from both the White House and the internal
publications of the groups themselves show that CAIR and AMC have been
invited repeatedly into the White House by the president, the first lady
and Vice President Al Gore.
Curiously, the White House met with these groups despite an abundance of
available material showing these groups to be tied to terrorist movements.
Even after the meetings with the radical Islamic groups were publicly
exposed in a Wall Street Journal article by this writer in March 1996, the
White House continued to meet with the militants. The question is why.
Does the White House consider these groups to be representative of all
Muslims? If so, that is a terrible slur on American Muslims and Muslims
worldwide who abhor violence and want nothing to do with the extremist
fringes of radical Islam that represent no one but themselves.
Does the White House consider these militants to be simply legitimate
members of the ethnic and political American mosaic? If so, why doesn't
the White House extend the same courtesy to other groups and invite
officials of the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation or Louis Farrakahn's
Nation of Islam into the White House? Does the White House believe it can
turn these groups into moderates? If so, the record shows that the
meetings have only emboldened the radical Islamic groups into more
aggressive support for terrorists. Was the White House duped into
believing these groups were "moderate?'' If so, such a deception would
have meant that the White House did not pursue one iota of vetting of
these groups before they were welcomed into the White House inner sanctum.
Even assuming such a deception could have occurred the first time these
groups were invited, how could the White House ignore subsequent public
statements and articles attesting to the radical agenda of these groups?
For the time being, we may not know the answers to these questions. But
the public has a right to know in the future.
A LOOK IN SIDE CAIR
Here's a sketch of these groups, starting with the Council on American
Islamic Relations. CAIR, established in 1994 in part with funds from
radical Persian Gulf donors, says its agenda is to protect "Muslim civil
rights.'' In fact, it has openly and covertly championed the most violent
international terrorists in the world today. These include Musa Abu
Marzuk, the Palestinian Hamas commander now being held in an American
prison and awaiting extradition to Israel, and Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman,
serving a life sentence for orchestrating a mass murder conspiracy that
included the World Trade Center bombing. The conspiracy, according to the
presiding judge, would have resulted in the most civilian casualties on
American soil since the Civil War. (Fortunately, the plot was interdicted
by the FBI before a second set of planned bombings could be carried out.)
CAIR's officers include one Islamic official who was listed by the Justice
Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade Center
bombing and other officers who have called for the destruction of American
society and have promoted blatant anti-Semitism. In addition, CAIR has
sponsored the visits of radical fundamentalists to the United States,
including Jordanian Islamic Action Front official Bassam al-Amoush.
Speaking at a Muslim conference in downtown Chicago in December 1994,
al-Amoush openly called for the killing of Jews.
Federal records show that CAIR was created by a Texas-based group, the
Islamic Association for Palestine, an organization that Revell has deemed
a "Hamas front.'' The Islamic Association for Palestine has issued Hamas
communiques calling for suicide bombing operations, produced and
distributed terrorist-training tapes glorifying the killing of
"infidels,'' and published some of the most virulent anti-Semitic and
anti-American screeds.
Until he became the founding head of CAIR, Nihad Awad was a top official
of the Islamic Association of Palestine. While Awad was an officer,
someone in that group's Dallas-based office, according to telephone
records released in the World Trade Center bombing trials, was in contact
with the conspirators behind the bombing.
In 1994, Awad declared at a university symposium in Florida: "I am in
support of Hamas. ... I know that this movement as an Islamic movement has
not been objectively reported in the United States ... '' Accordingly,
both Awad and Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR's communication director, have
repeatedly attacked as "anti-Muslim'' journalists and others who have
written about the terrorism committed by Hamas and other radical Islamic
terrorist groups.
Hooper has openly defended Hamas, the Sudanese National Islamic Front and
other violent anti-American terrorist groups by claiming that articles
critical of these organizations or which expose their American connections
are "smears against Islam.''
Recently, CAIR has begun to organize street protests against news
organizations that write about the history of militant Islam -going to the
point of lambasting anyone who refers to "fundamentalist Islam'' or to the
concept of a jihad (holy war) in Islam as guilty of "defaming Muslims.''
The other group repeatedly wined and dined at the White House is the
American Muslim Council, whose head is Abdulrahman Alamoudi. Both the
president and the vice president have invited Alamoudi into the White
House, and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton allowed the American Muslim
Council this year to organize a reception for itself at the White House,
even selecting all the participants. In addition, the AMC has provided
"talking points" for the first lady for her syndicated column and speeches.
A LOOK INSIDE AMC
What does the American Muslim Council stand for? AMC has repeatedly
championed and supported Hamas and its leaders, routinely declaring that
Hamas "is not a terrorist group'' and claiming that U.S. efforts to clamp
down on terrorist funding in America are "anti-Islam.''
Following the 1995 arrest of Hamas terrorist commander Musa Abu Marzuk,
Alamoudi became Marzuk's primary defender. "I know the man, he is a
moderate man on many issues,'' Alamoudi was quoted in the Washington Post,
adding, "This (arrest) is an insult to the Muslim community.''
Soon, Alamoudi began organizing Marzuk's defense fund. Earlier this year,
Alamoudi stated on Arabic television, "I have known Musa Abu Marzuk before
and I really consider him to be from among the best people in the Islamic
movement,Hamas. ... I work together with him.''
The AMC has collaborated closely with known Hamas and Islamic Jihad front
groups such as the Virginia-based United Association for Studies and
Research, or UASR, and the Florida-based World and Islam Studies
Enterprise. (The latter group has now shut down and is under federal
investigation for serving as a terrorist command and control center in the
United States.)
Records show that Alamoudi has actively participated in or sponsored
militant Islamic conferences, featuring some of the leaders of the most
violent Middle Eastern terrorist groups and their front organizations in
the United States. One such radical gathering, at which Alamoudi was a
speaker along with known terrorists from the Middle East, was held in
Virginia in 1991.
Alamoudi has closely worked with UASR, distributing its materials and
co-sponsoring its conferences. At an October 1993 conference co-sponsored
by AMC and UASR, Democratic U.S. Rep. Robert G. Torricelli of New Jersey
was the guest speaker.
Beyond support for Hamas, the AMC has provided office space to the
Algerian Islamic Salvation Front, organized press conferences for visiting
officials of the Sudanese National Islamic Front (an organization defined
as "terrorist'' by the State Department), lauded the electoral victory of
the radical Islamic Turkish Refah Party (known for its open anti-Semitism
and anti-Americanism), championed the radical Iranian-trained
anti-American mujahedeen (holy warriors) in Bosnia, portrayed President
Clinton's meeting with Salman Rushdie as an insult to Muslims comparable
to the Holocaust against the Jews, and attacked the media for exposing
militant Islam's repression of women and their human rights.
ABOUT THE WRITER
Steve Emerson is a terrorism expert who has investigated the activities of
radical Islamic groups in the United States. A former correspondent for
both U.S. News and World Report and Cable News Network, Emerson was
executive producer of the award-winning 1994 documentary "Jihad in
America," is the author of four books on the Middle East and
counter-terrorism, and has testified frequently before Congress on the
threat of Islamic groups to the United States.
Gerry Adams. IRA Terrorist.
Gen. Chi Haotian. The "Butcher of Beijing." Who had the audacity to claim
that no one was killed in Beijing Square. They were. He killed them.
Dinner With Gen. Chi
By Nat Hentoff
Sunday, January 26 1997; Page C07
The Washington Post
The most disheartening Oval Office
photograph I have ever seen showed -- last
December -- a smiling president seated next
to Gen. Chi Hoatian, the Chinese defense
minister. In 1989, when Gen. Chi was chief
of staff of the People's Liberation Army,
he was in charge of the massacre of unarmed
pro-democracy students in Tiananmen Square.
(Some held replicas of the Statue of
Liberty.) As John Diamond has noted in The
Post, "hundreds, perhaps thousands" were
killed on orders of Gen. Chi.
While a number of Republicans in Congress
protested the welcoming of Chi by the
leader of the free world -- with flags
flying and cannon firing over the Potomac
-- a lone Democrat, Nancy Pelosi of
California, publicly denounced the Clinton
administration for having "given great face
to the hard-liners in the Chinese regime."
I asked her reaction to that Oval Office
photograph of Clinton and the smug general.
"Oh, my God," she said, "I thought I would
never see the day. The president won't see
the Dalai Lama, he won't see the
pro-democracy dissidents, he won't see
Harry Wu, but he did see this thug. It's
absolutely appalling."
Why was she the only Democrat to speak out
when -- as the new Human Rights Watch World
Report 1997 points out -- "Torture of
China's detainees and prisoners continues .
. . medical treatment continues to be
denied to political and religious prisoners
. . . [Chinese] security forces in Tibet
use forms of torture which leave no marks
against those suspected of major
pro-independence activism?"
Where were the liberal Democrats in
Congress? "Well," Pelosi said, "Congress
wasn't in session when Gen. Chi came." And
all those other human rights Democrats
presumably were bereft of telephones, fax
machines and the U.S. mail.
Pelosi criticized Clinton "with great
regret because I think he is capable of
some good things." She did not enumerate
what those are. But Clinton's policy of
placing trade with China over criticism of
its abysmal human rights record has, says
Pelosi, "led to crackdowns in China. You
would be hard put to find a dissident to
talk to in China. They're all in prison, in
labor camps or in exile. Their families
have been silenced. It's heartbreaking."
She told me of a characteristic Clinton
turnaround: "A year ago, at the United
Nations anniversary session in San
Francisco, he actually said in his speech,
`We will not limit our enthusiasm for human
rights just because of the almighty
dollar.'
"I was sitting, in the box, with Tony Lake
[the national security adviser], and I
said, `How could he possibly say that?' " I
asked her what Lake said. "Nothing," said
Pelosi.
It is not only Clinton and his
administration that angers Pelosi. She
speaks of the "huge amounts of money" being
spent to legitimize the
trade-over-human-rights policy.
"Corporations allowed to do business in
China lobby, make presentations and
schmooze with members of Congress and
journalists. Money is the biggest enemy of
those of us on the other side. All we have
been asking is that the Clinton
administration does for human beings in
China what it does for American
intellectual property rights."
A corollary obstacle to helping China's
prisoners of conscience is, as Pelosi puts
it, the revolving door by which lobbyists
become administration policymakers. "Sandy
Berger," she notes, "was the point person
at the Hogan & Hartson law firm for the
trade office of the Chinese government. He
was a lawyer-lobbyist. When he went into
the Clinton administration he was second to
Tony Lake, and now he is the national
security adviser."
I told the congresswoman that Human Rights
Watch/Asia has asked Vice President Gore to
suspend his spring plan to visit China in
light of the deteriorating human rights
situation there.
Pelosi agrees, until actual human rights
progress is visible. She also objects to
the forthcoming formal exchange of state
visits between Clinton and Chinese
president Jiang Zemin. That exchange will
be a further signal to the Chinese
government, she says, that it will not be
disturbed as it keeps fillng its prisons.
"I thought it would be different when the
Democrats came in," she said.
When Gen. Chi came to Washington to get his
military honors, the CIA distributed his
biography to members of Congress and other
officials. Nancy Pelosi made it known
publicly that the CIA had omitted any
mention of the Tiananmen Square massacre in
that biography. She did not get a thank-you
note from the White House.
Pelosi thinks that increasing persecution
of Christians in China may yet awaken
American consciousness about that brutal
regime. In November, in Jiangxi province,
80 Catholics were arrested without
warrants, beaten and jailed.
© Copyright 1997 The Washington Post
Company
Wang Jun. Chinese arms dealer.
After Wang Jun visited
President Clinton in the Oval Office, longtime
Clinton supporter Ernest G. Green, who helped Mr.
Wang get a U.S. visa, made a $50,000 contribution to
the Democratic National Committee.
In the previous five years, Mr. Green, one of the
"Little Rock Nine" who integrated Central High School
after the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown vs.
Board of Education, made only two contributions to
the DNC: $3,700 in August 1994 and $250 in February
1995.
Mr. Green has made numerous appearances with Mr.
Clinton over the years, and his civil rights role was
the subject of a 1993 Disney Channel movie, "The
Ernest Green Story." Mr. Clinton, when he was
president-elect, attended a sneak preview of the film
with Mr. Green in Little Rock.
Now managing director at Lehman Brothers Inc. in
Washington, Mr. Green made the large DNC donation in
separate checks of $20,000 and $30,000, both dated
Feb. 7, 1996, according to Federal Election
Commission records.
That donation followed by a day a DNC-arranged
White House meeting between the president and
Democratic contributors, including Mr. Wang -- who
was the Oval Office guest of Arkansas businessman
Charles Yah Lin Trie, a longtime Clinton friend now
at the center of a probe into $640,000 he gave the
president's legal-defense fund a month after the Wang
visit.
Mr. Green's Feb. 7 contribution was followed by DNC
donations the next nine months totaling $7,500.
Mr. Trie and Mr. Green wrote letters of endorsement
for the Wang visa, issued by the U.S. Embassy in
Beijing.
Mr. Green, whose secretary was advised that The
Washington Times wanted to speak to him about Mr.
Wang's visa and the DNC donations, did not return
numerous telephone calls.
Mr. Trie has not been available. His legal-defense
contributions, delivered in March in two large
envelopes, were returned after defense-fund
executives said they could not establish their
source. The donations included checks with signatures
that matched those on other checks and money orders
numbered sequentially but supposedly originating from
people in different cities.
The contributions, the letters of endorsement and
the timing of the Clinton-Wang meeting, along with a
session the same day between Mr. Wang and Commerce
Secretary Ronald H. Brown, have attracted the
attention of House investigators looking into
suspected irregularities in foreign campaign
contributions.
Rep. Gerald B.H. Solomon, chairman of the House
Rules Committee, asked Commerce Secretary Mickey
Kantor this month for Mr. Brown's calendars, phone
logs and "any notes or briefing papers" he made or
received on his meeting with Mr. Wang. The New York
Republican also is seeking information on "the names
of all individuals who arranged" the meeting or took
part in it.
House investigators looking into foreign campaign
contributions involving the Indonesia-based Lippo
Group have expanded their inquiry to include a review
of Mr. Wang's interests, which exist under a holding
company known as the Poly Group, according to Capitol
Hill sources.
Investigators want to know:
* If contributions were sought or promised in
exchange for Mr. Wang's White House visit.
* If there was any connection between the
administration's failure to enforce American
anti-proliferation laws and DNC overseas fund
raising.
* If the Wang visit was part of a larger scheme to
trade White House access for campaign donations.
The House probe also is trying to find out how the
Wang visit is tied to an administration plan to court
Asian Americans, Hispanics, blacks and other groups
by offering unprecedented access to the White House.
That plan, made public last week, outlined a
fund-raising and vote-getting effort to put donors
with administration officials, including the
president.
At the time of the visit, described by the White
House as a "coffee" with DNC contributors, Mr. Wang
was chairman of a Chinese arms company known as Poly
Technologies Inc., although his visa application
listed him only as an executive of a China-based
investment firm.
Poly Technologies makes weapons for the Chinese
military and at the time of the visit was under
investigation by the U.S. Customs Service in a major
smuggling operation. The company had been identified
by undercover agents as a supplier of 2,000 AK-47s
delivered to drug dealers and street gangs in the
United States.
Mr. Wang was not charged in the probe, but
investigators confirmed his name was "not unknown to
undercover agents who had worked the case." One Poly
Technologies executive, He Ping, son-in-law of
Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, was targeted -- but not
arrested -- in the case.
Mr. Clinton has said it was "clearly inappropriate"
for Mr. Wang to have been included among reception
guests, but he had no recollection of meeting him and
"nothing inappropriate came from it in terms of any
governmental action on my part."
State Department records show Mr. Wang was issued a
visa Jan. 22, 1996, at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing.
On his application, he did not say where he intended
to go, although letters of support written by Mr.
Green and Mr. Trie said he was headed to Washington
on business.
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service records
show Mr. Wang entered the United States Feb. 1 and
returned to China on Feb. 10. He has not applied for
a second visa, INS records show.
The State Department, in response to questions by
Mr. Solomon, said it was unaware of Mr. Wang's ties
to Poly Technologies, believing he was an official of
China International Trust and Investment Corp.
Undercover agents were dealing with Poly
Technologies officials for hand grenades, Stinger
missiles and other sophisticated weaponry when a
media leak about the probe forced its premature
termination. The Customs Service investigated the
leak, but no suspects were identified, and the
inquiry was closed.
Poly Technologies, according to intelligence
sources, also is suspected of brokering
cruise-missile sales to Iran, which would violate the
Gore-McCain Act. The administration, however, has
never sought sanctions against the company for those
sales.
Mr. Green was named by Mr. Clinton in March 1994 to
head the African Development Foundation, a nonprofit
government corporation established to provide
self-help initiatives to the poor in Africa. He also
served in the Carter administration as an assistant
secretary of labor.
Mr. Trie, head of an international consulting firm,
has visited the White House 23 times since 1993. He
raised $350,000 for the DNC in 1996 and was named by
Mr. Clinton to a presidential trade commission a
month after his delivery of the legal-defense funds.
* John Haydon contributed to this report.
Go back to the top of this article.
------------------------------------------------------
Published January 29, 1997, in The Washington Times
Copyright =A9 1997 News World Communications, Inc.
Eric Wynn. Convicted embezzler working for the Mafia.
Report: Clinton Met Shady Guest
Friday, January 31, 1997 11:48 pm EST
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A stock promoter
convicted of securities fraud that benefited an alleged Mafia
member was among eight guests invited to a December 1995
coffee with President Clinton, The Washington Post reported in
Saturday's edition.
Eric Wynn was sentenced in September
to 52 months in prison and ordered to pay a $50,000 fine. Citing
court records, the Post said the New Jersey promoter ran a stock
manipulation scheme and had set up an account for an alleged
member of the Bonanno crime family.
An unnamed associate of Wynn's told
the Post that Wynn has sought a pardon for his conviction, but
the Justice Department said no formal request for pardon was
on record.
Previously, Wynn had served two years
in prison after a 1989 guilty plea on theft and tax charges,
according to the Post.
Wynn is not listed on federal reports
as donating money directly to the Democrats, but a Florida firm
that the Post reported he partially controlled, Wireless Advantage
Inc., wrote a $25,000 check to the Democratic National Committee
two days before the coffee with Clinton.
Wynn joins a cast of controversial
figures who were welcomed into the White House, which has vowed
to toughen security checks for visitors.
A fugitive Lebanese businessman, another
businessman whose company has been linked to Russian organized
crime, a Chinese arms dealer and another convicted felon have
all participated in White House meetings, according to previous
reports.
© Copyright 1997 The Associated Press
Arthur Coia. Labor Union leader under investigation for Mob connections.
Early warnings to avoid Coia ignored by Clintons
By JOHN E. MULLIGAN
Journal-Bulletin Washington Bureau
-------------------------------------------------------
RELATED STORIES: The Worlds of Arthur Coia
WASHINGTON -- The White House apparently was alerted in
early 1994 that Laborers' union chief Arthur A. Coia
was the target of a federal racketeering probe, but
President Clinton continued to court his political
support.
Internal Justice Department documents obtained by the
Journal-Bulletin show that federal prosecutors sought
to convey their concern about Coia, the general
president of the Laborers' International Union of North
America, to the White House much earlier than the
administration has previously acknowledged.
The chief of the Justice Department's organized crime
and racketeering section, Paul E. Coffey, urged in a
Jan. 11, 1994, memo that Hillary Rodham Clinton "should
avoid any direct contact with Coia," since prosecutors
planned to "portray him as a mob puppet."
But throughout 1994, Mr. Clinton kept up his political
friendship with Coia, in ways big and small: over
breakfast at the White House and over dinner at gala
Democratic fund-raisers; accepting a handmade golf
shirt; discussing federal job-training grants for the
Laborers' union.
In October 1994, Mr. Clinton was considering appointing
Coia to a presidential commission when an even more
emphatic alert went up to Atty. Gen. Janet Reno. Asst.
Atty. Gen. Jo Ann Harris, the third-ranking officer in
the Justice Department, told Reno of evidence that
"Coia was associated with and controlled by the New
England Family of La Cosa Nostra."
That was two weeks before Mr. Clinton hosted Coia in
the Oval Office on Oct. 20, 1994, and made his
now-famous gift of a golf club to the Rhode Island-born
labor leader.
The memos detailing the prosecutors' concerns about Mr.
Clinton's relationship with Coia are part of a raft of
documents that the White House, the Justice Department
and the Laborers' union have provided to the House
Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on crime, which is
conducting two days of hearings into union corruption.
The Journal-Bulletin obtained the memos yesterday.
The House panel is looking into how Coia fended off the
Justice Department racketeering complaint and whether
his political connections played a role.
No evidence of White House interference has emerged.
And until the new documents surfaced it appeared that
no high-level efforts had been made to caution the
White House about Coia until January 1995, after
prosecutors had presented him with their draft
complaint.
House crime subcommittee chairman Bill McCollum,
R-Fla., referred to the memos during yesterday's
hearing, saying that they called into question "the
appearances and appropriateness" of the President's
dealings with Coia.
When the Journal-Bulletin began reporting on the
Laborers' case last year, a key question was why Mrs.
Clinton had given a speech to the union's Tri-Fund
Conference in Orlando, Fla., in February 1995, while
lawyers for the Justice Department and the union were
still embroiled in their negotiations over the union's
-- and Coia's -- future.
The big news from the latest round of memos is that the
Justice Department had frowned on the prospect of
contact between Mrs. Clinton and Coia a full year
before that, when she was invited to address the same
annual conference by satellite TV.
Here is a brief chronology of what the memos show and
how Coia's contacts with the Clintons continued from
early 1994 to Feb. 13, 1995, when the union's agreement
with the Justice Department was signed:
--On Jan. 11, 1994, Coffey, the chief of the
department's organized-crime unit, wrote to Deputy
Asst. Atty. Gen. John C. Keeney with his advice about
the First Lady's plan to speak at a union conference in
Florida on Feb. 2 or 3.
Coffey said that the U.S. Attorney's office in Chicago
would soon recommend a civil racketeering suit against
the union and Coia, among other defendants. Coffey said
he understood that the Labor Department had told the
White House that some of the defendants would be at the
conference. He said, "it might be a good idea to
double-check on that," and added that Mrs. Clinton's
speech by satellite would be no problem.
Coffey concluded: "It might be prudent to recommend
that she avoid any direct contact with Coia, if
possible, inasmuch as we plan to portray him as a mob
puppet."
Mrs. Clinton made the televised speech, but the record
of Coia's continuing contacts with the White House
shows no effort to put distance between him and the
First Family. He attended a presidential dinner, for
example, on April 19, 1994. And in May, Coia attended a
White House bill signing, and he gave $50,000 to one of
Mrs. Clinton's favorite charities, the U.S. Botanic
Garden. That won Coia and his wife entree to an
exclusive dinner attended by the Clintons.
--In a Sept. 15, 1994, memo, White House Counsel Lloyd
N. Cutler formally asked the FBI to check on Coia,
because Coia was being considered for appointment to
the President's Advisory Council on Competitiveness.
The FBI's Oct. 7 response describes its years of
investigation of Coia and states: "Coia is a criminal
associate of the New England Patriarca organized-crime
family." The report also notes that Coia was under
"ongoing civil investigation by the FBI," and cautions
against disclosure of that fact. The report says that
Abner J. Mikva, Cutler's replacement as White House
counsel, requested the check.
The memo from Asst.Atty. Gen. Harris to Reno -- labeled
"DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE URGENT REPORT" -- is undated but
refers to the advisory-council appointment and the
White House request for an inquiry on Coia.
"The Criminal Division has long had information,
including public testimony and information from
cooperating witnesses, that Coia was associated with
and controlled by the New England Crime Family of La
Cosa Nostra," Harris wrote.
She added that within several weeks the Justice
Department's organized-crime unit planned to file its
complaint, accusing Coia and two previous union
presidents "of being puppets of the LCN [La Cosa
Nostra]. "
(Coia's lawyer, Howard Gutman, said yesterday that he
understood that federal authorities did not consider
Coia "a criminal associate" of organized crime. Gutman
said, rather, that they had characterized him as
"associated with" mob figures, including union members
with whom he dealt in his job. Gutman said the lesser
designation may refer merely "to having dinners and the
like" with such figures.)
Coia never got his presidential appointment, but on
Oct. 20, 1994, he did get a personal meeting with
President Clinton to lobby for federal grants. Deputy
White House Chief of Staff Harold M. Ickes also
attended the Oval Office meeting.
That was the occasion of Mr. Clinton's now famous
gesture of friendship to the labor leader: He presented
Coia with a Calloway "Divine Nine" golf club. Coia
reciprocated days later with the gift of an expensive
driver, handmade by a Rhode Island artisan, bearing the
Presidential seal.
--On Nov. 4, Coffey, the chief of the Justice
Department's organized-crime unit, delivered the draft
racketeering complaint to Coia's office, at Laborers'
headquarters, in Washington. That complaint was never
filed in court. Instead, there ensued three months of
negotiations between Coia's legal team and the Justice
Department.
Meanwhile, the union asked Mrs. Clinton to keep her
date to address the Feb. 6, 1995, Tri-Fund Conference
in Florida. When the Journal-Bulletin asked about that
last year, the White House press office issued a
statement that said in part:
"A few days prior to her departure Ms. Clinton was
informed by the Deputy Chief of Staff that the Justice
Department had informed the counsel's office that Mr.
Coia was currently under investigation; therefore she
should not have any private meetings or conversations
with Mr. Coia. The President was not advised of the
Justice Department's investigation of Mr. Coia as there
was no occasion for which he had a need to know this
information. . . . "
White House spokeswoman Mary Ellen Glynn said last
night that the White House had no explanation yet of
whether the Clintons had, in fact, ever been cautioned
against meetings with Coia after the time of Coffey's
Jan. 11, 1994, memo -- and if so why their contacts
with Coia proliferated through 1994.
--On Feb. 13, 1995, the union and the Justice
Department signed an agreement that permitted the union
to mount its own internal campaign against mob
corruption, and let Coia stay on as president. The
Justice Department retained the right, until February
1998, to take over the union if the in-house union
cleanup is deemed unsatisfactory.
The documents provided to the Journal-Bulletin do not
make clear whether the warnings about the imminent
proceedings against Coia ever got to President Clinton
and, if so, when and how.
But the memos do make clear that -- more than a year
before the Justice Department-Laborers' agreement --
top-level federal prosecutors were sensitive to the
propriety of Coia's contacts with the President and the
first lady, and tried to send warnings up the chain of
command.
Rep. Charles E. Schumer, N.Y., the ranking
crime-subcommittee Democrat, ridiculed the idea that a
president could avoid all contact with labor leaders
whose unions are accused of corruption.
He produced a photograph of then-Sen. Bob Dole with the
late Jackie Presser, the notorious Teamsters leader,
and asked whether "that disqualifies Bob Dole from
being president." Asked about the appropriateness of
Mr. Clinton's contacts with Coia, Schumer said, "Do I
think the President and First Lady did anything wrong?
The answer is no."
-------------------------------------------------------
Of course that's not even mentioning the members of his administration and
personal friends who are either in jail or going soon, such as:
Web Hubbell
Jim Guy Tucker
James McDougal
Susan McDougal
and many others, not yet convicted (Hillary!)
And there's a whole lot more .. do you really want to find out about your
hero ... or would you just ignore the truth and go on believing the myth
that Clinton was a good president?
Pope Dilbert
"Dude" <Du...@MyPlace.net> wrote in message
news:vd8njdf...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> news:3ED157...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> > "Dave Simpson," loonie, <david_l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:23e7f86e.03052...@posting.google.com...
> > > As of 2003, Clinton's legacy is mainly known for this:
> >
> > Only among the looniest of LOONS. Lies repeated are still lies.
> >
> > > a) Worst president ever -- managed to make both Carter and Nixon look>
> better
> >
> > Keep repeating the lie, but it won't stick. You guys have both Nixon
> > and Reagan, the most scandal-prone presidents in the last 50 years. And
> > before that it was Harding.
>
>
>
>
> So do you equate a good president to a lack of scandal or to what he did
> that was positive for the nation?
>
> You named President's Nixon and Regan both of which were very good
> presidents.
Bwahahhaaa...... good presidents do not commit, and get away with, major
crimes against the nation/people/congress .... asshole!
>
> You also seemed to be trying to use one of the favorite tactics of
liberals,
> moral relativism ... trying to point to president's that you consider to
be
> scandalous and in doing so attempting to lessen the horrific legacy of
> Clinton.
and you morons keep pointing at Clinton, as though he committed the crime of
the century!
It is NOT "moral relativism", shit for brains! It's called republican
hypocricy!
Dude
"Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
news:DPZAa.27212$_t5....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> "Dude" <Du...@MyPlace.net> wrote in message
> news:vd8njdf...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> > news:3ED157...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> > > "Dave Simpson," loonie, <david_l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:23e7f86e.03052...@posting.google.com...
> > > > As of 2003, Clinton's legacy is mainly known for this:
> > >
> > > Only among the looniest of LOONS. Lies repeated are still lies.
> > >
> > > > a) Worst president ever -- managed to make both Carter and Nixon
look>
> > better
> > >
> > > Keep repeating the lie, but it won't stick. You guys have both Nixon
> > > and Reagan, the most scandal-prone presidents in the last 50 years.
And
> > > before that it was Harding.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > So do you equate a good president to a lack of scandal or to what he did
> > that was positive for the nation?
> >
> > presidents.
>
> Bwahahhaaa...... good presidents do not commit, and get away with, major
> crimes against the nation/people/congress .... asshole!
I did not claim that either Nixon or Reagan were great president, just very
good .. which they both were. Both had incredibly positive effects on the
nation both during and after their term's of office.
If you equate being good to the lack of scandal than you will never find a
modern day president to be good. In the past the press corp turned a blind
eye to presidents indiscretions out of respect for the office, if not for
the man. Now the press searches every president, member of his
administration .. down to the lowest level aide ... for jay-walking tickets
and tries to tie that person to something dark and dastardly and then go
after the president by guilt by association.
If you have any interest what so ever in factual history go and research
both the Nixon and Reagan presidencies and I do not mean at crank propaganda
web sites either for or against both of them ... but actual factual history
and you will be stunned at the good that both accomplished.
Still though something tells me that you would rather not be confused by
facts ... you've already been baffled by bullshit so you think you know
everything already.
President Nixon highlights:
Richard M. Nixon
Reconciliation was the first goal set by President Richard M. Nixon. The
Nation was painfully divided, with turbulence in the cities and war
overseas. During his Presidency, Nixon succeeded in ending American fighting
in Viet Nam and improving relations with the U.S.S.R. and China. But the
Watergate scandal brought fresh divisions to the country and ultimately led
to his resignation.
His election in 1968 had climaxed a career unusual on two counts: his early
success and his comeback after being defeated for President in 1960 and for
Governor of California in 1962.
Born in California in 1913, Nixon had a brilliant record at Whittier College
and Duke University Law School before beginning the practice of law. In
1940, he married Patricia Ryan; they had two daughters, Patricia (Tricia)
and Julie. During World War II, Nixon served as a Navy lieutenant commander
in the Pacific.
On leaving the service, he was elected to Congress from his California
district. In 1950, he won a Senate seat. Two years later, General Eisenhower
selected Nixon, age 39, to be his running mate.
As Vice President, Nixon took on major duties in the Eisenhower
Administration. Nominated for President by acclamation in 1960, he lost by a
narrow margin to John F. Kennedy. In 1968, he again won his party's
nomination, and went on to defeat Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey and
third-party candidate George C. Wallace.
His accomplishments while in office included revenue sharing, the end of the
draft, new anticrime laws, and a broad environmental program. As he had
promised, he appointed Justices of conservative philosophy to the Supreme
Court. One of the most dramatic events of his first term occurred in 1969,
when American astronauts made the first moon landing.
Some of his most acclaimed achievements came in his quest for world
stability. During visits in 1972 to Beijing and Moscow, he reduced tensions
with China and the U.S.S.R. His summit meetings with Russian leader Leonid
I. Brezhnev produced a treaty to limit strategic nuclear weapons. In January
1973, he announced an accord with North Viet Nam to end American involvement
in Indochina. In 1974, his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, negotiated
disengagement agreements between Israel and its opponents, Egypt and Syria.
In his 1972 bid for office, Nixon defeated Democratic candidate George
McGovern by one of the widest margins on record.
Within a few months, his administration was embattled over the so-called
"Watergate" scandal, stemming from a break-in at the offices of the
Democratic National Committee during the 1972 campaign. The break-in was
traced to officials of the Committee to Re-elect the President. A number of
administration officials resigned; some were later convicted of offenses
connected with efforts to cover up the affair. Nixon denied any personal
involvement, but the courts forced him to yield tape recordings which
indicated that he had, in fact, tried to divert the investigation.
As a result of unrelated scandals in Maryland, Vice President Spiro T. Agnew
resigned in 1973. Nixon nominated, and Congress approved, House Minority
Leader Gerald R. Ford as Vice President.
Faced with what seemed almost certain impeachment, Nixon announced on August
8, 1974, that he would resign the next day to begin "that process of healing
which is so desperately needed in America."
In his last years, Nixon gained praise as an elder statesman. By the time of
his death on April 22, 1994, he had written numerous books on his
experiences in public life and on foreign policy.
Richard Milhous Nixon, (1913-1994), nik's[sch ]n, 37th PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES. Nixon is remembered for his achievements in foreign policy
and for the WATERGATE affair and related scandals, in which he became so
involved that he was forced to resign his office.
Nixon was a skilled negotiator with a broad understanding of world affairs.
He and his adviser Henry Kissinger ended direct U.S. involvement in the
Vietnam War. They improved relations with China and the Soviet Union. They
helped end a war between Israel and its Arab neighbors and worked toward a
lasting peace in the Middle East. But the restrictive oil policies of Middle
Eastern countries further weakened an American economy that slipped into a
recession during Nixon's last year in office.
The president's career was shattered when evidence established that he had
joined members of his staff in trying to cover up the Watergate break-in.
Nixon's decline and fall spanned two years as the truth slowly unfolded
before an incredulous nation. Dozens of government officials, campaign
aides, and financial contributors were implicated in the scandal. In his
later years Nixon sought to rehabilitate his image, lecturing frequently,
traveling abroad, advising presidents, and publishing several books on U.S.
foreign policy.
Elected President in 1968
After Goldwater lost, Nixon's political fortunes revived. By campaigning for
congressional candidates in 1966, he earned new popularity in his party, and
he entered the race for the 1968 presidential nomination. To offset his
reputation as a political loser, he countered with a strategy aimed at
settling the nomination in a series of primaries. So favorable were his
prospects for victory in New Hampshire, the first primary, that one
aspirant, Gov. George Romney of Michigan, withdrew. After Nixon had won most
of the primaries, Governors Nelson Rockefeller of New York and Ronald REAGAN
of California belatedly entered the contest. When preconvention polls showed
that Nixon had at least as good a chance as anyone else to win the election
in November, his nomination was assured.
Following his first-ballot victory, Nixon astonished virtually everyone by
designating the relatively unknown governor of Maryland, Spiro T. AGNEW, as
his vice presidential candidate. The choice of Agnew symbolized Nixon's
campaign strategy. First, Nixon sought to unite Republicans behind positions
and personalities acceptable to all factions of the party. Second, he
appealed to voters in border, southern, and western states by enunciating
moderately conservative policies that distinguished the GOP from both the
liberalism of the Democrats and the more conservative posture of former Gov.
George Wallace of Alabama, candidate of the American Independent party.
Nixon, contending that the Vietnam War should not become a campaign issue,
said little to distinguish his viewpoint from that of Vice President Hubert
H. HUMPHREY, the Democratic candidate. However, Nixon did pledge to end the
war if elected. Although Nixon stressed "law and order" in his campaign, it
was Wallace who pressed this issue most.
Nixon won 32 states, Humphrey 13 plus the District of Columbia, and Wallace
5 in the Deep South. Although he barely edged Humphrey in the popular vote,
31,770,237 to 31,270,533, Nixon received 301 electoral votes, to 191 for
Humphrey and 46 for Wallace. Wallace received 9,906,141 popular votes.
President
Richard Nixon inherited a country at war and at times beset with domestic
unrest and violence. The theme of his inaugural address was unity.
Foreign Affairs and Defense
North Vietnam maintained its military pressure against South Vietnam, Laos,
and Cambodia. Nixon gradually disengaged from the war, reducing U.S. troop
strength in Vietnam from 550,000 in 1969 to about 30,000 late in 1972.
American casualties declined. Although Nixon would not set a date for
withdrawal of all U.S. troops, saying that the United States must leave
Vietnam in a way "that gives the South Vietnamese a reasonable chance to
survive as a free people," he accelerated the training of Vietnam's armed
forces.
Arguing the need to protect the lives of American troops, Nixon in April
1970 approved a joint U.S.-Vietnamese attack on Communist sanctuaries in
eastern Cambodia. During a two-month operation, huge quantities of supplies
were seized, apparently ensuring that the Communists would not soon mount an
offensive in Vietnam. But critics in the United States saw the attack as a
dangerous expansion of the war. Congress barred the president from any
further use of American ground combat troops in Cambodia and Laos, and some
congressmen sought to impose a time limit on U.S. participation in the war.
The controversy over the Cambodian operation was revived in 1973 when it was
discovered that the United States had secretly bombed Communist targets in
Cambodia in 1969 and early 1970, contrary to Nixon's statement on April 30,
1970, that "neither the United States nor South Vietnam has moved against
those enemy sanctuaries because we did not wish to violate the territory of
a neutral nation." To preserve the secrecy of the raids, the Pentagon sent
falsified reports to a Senate committee. Nixon said in 1973 that Prince
Norodom Sihanouk, then Cambodia's chief of state, had acquiesced in the
raids, an assertion that Sihanouk denied.
In February 1971, South Vietnamese troops invaded Laos in an effort to cut
North Vietnamese supply trails. The United States gave air, artillery, and
logistical support.
In the spring of 1972, a North Vietnamese offensive threatened the Saigon
government again. It also seemed to endanger the results of Nixon's historic
trip to China, just completed. The North's drive also jeopardized Nixon's
scheduled trip to the Soviet Union. To choke off lines of supplies for the
Communist forces in the South, Nixon ordered the Navy to mine the Haiphong
harbor, and he increased the bombing of Hanoi. China tolerated the blockade
of the harbor through which its aid to North Vietnam was unloaded, and
Russia received Nixon on schedule.
The combination of military pressure and the likelihood of Nixon's
reelection apparently persuaded North Vietnam to bargain more earnestly for
a cessation of hostilities. A series of unannounced negotiating sessions
between North Vietnamese diplomats and Nixon's special assistant for
national security affairs, Henry Kissinger, uncovered a mutual willingness
to make concessions. Further talks produced detailed terms for a cease-fire,
and Kissinger announced on Oct. 26, 1972, that peace was "at hand." Another
breakdown resulted in renewed U.S. bombing of the North, but a cease-fire
was brought about on Jan. 28, 1973. The agreement provided for the
withdrawal of all American troops from South Vietnam, the creation of an
international commission to supervise the truce, and a framework within
which various Vietnamese factions were to work toward reconciliation. Nixon
also achieved the release of nearly 600 U.S. prisoners of war. Their
homecoming after up to 812 years in captivity provided an emotional
experience for the entire country. Nixon called the settlement of the war
"peace with honor." But various Vietnamese groups continued to fight each
other, with the South still getting U.S. financial aid.
U.S. military involvement in Cambodia continued until Aug. 15, 1973, when
bombing in support of the anti-Communist regime was halted by agreement
between Nixon and Congress.
Even as the Vietnam War continued, Nixon sought better relations with the
People's Republic of China. He relaxed the trade embargo against that
country, a move coinciding with the visit there, at China's invitation, of a
U.S. table tennis team. In July 1971 Nixon announced that he would visit
China. He made the trip in February 1972, was received by Chairman Mao
Tse-tung, and conducted lengthy negotiations with Premier Chou En-lai. The
talks opened new possibilities for trade and created semiformal channels of
communication, short of diplomatic recognition and exchange of ambassadors,
between the two countries. In 1973 Nixon named the distinguished diplomat
David Bruce to head the new U.S. liaison office in Peking. The new era in
Chinese-American relations reduced tensions and acknowledged a profound
alteration in world politics. Although the United States did not renege on
its commitment to defend the anti-Communist regime on Taiwan, risks of war
over this offshore island were reduced.
In 1969 the United States and the Soviet Union opened talks on the
limitation of strategic arms. These talks were completed while Nixon visited
Moscow in May 1972, and the negotiators carried terms of the interim pact
from Helsinki, site of the talks, to Moscow to be signed by the heads of
both governments. During his stay in the Soviet Union, the president
addressed the Russian people by television. The same trip led to a
subsequent agreement for the Soviet Union to purchase large amounts of U.S.
grain. But the sale of huge quantities of grain at bargain prices resulted
in shortages and greater inflation in the United States. In 1973 Soviet
party leader Leonid Brezhnev visited the United States. He and Nixon signed
a nuclear nonaggression pact and several agreements in science,
transportation, and culture. Although Nixon revisited Russia in 1974, he and
Brezhnev failed to achieve a final agreement on limiting the proliferation
of offensive nuclear weapons.
In the Middle East, a cease-fire worked out by Secretary of State William
Rogers in 1970 was disrupted by war between Israel and several Arab states
in 1973. Pressure from Nixon and the USSR forced an end to the fighting.
Conducting negotiations overshadowed by a threat of major-power military
confrontation should they fail, Kissinger--now secretary of state--achieved
disengagements of forces between Israel, Egypt, and Syria. U.S. prestige in
the Middle East rose, and Nixon got a warm welcome when he visited Israel
and four Arab nations in mid-1974.
The president introduced a "Nixon Doctrine" that encouraged other nations to
assume a greater share of their own defenses. He won congressional approval
of his antiballistic missile system.
Domestic Affairs
In confronting internal problems, Nixon sought to respond to grievances from
disparate segments of the population and to fashion a coalition of voters
that would constitute a Republican majority in future elections.
How to proceed with school desegregation divided the administration. The
Supreme Court in 1969 declared that segregated school systems must be ended
"at once." The Department of Justice then embarked on a policy aimed at
achieving virtually complete public school integration. After the Supreme
Court in 1971 upheld "busing" to achieve racial balance in schools, Nixon
said he wanted busing held to the minimum required by law. The
transportation of students from their own communities was unpopular in the
North and the South, but the U.S. Civil Rights Commission charged that
Nixon's policy undermined school desegregation efforts.
A gesture by Nixon toward the South failed when the Senate rejected two
southern nominees to the Supreme Court. The president accused the Senate of
regional bias, but his opponents there argued that the nominees were
unqualified because of their civil rights views and questions of personal
ethics. On his third attempt to name a southerner, Nixon chose a
distinguished conservative Virginia attorney, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., who was
confirmed. During his first term Nixon added Chief Justice Warren Burger and
associate justices Harry Blackmun and William Rehnquist to the court. At the
time of their nomination, all shared Nixon's philosophy of a "strict
construction" of the U.S. Constitution.
As the United States shifted toward a peacetime economy, it was beset by
inflation and unemployment. In 1971 Nixon temporarily froze wages and
prices, cut federal spending, and announced that the United States would no
longer convert foreign-held dollars into gold. The subsequent decline in the
value of the dollar in relation to other major currencies made American
goods less expensive abroad. Throughout 1972 signs of an economic recovery
multiplied. Unemployment dropped. As the administration alternately
tightened and loosened controls in a series of "phases," the price of food,
notably beef, rose sharply. The battle against inflation was complicated by
shortages of some products, including gasoline, and foods. Nixon blamed
inflation on Congress, and he vetoed bills that exceeded his budgetary
recommendations.
Policies adopted by Arab countries in 1973 and 1974 jeopardized the U.S.
economy. To dramatize their strategic position in world affairs, the Mideast
oil-producing countries imposed a brief embargo on petroleum products and
then sharply increased their prices. Inflationary pressures and the
unemployment rate increased in the United States. Nixon advocated greater
exploitation of U.S. energy reserves. He hoped the United States could end
its use of foreign oil.
Efforts by Nixon to reform the nation's welfare system met resistance in
Congress, but in 1972 he won approval of a program to share federal revenues
with the states.
Continued dissatisfaction with "establishment" values was translated into
opposition to the Nixon administration. College students overwhelmingly
opposed the war. Black and white radical movements, while condemning racism
and U.S. foreign policy in Asia, occasionally resorted to bombings and other
acts of terrorism. Nixon, Vice President Agnew, and Attorney General John
Mitchell deplored lawlessness while upholding the right of peaceful dissent.
Nixon ignored massive antiwar rallies in Washington and elsewhere in 1969,
but after the deaths of students at Kent State University and other colleges
in 1970 during clashes with authorities, he sought to broaden his ties with
the academic community. As the war came to a close, radical movements
declined. Statistics indicated that the use of hard drugs was lessening, but
that the administration was making little headway in its fight against
crime.
Nixon supported the conservationists on many issues. However, he also
favored the development at federal expense of a supersonic transport plane
(SST), which he said would maintain America's supremacy in world aviation.
Many persons thought that a fleet of SSTs would harm the environment, and
the project was terminated by Congress.
President Nixon led the nation in honoring American astronauts Neil
Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, who walked on the moon in July 1969.
Despite efforts "to bring us together," the war contributed in part to the
strained relationship between the Nixon administration and the press. Vice
President Agnew delivered speeches criticizing the news analysis of some
newspapers and television networks. Early in 1971 the president objected to
news reports that the U.S.-supported invasion of Laos had not gone well.
Later that year, several newspapers published secret documents from an
analysis of the Vietnam War prepared at the request of Secretary of Defense
Robert McNamara during the Johnson administration. Arguing that some of the
revelations in these "Pentagon Papers" were a threat to national security,
the Department of Justice tried to halt their publication. The U.S. Supreme
Court held, in light of strong constitutional protection of the press, that
the government had failed to justify any restraint on publication.
Reelection in 1972
Despite his slender margin in 1968 and no improvement in Republican fortunes
in the 1970 congressional elections, Nixon ran for reelection as an
overwhelming favorite. Vietnam had been largely defused as an issue,
although fighting continued through election day. Overtures to China and
Russia had appealed to desires for peace. Inflation had eased temporarily.
The Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. George McGovern (S.Dak.), was seen
by many voters as too liberal. Labor's national leadership endorsed neither
candidate, and Nixon ran well among groups that often voted Democratic.
Although he campaigned very little, the president swept to victory, polling
47 million votes to 29 million for McGovern. Nixon lost only in
Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. But the voters elected
Democratic majorities to both the Senate and the House.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
His presidential style alienated many, but Nixon got results, compiling a
distinguished record of domestic accomplishments. And he took rightful pride
in his bold initiatives abroad. "I'm the President that opened relations
with China after twenty-five years of no communication," he said. And as a
proponent of détente, he became the first President ever to visit the Soviet
Union. It was Nixon who negotiated the first arms-control agreement with the
Russians, a follow-up to Kennedy's earlier test-ban treaty.
But despite his best efforts, Nixon's impressive achievements were often
overshadowed by his handling of the war in Vietnam. Believing that military
pressure would speed up the peace process, Nixon ordered the secret bombing
of Cambodia, then Laos. And when word of it leaked out, antiwar protests
virtually caged the President inside the White House.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
So he did--and the indelible marks Richard Nixon left on American history
are Watergate and his resignation from the presidency before he could be
impeached. Those events cause many to believe him an evil man who schemed to
subvert the Constitution; they cause others to consider him a victim of the
press, the liberals, the Democrats, even the CIA or the Pentagon. And
looking back at Watergate, many Americans can't see beyond it the
achievements of a president who often responded to the pressures of his time
with knowledge and skill and sometimes even with courage--qualities the
American people apparently don't find in most of their leaders today.
As a reporter, I interviewed, traveled with, reported on, and deplored
Richard Nixon's actions for much of his career. As a columnist, I frequently
criticized his presidency. Later, after his political career was ended, I
studied Nixon and his record, talked to his friends and enemies, reviewed my
own words and memories, and concluded that he was neither evil nor a victim,
except of himself--and we're all that kind of victim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Ronald Reagan
At the end of his two terms in office, Ronald Reagan viewed with
satisfaction the achievements of his innovative program known as the Reagan
Revolution, which aimed to reinvigorate the American people and reduce their
reliance upon Government. He felt he had fulfilled his campaign pledge of
1980 to restore "the great, confident roar of American progress and growth
and optimism."
On February 6, 1911, Ronald Wilson Reagan was born to Nelle and John Reagan
in Tampico, Illinois. He attended high school in nearby Dixon and then
worked his way through Eureka College. There, he studied economics and
sociology, played on the football team, and acted in school plays. Upon
graduation, he became a radio sports announcer. A screen test in 1937 won
him a contract in Hollywood. During the next two decades he appeared in 53
films.
From his first marriage to actress Jane Wyman, he had two children, Maureen
and Michael. Maureen passed away in 2001. In 1952 he married Nancy Davis,
who was also an actress, and they had two children, Patricia Ann and Ronald
Prescott.
As president of the Screen Actors Guild, Reagan became embroiled in disputes
over the issue of Communism in the film industry; his political views
shifted from liberal to conservative. He toured the country as a television
host, becoming a spokesman for conservatism. In 1966 he was elected Governor
of California by a margin of a million votes; he was re-elected in 1970.
Ronald Reagan won the Republican Presidential nomination in 1980 and chose
as his running mate former Texas Congressman and United Nations Ambassador
George Bush. Voters troubled by inflation and by the year-long confinement
of Americans in Iran swept the Republican ticket into office. Reagan won 489
electoral votes to 49 for President Jimmy Carter.
On January 20, 1981, Reagan took office. Only 69 days later he was shot by a
would-be assassin, but quickly recovered and returned to duty. His grace and
wit during the dangerous incident caused his popularity to soar.
Dealing skillfully with Congress, Reagan obtained legislation to stimulate
economic growth, curb inflation, increase employment, and strengthen
national defense. He embarked upon a course of cutting taxes and Government
expenditures, refusing to deviate from it when the strengthening of defense
forces led to a large deficit.
A renewal of national self-confidence by 1984 helped Reagan and Bush win a
second term with an unprecedented number of electoral votes. Their victory
turned away Democratic challengers Walter F. Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro.
In 1986 Reagan obtained an overhaul of the income tax code, which eliminated
many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. At the end
of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period
of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression.
In foreign policy, Reagan sought to achieve "peace through strength." During
his two terms he increased defense spending 35 percent, but sought to
improve relations with the Soviet Union. In dramatic meetings with Soviet
leader Mikhail Gorbachev, he negotiated a treaty that would eliminate
intermediate-range nuclear missiles. Reagan declared war against
international terrorism, sending American bombers against Libya after
evidence came out that Libya was involved in an attack on American soldiers
in a West Berlin nightclub.
By ordering naval escorts in the Persian Gulf, he maintained the free flow
of oil during the Iran-Iraq war. In keeping with the Reagan Doctrine, he
gave support to anti-Communist insurgencies in Central America, Asia, and
Africa.
Overall, the Reagan years saw a restoration of prosperity, and the goal of
peace through strength seemed to be within grasp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The Reagan Administration
Ronald Reagan came to the presidency determined to reduce the growth of the
national government, restore the power of the states in the federal system,
reduce government expenditures through massive domestic budget cuts, expand
the military and defense establishments, lower taxes, and restructure
foreign policy away from détente with the Soviet Union to a posture of peace
through strength. To help achieve these goals he sought to restore the
dominance of the presidency over the Congress. He was quite successful until
the 1986 off-year elections, in which the Democrats won a net gain of five
seats in the House of Representatives and took control of the Senate by a
55-45 margin.
Domestic Politics
Reagan's first term was dominated by efforts to carry out his economic
program--dubbed "Reaganomics" by the media--which consisted in part of large
budget reductions in domestic programs and substantial tax cuts for
individuals and businesses. The theory of supply-side economics--generating
growth by stimulating a greater supply of goods and services, thereby
increasing jobs--was a mainstay of the Reagan approach. Central to the
administration's efforts to combat inflation was rigorous control over
government spending deficits. Early budget cuts of $39 billion were followed
by the passage of a 25% tax cut for individual taxpayers and faster tax
write-offs for business.
The administration's economic policies had mixed results. Unemployment rose
to a level of 10.6% by the end of 1982 but declined to around 5.5% late in
1988. Inflation, which had peaked at 13.5% during the Carter years,
gradually fell to about 4%-6%. Massive federal deficits piled up, however--a
reflection of tax cutting, greater defense spending, and other economic
factors.
The greatest shock to the economy occurred on Oct. 19, 1987, when the stock
market plunged 508 points on the Dow Jones average, ending a slide that had
begun in August. In two months stocks had lost about 36% of their value, but
within a year they recovered almost half of the loss with little apparent
damage to the economy.
In other domestic areas, Reagan achieved mixed results. Deregulation became
a watchword of the administration, but critics charged that reduced
regulation created hazards to public health and safety. During his first
term, the president sought to shift dozens of federal programs to the state
and local levels under his system of "new federalism." Officials in these
jurisdictions complained that promised federal aid to implement the programs
was inadequate. The administration's efforts to reduce spending for social
programs and increase appropriations for defense engendered controversy.
Reagan's domestic program during his second term focused on tax reform. Late
in 1986 the Senate joined the House to pass a major tax bill that reduced
the number of tax rates, removed millions of low-income persons from the tax
rolls, and eliminated most deductions.
One focus of the administration from the beginning was an agenda of social
issues ranging from opposition to abortion to support for mandatory prayer
in the public schools. Much of the social agenda of the conservative
fundamentalist supporters of the president was adopted by the executive
branch, but Reagan had little success in gaining its acceptance by Congress.
Late in 1987, Reagan failed twice to fill a Supreme Court vacancy with
judges holdingstrong conservative views. The Senate, 58-42, rejected the
nomination of Robert Bork after the Judiciary Committee found him
insufficiently inclined to protect individual rights and liberties. A second
judge, Douglas Ginsburg, withdrew from consideration after it became known
that he had smoked marijuana while teaching at Harvard. Reagan's third
choice for the vacancy, Judge Anthony M. Kennedy, was approved.
Foreign Relations
Soviet-U.S. relations were generally chilly during Reagan's first term. The
shooting down of a South Korean airliner by a Soviet military plane in 1983,
alleged Soviet expansionist and interventionist policies, the U.S.
deployment of intermediate-range missiles in Western Europe, and the
Reagan-proposed Strategic Defense Initiative contributed to continuing
tensions. A cordial 1985 meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in
Geneva began a warming trend. In 1987 the two leaders signed a historic
treaty in Washington that would eliminate their intermediate-range nuclear
forces. In 1988, Reagan had a friendly summit meeting in Moscow, the capital
of what he had once called an "evil empire."
Several times Reagan took military action, either as an instrument of
foreign policy or as a possible deterrent to terrorism. In October 1983 he
ordered the invasion of the Caribbean island of Grenada, declaring that
Americans there were in jeopardy and that the country had become a
potentially dangerous Cuban-Soviet military base. The Grenada operation
occurred just two days after a terrorist attack on the U.S. Marine
peacekeeping contingent in Lebanon caused the death of 241 servicemen.
When TWA Flight 847 was hijacked to Beirut in June 1985, the issues of
terrorism and how to respond to it became highly visible. Althoughthe 39
passengers were finally released, their 17-day ordeal and the murder of a
U.S. Navy man aboard convinced the administration that more decisive action
should be taken against terrorists in general and against the Libyan leader,
Muammar al-Qaddafi, in particular.
In August 1981 two Libyan jets were downed by U.S. planes in the Gulf of
Sidra during military exercises. Tensions were heightened in October 1985
when terrorists highjacked the Italian liner Achille Lauro and murdered an
elderly American passenger. U.S. planes intercepted an Egyptian plane
carrying the hijackers, who had surrendered in Egypt, and forced it to land
in Italy. Libyan involvement was established in the December bombings of the
Rome and Vienna airports. In retaliation, American planes in late April 1986
attacked several sites in and around Tripoli, Libya's capital.
Reagan's other long-standing foreign-policy initiative was to assist anti-Co
mmunist guerrillas, known as contras, in thwarting alleged Soviet-Cuban
inroads into Nicaragua and to pressure the Sandinista government to hold
elections and negotiate with its neighbors. Congress reversed itself several
times on whether to give humanitarian or military aid to the contras. It
became apparent that Reagan's real goal was to overthrow the Sandinistas,
but when the government and the contras signed a cease-fire in 1988, this
objective appeared unrealistic.
The United States indicted Panamanian dictator Gen. Manuel Noriega on
drug-trafficking charges in 1988 but failed to force him from office or
persuade him to surrender his power.
The most damaging foreign-policy event of 1987 for President Reagan was the
Iran-contra affair. Late in 1986 the administration admitted that it had
been secretly selling arms to Iran, with some of the profits possibly going
to the guerrillas in Nicaragua. Reagan claimed that he had not been informed
of the Iran-contra link by national security adviser Vice Admiral John
Poindexter or his aide, Lt. Col. Oliver North. The two policies--selling
arms to Iran in apparent exchange for hostages and sending arms to
Nicaragua--triggered multiple investigations.
A report by a presidential commission, released in February 1987, depicted
Reagan as confused and uninformed, and concluded that his relaxed "personal
management style" had prevented him from controlling his subordinates. House
and Senate committees, conducting joint hearings, heard testimony that
Reagan did not know of the diversion of funds. Most committee members signed
a majority report in November 1987 asserting that although Reagan's role in
the affair could not be determined precisely, he had clearly failed to "take
care that the laws be faithfully executed." Poindexter, North, and others
were indicted in the affair in 1988.
The "Bully Pulpit"
In the manner of Theodore ROOSEVELT, who had called the White House a bully
pulpit and who had greatly enjoyed being president, Ronald Reagan displayed
consistent optimism and a jaunty self-confidence that endeared him to
millions.
When tragedy struck--the deaths of the seven Challenger astronaunts in 1986,
for example--Reagan eloquently articulated the nation's grief. When personal
danger touched him--he was wounded in an assassination attempt in 1981 and
underwent a colon cancer operation in 1985--he was upbeat and reassuring.
He was, it was said, Teflon-coated. Nothing stuck to him: not revelations of
wrongdoing by aides, not occasional failures in foreign policy, not evidence
that astrology may have influenced some of his decisions. Approaching his
78th birthday as his presidency drew to a close, Reagan was seen by many as
the personification of Uncle Sam or as the grandfather of the nation. A
scholar had called the presidency an "awesome burden," but Reagan neared the
end of his second term as a remarkably untroubled man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
In a president, character is everything. A president doesn't have to be
brilliant; Harry Truman wasn't brilliant, and he helped save Western Europe
from Stalin. He doesn't have to be clever; you can hire clever. White Houses
are always full of quick-witted people with ready advice on how to flip a
senator or implement a strategy. You can hire pragmatic, and you can buy and
bring in policy wonks.
But you can't buy courage and decency, you can't rent a strong moral sense.
A president must bring those things with him. If he does, they will give
meaning and animation to the great practical requirement of the presidency:
He must know why he's there and what he wants to do. He has to have thought
it through. He needs to have, in that much maligned word, but a good one
nontheless, a vision of the future he wishes to create. This is a function
of thinking, of the mind, the brain.
But a vision is worth little if a president doesn't have the character--the
courage and heart--to see it through....
(Reagan) had the vision. Did he have the courage without which it would be
nothing but a poignant dream? Yes. At the core of Reagan's character was
courage, a courage that was, simply, natural to him, a courage that was
ultimately contagious. When people say President Reagan brought back our
spirit and our sense of optimism, I think what they are saying in part is,
the whole country caught his courage.
There are many policy examples, but I believe when people think of his
courage, they think first of what happened that day in March 1981 when he
was shot. He tried to walk into the hospital himself but his knees buckled
and he had to be helped. They put him on a gurney, and soon he started the
one-liners. Quoting Churchill, he reminded everyone that there's nothing so
exhilarating as to be shot at without effect. To Mrs. Reagan, it was,
"Honey, I forgot to duck." To the doctors, "I just hope you're Republicans."
To which one doctor replied, "Today Mr. President we're all Republicans."
Maybe he caught Reagan's courage too.
But Reagan the political figure had a form of courage that I think is the
hardest and most demanding kind. A general will tell you that anyone can be
brave for five minutes; the adrenaline pumps, you do things of which you
wouldn't have thought yourself capable.
But Reagan had that harder and more exhausting courage, the courage to swim
against the tide. And we all forget it now because he changed the tide.
Looking back, we forget that the political mood of today, in which he might
find himself quite comfortable, is quite different from the political mood
the day he walked into politics.
But he had no choice, he couldn't not swim against the tide. In the fifties
and sixties all of his thoughts and observations led him to believe that
Americans were slowly but surely losing their freedoms.
When he got to Hollywood as a young man in his twenties, he shared and was
impressed by the general thinking of the good and sophisticated people of
New York and Hollywood with regard to politics. He was a liberal Democrat,
as his father was, and he felt a great attachment to the party. He was proud
that his father had refused to take him and his brother Moon to the movie,
Birth of a Nation, with its racial stereotypes. And he bragged that his
father, Jack, a salesman, had, back long ago when Reagan was a kid, once
spent the night in his car rather than sleep in a hotel that wouldn't take
Jews. Ronald Reagan as a young man was a Roosevelt supporter, he was all for
FDR, and when he took part in his first presidential campaign he made
speeches for Harry Truman in 1948.
When Reagan changed, it was against the tide. It might be said that the
heyday of modern political liberalism, in its American manifestation, was
the 1960s, when the Great Society began and the Kennedys were secular saints
and the costs of enforced liberalism were not yet apparent. And that is
precisely when Reagan came down hard right, all for Goldwater in 1964. This
was very much the wrong side of the fashionable argument to be on; it wasn't
a way to gain friends in influential quarters, it wasn't exactly a
career-enhancing move. But Reagan thought the conservatives were right. So
he joined them, at the least advantageous moment, the whole country going
this way on a twenty-year experiment, and Reagan going that way, thinking he
was right and thinking that sooner or later he and the country were going to
meet in a historic rendezvous.
His courage was composed in part of intellectual conviction and in part of
sheer toughness.
When we think of Reagan, we think so immediately of his presidency that we
tend to forget what came before. What came before 1980 was 1976--and
Reagan's insurgent presidential bid against the incumbent Republican
President Jerry Ford. Ford was riding pretty high, he was the good man who
followed Nixon after the disgrace of Watergate; but Ford was a moderate
liberal Republican, and Reagan thought he was part of the problem, so he
declared against him.
He ran hard. And by March 1976 he had lost five straight primaries in a row.
He was in deep trouble--eleven of twelve former chairmen of the Republican
National Committee called on him to get out of the race, the Republican
Conference of Mayors told him to get out, on March 18 the Los Angeles Times
told him to quit. The Reagan campaign was $2 to $3 million in debt, and they
were forced to give up their campaign plane for a small leased jet, painted
yellow, that they called "The Flying Banana." On March 23, they were in
Wisconsin, where Reagan was to address a bunch of duck hunters. Before the
speech, Reagan and his aides gathered in his room at a dreary hotel to
debate getting out of the race. The next day there would be another primary,
in North Carolina, and they knew they'd lose. Most of the people in the room
said, "It's over, we have no money, no support, we lost five so far and
tomorrow we lose six."
John Sears, the head of the campaign, told the governor, "You know, one of
your supporters down in Texas says he'll lend us a hundred thousand dollars
if you'll rebroadcast that speech where you give Ford and Kissinger hell on
defense." The talk went back and forth. Marty Anderson, the wonderful
longtime Reagan aide who told me this story, said he sat there thinking,
'This is crazy, another hundred grand in debt....'
The talk went back and forth and then Reagan spoke. He said "Okay, we'll do
it. Get the hundred thousand, we'll run the national defense speech." He
said, "I am taking this all the way to the convention at Kansas City, and I
don't care if I lose every damn primary along the way." And poor Marty
thought to himself, 'Oh Lord, there are twenty-one....'
The next night at a speech, Marty was standing in the back and Frank
Reynolds of ABC News came up all excited with a piece of paper in his hand
that said 55-45. Marty thought, 'Oh, we're losing by ten.' And Reynolds
said, "You're winning by ten!" Reagan was told, but he wouldn't react or
celebrate until he was back on the plane and the pilot got the latest
results. Then, with half the vote in and a solid lead, he finally
acknowledged victory in North Carolina with a plastic glass of champagne and
a bowl of ice cream.
Ronald Reagan, twenty-four hours before, had been
no-money-no-support-gonna-lose-dead--but he made the decision he would not
quit, and at the end he came within a whisker of taking the nomination from
Ford.....
We have all noticed in life that big people with big virtues not
infrequently have big flaws, too. Reagan's great flaw it seemed to me, and
seems to me, was not one of character but personality. That was his famous
detachment, which was painful for his children and disorienting for his
staff. No one around him quite understood it, the deep and emotional
engagement in public events and public affairs, and the slight and seemingly
formal interest in the lives of those around him. James Baker III called him
the kindest and most impersonal man he'd ever known, and there was some
truth to that....
He had a temper. He didn't get mad lightly, but when he did it was real and
hit like lightning....
Reagan is always described as genial and easygoing, but Marty Anderson used
to call him "warmly ruthless." He would do in the nicest possible way what
had to be done. He was as nice as he could be about it, but he knew where he
was going, and if you were in the way you were gone. And you might argue his
ruthlessness made everything possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Reagan, Ronald W(ilson) (1911- ), 40th president of the United States
(1981-1989), who implemented policies that reversed trends toward greater
government involvement in economic and social regulation. He also brought in
a new style of presidential leadership, downgrading the role of the
president as an administrator and increasing the importance of communication
via national news media. He was the oldest person ever to serve as
president.
Reagan, who had spent years making political friends at party fund-raising
dinners around the country, announced his candidacy in November 1979. He
became the immediate favorite to capture the nomination and, except for an
unexpected defeat by former Republican Party Chairman George Bush in the
Iowa caucuses, he easily defeated his rivals for the Republican nomination.
At the 1980 Republican convention, delegates adopted a conservative
political program for the party. Former President Gerald Ford was considered
as the vice-presidential candidate, but when Ford's negotiators proposed
that the vice-president should share presidential powers, Reagan rejected
the plan. Instead, he chose George Bush as his running mate.
During the fall campaign against Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the
biggest political issue was the economy. Reagan blamed Carter for the
recession that had begun in 1980 and for increasing inflation. He also
accused Carter of weakness in foreign policy and called for a stronger
military.
His claim that Carter had a weak foreign policy seemed to be substantiated
by a lengthy hostage crisis in Tehran, Iran. In November 1979 after Carter
had allowed the deposed shah of Iran to enter the United States for medical
treatment, a group of Iranian revolutionaries stormed the U.S. embassy in
Tehran and held 53 Americans as hostages. United States media publicized the
plight of the hostages and Carter's failure to release them. They were
eventually released in January 1981, on the day of Reagan's inauguration.
The contrast between the television personalities of the two candidates was
also very important. Carter's stiff, nervous manner had never been popular,
while Reagan's charm and his call for a return to patriotism and traditional
morality appealed to the public. Many voters believed that Reagan was a
forceful leader who could restore prosperity at home and prevent national
humiliation abroad.
Reagan won the election by a landslide, receiving 51 percent to Carter's 41
percent. Moderate Republican John Anderson, running as an independent,
received nearly 7 percent. In the Electoral College, Reagan won a ten-to-one
victory.
IV President of the United States
print section
Ronald Reagan presided over the most far-reaching changes in U.S. government
economic and social policy in half a century. His administration succeeded
in eliminating or reducing many social programs begun by the federal
government under presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945) and Lyndon
Baines Johnson (1963-1969) and in lifting many restrictions on business
activities.
As president, Reagan delegated much of the day-to-day administrative work to
his staff. He defined his management style as "to identify the problem, find
the right individuals to do the job, and then let them go to it." Reagan's
chief function in his administration was as "the great communicator." He
served as a spokesman for the conservative coalition that had backed his
campaign for the presidency.
This coalition included businessmen opposed to government regulation of
private enterprise and anti-Communists who believed that the United States
should build up its military strength to deter possible aggression by the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Reagan also received strong
support from conservative religious groups, who were unhappy about what they
saw as decreasing respect for religion in public life and about increasingly
permissive attitudes, especially with respect to sex and drugs, that had
emerged in the late 1960s. These groups often had little in common, and it
took a politician with Reagan's charm to smooth over their differences.
Reagan also won a solid following among moderate middle-class and
working-class Americans, many of whom traditionally had supported the
Democratic Party. He won their support with his assertion that the federal
government imposed excessive taxation and had grown too large and
cumbersome. Reagan spoke out against what he described as overgrown
government bureaucracy, expensive social programs, and federal regulatory
agencies that interfered in the private lives and business dealings of U.S.
citizens.
Reagan's decisive defeat of Carter could be interpreted as a public desire
for change. His strength in the 1980 election helped the Republicans win a
majority in the Senate-for the first time in 26 years-and reduced the
Democratic majority in the House. With control of the House, Democrats had
the ability to block many of Reagan's initiatives. However, Reagan often
appealed directly to the people through the media, and his abilities as a
speaker did much to influence public opinion in favor of his programs.
On March 30, 1981, an unstable drifter named John W. Hinckley shot Reagan in
the chest during an assassination attempt. A court later found Hinckley not
guilty because of insanity and committed him to a mental hospital. Public
sympathy after the assassination attempt increased public support for
Reagan, which helped him push his program through the Congress.
At first, the recession that Reagan had inherited from Carter deepened.
Almost 11 percent of the workforce was unemployed by the fall of 1982. The
recession reduced inflation significantly, but interest rates remained high
and the 1982 elections brought substantial Democratic gains in the House.
During the next two years, however, economic recovery began. Inflation
remained low and the unemployment rate went down.
In 1984 the Republicans nominated Reagan and Bush for a second term.
Reagan's Democratic opponent, Walter Mondale, ran a lackluster campaign in
which he proposed tax increases to reduce the budget deficits. Reagan
promised to keep taxes down, and won 59 percent of the popular vote and
carried 49 states. In congressional races the Democrats did better, keeping
a large House majority and gaining seats in the Senate.
In the 1986 elections the Democrats regained control of the Senate. During
his last two years in office, lacking a majority in either house of Congress
and unable to run for reelection himself, Reagan found it harder to get his
legislative proposals enacted.
A Domestic Affairs
A 1 Economic Policy
Reagan based his economic program on a theory known as supply-side
economics. This theory, which became popularly known as Reaganomics,
advocated a reduction in taxes and government spending in order to leave
more money in the hands of citizens. According to supply-side theory,
citizens would spend the money on products or services, which would give a
boost to the economy, or they would invest the money in businesses, which
would cause the economy to expand. Initially government revenues would be
reduced by the tax cuts. However, supply-side theorists believed that the
resulting economic growth would eventually increase taxable income, which,
in turn, would cause government revenues to grow.
Using this argument, in 1981 Reagan persuaded Congress to pass the Economic
Recovery Tax Act, which enacted tax cuts of 25 percent over three years.
These tax cuts mainly benefited upper-income taxpayers and large
corporations, individuals who Reagan argued would be more likely to invest
their money in business ventures that would promote economic growth. Between
1977 and 1988 most individuals in the income categories below the national
average saw a slight increase in their tax rates, while most individuals in
the upper income categories had their tax rates reduced by a moderate
amount. The greatest increase involved a 1.6 percent rate increase for
taxpayers among the lowest ten percent of wage earners. On the other end of
the spectrum, those 1 percent of taxpayers with the nation's highest incomes
saw their rates decrease by 6 percent over the same period.
Reagan also obtained approval for cuts in spending for government social
programs, including job training, college loans, food and medical programs,
payments for those with disabilities, child daycare centers, and centers for
the elderly. Reagan believed that many of these programs made individuals
dependent on government support and weakened the structure of American
families.
Reagan persuaded Congress to deregulate many industries, hoping that the
removal of government restrictions would allow businesses to save money as
well as the time spent complying with regulations. It was also hoped that
businesses would also find it easier to invest in new areas. In 1982, for
example, Congress passed the Garn-Saint Germain Depository Institutions Act,
which tried to help struggling savings and loan institutions by allowing
them to make much riskier investments.
As part of the deregulation process, Reagan relaxed environmental and safety
standards, stating that the time and expense spent complying with these
regulations caused undue hardships for American businesses. His
environmental policies reversed a growing trend toward more government
legislation and regulatory bodies designed to protect and improve the
quality of the environment. He appointed Anne Burford, who opposed many
regulations on air quality and the disposal of toxic waste, to head the
Environmental Protection Agency. James Watt, Reagan's secretary of the
interior, supported allowing businesses such as mining and timber harvesting
to use the resources on public lands.
The tax cuts, deregulation, and relaxing of environmental and safety
standards did produce economic growth. It also fueled a five-year increase
in the stock market (see Stock Exchange). Investors discovered that they
could make profits by financing high-risk business deals that were now
allowed under the administration's deregulation policy. The stock market
surge was intensified by a wave of billion-dollar mergers and takeovers. As
a result, the 1980s were a prosperous time for many Americans, particularly
the well-to-do, who benefited most from the Reagan tax cuts.
Although Reagan reduced expenditures on a number of government programs, he
made several significant deviations from the principles of supply-side
economics. He exempted selected programs from budget reductions, including
such public assistance programs as social security and Medicare. These
programs provided financial and medical assistance for elderly and
disadvantaged citizens. Many Americans viewed them as an essential safety
net against extreme poverty or personal misfortune. Another major exception
was funding for the military. Unwilling to weaken the U.S. armed forces,
Reagan proposed no cuts in the federal defense budget. During the Reagan
presidency defense spending actually increased sharply-from $134 billion in
1980 to $290 billion in 1988.
These exemptions to the budget cuts and the loss of federal revenue from tax
cuts created difficulties in balancing the federal budget. As a result, the
government borrowed extensively to pay its bills. Government debt rose from
$908 billion in 1980 to $2.6 trillion in 1988. Much of this money came from
abroad, especially from Japan. Borrowing money to pay the debt caused the
government to spend a greater proportion of its budget on interest payments
for loans. In 1980, before Reagan took office, the government set aside less
than 10 percent of its budget for interest payments. That number had climbed
to more than 15 percent by 1992, the final year in the presidency of Reagan'
s successor George Bush, who had continued many of Reagan's economic
policies.
The budget deficit kept interest rates so high that the value of the dollar
soared in relation to major foreign currencies. As a result, U.S.
manufacturers found it difficult to compete with their foreign rivals and
thousands of industrial jobs disappeared. By the end of the 1980s the
percentage of workers in manufacturing jobs had decreased by one-fifth.
Although unemployment declined, most new jobs were in service industries
that generally paid less in wages.
Consumer spending for manufactured products grew, but mainly for inexpensive
imports, which enticed Americans to spend larger amounts of money on foreign
products. As a result the United States further increased its foreign debt
throughout the 1980s by spending more on imported goods than it earned from
exports. The U.S. trade deficit climbed from $24.2 billion in 1980 to a high
of $152.7 billion in 1986.
In an effort to reduce foreign indebtedness, the government undertook a
substantial devaluation of the dollar in 1986. Devaluation, which lowered
the value of the dollar in relation to foreign currency, made American
products less expensive and therefore more desirable in foreign markets.
However, devaluation failed to erase the trade deficit.
Confidence in the U.S. economy was shaken in October 1987, when a panic on
Wall Street caused the value of stocks to plummet sharply. After the crash
prominent members of Congress called for greater presidential leadership to
put the government's financial house in order, and Congress approved fewer
increases in the military budget.
A 2 Social Policy
Reagan's administration had a powerful impact on civil rights initiatives.
Reagan believed many of the social programs and anti-discrimination laws
passed in the 1960s and 1970s to improve conditions for minorities actually
worked to increase ethnic and racial divisions in the United States. For the
first time since the 1960s, the federal government stopped actively
promoting programs designed to promote social and economic advancement for
minority groups. See Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
Reagan was particularly opposed to programs such as affirmative action,
which favored minorities in jobs, education, and the awarding of government
contracts. While proponents of the program thought affirmative action was
necessary to counteract the effects of years of discrimination,
conservatives felt affirmative action amounted to reverse discrimination by
granting minority groups special privileges that were denied to the majority
of Americans.
In 1981 the government announced that it would no longer require contractors
doing business with the federal government to comply with affirmative action
programs. During the Reagan administration, the U.S. Justice Department
supported a number of legal challenges to affirmative action laws. The
debate begun during the Reagan years over the effectiveness of affirmative
action continued to generate controversy throughout the 1990s.
Under Reagan the Justice Department also cut back its efforts to enforce job
discrimination and fair housing laws. It also opposed court-ordered school
busing, in which children were bused from one neighborhood to another within
a city in order to achieve racial integration in public schools. Reagan
expressed the opinion that court-ordered busing was an unwarranted federal
intervention in local government and that it destroyed the community nature
of neighborhood schools. The Reagan administration supported legal
challenges to busing and also defended tax breaks for private schools that
were exempt from participation in busing.
A 3 Judicial Appointments
During the Reagan years almost half of the federal district and appeals
judgeships became vacant and Reagan appointed conservatives to these courts.
By the end of his term, he had also appointed three of the nine Justices of
the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1981 Reagan nominated Sandra Day
O'Connor, who became the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court. In 1986
he nominated Associate Justice William Rehnquist as chief justice and named
Antonin Scalia to replace him as associate justice. The Senate confirmed
these nominations. In 1987, however, the Senate refused to confirm Reagan
nominee Robert Bork. Liberal groups across the nation protested the
nomination, pointing to Bork's well-known positions against abortion,
affirmative action, and First Amendment protection for non-political speech.
Reagan's next nominee, Douglas Ginsburg, admitted that he had smoked
marijuana and was forced to withdraw his nomination. Finally, Reagan named
Anthony Kennedy, a moderate whose views on controversial issues were
unknown, and his nomination was confirmed.
B Foreign Affairs
B 1 Fighting Communism
Reagan changed the tone, but not the course, of foreign policy
. Détente, a peaceful if strained policy of coexistence with the USSR that
was stressed in the 1970s, was deemphasized, and U.S. foreign policy opposed
governments and movements said to be under Soviet influence.
Reagan devoted particular attention to reversing the tide of Marxist
revolution in Central America and the Caribbean. After the Nicaraguan
Revolution deposed dictator Anastasio Somoza in 1979, the United States
accused the new Sandinista government of aiding Marxist rebels in
neighboring El Salvador. The United States cut off its aid to Nicaragua in
1981 and began to support an anti-Sandinista guerrilla movement known as the
Contras. In 1982 Nicaragua signed an aid pact with the USSR. Reagan then
mounted a major campaign to overthrow the Sandinistas by supplying weapons,
money, and training to the Contras. Reagan also sent arms and advisers to
the regime in El Salvador. In 1983 U.S. troops invaded the Caribbean island
nation of Grenada after Marxist rebels overthrew the government there.
The Reagan administration also supported two other major struggles against
regimes based on forms of Marxism. It sent military equipment to Muslim
guerrillas fighting the Communist government of Afghanistan, which was
supported by Soviet troops, and joined with South Africa in aiding
guerrillas fighting the Marxist government of Angola.
Under Reagan, U.S. relations with the USSR were cool, partly because of the
U.S. military build-up, particularly the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI;
popularly known as Star Wars). In theory, SDI would permit the United States
to intercept enemy missiles before they hit their targets. The USSR objected
to the Star Wars program, believing it threatened the security of the USSR.
The program was also controversial in the United States, and many experts
believed that SDI was technically unfeasible, prohibitively expensive, or
both.
Reagan's insistence on the Star Wars program brought strategic arms control
talks to a standstill and provoked strong protests from Soviet leader
Mikhail Gorbachev during his summit meetings with Reagan in 1985, 1986,
1987, and 1988. In 1987 the two leaders did agree to scrap land-based
nuclear missiles of intermediate and shorter range, a small fraction of
their nuclear arsenals.
B 2 The Middle East
In the Middle East, Reagan intervened several times with U.S. forces. In the
early 1980s, armed conflict broke out in Lebanon between the Christian
government and a number of Muslim groups. In 1982, in an effort to
strengthen the Christian government, Reagan sent marines to Lebanon. In
October 1983 a bomb killed nearly 250 marines and other U.S. service members
at their Beirut headquarters. Reagan withdrew the surviving marines early in
1984. The Beirut bombing and incidents elsewhere created a strong reaction
against Middle East-based terrorists in U.S. public opinion.
In 1986 a bomb in a West German dance club killed a U.S. soldier and injured
others. The Reagan administration claimed that Libya was responsible for the
bombing and other terrorist activities, and retaliated with air strikes
against several Libyan cities on April 15, 1986.
In 1987 U.S. naval forces were sent to the Persian Gulf after Kuwait asked
for both U.S. and Soviet protection of its shipping during the Iran-Iraq
War. The Reagan administration was anxious to prevent Iran from defeating
Iraq, which would diminish U.S. influence in the region, and the naval
patrols exchanged fire with Iranian gunboats.
B 3 The Iran-Contra Scandal
The last two years of Reagan's presidency were marred by the Iran-Contra
Affair, a political scandal that turned public attention to the
effectiveness of Reagan's hands-off management style and damaged his
reputation.
As a result of the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979 and 1980, Congress had
designated Iran as a terrorist nation and had outlawed the sale of arms to
the Iranian government. In November 1986 newspapers reported that the U.S.
government had secretly sold weapons to Iran in order to win Iranian support
in freeing U.S. hostages held by Lebanese terrorists friendly to Iran. This
incident was particularly embarrassing because Reagan had taken a strong
public stand against governments that supported terrorism and had repeatedly
urged other governments not to deal with nations that supported terrorists.
Newspaper accounts also revealed that the United States had diverted profits
from the weapons sales to help the Contras fighting the Sandinista
government in Nicaragua. The diversion of the funds was a direct violation
of the Boland amendment, a law that had forbidden U.S. military aid to the
Contras. Reagan denied any knowledge of the diversion of funds to the
Contras, and he claimed that the weapons deal with Iran was an attempt to
open a dialogue with moderate elements in the Iranian government and did not
involve negotiations over hostages in Lebanon.
When congressional hearings were held in 1987, attention centered
particularly on how deeply Reagan was personally involved in the affair. A
congressional report found no clear evidence that the president had known of
the diversion of funds to the Contras. However, the report criticized the
incompetence of the administration's secret operations as well as the
president's lack of supervision over his advisers' actions.
C End of the Reagan Administration
The Iran-Contra scandal tarnished Reagan's public image. His claim that he
had been unaware of what his staff was doing was not well received, and his
original assertion that the arms were not ransom payments for hostages
seemed to contradict the facts revealed at the hearing. Reagan's political
influence was also diminished by the efforts of politicians to position
themselves for the 1988 elections, in which Reagan would not be a candidate.
Congress began to reject some Reagan initiatives. The Iran-Contra scandal
was followed by the rejection of the Bork nomination, a congressional
override of Reagan's veto of a civil-rights enforcement bill, and another
congressional refusal to fund Contra military operations.
> > You also seemed to be trying to use one of the favorite tactics of
> liberals,
> > moral relativism ... trying to point to president's that you consider to
> be
> > scandalous and in doing so attempting to lessen the horrific legacy of
> > Clinton.
>
>
> and you morons keep pointing at Clinton, as though he committed the crime
of
> the century!
Bill and wife Hillary were earmarked for the White House with their destiny
as New Age, one-world co-presidents of the United States, to lead us across
the bridge out of our Constitutional freedoms and into a New World Order.
Bill Clinton began his reign in office cloaked in a exaggerated economic
crisis, promising a financially beleaguered populace to bring change to the
economy. Beginning from the very outset his social programs promised to sink
America into even deeper moral decadence. And as his second term in office
proved, he incrementally sold out this countries sovereignty to a foreign
interests.
Certainly, the bulk of Americans who voted for Clinton/Gore never envisioned
the global socialist state that they and those who dictate policy to them
would institute and are now continuing to build. But, then again, those same
voters have proven they don't care anymore. The price we paid was that now
America has an administration with an openly socialist agenda.
The Clinton Legacy
The Progressive Review
RECORDS SET
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted
or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a
total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and
16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals
and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or
pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton
administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor
charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton
story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was
associated before entering the White House.
Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and
D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan
administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally
indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different
standard in "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By
the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been
convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official
investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms
of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the
worst ever."
STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION
- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas to date
(including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton
business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3
CRIME STATS
- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine
who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment,
fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses)
refused to be interviewed: 122
SMALTZ INVESTIGATION
- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving
charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy
and associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million
CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES
FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED
Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion,
kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans,
illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6),
perjury, obstruction of justice.
OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED
BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS
AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED
IN THE MEDIA
Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign
campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical
violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of
witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors,
perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal
investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of
justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug
trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state
officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions
or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court
testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by
medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of
the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and
his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing
jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition
and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of
employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents,
withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges
against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug
traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White
House.
ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMERS
Number of Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress that
they didn't remember, didn't know, or someting similiar.
Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey ******** 161
Bill Burton ********** 191
Mark Gearan *********** 221
Mack McLarty *********** 233
Neil Egglseston ************ 250
Hillary Clinton ************ 250
John Podesta ************* 264
Jennifer O'Connor ***************** 343
Dwight Holton ***************** 348
Patsy Thomasson ********************* 420
Jeff Eller *********************************** 697
THE CLINTON LEGACY:
LONELY HONOR
Here are some of the all too rare public officials, reporters, and others
who spoke truth to the dismally corrupt power of Bill and Hill Clinton's
political machine -- some at risk to their careers, others at risk to their
lives. A few points to note:
- Those corporatist media reporters who attempted to report the story often
found themselves muzzled; some even lost their jobs. The only major dailies
that consistently handled the story well were the Wall Street Journal and
the Washington Times.
- Nobody on this list has gotten rich and many you may not have even heard
of. Taking on the Clintons typically has not been a happy or rewarding
experience. At least ten reporters have been fired, transferred off their
beats, resigned, or otherwise gotten into trouble because of their work on
the scandals. Whistleblowing is even less appreciated within the government.
One study of whistleblowers found that 232 out of 233 them reported
suffering retaliation; another study found reprisals in about 95% of cases.
- Contrary to the popular impression, the politics of those listed ranges
from the left to the right, and from the ideological to the independent.
- We have not included victims of the Clinton machine, some of whom have
acted with considerable danger and at considerable risk to themselves. They
will be included on a later list.
PUBLIC OFFICIALS
MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ was a prosecutor on the staff of Kenneth Starr. His
attempts to uncover the truth in the Vincent Foster death case were
repeatedly foiled and he was the subject of planted stories undermining his
credibility and implying that he was unstable. Rodriguez eventually
resigned.
JEAN DUFFEY: Head of a joint federal-county drug task force in Arkansas. Her
first instructions from her boss: "Jean, you are not to use the drug task
force to investigate any public official." Duffey's work, however, led deep
into the heart of the Dixie Mafia, including members of the Clinton machine
and the investigation of the so-called "train deaths." Ambrose
Evans-Pritchard reports that when she produced a star witness who could
testify to Clinton's involvement with cocaine, the local prosecuting
attorney, Dan Harmon issued a subpoena for all the task force records,
including "the incriminating files on his own activities. If Duffey had
complied it would have exposed 30 witnesses and her confidential informants
to violent retributions. She refused." Harmon issued a warrant for her
arrest and friendly cops told her that there was a $50,000 price on her
head. She eventually fled to Texas. The once-untouchable Harmon was later
convicted of racketeering, extortion and drug dealing.
BILL DUNCAN: An IRS investigator in Arkansas who drafted some 30 federal
indictments of Arkansas figures on money laundering and other charges.
Clinton biographer Roger Morris quotes a source who reviewed the evidence:
"Those indictments were a real slam dunk if there ever was one." The cases
were suppressed, many in the name of "national security." Duncan was never
called to testify. Other IRS agents and state police disavowed Duncan and
turned on him. Said one source, "Somebody outside ordered it shut down and
the walls went up."
RUSSELL WELCH: An Arkansas state police detective working with Duncan. Welch
developed a 35-volume, 3,000 page archive on drug and money laundering
operations at Mena. His investigation was so compromised that a high state
police official even let one of the targets of the probe look through the
file. At one point, Welch was sprayed in the face with poison, later
identified by the Center for Disease Control as anthrax. He would write in
his diary, "I feel like I live in Russia, waiting for the secret police to
pounce down. A government has gotten out of control. Men find themselves in
positions of power and suddenly crimes become legal." Welch is no longer
with the state police.
DAN SMALTZ: Smaltz did an outstanding job investigating and prosecuting
charges involving illegal payoffs to Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, yet
was treated with disparaging and highly inaccurate reporting by the likes of
the David Broder and the NY Times. Espy was acquitted under a law that made
it necessary to not only prove that he accepted gratuities but that he did
something specific in return. On the other hand, Tyson Foods copped a plea
in the same case, paying $6 million in fines and serving four years'
probation. The charge: that Tyson had illegally offered Espy $12,000 in
airplane rides, football tickets and other payoffs. In the Espy
investigation, Smaltz obtained 15 convictions and collected over $11 million
in fines and civil penalties. Offenses for which convictions were obtained
included false statements, concealing money from prohibited sources, illegal
gratuities, illegal contributions, falsifying records, interstate
transportation of stolen property, money laundering, and illegal receipt of
USDA subsidies. Incidentally, Janet Reno blocked Smaltz from pursuing leads
aimed at allegations of major drug trafficking in Arkansas and payoffs to
the then governor of the state, WJ Clinton. Espy had become Ag secretary
only after being flown to Arkansas to get the approval of chicken king Don
Tyson.
DAVID SCHIPPERS, was House impeachment counsel and a Chicago Democrat. He
did a highly creditable job but since he didn't fit the right-wing
conspiracy theory, the Clintonista media downplayed his work. Thus most
Americans don't know that he told NewsMax, "Let me tell you, if we had a
chance to put on a case, I would have put live witnesses before the
committee. But the House leadership, and I'm not talking about Henry Hyde,
they just killed us as far as time was concerned. I begged them to let me
take it into this year. Then I screamed for witnesses before the Senate. But
there was nothing anybody could do to get those Senators to show any
courage. They told us essentially, you're not going to get 67 votes so why
are you wasting our time." Schippers also said that while a number of
representatives looked at additional evidence kept under seal in a nearby
House building, not a single senator did.
JOHN CLARKE: When Patrick Knowlton stopped to relieve himself in Ft. Marcy
Park 70 minutes before the discovery of Vince Foster's body, he saw things
that got him into deep trouble. His interview statements were falsified and
prior to testifying he claims he was overtly harassed by more than a score
of men in a classic witness intimidation technique. In some cases there were
witnesses. John Clarke has been his dogged lawyer in the witness
intimidation case that has been largely ignored by the media, even when the
three-judge panel overseeing the Starr investigation permitted Knowlton to
append a 20 page addendum to the Starr Report.
OTHER
THE ARKANSAS COMMITTEE: What would later be known as the Vast Right Wing
Conspiracy actually began on the left - as a group of progressive students
at the University of Arkansas formed the Arkansas Committee to look into
Mena, drugs, money laundering, and Arkansas politics. This committee was the
source of some of the important early Clinton stories.
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SCANDALS E-LIST: Moderated by Ray Heizer, this list
has been subject to all the idiosyncrasies of Internet bulletin boards, but
it has nonetheless proved invaluable to researchers and journalists.
JOURNALISTS
JERRY SEPER of the Washington Times was far and away the best beat reporter
of the story, handling it week after week in the best tradition of
investigative journalism. If other reporters had followed Seper's lead, the
history of the Clintons machine might have been quite different.
AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD of the London Telegraph did a remarkable job of
digging into some of the seamiest tales from Arkansas and the Clinton past.
Other early arrivals on the scene were Alexander Cockburn and Jeff Gerth.
CHRISTOPHER RUDDY, among other fine reports on the Clinton scandals, did the
best job laying out the facts in the Vince Foster death case.
ROGER MORRIS AND SALLY DENTON wrote a major expose of events at Mena, but at
the last moment the Washington Post's brass ordered the story killed. It was
published by Penthouse and later included in Morris' "Partners in Power,"
the best biography of the Clintons.
OTHERS who helped get parts of the story out included reporters Philip
Weiss, Carl Limbacher, Wes Phelan, David Bresnahan, William Sammon, Liza
Myers, Mara Leveritt, Matt Drudge, Jim Ridgeway, Nat Hentoff, Michael
Isikoff, Christopher Hitchens, and Michael Kelly. Also independent
investigator Hugh Sprunt and former White House FBI agent Gary Aldrich.
The Clintons, to adapt a line from Dr. Johnson, were not only corrupt, they
were the cause of corruption in others. Seldom in America have so many come
to excuse so much mendacity and malfeasance as during the Clinton years.
These rare exceptions cited above, and others unmentioned, deserve our deep
thanks.
THE CLINTON LEGACY
The Hidden Election
USA Today calls it "the hidden election," in which nearly 7,000 state
legislative seats are decided with only minimal media and public attention.
The paper took brief notice because this is the year the state legislatures
perform their most important national function: drawing revised
congressional districts based on the most recent census.
But there's another important national story here: further evidence of the
disaster that Bill Clinton has been for the Democratic Party. According to
the National Conference of State Legislatures, Democrats held a 1,542 seat
lead in the state bodies in 1990. As of last November that lead had shrunk
to 288. That's a loss of over 1,200 state legislative seats, nearly all of
them under Clinton. Across the US, the Democrats control only 65 more state
senate seats than the Republicans.
Further, in 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than
the Republicans. After November, the Republicans control one more than the
Democrats. Not only is this a loss of 9 legislatures under Clinton, but it
is the first time since 1954 that the GOP has controlled more state
legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968).
Here's what happened to the Democrats under Clinton, based on our latest
figures:
- GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 48
- GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 8
- GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 11
- GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254
as of 1998
- State legislatures taken over by GOP since Clinton became president: 9
- Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became
president: 439 as of 1998
- Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton became
president: 3
NATIONAL CONF OF STATE LEGISLATURES
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/hstptyct.htm
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/demshare2000.htm
ADMINISTRATION RECORDS SET
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
- Number of independent counsel inquiries since the 1978 law was passed: 19
- Number that have produced indictments: 7
- Number that produced more convictions than the Starr investigation: 1
- Median length of investigations that have led to convictions: 44 months
- Length of Starr-Ray investigation (7/00): 67 months.
- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions to date (including one
governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners):
15
- Median cost per Starr investigation conviction: $3.5 million as of 3/00
- Total cost of the Starr investigation (3/00) $52 million
- Total cost of the Iran-Contra investigation: $48.5 million
- Total cost to taxpayers of the Madison Guarantee failure: $73 million
- Number of Clinton cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3
CRIME STATS
- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine
who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of imprisonments: 14
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pled the 5th Amendment, fled
the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses)
refused to be interviewed: 124
CAMPAIGN FINANCE INVESTIGATION
- As of June 2000, the Justice Department listed 25 people indicted and 19 c
onvicted because of the 1996 Clinton-Gore fundraising scandals.
- According to the House Committee on Government Reform in September 2000,
79 House and Senate witnesses asserted the Fifth Amendment in the course of
investigations into Gore's last fundraising campaign. [These figures are
included in the larger figures elsewhere].
-James Riady entered a plea agreement to pay an $8.5 million fine for
campaign finance crimes. This was a record under campaign finance laws.
STARR INVESTIGATION
- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas to date
(including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton
business partners): 15
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3
SMALTZ INVESTIGATION
- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving
charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Espy and
associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
- Cost of investigation: $22.2 million through 9/99
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million
- Amount Tyson Food still has in annual government contracts: $200 million
- Reasons individuals other than Espy were convicted or pled guilty:
Concealing knowledge of gifts to Espy and his girlfriend (1), providing
illegal gratuities to Espy(4), illegally supplementing the salary of a
government official (2), concealing receipt of illegal funds on behalf of
Espy (1) (Espy's chief of staff sentenced to prison in this case)
CRIMES FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED
Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery(4), tax evasion,
kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans,
illegal gifts(1), illegal campaign contributions(5), money laundering (6)
POSSIBLE CRIMES AND SUSPICIOUS MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS,
CONGRESS,
AND/OR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS
Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign
campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical
violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of
witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors,
perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal
investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of
justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug
trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state
officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions
or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court
testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by
medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of
the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and
his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing
jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, illegal acquisition and
use of 900 FBI files, illegal futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of
employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents,
withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges
against (and improper firing of) White House employees, as well as providing
access to the White House to drug traffickers, foreign agents and
participants in organized crime.
UNEXPLAINED PHENOMENA
- FBI files misappropriated by the White House: c. 900
- Estimated number of witnesses quoted in FBI files misappropriated by the
White House: 18,000
- Number of witnesses who developed medical problems at critical points in
Clinton scandals investigation (Tucker, Hale, both McDougals, Lindsey): 5
- Problem areas listed in a memo by Clinton's own lawyer in preparation for
the president's defense: 40
- Number of witnesses and critics of Clinton subjected to IRS audit: 45
- Number of names placed in a White House secret database without the
knowledge of those named: c. 200,000
- Number of persons involved with Clinton who have been beaten up: 2
- Number of women involved with Clinton who claim to have been physically
threatened (Sally Perdue, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp,
Elizabeth Ward Gracen): 5
- Number of men involved in the Clinton scandals who have been beaten up or
claimed to have been intimidated: 10
ARKANSAS SUDDEN DEATH SYNDROME
- Number of persons in the Clinton machine orbit who are alleged to have
committed suicide: 9
- Number known to have been murdered: 12
- Number who died in plane crashes: 6
- Number who died in single car automobile accidents: 3
- Number killed during Waco massacre: 4
- Number of one-person sking fatalities: 1
- Number of key witnesses who have died of heart attacks while in federal
custody under questionable circumstances: 1
- Number of medications being taken by Jim McDougal at the time he was
placed in solitary confinement shortly before his death: 12
- Number of unexplained deaths: 4
- Total suspicious deaths: 46
- Number of northern Mafia killings during peak years of 1968-78: 30
- Number of Dixie Mafia killings during same period: 156
ARKANSAS ALZHEIMER'S
- Number of times Hillary Clinton said "I don't recall" or its equivalent in
a statement to a House investigating committee: 50
- Number of paragraphs in this statement: 42
- Number of times Bill Clinton said "I don't recall" or its equivalent in
the released portions of the his testimony on Paula Jones: 271
- Total number of facts or events not recalled before official bodies by
Bill Kennedy, Harold Ickes, Ricki Seidman, Bruce Lindsey, Bill Burton, Mark
Gearan, Mack McLarty, Neil Eggleston, John Podesta, Jennifer O'Connor,
Dwight Holton, Patsy Thomasson, Jeff Eller, Beth Nolan, Cliff Sloan, Bernard
Nussbaum, George Stephanopoulous, Roy Neel, Rahm Emanuel, Maggie Williams,
David Tarbell, Susan Thomases, Webster Hubbell, Roger Altman, Hillary
Clinton, Bill Clinton: 6,125
- Average occurrence of memory lapse by top administration figures while
before official bodies: 235
ARKANSAS MONEY MANAGEMENT
- Amount of an alleged electronic transfer from the Arkansas Development
Financial Authority to a bank in the Cayman Islands during 1980s: $50
million
- Grand Cayman's population: 18,000
- Number of commercial banks: 570
- Number of bank regulators: 1
- Amount Arkansas state pension fund invested in high-risk repos in the
mid-80s in one purchase in April 1985: $52 million through the Worthen Bank.
- Number of days thereafter that the state's brokerage firm went belly up: 3
- Amount Arkansas pension fund dropped overnight as a result: 15%
- Percent of Worthen bank that Mochtar Riady bought over the next four
months to bail out the bank and the then governor, Bill Clinton: 40%.
- Percent of purchasers from the Clintons and McDougals of resort lots who
lost the land because of the sleazy financing provisions: over 50%
THE MEDIA
- Number of journalists covering Whitewater who have been fired, transferred
off the beat, resigned or otherwise gotten into trouble because of their
work on the scandals (Doug Frantz, Jim Wooten, Richard Behar, Christopher
Ruddy, Michael Isikoff, David Eisenstadt, Yinh Chan, Jonathan Broder, James
R. Norman, Zoh Hieronimus): 10
FRIENDS OF BILL
- Number of times John Huang took the 5th Amendment in answer to questions
during a Judicial Watch deposition: 1,000
- Visits made to the White House by investigation subjects Johnny Chung,
James Riady, John Huang, and Charlie Trie. 160
- Number of campaign contributors who got overnights at the White House in
the two years before the 1996 election: 577
- Number of members of Thomas Boggs's law firm who have held top positions
in the Clinton administration. 18
- Number of times John Huang was briefed by CIA: 37
- Number of calls Huang made from Commerce Department to Lippo banks: 261
- Number of intelligence reports Huang read while at Commerce: 500
POLITICAL FALL-OUT
- According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Democrats held
a 1,542 seat lead in the state bodies in 1990. As of November 2000 that lead
had shrunk to 288. That's a loss of over 1,200 state legislative seats,
nearly all of them under Clinton. Across the US, the Democrats controlled
only 65 more state senate seats than the Republicans.
Further, in 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than
the Republicans. After November, the Republicans control one more than the
Democrats. Not only was this a loss of 9 legislatures under Clinton, but it
was the first time since 1954 that the GOP had controlled more state
legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968).
Here's what happened to the Democrats under Clinton:
- GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 48
- GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 8
- GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 11
- GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254
as of 1998
- State legislatures taken over by GOP since Clinton became president: 9
- Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became
president: 439 as of 1998
- Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton became
president: 3
>
> It is NOT "moral relativism", shit for brains! It's called republican
> hypocricy!
>
People like you are incapable of clear thought or rational expression. You
fail to substantiate your absurd assertions but at the drop of a hat you
will verbally attack and rely on profanity to take the place of intelligence
and eloquence. People do not understand the difference between a factual
comparison and what you call hypocrisy.
You exclude or eliminate as much detail as possible and then with an
extremely broad brush paint the scenario you need to try to sound like you
know what you are talking about. You ignore factual accomplishments by both
President Nixon and President Reagan and attempt to focus on the scandals
and alleged scandals connected to their administrations. You blindly accept
the misinformation, liberal propaganda and urban legend connected to
President's Nixon and Reagan and venomously spew it as being fact when in
most cases it is as far from being factual as anything could be.
At the same time you will willingly hide from your eyes the indiscretions
any President that you may like and also ignore the facts that prove how
ineffectual he/they may have been.
The combination of your lack of facts and the general tone of someone with
an extremely low I.Q. is proof that your argument is based in emotion and
political agenda. Historical facts are meaningless to someone like yourself.
What you want to believe is more factual, more accurate and more important
than all the proven historical facts combined. If the ability to fool
yourself like that isn't enough you then search for any indiscretion,
regardless of how factual it may be or how damaging it might be, and then
cling to it as if it somehow erases all the good things Presidents like
President Nixon and President Reagan accomplished.
As in the Iran/Contra investigation where no proof was found that President
Reagan had knowledge of the exchange people like you seem to believe that
the charge, the accusation in itself is damming enough so regardless of the
actual finding the accused is guilty by accusation.
People like you seem to want to believe that being connected to some
impropriety or just being accused of being connected to some impropriety is
enough to wipe out for all eternity everything good the accused has
accomplished .. that is unless it is a President that you like or who
represented a party you may be affiliated with or sympathetic to.
People like yourself lack clarity of thought and suffer from an inability to
think logically. In minds like yours emotion replaces fact and agenda
replaces logic. The muddled arguments put forth by people like yourself are
hollow, baseless and impossible to support factually without relying on
lies, myths, propaganda, urban legend and extremely selective usage of
proven fact.
I pity people like you. It must be terrible to go through life with such a
limited ability to process and then accept information. I find it incredibly
sad that someone is unwilling to accept truth if that truth does not first
pass some political parties propagandistic agenda.
D.G. Porter
I was THERE, "Dude," when it went down, and I don't buy this loaded pile
of crap for a minute.
It's all WHITEEWASH with your accounts of Nixon and Reagan and UTTER
CRAP with Clinton, so shove it back up your ass.
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> I don't know where you got this boatload of bullshit, with no cites, but
> I was THERE, "Dude," when it went down, and I don't buy this loaded pile
> of crap for a minute.
> It's all WHITEEWASH with your accounts of Nixon and Reagan and UTTER
> CRAP with Clinton, so shove it back up your ass.
I have to admit that I am impressed with your articulate usage of facts and
your degree of eloquence.
Now to say something factual. You said my accounts of President's Nixon and
Reagan were white wash. Well you were incorrect. Everything I posted about
President's Nixon and Reagan is historical fact. You can find out for
yourself if care to stop believing liberal propaganda and decide to finally
learn the truth.
One thing you said did confuse me though. You said "I don't know where you
got this boatload of bullshit, with no cites, but I was THERE, "Dude," when
it went down, ..."
Just where was "THERE?" What might also be equally important would be just
when were you "THERE?" What first hand experience did you have that makes
you so much more of an expert than various encyclopedia's and biographers
and that is more accurate than historical records?
As with most delusional people you seem to think that just because you
believe something that will make it become reality. That is not the case,
that is not what happens. You can spew your venomous liberal propaganda from
now until the crack of doom and it will not change a single fact about
either President Nixon or President Reagan.
D.G. Porter
>
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> news:3ED50C...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> > I don't know where you got this boatload of bullshit, with no cites, but
> > I was THERE, "Dude," when it went down, and I don't buy this loaded pile
> > of crap for a minute.
> > It's all WHITEEWASH with your accounts of Nixon and Reagan and UTTER
> > CRAP with Clinton, so shove it back up your ass.
>
> I have to admit that I am impressed with your articulate usage of facts and
> your degree of eloquence.
>
> Now to say something factual. You said my accounts of President's Nixon and
> Reagan were white wash. Well you were incorrect. Everything I posted about
> President's Nixon and Reagan is historical fact. You can find out for
> yourself if care to stop believing liberal propaganda and decide to finally
> learn the truth.
Don't bullshit me. I don't know how old you are but I was alive,
kicking and cognisant during 1968-74, and I remember that fucker Tricky
Dick LYING to us in 1968 and I remember what a LIAR he was all during
the Watergate investigation. I remember hearing on the news how he
fired Richardson and Simon and then got Bork to fire Cox. I remember
how that asshole Sandman tried to whitewash Nixon's crimes in the
Judiciary Committee hearings, and how Jerome Waldie got evey Dems' time
to outline SPECIFICS about Nixon's crimes. I remember how Republicans
voted for two of five impeachment articles (three passed, two failed).
I don't know where you got that crap about how great Nixon and Reagan
were, but it sounds like pure revisionist rewrite from their libraries.
Hey "Dude," I live in the shadow of Nixon's birthplace and my father
knew him, and Nixon was a scumbag from the word "go." And Reagan was an
idiot long before he defeated Pat Brown.
But as soon as I go to your stuff about Clinton, I knew you were just
another LOON-bag, swallowing all the crap we've been fed for the 8 years
of his Presidency by idiots like David Hale and Scaife. So when you
finally graduate from high school and start learning about what has
really been going on over the last 40 years, and not what Grampaw and
Pappy feed you, get back to me.
> One thing you said did confuse me though. You said "I don't know where you
> got this boatload of bullshit, with no cites, but I was THERE, "Dude," when
> it went down, ..."
>
> Just where was "THERE?" What might also be equally important would be just
> when were you "THERE?" What first hand experience did you have that makes
> you so much more of an expert than various encyclopedia's and biographers
> and that is more accurate than historical records?
Because I SAW IT WHEN IT WAS LIVE ON TELEVISION. Or rebroadcast the
same night. Or on radio in my car.
I saw Haldeman and Ehrlichman being grilled by Ervin, Weicker and Fred
Thompson. I remember what a dog-face John Mitchell was. I remembe when
we first heard about the taping sxystem, and I remember John Dean's
testimony. I remember Ulascewitz (sp???) spilling the beans.
I watched the House Judiciary Committee debating the FIVE impeachment
articles.
I made sure I videotaped every day they had the Iran-contra hearings
(and Bork's hearings were on at night) and I listened to them LIVE over
the radio when I was at work (we had a lenient boss).
And during that FARCE in 1998 when the CLOWNS were making up bullshit to
impeach Clinton, I was staying in the Joseph Francis Glidden room of the
Glidden mansion-turned-hotel (guest of the Cleveland Orchestra for a
week). I remember laffing at that idiot Schippers, and the look on
Hyde's face as he swallowed it all.
> As with most delusional people you seem to think that just because you
> believe something
... that I saw with my own eyes, as did millions of Americans during
those months on 1973, 1974 and 1987 ... BTW, where were you, still
suckling on Mommy's teat?
> that will make it become reality. That is not the case,
> that is not what happens. You can spew your venomous liberal propaganda from
> now until the crack of doom and it will not change a single fact about
> either President Nixon or President Reagan.
Heh-heh, yeah, it won't, LOON. Some day you might want to learn some of
those facts.
If you're typical of what they are churning out in schools these days,
well, it's no wonder people are so fucking STUPID.
D.G. Porter
The first item on our menu is from a hot little 45 that circulated
widely in '73. (This is from memory, so anyone with this disk, feel
free to correct me.)
Oh yes, we're Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean.
The way we've been treated is really obscene.
To think that a bug,
Worth hardly a shrug,
Would end up by getting us tossed in the jug.
We all got the gate for no reason or rhyme.
You'd think we committed some horrible crime!
Unluckier fellows you never have seen
Than Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean!
Then there was the classic exchange between Lowell Weicker and John
Ehrlichman in '73, live on national TV, where Ehrlichman outlined what
would become the RepubliCON strategy of "the politics of destruction"
against all opponents. It was indeed "interesting" when Ehrlichman
defended the use of "Ulascewitz-types" to dig up all the details of a
person's personal life to ruin them. Fourteen years later, in 1987,
this became known as "Borking," but it was the Nixon White House that
first pepetrated the practice.
National Lampoon produced an LP called "Missing White House Tapes." I
played this for a young woman on her birthday a year or so ago (family
friend's daughter), and it was all new to her (she was born in '81).
The album is hilarious, and, amazingly, all too fucking true. L.
Patrick Gray did use the FBI to harrass Nixon's "enemies" (he had a list
of them too). Nixon did play the CIA and the FBI off against one
another, threatening to bring up all the dirt onthe Bay of Pigs fiasco
(Bernard Barker was in both the BoP and the Watergate burglary). The
Watergate burglars were on CREEP's payroll. Nixon approved it all.
Anyone else here remember Bob Mahieu and his involvement with Watergate
AND a little dirty trick against Aristotle Onassis when Nixon was Ike's
VP? And who else remembers Donald Segretti and his "dirty tricks"
campaign?
And wasn't it a laff-riot when that long-awaitred "smoking gun" tape
came out, and you saw Republicans CRYING on national television!?
And then Tricky Dick resigning on national TV ... what a glorious day
that was in August '74! Everyone who had been calling him a scumbag for
years was VINDICATED, proven RIGHT!
I don't know how old you are, "Dude," but you need an education.
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
news:3ED532...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> > news:3ED50C...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> > > I don't know where you got this boatload of bullshit, with no cites,
but
> > > I was THERE, "Dude," when it went down, and I don't buy this loaded
pile
> > > of crap for a minute.
> > > It's all WHITEEWASH with your accounts of Nixon and Reagan and UTTER
> > > CRAP with Clinton, so shove it back up your ass.
> >
> > I have to admit that I am impressed with your articulate usage of facts
and
> > your degree of eloquence.
> >
> > Now to say something factual. You said my accounts of President's Nixon
and
> > Reagan were white wash. Well you were incorrect. Everything I posted
about
> > President's Nixon and Reagan is historical fact. You can find out for
> > yourself if care to stop believing liberal propaganda and decide to
finally
> > learn the truth.
>
> Don't bullshit me. I don't know how old you are but I was alive, kicking
and cognisant during 1968-74,
I'm 48 years old, I was born in Feb., 1955.
and I remember that fucker Tricky
> Dick LYING to us in 1968 and I remember what a LIAR he was all during
> the Watergate investigation.
So if someone makes one error of judgement at some point in his life
everything else he or she has done previous to that point in time is erased,
never happened and the consequences of those now non-events or meaningless
regardless of if they were good or bad, right?
I would bet you everything I own that at no time have I ever said that
President Nixon was not involved in the Watergate cover up or that he did
not lie at some point or another. I also never said that he did not play
hardball and that he would pressure or replace people if he felt it was in
his best interests.
What I did say was the truth, that President Nixon was a good president.
I remember hearing on the news how he
> fired Richardson and Simon and then got Bork to fire Cox. I remember
> how that asshole Sandman tried to whitewash Nixon's crimes in the
> Judiciary Committee hearings, and how Jerome Waldie got evey Dems' time
> to outline SPECIFICS about Nixon's crimes. I remember how Republicans
> voted for two of five impeachment articles (three passed, two failed).
Once again your amazing vocabulary and sentace structure have thrown me for
a loop. You said " I remember how that asshole Sandman tried to whitewash
Nixon's crimes in the Judiciary Committee hearings, and how Jerome Waldie
got evey Dems' time to outline SPECIFICS about Nixon's crimes. I remember
how Republicans voted for two of five impeachment articles (three passed,
two failed)." It was the last part about the Rebublicans voted for two of
five impeachment articles (three passed, two failed)."
I guess my memory is slipping because I do not recall President Nixon being
impeached. I remember his resigning from office but not being impeached.
Maybe you accidentally inferred that President Nixon had been impeached when
you said that "three" articles of impeachment "passed."
As far as my memory can remember there has only been two Presidents
impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
>
> I don't know where you got that crap about how great Nixon and Reagan
> were, but it sounds like pure revisionist rewrite from their libraries.
The factual information I posted did not come from Presidential libraries
and it is nor revisionist history. It is history, pure and simple,
untarnished by individuals viewpoints.
> Hey "Dude," I live in the shadow of Nixon's birthplace and my father
> knew him, and Nixon was a scumbag from the word "go."
And just does that prove or even mean? The geographical location of your
residence is not in any way germane to whether President Nixon was a good
President or not. Also, in regards to your father's personal opinion of
President Nixon it is in no way shape or form germane to the facts about
President Nixon being a good President.
My father served in General Patton's Third Army in the Second World War. My
father was in headquarters company and was a replacement driver for General
Patton. My father was very impressed by General Patton and was proud to
serve under him but he also disliked General Patton tremendously at times.
General Patton could be terribly difficult to be around but he got results.
History views General Patton as the best General we had in World War Two but
if my father disliked him doesn't that mean, according to what you seem to
want us to believe is logic, that General Patton was a failure, that he was
not a good commanding general?
If being liked or not liked by one person makes you a success, intelligent,
impressive or what ever descriptive term you care to use than no one could
ever be considered to be good at their position. It would be impossible for
someone to be liked by every single person they ever meet. By your own
yardstick you have rendered every other President as failures.
And Reagan was an
> idiot long before he defeated Pat Brown.
Define idiot. Tell us all what made President Reagan an idiot. If you have
time you may even want to include just when President Reagan became an
idiot. Evidently you have some idea of when President Reagan became an idiot
since you knew that it was " long before he defeated Pat Brown."
>
> But as soon as I go to your stuff about Clinton, I knew you were just
> another LOON-bag, swallowing all the crap we've been fed for the 8 years
> of his Presidency by idiots like David Hale and Scaife.
I never fail to be amused by liberals and their inability to accept factual
information as long as they can in some way connect the reporting of that
information to someone they deem as being biased.
Hypothetically, if tomorrow Rush Limbaugh or G. Gordon Liddy or someone
similar reports that some heinous act had been performed by a member of the
government, and that act indeed did occur, would the person reporting be
less accurate than if a different person first released the news? Would
their accuracy depend on which political party the offending member of
government belonged to?
You can't totally discount a source just because you normally disagree with
the source. Heck even the National Enquirer will from time to time fall into
a real story and be the ones to break it.
So when you
> finally graduate from high school and start learning about what has
> really been going on over the last 40 years, and not what Grampaw and
> Pappy feed you, get back to me.
I do have to wonder why in the world you would ever have thought me to be
young? Only your own deep need to feel superior to me could have caused that
error. I shouldn't have expected more than that from you though. It seems
that most liberals have a superiority complex. They always need to believe
that they are smarter, more educated and far more experienced than those
they have dealings with. I believe that is because in fact they know they
are not as smart, not as educated and have less experience than those they
have dealings with and the try to hide those facts through verbosity and
lies.
>
> > One thing you said did confuse me though. You said "I don't know where
you
> > got this boatload of bullshit, with no cites, but I was THERE, "Dude,"
when
> > it went down, ..."
> >
> > Just where was "THERE?" What might also be equally important would be
just
> > when were you "THERE?" What first hand experience did you have that
makes
> > you so much more of an expert than various encyclopedia's and
biographers
> > and that is more accurate than historical records?
>
> Because I SAW IT WHEN IT WAS LIVE ON TELEVISION. Or rebroadcast the
> same night. Or on radio in my car.
Thank you, now I understand. To you saying that you were "THERE" means any
location that you may have been in when you picked up bits and pieces of
information.
I am curious though, did you blindly accept every piece of damaging
information you heard or did you first put it to the test, your test, and
decide the validity of the information based on the political leanings ands
ties of the person reporting?
> I saw Haldeman and Ehrlichman being grilled by Ervin, Weicker and Fred
> Thompson. I remember what a dog-face John Mitchell was. I remembe when
> we first heard about the taping sxystem, and I remember John Dean's
> testimony. I remember Ulascewitz (sp???) spilling the beans.
Good for you. I am so happy to hear that you have such fond memories to
sustain you in your golden years.
> I watched the House Judiciary Committee debating the FIVE impeachment
> articles.
Again that is something that I do not recall so I won't comment on it other
than to once again remind you that only two Presidents in history have been
impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Using a liberals logic though I
can fully understand the gravity of the events. I mean that since to a
liberal the accusation is sufficient for censure and the actual outcome
becomes meaningless so the accusation alone stands up for all time and all
future judgement of the events is to be based soley on the accusation.
That's your logic, isn't it? The fact that President Nixon was never
impeached is meaningless, only that you can remember that hearings took
place matters, right?
> I made sure I videotaped every day they had the Iran-contra hearings
> (and Bork's hearings were on at night) and I listened to them LIVE over
> the radio when I was at work (we had a lenient boss).
Lucky you! I wish I had that on tape! I enjoyed watching Oliver North make
fools of those who questioned him. That was what I considered to be must see
TV!
The findings of the Iran/Contra hearings found that there was no verifiable
connection to President Reagan. That's the truth, that's factual, period,
the end, an no matter how hard you try your amateurish attacks on President
Reagan will never be able to alter the facts.
> And during that FARCE in 1998 when the CLOWNS were making up bullshit to
> impeach Clinton, I was staying in the Joseph Francis Glidden room of the
> Glidden mansion-turned-hotel (guest of the Cleveland Orchestra for a
> week). I remember laffing at that idiot Schippers, and the look on
> Hyde's face as he swallowed it all.
President Clinton lied under oath. That is historical fact. Once again, all
your oral ejaculating will never be able to change the proven historical
fact that President Clinton lied under oath.
>
> > As with most delusional people you seem to think that just because you
> > believe something
>
> ... that I saw with my own eyes, as did millions of Americans during
> those months on 1973, 1974 and 1987 ...
I would never attempt to dispute what you claim you saw but I do have to
suggest that you in fact do suffer from selective memory.
Where was I in 1973, 1974 and 1987? In 1973 I was a senior in high school in
suburban Chicago. In 1974 I was in Michigan, a freshman in college. By 1987
I had moved to North Carolina where I live today, on a 50,000 acre lake
about an hour north of Raleigh.
What was that other question you asked me? Oh yes, it was " BTW, where were
you, still suckling on Mommy's teat?" Hardly. There were numerous "teats"
being suckled on by me during those years but out of respect to the females
involved I will allow their names to remain a secret.
>
> > that will make it become reality. That is not the case,
> > that is not what happens. You can spew your venomous liberal propaganda
from
> > now until the crack of doom and it will not change a single fact about
> > either President Nixon or President Reagan.
>
> Heh-heh, yeah, it won't, LOON. Some day you might want to learn some of
> those facts.
I have to believe that you suffer from the inability to live within the
bounds of reality. You have been unable to grasp simple historical facts but
yet you seem to be able to retain a few pieces of extremely worn out highly
inaccurate liberal propaganda so I have to guess you have some ability to
think, you're just incapable of thinking for yourself. If you were able to
think for yourself than it might be possible for you to one day be cured of
your delusions and both learn and accept the true facts about President's
Nixon and Reagan.
> If you're typical of what they are churning out in schools these days,
> well, it's no wonder people are so fucking STUPID.
I don't consider myself the product of today's schools considering that I
graduated from college in 1977. Again though I have to mention that your
need to feel superior has misled you about myself and my age.
One other thing that I will mention is that the lower one's intelligence is
the more apt they will result resort to foul language and swearing. They
seem to believe that swearing will hide the fact that they can not back up
their weak argument with proven facts. When they go to their well of facts,
always an extremely shallow well I might add, they find it dry and their
only recourse is to swear, to attack, to tear down, to attempt to discredit
the person they know to be superior to them. That is a typical liberal ploy,
to attack and discredit in hopes that others witnessing the event will not
accept their opponents arguments regardless of the fact that the opponent
knows what they are talking about. The thing about that worn out old liberal
tactic is that the only people that are fooled are as ignorant as the person
using the tactic, or else they wouldn't fall for it.
" it's no wonder people are so fucking STUPID"
All I can say is that if it weren't for truly stupid people, like yourself,
there would be no party of democrats.If it weren't for mindless people like
you who in sheep-like fashion blindly accept any and all propaganda they are
fed by those who control use that propaganda to control their minds there
would not be a party of democrats, there would not be anyone to vote for
democrat candidates.
What a beautiful world that would be. It would be as close to heaven on
earth as could ever be found.
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
I seem to be missing something in your logic. You seem to be trying to prove
that President Nixon was not a good president by reciting lyrics from old
songs? Am I correct in that assumption?
You have not said a single thing about his leadership, his policies, the
economy during his time in office, the lasting positive effects of the
things he did. You instead seem to want to erase all the good things he did
by pointing to a single event during his Presidency.
Something else you seem to be trying to do is to shift what I said into
something that you can argue or attempt to discredit. Once again I will tell
you that I never said that President Nixon was not involved in the Watergate
cover up or that he never lied. I can't seem to understand why you keep
hammering on his discretion's rather that listing all his policy failures
and the ill effect he had caused for years following his presidency?
You believe President Nixon to be a bad president but you back your argument
up by pointing to the fact that he broke the law. If we were discussing if
President Nixon lied than I would be arguing your side of this exchange
because I realize and accept that he did in fact lie. But that's not what
this exchange is about.
Of course that is another worn out liberal tactic, to avoid the meat of an
argument and instead drift around the edges of the topic and attempt to
sound knowledgeable while at the same time attempting to not give away the
fact that you are illiterate. It seems that liberals are always willing to
lose an argument as long as they can make it look like they won by shifting
the topic sway from what frightens them and on to something close enough to
fool others who are as ignorant as them.
>
> I don't know how old you are, "Dude," but you need an education.
Like I said in my last response I am 48 years old, born in Feb., 1955 and
also like I said in my last response I graduated from college in 1977 so I
have an education.
One thing that you may not realize but the education that you believe I need
would be one of political reeducation and indoctrination for the
liberal/socialist agenda. Thank you for thinking about me like that but I
much prefer to remain a free thinker and collect all the factual information
of events and then come to my own conclusion. I do not need the DNC, the
Clintons and the likes of you to tell me what to think and what to believe.
Dude
> widely in '73. (This is from memory, so anyone with this disk, feel
> free to correct me.)
>
> Oh yes, we're Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean.
> The way we've been treated is really obscene.
> To think that a bug,
> Worth hardly a shrug,
> Would end up by getting us tossed in the jug.
> We all got the gate for no reason or rhyme.
> You'd think we committed some horrible crime!
> Unluckier fellows you never have seen
> Than Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean!
>
I forgot to ask you something. Since you are so good with old lyrics do you
know the lyrics to 'The Super Bowl Shuffle' and 'Lincoln Park Pirates' too?
I would really like to know both. I think I remember the 'Fridge's part of
'The Super Bowl Shuffle,' "You're looking at the 'Fridge' I'm the rookie. I
may be big but I'm no dumb cookie. You've seen me hit you've seen me run,
when I kick and pass we'll have more fun." I think that's accurate, or at
least close. Can you help me and fill in the rest of the song since you've
proven to me that you are an expert in old lyrics. Actually now that I think
about it you may not have been trying to prove yourself as an expert on old
lyrics. It is wholly possible that you were trying to prove yourself to be
an accurate historian by quoting some inane old lyrics.
Either way if you know the lyrics to the entire 'Super Bowl Shuffle' or 'The
Lincoln Park Pirates' please post them.
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
news:3ED537...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
Dude
William Perry's lines in 'The Super Bowl Shuffle,' "You're looking at the
'Fridge' I'm the rookie. I may be big but I'm no dumb cookie. You've seen me
out "I didn't come here looking for trouble, I just came here to do the
super bowl shuffle."
Well like the 'Fridge' I didn't come here looking for trouble .... but I
guess I did come here to do the Slick Willie shuffle.
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
news:3ED537...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
Dude
And now..without further delay..."The Bear's Shuffling Crew!!"
(CHORUS)
We're the Bears Shufflin' Crew.
Shufflin' on down, doin' it for you.
We're so bad we know we're good.
Blowin' your mind like we knew we would.
You know we're just struttin' for fun
Struttin' our stuff for everyone.
We're not here to start no trouble.
We're just here to do the Super Bowl Shuffle.
Well, they call me Sweetness,
and I like to dance.
Runnin' the ball is like makin' romance
We've had the goal since training camp
To give Chicago a Super Bowl Champ.
And we're not doing this because we're greedy.
The Bears are doin' it to feed the needy.
We didn't come here to look for trouble,
We just came here to do
The Superbowl Shuffle.
This is Speedy Willie, and I'm world class.
I like runnin', but I love to get the pass.
I practice all day and dance all night,
I got to get ready for the Sunday fight.
Now I'm smooth as a chocolate swirl,
I dance a little funky, so watch me girl.
There's no one here that does it like me,
My Superbowl Shuffle will set you free.
I'm Samurai Mike. I stop 'em cold.
Part of the defense, big and bold.
I've been jammin' for quite a while,
Doin' what's right and settin' the style.
Give me a chance , I'll rock you good,
Nobody messin' in my neighborhood.
I didn't come here lookin' for trouble,
I just came to do the Superbowl Shuffle.
(CHORUS)
I'm the punky QB, known as McMahon.
When I hit the turf, I've got no plan.
I just throw my body all over the field.
I can't dance, but, I can throw the pill.
I motivate the cats, I like to tease.
I play so cool, I aim to please.
That's why you all got here on the double,
To catch me doin' the Superbowl Shuffle.
I'm mama's boy Otis, one of a kind.
The ladies all love me
For my body and my mind.
I'm slick on the floor as I can be.
But ain't no sucker gonna get past me.
Some guys are jealous
Of my style and class.
That's why some end up on their (bleep).
I didn't come here lookin' for trouble,
I just get down to the Superbowl Shuffle.
They say Jimbo is our man.
If he can't do it, I sure can.
This is Steve, and it's no wonder.
I run like lightnin', pass like thunder.
So bring on Atlanta, bring on Dallas.
This is for Mike and Papa Bear Halas.
I'm not here to feather this ruffle,
I just came here to do
The Superbowl Shuffle.
I'm L.A. Mike and I play it cool.
They don't sneak by me 'cause I'm no fool.
I fly on the field and get on down.
Everybody knows I don't mess around.
I can break 'em, shake 'em,
Any time of day.
I like to steal it and make 'em pay.
So please don't try to beat my hustle,
'Cause I'm just here to do
The Superbowl Shuffle.
(CHORUS)
The sackman's comin', I'm your man Dent.
If the quarterback's slow,
He's gonna get bent.
We stop the run, we stop the pass.
I like to dump guys on their (bleep).
We love to play for the world's best fans.
You better start makin'
Your Superbowl plans.
But don't get ready or go to any trouble,
Unless you practice
The Superbowl Shuffle.
It's Gary here, I'm Mr. Clean.
They call me "hit man"
Don't know what they mean.
They throw it long and watch me run.
I'm on my man, one on one.
Buddy's guys cover it down to the bone.
That's why they call us the 46 zone.
Come on everybody, let's scream and yell.
We're goin' to do the Shuffle,
Then ring your bell.
You're lookin' at the Fridge,
I'm the rookie.
I may be large, but I'm no dumb cookie.
You've seen me hit, you've seen me run.
When I kick and pass, we'll have more fun.
I can dance, you will see.
The others, they all learn from me.
I don't come here lookin' for trouble,
I just came here to do
The Superbowl Shuffle!
(CHORUS)
(Applause)
I also found the lyrics to 'Lincoln Park Pirates' so you don't have to worry
about that one either. Thanks though.
Lincoln Park Pirates
from the Steve Goodman LP
Somebody Else's Troubles
The streetlamps are on in Chicago tonight,
And lovers a'gazin' at stars;
The stores are all closin', and Daley is dozin',
And the fat man is counting the cars...
And there's more cars than places to put 'em, he says,
But I've got room for them all;
So 'round 'em up boys, 'cause I want some more toys,
In the lot by the grocery store...
Chours;
To me, way, hey, tow them away,
The Lincoln Park Pirates are we,
From Wilmette to Gary, there's nothin' so hairy
And we always collect our fee!
So it's way, hey, tow 'em away,
We plunder the streets of your town,
Be it Edsel or Chevy, there's no car too heavy,
And no one can make us shut down.
We break into cars when we gotta,
With hammer and pickaxe and saw;
And they said this garage had no license;
But little care I for the law!
Our drivers are friendly and courteous;
Their good manners you always will get;
'Cause they all are recent graduates
Of the charm school in Joliet.
Chours;
And when all the cars are collected,
And all of their fenders are ruined,
Then I'll tow all the boats in Belmont Harbor
To the Lincoln Park Lagoon;
And when I've collected the ransom,
And sunk all the ones that won't yield;
I'll tow all the planes that are blocking the runways
At Midway, O'Hare, and Meigs Field!
To me, way, hey, tow them away,
The Lincoln Park Pirates are we,
From Wilmette to Gary, there's nothin' so hairy
And we always collect our fee!
So it's way, hey, tow 'em away,
Now citizens, gather around,
And I think it's enough, let's call his bluff,
Let's throw the bum out of town!
"Dude" <Du...@MyPlace.net> wrote in message
news:vdak6ib...@corp.supernews.com...
Brian
Dude wrote:
> Once again your command of the English language boggles my mind.
LOL,
I too love how many words it takes d g to admit that he cant support any of his
lies, and tries to cover up this fact with more lies and name calling.
D.G. Porter
>
> Once again your command of the English language boggles my mind.
What if I told you I get paid to write, and this is how I relax?
[Seriously, go to a decent library and check out a CD called "Ives Plays
Ives." On the now-dead CRI label. If they also have "A Portrait of
Charles Ives" on EMI, check that out too. I'm also getting paid to
write something on his 1st string quartet, which I am not enjoying very
much but the fee is worth it.]
Then you have no excuse to not know what was on national TV in 1973 and
1974. FWiW, I was born in June 1953. I'm joining AARP next month.
> and I remember that fucker Tricky
> > Dick LYING to us in 1968 and I remember what a LIAR he was all during
> > the Watergate investigation.
>
> So if someone makes one error of judgement at some point in his life
> everything else he or she has done previous to that point in time is erased,
> never happened and the consequences of those now non-events or meaningless
> regardless of if they were good or bad, right?
Look, I'll try to straighten you out on this. It may be worth relating
that my father and Nixon knew eachother through political circles. (I
have an autographed photo of Dick with Dad from the Newporter Inn from
1962, and my father also knew Don Segretti.) Now some years after
Watergate there was a theory that Dean had set Nixon up for the fall.
Some British documentarians went about to make a documentary armed with
that assumption. During their investigation they learned that it had
been portrayed correctly at the time of the hearings, that Nixon was
behind all the "Plumbers" activities and was THE major player in the
whole mess, and that the revisionist theory was bunk. Nixon's own tapes
prove it every time another one is released.
> I would bet you everything I own that at no time have I ever said that
> President Nixon was not involved in the Watergate cover up or that he did
> not lie at some point or another. I also never said that he did not play
> hardball and that he would pressure or replace people if he felt it was in
> his best interests.
>
> What I did say was the truth, that President Nixon was a good president.
He was a lousy President. His going to China was more a campaign stunt
than a diplomatic mission. When he "ended" our involvement in Vietnam
it was the same deal he could have gotten in 1969, but he used it --
announcing it just the Friday before Election Day '72 -- as a campaign
stunt. In fact, now we know he interfered with the Paris negotiations
in October 1968.
> I remember hearing on the news how he
> > fired Richardson and Simon and then got Bork to fire Cox. I remember
> > how that asshole Sandman tried to whitewash Nixon's crimes in the
> > Judiciary Committee hearings, and how Jerome Waldie got evey Dems' time
> > to outline SPECIFICS about Nixon's crimes. I remember how Republicans
> > voted for two of five impeachment articles (three passed, two failed).
>
> Once again your amazing vocabulary and sentace structure have thrown me for
> a loop. You said " I remember how that asshole Sandman tried to whitewash
> Nixon's crimes in the Judiciary Committee hearings, and how Jerome Waldie
> got evey Dems' time to outline SPECIFICS about Nixon's crimes. I remember
> how Republicans voted for two of five impeachment articles (three passed,
> two failed)." It was the last part about the Rebublicans voted for two of
> five impeachment articles (three passed, two failed)."
>
> I guess my memory is slipping because I do not recall President Nixon being
> impeached. I remember his resigning from office but not being impeached.
Well, my sentence structure and typos notwithstanding, you are
technically correct in that he was not impeached by the House. That
would have prevcented Ford pardoning him, which was the only way they
could dislodge him from the White House. But the Judiciary committee
debated five impeachment resolutions, and two passed with Republican
votes (William Cohen was one of them), two ailed without Dem support,
and one passed by a party-line vote. THREE RESOLUTIONS made it out of
committee. Then the infamous "smoking gun" tape came out, and that's
when Goldwater told Nixon he'd better resign. My own Congresscritter,
Wiggins of Fullerton, CRIED on TV announcing he'd vote to impeach, and
in fact he was so upset he declined to run for re-election that year
even after his name was on the ballot.
At the vote I took a tally. I marked "who voted how." Years later I
amazed a younger friend with that tally, because he had been told it was
a kangaroo court event, and that he'd never been told that two of those
resolutions had considerable Republican support.
> Maybe you accidentally inferred that President Nixon had been impeached when
> you said that "three" articles of impeachment "passed."
They passed the Judiciary Committee. Peter Rodino was Chair. He took
no pleasure in the event. The articles were sent to the full House but
Nixon resigned before they were brought up.
> As far as my memory can remember there has only been two Presidents
> impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
And both were FRENCH FARCES. Johnson was an asshole but the impeachment
was nothing but partisanship. Same with Clinton. I watched Schippers
from my hotel room and I couldn't believe anyone was swallowing that
load. (Then it was back to Severance Hall and rehearsals.)
> >
> > I don't know where you got that crap about how great Nixon and Reagan
> > were, but it sounds like pure revisionist rewrite from their libraries.
>
> The factual information I posted did not come from Presidential libraries
> and it is nor revisionist history. It is history, pure and simple,
> untarnished by individuals viewpoints.
Well, it sure was cleaned up, I know that. OK, start with this idea of
"reconciliation." Nixon was bent on dividing the country into two
parts, because, as it was put, "our part will be bigger."
Did you ever see the shit put out by CREEP in '72?? It took war HEO
McGovern (who should have fought dirtier but didn't) and made him out as
a communist sympathizer, and an animal, and a hippie, and a
"protester." AMAZING PIECES! I wish I'd kept it, but that was the year
I left for university (in fact the month I left, so it stayed behind at
my folks' place). I had people literally screaming at me for my
"Republicans for McGovern" car sticker (yes, I was a Republican -- at a
time when there were still decent people in the party). Nixon deepened
the divisions, and brought the George Wallace voters (real scum) into
his party.
End of the draft -- cynical move that did kill the anti-war movement.
However, I note that people like Dick Cheney manipulated the system to
avoid the draft whiloe supporting having other men fight the war.
Remember when Kissinger's kid blew the story on when Nixon was going to
China? That was funny. They kept taking him into a room and telling
him what to say, and he'd still blow it for them.
We also have the overthrow of Allende in Chile and the installation of
the murderer Pinochet to Nixon's credit.
Nixon also used lies to get the Alaskan oil pipeline built. He
singlehandedly turned an "energy problem" into the "energy crisis" with
one speech. And originally it was to help the Shah of Iran finance a
weapons program.
The lies just went on and on...
Now as to George Romney, he got a bad rap. He told us the truth about
'Nam before anyone wanted to hear it, and his people turned on him for
it. But we'll get back to him later...
BTW, Warren Burger was seen by his colleagues as the stupidest Justice
on the bench.
And who is this reporter who wrote all this, who says he traveled with
Nixon?
> > Hey "Dude," I live in the shadow of Nixon's birthplace and my father
> > knew him, and Nixon was a scumbag from the word "go."
>
> And just does that prove or even mean? The geographical location of your
> residence is not in any way germane to whether President Nixon was a good
> President or not. Also, in regards to your father's personal opinion of
> President Nixon it is in no way shape or form germane to the facts about
> President Nixon being a good President.
My father was a hard-line pro-Nixon pro-Reagan Republicans all his
life. And there's only one conclusion to draw when I find that kids who
went to school in the '70s and '80s don't know about Watergate -- the
school boards don't want them to know (they also don't want them to know
about evolution).
> My father served in General Patton's Third Army in the Second World War. My
> father was in headquarters company and was a replacement driver for General
> Patton. My father was very impressed by General Patton and was proud to
> serve under him but he also disliked General Patton tremendously at times.
> General Patton could be terribly difficult to be around but he got results.
>
> History views General Patton as the best General we had in World War Two but
> if my father disliked him doesn't that mean, according to what you seem to
> want us to believe is logic, that General Patton was a failure, that he was
> not a good commanding general?
Well, that's a complete non sequitur, but then, you didn't know that my
father doted on Nixon (and Reagan). (My father also moaned that his
eyes kept him glued to a desk in the Air Force all during WW2.)
> If being liked or not liked by one person makes you a success, intelligent,
> impressive or what ever descriptive term you care to use than no one could
> ever be considered to be good at their position. It would be impossible for
> someone to be liked by every single person they ever meet. By your own
> yardstick you have rendered every other President as failures.
>
> And Reagan was an
> > idiot long before he defeated Pat Brown.
>
> Define idiot. Tell us all what made President Reagan an idiot. If you have
> time you may even want to include just when President Reagan became an
> idiot. Evidently you have some idea of when President Reagan became an idiot
> since you knew that it was " long before he defeated Pat Brown."
I suggest you get a book called "Reagan's Reign Of Error." It
catalogues every lie he ever told from the beginning of his political
career. The truth about Ronzo is that he'd make stuff up to suit his
views. He never let himself be "confused" by facts. For example:
"You have to remember, we don't have the military industrial complex
that we once had, when President Eisenhower spoke about it." (1/5/83)
I'll drop this for now, but it's a fun read.
> >
> > But as soon as I go to your stuff about Clinton, I knew you were just
> > another LOON-bag, swallowing all the crap we've been fed for the 8 years
> > of his Presidency by idiots like David Hale and Scaife.
>
> I never fail to be amused by liberals and their inability to accept factual
> information as long as they can in some way connect the reporting of that
> information to someone they deem as being biased.
>
> Hypothetically, if tomorrow Rush Limbaugh or G. Gordon Liddy or someone
> similar reports that some heinous act had been performed by a member of the
> government, and that act indeed did occur, would the person reporting be
> less accurate than if a different person first released the news? Would
> their accuracy depend on which political party the offending member of
> government belonged to?
Limbaugh and Liddy wouldn't report squat about Bush. And Liddy should
have been given the chair.
Now as to this assertion that Clinton's administration was more corrupt
than Reagan's, well, that's just a plan flat-out LIE. Same thing with
campaign contributions. This is a load of crap.
I read all this "Clinton crap" when it was "news," and it's just a big
fat load of BULL SHIT. There was indeed a determined conspiratorial
effort to undermine him starting right after the 1992 election, and it
had all the money it needed and all the crackpots like David Hale to
keep it going.
And as soon as you brought in that "Clinton Death List" I knew I was
reading horseshit.
> You can't totally discount a source just because you normally disagree with
> the source. Heck even the National Enquirer will from time to time fall into
> a real story and be the ones to break it.
I can, I do, and I will.
And you should never, EVER bring up the Enquirer in a serious
discussion.
> So when you
> > finally graduate from high school and start learning about what has
> > really been going on over the last 40 years, and not what Grampaw and
> > Pappy feed you, get back to me.
>
> I do have to wonder why in the world you would ever have thought me to be
> young? Only your own deep need to feel superior to me could have caused that
> error. I shouldn't have expected more than that from you though. It seems
> that most liberals have a superiority complex. They always need to believe
> that they are smarter, more educated and far more experienced than those
> they have dealings with.
We are, because we used to be Republicans, before the party went
batshit.
> I believe that is because in fact they know they
> are not as smart, not as educated and have less experience than those they
> have dealings with and the try to hide those facts through verbosity and
> lies.
Well, believe what you want.
> >
> > > One thing you said did confuse me though. You said "I don't know where
> you
> > > got this boatload of bullshit, with no cites, but I was THERE, "Dude,"
> when
> > > it went down, ..."
> > >
> > > Just where was "THERE?" What might also be equally important would be
> just
> > > when were you "THERE?" What first hand experience did you have that
> makes
> > > you so much more of an expert than various encyclopedia's and
> biographers
> > > and that is more accurate than historical records?
>
> >
> > Because I SAW IT WHEN IT WAS LIVE ON TELEVISION. Or rebroadcast the
> > same night. Or on radio in my car.
>
> Thank you, now I understand. To you saying that you were "THERE" means any
> location that you may have been in when you picked up bits and pieces of
> information.
If you count watching TV hours each day when LIVE coverage of the Ervin
hearings or the Rodino hearings as "tiny" then it's no wonder you put
credibility into your Clinton material.
> I am curious though, did you blindly accept every piece of damaging
> information you heard or did you first put it to the test, your test, and
> decide the validity of the information based on the political leanings ands
> ties of the person reporting?
There were no "persons reporting," this was LIVE coverage of the
Congress. Did you even watch one day's worth of the Ervin or Rodino
hearings?
> > I saw Haldeman and Ehrlichman being grilled by Ervin, Weicker and Fred
> > Thompson. I remember what a dog-face John Mitchell was. I remembe when
> > we first heard about the taping sxystem, and I remember John Dean's
> > testimony. I remember Ulascewitz (sp???) spilling the beans.
>
> Good for you. I am so happy to hear that you have such fond memories to
> sustain you in your golden years.
>
> > I watched the House Judiciary Committee debating the FIVE impeachment
> > articles.
>
> Again that is something that I do not recall so I won't comment on it other
> than to once again remind you that only two Presidents in history have been
> impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Using a liberals logic though I
> can fully understand the gravity of the events. I mean that since to a
> liberal the accusation is sufficient for censure and the actual outcome
> becomes meaningless so the accusation alone stands up for all time and all
> future judgement of the events is to be based soley on the accusation.
> That's your logic, isn't it? The fact that President Nixon was never
> impeached is meaningless, only that you can remember that hearings took
> place matters, right?
Your sophistry is running well today.
It's called manner v. substance. There was no substance, only manner,
to the Johnson and Clinton impeachments. There was pure substance to
the Nixon impeachment process. That's why he resigned. It was
chickenshit too, since he did it to get the pardon.
> > I made sure I videotaped every day they had the Iran-contra hearings
> > (and Bork's hearings were on at night) and I listened to them LIVE over
> > the radio when I was at work (we had a lenient boss).
>
> Lucky you! I wish I had that on tape! I enjoyed watching Oliver North make
> fools of those who questioned him. That was what I considered to be must see
> TV!
You're insane. North didn't make fools of anyone but himself.
Well, now I know where you're at. A North supporter.
> The findings of the Iran/Contra hearings found that there was no verifiable
> connection to President Reagan. That's the truth, that's factual, period,
> the end, an no matter how hard you try your amateurish attacks on President
> Reagan will never be able to alter the facts.
It's called Democrats wussing out (they admitted as much in '88) and
Republicans lying for their boss. The Dems were determined to avoid
tarring Reagan. Lyman admitted that. Didn't fool anyone but die-hards
like you.
Now go worship Ollie North, little man. He'll be on teevee soon.
> > And during that FARCE in 1998 when the CLOWNS were making up bullshit to
> > impeach Clinton, I was staying in the Joseph Francis Glidden room of the
> > Glidden mansion-turned-hotel (guest of the Cleveland Orchestra for a
> > week). I remember laffing at that idiot Schippers, and the look on
> > Hyde's face as he swallowed it all.
>
> President Clinton lied under oath. That is historical fact.
No it's not.
> Once again, all
> your oral ejaculating will never be able to change the proven historical
> fact that President Clinton lied under oath.
Well, how come he ain't in jail? (Because it won't stand up in court is
why.) Your pronunciamentos won't change that.
> >
> > > As with most delusional people you seem to think that just because you
> > > believe something
> >
> > ... that I saw with my own eyes, as did millions of Americans during
> > those months on 1973, 1974 and 1987 ...
>
> I would never attempt to dispute what you claim you saw but I do have to
> suggest that you in fact do suffer from selective memory.
Me and millions of other Americans...
> Where was I in 1973, 1974 and 1987? In 1973 I was a senior in high school in
> suburban Chicago. In 1974 I was in Michigan, a freshman in college.
Yawn. In '73 I was a Junior at the local university. Got my Bachelors
in Summer '75, Masters in January 1980.
> By 1987
> I had moved to North Carolina where I live today, on a 50,000 acre lake
> about an hour north of Raleigh.
>
> What was that other question you asked me? Oh yes, it was " BTW, where were
> you, still suckling on Mommy's teat?" Hardly. There were numerous "teats"
> being suckled on by me during those years but out of respect to the females
> involved I will allow their names to remain a secret.
>
> >
> > > that will make it become reality. That is not the case,
> > > that is not what happens. You can spew your venomous liberal propaganda
> from
> > > now until the crack of doom and it will not change a single fact about
> > > either President Nixon or President Reagan.
> >
> > Heh-heh, yeah, it won't, LOON. Some day you might want to learn some of
> > those facts.
>
> I have to believe that you suffer from the inability to live within the
> bounds of reality. You have been unable to grasp simple historical facts but
> yet you seem to be able to retain a few pieces of extremely worn out highly
> inaccurate liberal propaganda so I have to guess you have some ability to
> think, you're just incapable of thinking for yourself. If you were able to
> think for yourself than it might be possible for you to one day be cured of
> your delusions and both learn and accept the true facts about President's
> Nixon and Reagan.
Whatever...
> > If you're typical of what they are churning out in schools these days,
> > well, it's no wonder people are so fucking STUPID.
>
> I don't consider myself the product of today's schools considering that I
> graduated from college in 1977. Again though I have to mention that your
> need to feel superior has misled you about myself and my age.
>
> One other thing that I will mention is that the lower one's intelligence is
> the more apt they will result resort to foul language and swearing.
Oh bullshit. Anyone who doesn't have at least one good "God Damn" or
"Fuck" in himself is a wussy.
> They
> seem to believe that swearing will hide the fact that they can not back up
> their weak argument with proven facts. When they go to their well of facts,
> always an extremely shallow well I might add, they find it dry and their
> only recourse is to swear, to attack, to tear down, to attempt to discredit
> the person they know to be superior to them.
Such hifalutin' rhetoric!
> That is a typical liberal ploy,
> to attack and discredit in hopes that others witnessing the event will not
> accept their opponents arguments regardless of the fact that the opponent
> knows what they are talking about.
No, that is what reichwingers do, and then they will accuse their
opponents of the tactic.
Dude, I already told you how I learnEd about Nixon and Reagan, and it
was right from the sources, not somne reporter, but that isn't good
enough for you, so this isn't a serious discussion. I know, and you
don't want to know. Case closed. Obviouisly you never did watch a
moment of the Ervin or Rodino or Inouye hearings.
> The thing about that worn out old liberal
> tactic is that the only people that are fooled are as ignorant as the person
> using the tactic, or else they wouldn't fall for it.
And you never watched the hearings...
> " it's no wonder people are so fucking STUPID"
>
> All I can say is that if it weren't for truly stupid people, like yourself,
> there would be no party of democrats.If it weren't for mindless people like
> you who in sheep-like fashion blindly accept any and all propaganda they are
> fed by those who control use that propaganda to control their minds there
> would not be a party of democrats, there would not be anyone to vote for
> democrat candidates.
You just described the Republicans.
As I said, that is your tactic -- do, then accuse the other of doing.
> What a beautiful world that would be. It would be as close to heaven on
> earth as could ever be found.
Whatever, dude...
D.G. Porter
Everything you don't know about Nixon tells me all I need to know.
For the last two years of his failed Presidency you must have been
living in a Skinner Box.
During Iran-contra you obviously avoided most of the sessions.
You're a Fox Mulder, you want to believe.
That you would trot out "liberal/socialist" proves you're a loon, not a
free thinker as you would like to imagine.
D.G. Porter
I don't have the sports gene, dude.
I do know some old Tom Lehrer songs.
First you get down on your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head in great respect and
Genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!
Make a cross on your abdomen.
When in Rome do like a Roman.
Ave Maria!
Gee it's good to see ya!
Gettin' ecstatic
and sorta dramatic
And doin' the Vatican Rag!
Alma, tell us!
How can they help being jealous?
Ducks always envy the swans
Who get Gustav and Walter and Franz!
D.G. Porter
You're still insane.
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> Brian wrote:
> >
> > Dude wrote:
> >
> > > Once again your command of the English language boggles my mind.
> >
> > LOL,
> > I too love how many words it takes d g to admit that he cant support any
of his
> > lies, and tries to cover up this fact with more lies and name calling.
>
> You're still insane.
I have heard that the definition of insanity is performing the same task
over and over again but expecting different results. That would define
liberals fairly well. They keep electing people that do the same thing over
and over again but still the liberals expect a different result. History has
proven liberal leaders, for the most part, to be incapable of the positions
they hold but liberals keep electing them and think things will be different
this time, that the liberal policies will suddenly work this time and there
will be positive results instead of failure.
Dude
From: "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught>
Newsgroups:
alt.fan.bill-clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics,alt.politics.bush,al
t.radio.talk
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: Legacy of the Impeached Murderer
> > That is a typical liberal ploy,
> > to attack and discredit in hopes that others witnessing the event will
not
> > accept their opponents arguments regardless of the fact that the
opponent
> > knows what they are talking about.
>
> No, that is what reichwingers do, and then they will accuse their
> opponents of the tactic.
LIBERALS UNHINGED
THE NATIVES ARE superficially agreeable, but they go in for cannibalism,
headhunting, infanticide, incest, avoidance and joking relationships, and
biting lice in half with their teeth. - Margaret Mead
Political "debate" in this country is insufferable. Whether conducted in
Congress, on the political talk shows, or played out at dinners and cocktail
parties, politics is a nasty sport. At the risk of giving away the ending:
It's all liberals' fault.
As there is less to dispute, liberals have become more bitter and angry. The
Soviet threat has been vaporized, women are not prevented from doing even
things they should be, and the gravest danger facing most black Americans
today is the risk of being patronized to death.
And yet still, somehow, Tom DeLay (Republican congressman from Texas) poses
a monumental threat to democracy as we know it. The left expresses
disagreement with DeLay's governing philosophy by calling him "the Meanest
Man in Congress," "Dangerous," "the Hammer," "the Exterminator," and the
"Torquemada of Texas." For his evident belief in a Higher Being, DeLay is
compared to savage murderers and genocidal lunatics on the pages of the New
York Times. ("History teaches that when religion is injected into
politics-the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Father Coughlin, Hitler,
Kosovo-disaster follows.")
Liberals dispute slight reductions in the marginal tax rates as if they are
trying to prevent Charles Manson from slaughtering baby seals. Progress
cannot be made on serious issues because one side is making arguments and
the other side is throwing eggs-both figuratively and literally.
Prevarication and denigration are the hallmarks of liberal argument. Logic
is not their metier. Blind religious faith is.
The liberal catechism includes a hatred of Christians, guns, the profit
motive, and political speech and an infatuation with abortion, the
environment, and race discrimination (or in the favored parlance of
liberals, "affirmative action"). Heresy on any of these subjects is, well,
heresy. The most crazed religious fanatic argues in more calm and reasoned
tones than liberals responding to statistics on concealed-carry permits.
Perhaps if conservatives had had total control over every major means of
news dissemination for a quarter century, they would have forgotten how to
debate, too, and would just call liberals stupid and mean. But that's an
alternative universe. In this universe, the public square is wall-to-wall
liberal propaganda.
Americans wake up in the morning to "America's Sweetheart," the Today show's
Katie Couric, berating Arlen Specter about Anita Hill ten years after the
hearings. Or haranguing Charlton Heston on the need for gun control to stop
school shootings. Her co-host, Matt Lauer, wonders casually why the federal
government has not passed a law on national vacation time. The New York
Times breathlessly announces "Communism Still Looms as Evil to Miami Cubans"
and Time magazine columnist Barbara Ehrenreich gives two thumbs up to "The
Communist Manifesto" ("100 million massacred!").
We read letters to the editor of the New York Times from pathetic little
parakeet males and grim, quivering, angry women on the Upper West Side of
Manhattan hoping to be chosen as that day's purveyor of hate. These letters
are about one step above Tiger Beat magazine in intellectual engagement.
They are never responsive, they never include clever ripostes or attacks;
they merely restate the position of the Times with greater venom: I was
reminded by your editorial that Bush wasn't even your average politically
aware Yalie; he was too busy branding freshmen at his fraternity house.
In the evening, CBS anchor Dan Rather can be found falsely accusing
Republicans of all manner of malfeasance or remarking that a president who
has been impeached, disbarred, and held in contempt for his lies is an
"honest man." Diane Sawyer pronounces that "the American people" are yawning
at the news that the president was engaging in sodomy with a cigar and
oral-anal sex with a White House intern.
Hollywood movies preach about kind-hearted abortionists, Nazi priests, rich
preppie Republican bigots, and the dark night of fascism under Senator Joe
McCarthy. Hollywood starlets giddily announce on late-night TV how much they
'd like to give Bill Clinton a "certain type of sex" (as Paula Jones called
it).
And then Americans wake up for another day of left-wing schlock, beginning
their day with the CBS Early Show's Bryant Gumbel somberly asking smut
peddler Hugh Hefner for his views on a presidential campaign.
We read national magazines that pretend to be reasonable while seething with
the impotent violence of women. We wade through preposterous news stories on
Enron, global warming, Tawana Brawley, "plastic guns," the melting North
Pole, the meaning of the word "is"-until you can't keep up with the wave of
lies. It's like being in an earthquake listening to all the gibberish.
When arguments are premised on lies, there is no foundation for debate. You
end up conceding to half the lies simply to focus on the lies of
Holocaust-denial proportions. Kind and well-meaning people find themselves
afraid to talk about politics. Any sentient person has to be concerned that
he might innocently make an argument or employ a turn of phrase that will be
discerned by the liberal cult as a "code word" evincing a genocidal
tendency. The only safe course is to be consciously, stultifyingly boring.
It isn't just public figures who have to be worried - though having millions
of people listening to their spontaneous on-air remarks obviously raises the
stakes a bit. But even a private conversation can be resurrected a decade
later. Just a few years ago, a killer walked largely because a detective
involved in the case had used the "N-word" almost ten years earlier. In a
conversation with his then-girlfriend, Mark Fuhrman spun out imaginary
dialogue for a movie script, and in so doing committed a hate crime. If the
jurors in the O. J. Simpson case could have given Fuhrman the death penalty,
he'd be sitting on death row right now. Cutting off your ex-wife's head is a
lesser offense in America than using certain words.
Vast areas of public policy debate are treated as indistinguishable from
using the N-word (aka: the worst offense against mankind). Thus,
Representative Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) took issue with the Republicans'
proposed tax cuts, saying: "It's not 'spic' or 'nigger' anymore. They say,
'Let's cut taxes.' "
The spirit of the First Amendment has been effectively repealed for
conservative speech by a censorious, accusatory mob. Truth cannot prevail
because whole categories of thought are deemed thought crimes.
For a fleeting moment, after the September 11 attack on America, all
partisan wrangling stopped dead. The country was infused with patriotism and
amazingly unified. The attack on America was such a colossal jolt, liberals
even abandoned their endless pursuit of producing some method of counting
the ballots in Florida that would have made Al Gore president.
Liberal sneers about President Bush's intelligence suddenly abated - at
first for reasons of decorum, but then because of the indisputable fact that
Bush was a magnificent leader. In a moment of crisis, the truth overcame
liberal naysaying. After having demeaned President Bush as a lightweight
frat boy hopelessly ignorant of foreign policy, even Democrats were overcome
with relief that Al Gore was not the president.
The bipartisan lovefest lasted precisely three weeks. That was all the New
York Times could endure. Impatient with the national mood of patriotism,
liberals returned to their infernal griping about George W. Bush - or "Half
a Commander in Chief," as he was called in the headline of a lead New York
Times editorial on November 5, 2001. From that moment on, the left's primary
contribution to the war effort was to complain.
They complained about the detention of terror suspects, they complained we
were going to lose the war, they complained about military tribunals for
terrorists, they complained about the Bush administration's failure to solve
the anthrax cases instantly, they complained about monitoring terrorists'
jailhouse conversations, they complained about the war taking too long, they
complained about a trial for John Walker, they complained about
(nonexistent) ethnic profiling at airports, they complained about the
treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, and they complained about Bush's "axis
of evil" speech.
And they complained about all the damn flag-wavers. The infernal flag-waving
after 9/11 nearly drove liberals out of their gourds. For the left,
"flag-waving" is an epithet. Liberals variously called the flag a "joke,"
"very, very dumb," and - most cutting -not "cosmopolitan." New York
University sociology professor Todd Gitlin agonized over the decision to fly
the flag outside his apartment (located less than a mile from Ground Zero),
explaining: "It's very complicated."
It must have been galling that no one in America cared. Eventually, the New
York Times gave up harping about Bush's handling of the war and turned its
full attention to attacking Enron.
Here the country had finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism and
they didn't want to fight it. They would have, except it would put them on
the same side as the United States. In the wake of an attack on America
committed by crazed fundamentalist Muslims, Walter Cronkite denounced Jerry
Falwell. Falwell, it seems, had remarked that gay marriage and abortion on
demand may not have warmed the heart of the Almighty. Cronkite proclaimed
such a statement "the most abominable thing I've ever heard." Showing his
renowned dispassion and critical thinking, this Martha's Vineyard
millionaire commented that Falwell was "worshipping the same God as the
people who bombed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon" (the difference
being liberals urged compassion and understanding toward the terrorists).
Indeed, an attack on America by fanatical Muslims had finally provided
liberals with a religion they could respect. Heretofore liberals deemed
voluntary student prayers at high school football games a direct assault on
the Constitution. But it was of urgent importance that Islamic terrorists
being held in Guantanamo be free to practice their religion. This despite
the fact that we had been repeatedly instructed that the terrorists were not
practicing "true Islam."
Less than three months after Islamic terrorists slaughtered thousands of
Americans, ABC's 20/20 ran a major report titled "Abortion Clinics in U.S.
Targeted by Religious Terrorists." As Jamie Floyd reported: "Since September
eleventh the word 'terrorists' has come to mean someone who is radical,
Islamic, and foreign. But many believe we have as much to fear from a
homegrown group of anti-abortion crusaders."
New York Times columnist Frank Rich demanded that Ashcroft stop monkeying
around with Muslim terrorists and concentrate on anti-abortion extremists.
Rich claimed that only pure political malice could explain Attorney General
Ashcroft's refusal to meet with Planned Parenthood while purporting to
investigate "terrorism."
Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman recommended dropping the war against
global terrorism ("declare victory at the first decent opportunity"!) and
instead concentrate on "home-grown extremists." In lieu of a military
response against terrorists abroad and security precautions at home,
liberals wanted to get the whole thing over with and just throw
conservatives in jail.
Rarely had the great divide in the country been so manifest. Liberals hate
America, they hate "flag-wavers," they hate abortion opponents, they hate
all religions except Islam (post 9/11). Even Islamic terrorists don't hate
America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much
energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now.
Long before the war, conservatives had a vague sense that liberals didn't
much like them. Consider that a president whom liberals themselves called
"indefensible, outrageous, unforgivable, [and] shameless" had staved off
removal from office merely by calling his opponents "right-wing
Republicans." It was apparent then that we were dealing with a species of
primitive religious hatred.
Clinton's lies under oath in a judicial proceeding were such a shock to the
legal system that just weeks before every Senate Democrat would vote to keep
him in office, the entire Supreme Court boycotted Clinton's State of the
Union address - one of many historical firsts in the Clinton years. That
stunning rebuke was meaningless. Liberals were impervious to any logic
beyond Clinton's mantra that his opponents were "right-wing Republicans."
Professional Democrats have clintonized the entire party and they will
destroy anyone who stands in their way. All that matters to them is power.
They believe their moral superiority allows them to do things that would
appall ordinary people.
In May 2001, former Clinton strategists James Carville and Paul Begala
released a "Battle Plan for the Democrats" on the op-ed page of the New York
Times. Their central piece of advice was for Democrats to start calling
President George Bush names. "First," they said, liberals must "call a
radical a radical." Other proposals included calling Bush dangerous and
uncompassionate: "Mr. Bush's agenda is neither compassionate nor
conservative; it's radical and it's dangerous and the Democrats should say
so."
That's it. That's the new plan. It's the same as the old plan. Call
Republicans names.
In a comic spasm of sophistry, the Democrats' Big-Think men wrote: "We don't
believe the spin that stopping Mr. Bush's assault on middle-class programs
will hurt Democrats with voters." Evidently someone was retailing the yarn
about an "assault" on the middle class being hugely popular. But Carville
and Begala begged to differ. (Even the editor must have been overwhelmed by
the spin on that one.) These must have been the guys who helped President
Clinton formulate his thoughtful response to Newt Gingrich's "Contract with
America." In his unifying, statesmanlike way, President Clinton referred to
it as a murderous hit man's assignment, repeatedly calling it the "Contract
on America." Go out right now and ask any liberal what was objectionable
about the "Contract with America" and see if you get a more reasoned
argument than that.
Meanwhile, the left's political Tourette's syndrome has gone completely
unremarked upon. All parties to the debate carry on as if it's totally
normal for two of the most famous Democratic consultants to be recommending
name-calling as political strategy. Clinton seemed to be making a good
argument against impeachment by perseverating about a "right-wing"
conspiracy out to get him.
An annoying typical Republican response to liberal hate speech is to attack
one's friends in order to appease one's enemies. Democrats still hate the
Republican appeasers; they just hate them a little less. And when it comes
time for the left to tear down the conciliators, these Republican
"moderates" won't have many friends left willing to defend them. As Winston
Churchill said, appeasement reflects the hope that the crocodile will eat
you last. With some portion of (admittedly craven) Republicans casually
acknowledging the liberal premise that conservatives are mean and hateful,
the left is emboldened to carry on with ever greater insolence.
Brian
"D.G. Porter" wrote:
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > Once again your command of the English language boggles my mind.
>
> What if I told you I get paid to write, and this is how I relax?
> [Seriously, go to a decent library and check out a CD called "Ives Plays
> Ives." On the now-dead CRI label. If they also have "A Portrait of
> Charles Ives" on EMI, check that out too. I'm also getting paid to
> write something on his 1st string quartet, which I am not enjoying very
> much but the fee is worth it.]
What if we dont believe you?
Dude
I don't expect you to believe me. Your mind has been poisoned and polluted
by liberal propaganda and there is no hope for you. As for other people, I'd
say that anyone with an open mind and more than a room temperature I.Q. will
be capable of recognizing the truth when they see it.
It all comes down to one thing. You continually point to one thing,
Watergate, as if that erases everything else that President Nixon did. If
you were to find independent sources of information you would find that
President Nixon did a darn good job for much of his presidency.
I don't try to use those things as whitewash to hide his indiscretions so I
wish you wouldn't try to use Watergate as whitewash to hide the good things
he accomplished.
The one big difference between the things you write and that I write, other
of course that I have been factual and you haven't been, is that in
everything you write you prove to anyone who reads your posts that you are
totally biased. Each time you write something you show that you are totally
lacking in objectivity. That alone is proof that you are not credible.
"Brian" <olins...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3ED62A63...@erols.com...
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> >
> > One thing that you may not realize but the education that you believe I
need
> > would be one of political reeducation and indoctrination for the
> > liberal/socialist agenda. Thank you for thinking about me like that but
I
> > much prefer to remain a free thinker and collect all the factual
information
> > of events and then come to my own conclusion. I do not need the DNC, the
> > Clintons and the likes of you to tell me what to think and what to
believe.
>
> Everything you don't know about Nixon tells me all I need to know.
Once again you have shown your deep seated need to feel superior to others.
You keep trying to claim that I do not know about President Nixon just
because I do not share your twisted opinion of him.
Like you I was old enough to know what was going on during President Nixon's
presidency. But unlike you I can separate the good things he did from the
bad things he did and by doing so I can see that he was a good president.
You have proven yourself to be extremely knowledgeable about liberal
propaganda but that is all you seem to know. You prove your lack of factual
knowledge each and every time you ignore the facts about President Nixon or
when you try to spin what President Nixon did into something that sounds
nefarious and dastardly.
> For the last two years of his failed Presidency you must have been
> living in a Skinner Box.
Considering that President Nixon was handed a failing economy with rising
inflation, rising unemployment and an unpopular war that had been run
terribly I can easily say that President Nixon did a very good job. When you
add things like opening up China and bringing the Russians to the
negotiating table for strategic arms limitation that alone would be enough
to consider him to have been a success.
But in your liberal mind using twisted liberal propaganda for facts you can
either erase or spin what President Nixon did into being a monumental
failure and in some cases into something dark and evil.
> During Iran-contra you obviously avoided most of the sessions.
"Avoided?" That's amusing. Once again we see another liberal attack tactic
at work. Phrasing something like that infers that witnessing the events of
the day would have been to painful so I would have intentionally "avoided"
any possible exposure. By saying something like that you attempt to infer
that I am biased and therefore not credible. The thing is that tactic does
not work on intelligent people. You may fool a few people who read your
posts but anyone with more than two active brain cells will see through your
ploy.
What we have here is the same sort of occurrence as when a number of people
witness an accident. When asked those who witnessed the accident will have
varying eye witness accounts of what happened and what the cause was.
I watched a good bit of the Iran/Contra hearings and I can not say that my
recollection of the events is anything at all like yours. I have already
said how Oliver North chewed up and spat out his inquisitors making them
look like fools. It was like watching a man fighting a group of little boys,
there was no contest.
I would have to believe that if we were talking about the Clinton
Impeachment hearings that you would not remember it the same way that I did.
You would most likely not recall that the democrats used every single chance
to stall, obstruct, shit the focus of the events that led to President
Clinton being impeached. Likewise I am sure that you would not consider the
questioning by republicans to have been effective or along factual lines.
I can only surmise that what impressed you about the Iran/Contra hearings
was the attack dog democrats questioning and not the answers or results of
the hearings. As long as republicans were being trashed, drug through the
mud, ridiculed and talked to like naughty little children than to you the
hearings were successful and proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Of course you conveniently ignore the fact that there was no trail leading
to President Reagan. Instead of accepting that fact you attempt to claim
there was blame but that democrats did not dig deep enough to find it. In
the dark recesses of your twisted mind there is unfound guilt and since that
guilt exists in your thought process that President Reagan is guilty and all
those who were found to be guilty were in fact guiltier than they were found
to be.
Conversely you, and you did say it in your own words, believe that President
Clinton did not lie while under oath. You conveniently ignore that in his
deposition and in direct questioning, both under oath, President Clinton
lied. Even though those facts are openly accepted and admitted by most
people regardless of their party affiliation you still stick to your false
reality of President Clinton having not lied while under oath.
I will not get into events like when President Clinton, while in front of
television cameras, wagged his finger and in an angry tone said that he "did
not have sex with that woman." It doesn't even matter to me that he
practiced saying that phrase over and over again until he got down the tone
and motions he wanted to go along with the lie. I somewhat equate the event
to President Nixon saying "I am not a crook." Where the difference lies is
that while President Nixon was attempting to cover up his connection to the
Watergate cover up President Clinton was not only trying to cover up his
extramarital affair with the young intern he was also trying to do damage
control and save himself from damaging his chances in the then upcoming
Paula Jones legal mess. President Clinton could not admit to having had
sexual relations with Monica Lewsinsky because that would have made it look
like it was likely that he had attempted to force himself on Paula Jones. It
would have been proof that he was a philandering husband and sexual
predator, both of which he was and is, so in his criminal mind he had to lie
to protect himself ... both in front of the television cameras and also
while under oath.
> You're a Fox Mulder, you want to believe.
Nope ... just like Popeye "I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam."
> That you would trot out "liberal/socialist" proves you're a loon, not a
> free thinker as you would like to imagine.
If you think that you can explain away the liberals socialist agenda than go
ahead and make a stab at it. I would love to hear your fantasy stories about
the liberals socialist agenda.
59 Socialists in Congress - 2002
By Chuck Morse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
On the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party, The Progressive Caucus is
affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America, which, in turn, is the
American affiliate of the Socialist International. Congressional Caucus
members, I would contend, should actually be called Socialists rather than
Democrats. Unlike their European counterparts, these homegrown American
Socialist Congressmen try to refrain from showing their true authoritarian
colors. Such displays would be too risky in an America that is still steeped
in traditional freedoms. There are still enough of us out here who would
boot them out of office if they revealed too much of their true stripe.
Socialists, like Communists, Nazis, Klansmen, or other political groups,
rightfully enjoy the same constitutional protections as the rest of us.
Unlike their more radical aforementioned counterparts however, the
socialists believe in changing the system by "boring from within" rather
than through illegal violence and sedition. As such, they prefer
legislation, often filled with deceptive legalese and passed through
Congress by duplicitous means, as their choice of arms in their quest toward
revolutionary goals. Socialists are gradualists rather than extremists. They
are slowly chipping away at our G-d given rights.
Freedom loving Americans would be well advised to keep a close eye on
socialist Congressmen. While they may talk like the rest of us, especially
when sojourning in their respective districts, they operate from a different
paradigm. If they decide to support a war against Iraq, for example, or any
other intervention overseas, their motives would more likely be based on an
agenda that seeks to entangle the US in a new world order than in protecting
the interests of sovereign America.
As a matter of principle and as an article of faith, socialists support a
socialist world government as an ultimate goal. The method they employ is
the gradual transfer of constitutional responsibilities from elected
American legislatures to international agencies accountable to no one.
Socialists are apt to support such things as international standing armies,
an international tax, the transfer of American capital to third world
dictators, and the surrender of congressional responsibilities to the UN,
the WTO, the IMF, UNESCO and now the International Criminal Court. Whenever
communistic protocols emerge out of a UN sponsored conference, as is always
the case, and whenever such un-American protocols are rejected by a still
largely patriotic Congress, the socialist congressmen and their allies will
more than likely try to foist the protocol on the American people through a
back door.
Socialists believe in sovereignty eroding entanglements abroad and big-state
socialism at home. They support high taxes on working people with the money
transferred to bureaucracies staffed by their friends. They support a
welfare state that oppresses poor people, especially minorities, who then
become their constituents. They support left-wing judges who are willing to
subvert the democratic power of Congress by making laws from the bench.
While they support mandatory public education, mandatory labor unions,
mandatory racial quotas, land-grabbing environmental regulation, and thought
control in the form of hate speech legislation, they turn around and become
downright libertarian when it comes to pornography, abortion, sex, drugs,
homosexuality, and other agendas that debauch the citizenry.
Following is the Sept. 2002 membership list of the Progressive
Caucus:Contact Congress - by Juan E. Cabanela Neil Abercrombie Hawaii
Tammy Baldwin Wisconsin
Xavier Becerra California
David Bonior Michigan
Corrine Brown Florida
Sherron Brown Ohio
Michael Capuano Mass.
Julia Carson Indiana
William "Lacy" Clay Missouri
John Conyers Michigan
Danny Davis Illinois
Peter DeFazio Oregon
Rosa DeLauro Conn.
Lane Evans Illinois
Eni Faleomavaega Am Samoa
Sam Farr California
Chaka Fattah Penn.
Bob Filner California
Barney Frank Mass.
Luis Gutierrez Illinois
Earl Hilliard Alabama
Maurice Hinchey New York
Jesse Jackson Jr. Illinois
Sheila Jackson-Lee Texas
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Ohio
Marcy Kaptur Ohio
Dennis Kucinich Ohio
Tom Lantos California
Barbara Lee California
John Lewis Georgia Jim McDermott Washington
James P. McGovern Mass.
Cynthia McKinney Georgia
Carrie Meek Florida
George Miller California
Patsy Mink Hawaii
Jerry Nadler New York
Eleanor Holmes Norton D.C.
John Olver Mass.
Major Owens New York
Ed Pastor Arizona
Donald Payne New Jersey
Nancy Pelosi California
Bobby Rush Illinois
Bernie Sanders Vermont
Jan Schakowsky Illinois
Jose Serrano New York
Hilda Solis California
Pete Stark California
Bennie Thompson Miss.
John Tierney Mass.
Tom Udall New Mexico
Nydia Velazquez New York
Maxine Waters California
Diane Watson California
Mel Watt North Carolina
Henry Waxman California
Paul Wellstone Minnesota
Lynn Woolsey - California
Related Links:
Congressional Committees and Subcommittees
Congressional Progressive Caucus
Democratic Socialists of America
Thursday May 29, 2003 - 01:10:47 PM, PDT
They're ALL Socialists
By: Lewis J. Goldberg
Published 10. 2. 02 at 19:06 Sierra Time
Four hundred and thirty five in the House of Representatives and one hundred
in the Senate...adjusting for odd vacancies, and one lone dissenter, Ron
Paul of Texas. That's how many raving, hypocritical, full-frontal Socialists
we have in our nation's so-called representative republic. The Democrats
scream about how great Socialist programs are [without using the word] and
Republicans decry Socialism enacted by the Democrats, instead pushing
Socialism as conceived by their noble selves.
I knew before but realised all the more how true it is that all the
arguments over policy fought in Washington DC are dishonest from the get-go.
In a conversation between myself and a co-worker here in Maryland, we began
discussing SUVs. He was firmly of the position that SUVs need to conform to
the same safety standards as cars, because it is inherently unfair that an
SUV bumper doesn't hit in the 'safety zone' established in passenger
vehicles. Thus, in an accident between the two, the occupants of a sedan are
smooshed by the SUV riding over the top of the sedan hood. My initial
response was "Well, waaaa!" In the end, to avoid a fist fight, I had to
concede that if the Federal government has the authority to set safety
standards in passenger vehicles, they can just as well do the same in
trucks. I made sure he knew that there was another six hour debate lurking.
What has this to do with 535 Socialists in Congress? A whole bunch. My
co-worker couldn't swallow the fact that passenger vehicle safety standards
are unconstitutional. We can always take these debates to higher
levels...why did anyone find it necessary to enact safety standards in the
first place? Because, going into the 70's [and maybe starting in the mid
60's] auto makers were turning out tin death traps on wheels. Why were they
doing that? To save money on steel and increase fuel economy. Why were steel
and fuel prices climbing dangerously high? Give you one guess...government
regulation.
The auto makers ['big business'] responded, which is what the free market
does. The customers needed vehicles that they could a) afford to buy, and b)
afford to fuel up. In 1976, Ford could have manufactured a Pinto that could
surpass any safety reg the government could muster today, but it would have
got 12 miles per gallon, cost twice as much as it did in reality, and would
have sat collecting dust in the showroom. Frankly, absent government
regulation the Pinto would have been an unnecessary vehicle [whew!]...we'd
have continued buying Crown Vic's and LTD's [not to mention, the Japanese
would have never penetrated our auto market.]
To support his assertion that sometimes we have to make decisions that
benefit the group, even though individually no one in the group would never
consent to it, my co-worker cited some ridiculous 'game theory' nonsense he
read in a book. 'Prisoner's Dilemma' was the example he gave to convince me.
While this kind of clap-trap looks good on paper, it doesn't pass the
ultimate test - is it Biblical? 'Together, we can do more than apart' is the
battle-cry of the Socialist - and don't we hear that every day Congress is
in session? If not those exact words, certainly the sentiment is there.
Together, my friends, we will certainly go to Hell. There is no 'together'
in Salvation, save for together with Christ. Together with anything else is
together with the Devil...with sin. This is the essence of the argument for
freedom, and why religious liberty was so important to our nation's
founders, from Plymouth Rock to the convention to modify the Articles of
Confederation. We have built instead of a shining city on a hill, a steaming
heap of man- made dung called democracy, lying low in a pit of white granite
and concrete. These things, historically, don't close up shop willingly -
instead expect the sword to be drawn, and for screams of agony.
Socialists in Congress - The Progressive Caucus
Posted on 03/19/2002 9:17 PM PST by d14truth
Socialists in Congress
Written by Jane Chastain, November 30, 1998
"Dennis Kucinich,the representative from Cuyahoga County, is one of 58
members of Congress -- 57 Democrats and one independent -- who have signed
onto the agenda of the Democratic Socialists of America. This group in the
House of Representatives calls itself the Progressive Caucus. Waxman, by the
way, is the ranking member of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee.
But that's just the beginning. There are seven ranking committee members in
this group. The Democrats have put socialists in charge of their members on
the Ways and Means Committee, the Banking and Small Business Committees, The
Science Committee, the Veterans Committee, the Resources Committee and the
Judiciary Committee. In fact, there are five members of the Progressive
Caucus on the committee currently holding hearings on the Inquiry of
Impeachment for Bill Clinton. There is nothing progressive about the
Progressive Caucus. The Democratic Socialists of America is an affiliate of
Socialist International, whose roots go all the way back to 1864. Don't be
fooled by the use of the word "democratic." The group explains, "At the root
of our socialism is a profound commitment to democracy, as means and end."
The end this group has in mind is economic redistribution in order to
achieve social and environmental justice.
Democracy and socialism cannot be combined. It's like trying to mix oil and
water. Socialists or Communists believe that man can be perfected. God is
unnecessary. In the socialist or Communist ideology, economic exploitation
and the free enterprise system is the root of all evil. Therefore, an
all-powerful government, which represents the people, must be established
until man no longer is capable of evil and utopia is reached. A democracy is
based on the idea that we are created equal, but imperfect. Perfection is
the business of God. Therefore, this country has laws and checks and
balances to protect us from each other and the government.
When you look at the sheer numbers of powerful members of the Democratic
party who are committed to this socialist ideology, you can begin to
understand why there is so much partisanship in Congress and so little
regard for our Constitution."
Series on Socialism
Socialists Infiltrate Congress
By Mason Weaver
Reprinted by CalNRA with the gracious permission of Mr. Mason Weaver.
When I was a young Berkeley political science student, I had an opportunity
to work with the Bay area's congressional delegation. I labored in the
offices of Ron Dellums, Pete Stark and George Miller. I became concerned
over their political objectives. They seemed to detest progress and wanted
to do harm to every American institution of freedom. I saw anger at
American policy in Vietnam and support for our enemies. I felt their
philosophy of taxes, government controls and anti-capitalism would harm the
economy and push the American dream away from many. Finally I left, felling
something must be wrong with me.
This week a list was revealed of membership in the Democratic Socialists of
America, and there were listed my three members of Congress, in a 58 member
group called "The Progressive Caucus." Signed members of this socialist
organization included former chairwoman of the Black Caucus Maxine Waters,
Jesse Jackson Jr., Lynn Woolsey and Bob Filner. The list of 57 Democrats
and one registered Socialist was a shocking revelation.
I now understood why the policies of these people were so alien to me. If
they are socialists, they are against American values and this explains many
of their actions. Why does Maxine Waters fight economic progress in her
district? Why does Bob Filner continue to support keeping immigrants
uneducated and dependent? Why the calls from these Democrats to
unilaterally disarm? These "progressive" Democrats love unfair trade,
foreign aid to our enemies, terrible public education and high taxes. I
looked back at the bills sponsored by the socialists in Congress and found a
pattern.
Every bill they sponsored forced government restrictions on Americans.
There were no bills removing government burdens off our backs, only bills
detailing what we could not do, what we must do and penalties for not
following their dictates. Bills on wages, employment, education, farming,
international trade and the environment all were laws of restriction.
Their congressional membership roster can be found on their Web site at
http://www.dsausa.org/pc/pc.members.html. On their web site is a statement
of their cause: "At the root of our socialism is a profound commitment to
democracy, as means and end." We should demand that members of the
Progressive Caucus explain their membership.
I have not heard back from any of the members of Congress I contacted. Only
Congressman Filner's local office wanted to know my opinion. They seemed
interested in a public opinion poll. I was not interested in giving them my
opinion, only hearing the congressman's. They informed me that Filner had
not issued a statement on the matter yet.
My web site will have the complete list of the Progressive Caucus. Call
them and ask for an explanation. The web page for the socialists has a
theme--anti-capitalism. I rebelled against that as a young student. The
notion that society must harness the means of production sounds great until
you think about who will harness society.
My first act as a U.S. sailor was to pledge to defend our Constitution
against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Each U.S. congressman on this
list swore to the same oath. The press has been silent on this matter. It
should not be.
About Mason Weaver
Born: St. Louis Missouri
2/15/50
Address: P.O. Box 1764 Oceanside,
California 92051
Office/Fax: (760) 758-7448
e-mail:
mailto:cam...@ix.netcom.com
Mason has been a Congressional Aid,
Government Contract
Specialist and Business owner. He served in the U.S. Navy in
Vietnam and received the Vietnam Service medal with one
Bronze Star. After approximately 2800 pounds of steel and
iron plates fell on him while on active duty in San Diego,
California, the Navy classified him as disabled and discharged
him.
Mason found himself unable to perform the duties for which he
had trained almost four years. He decided to retrain himself by
going to college. Between 1972 and 1975 he received
degrees from Merritt College in Oakland, California and U.C.
Berkeley. After graduating from U.C. Berkeley with a degree in
Political Science, he secured a position with the U.S.
Department of Energy against 2,400 applicants and 4 job openings.
Between 1976 and 1980 he was promoted from an entry-level employee to a Mid
Level
Senior Contract Specialist with a "Confidential Security Clearance". He
negotiated many multi-million dollar government contracts with major
contractors, including TRW, General Dynamics, and General Electric.
In 1980, he resigned to become an entrepreneur, forming a private consulting
company to assist businesses in obtaining and administering government
contracts. He has consulted for many other companies on government and
political issues. Mason has been the national and regional spokesperson for
many groups and organizations. He is a noted conference speaker and guest
lecturer. Mason Weaver has appeared on national TV, cable and news programs.
He is often contacted by national news organizations to comment on breaking
stories. Mason has spoken before Concerned Women for America, American
Legislative Exchange Council, Council for National Policy and the American
Forestry Association. His expertise has been
sought from many groups such as: Project 21, Star Parker's Coalition on
Urban Renewal, Ezola Foster's Americans for Family Values and The California
Civil Rights Initiative.
From January 1991 until September 1997, Mason hosted a live call-in radio
program in Southern California. Mason forged ahead in this new field by
producing, writing and researching the program. Mason is a syndicated weekly
columnist on social and political issues. He is also a commentator on USA
Radio Network with over 1300 affiliates and the US Armed Services Network.
Press releases and personal appearances have made him a sought after public
speaker and lecturer.
His degree in Political Science from U.C. Berkeley, experience as a
Congressional Aid,
Federal Contract Specialist, teacher and entrepreneur give him a unique view
of government and business. Mason Weaver is the author of "It's OK To Leave
The Plantation" which discusses the social issues affecting us all
The Socialists In Congress
Executive Commitee Staff Coordinator
Peter DeFazio, D-OR
Ron Dellums, D-CA (DSA)
Lane Evans, D-IL
Major Owens, D-NY (DSA)
Bernie Sanders, I-VT
Nydia Velasquez, D-NY
Maxine Waters, D-CA
Bill Goold
202-225-4115
213 Cannon H.O.B.
Washington D.C.
20515
Members
Neil Abercrombie
Xavier Becerra
David Bonior
Corrine Brown
George Brown
John Conyers jcon...@hr.house.gov
Eni Faleomavaega
Chaka Fattah
Cleo Fields
Bob Filner
Elizabeth Furse FURS...@hr.house.gov
Jesse Jackson Jr.
Luis Gutierrez
Alcee Hastings hast...@hr.house.gov
Maurice Hinchey
Marcy Kaptur
Carrie Meek
Jim McDermott
Cynthia McKinney
George Miller
Patsy Mink
Jerry Nadler
John Olver
Ed Pastor
Nancy Pelosi
Lynn Rivers
Bobby Scott
Pete Stark
Louis Stokes
Bennie Thompson
Mel Watt
Lynn Woolsey
Socialists in Congress
11 November, 1998
By The Democratic Socialists of America
CNS Information Services
The Democratic Socialists of America's Progressive Caucus of the U.S.
House of Representatives
( Editor's Note: The following information is taken verbatim from the
Internet web site of the
Democratic Socialists of America. )
"The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist
organization in the United
States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International
(also in Francais and
Espanol). DSA's members are building progressive movements for social
change while establishing
an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics...
"We invite you to support the campaign by adding your name to the list
of signers of the Pledge
for Economic Justice. In conjunction with the Campaign DSA is working
with the Congressional
Progressive Caucus, a network of more than 50 progressive members of
the US House of
Representatives...
"The Progressive Caucus of the US House of Representatives is made up
of 58 members of the House.
The Caucus works to advance economic and social justice through
sponsoring legislation that reflects
its purpose. The Caucus also works with a coalition of organizations,
called the Progressive
Challenge, to bring new life to the progressive voice in US politics."
Executive Commitee
Rep Bernard Sanders (VT-AL), Chair
2202 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-4115, Fax: 202-225-6790
bsan...@hr.house.gov
Rep Cynthia A. McKinney (GA-04), Co-Chair
124 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-1605, Fax: 202-226-0691
Rep Peter A. DeFazio (OR-04), Co-Chair
2134 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-6416, Fax: 202-225-0373
pdef...@hr.house.gov
Rep Maurice Hinchey (NY-26), Co-Chair
2431 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-6335, Fax: 202-226-0774
hin...@mail.house.gov
Rep Major Owens (NY-11), Co-Chair
2305 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-6231, Fax: 202-226-0112
Rep Nydia M. Velazquez (NY-12)
1221 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-2361, Fax: 202-226-0327
Rep Lane Evans (IL-17)
2335 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-5905, Fax: 202-225-5396
Rep Maxine Waters (CA-35)
2344 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-2201, Fax: 202-225-7854
Staff Coordinator
Bill Goold
202-225-4115
213 Cannon H.O.B.
Washington D.C.
20515
The Full Membership
Rep Earl Hilliard (AL-07) 1314 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-2665, Fax: 202-226-0772
Rep Eni Faleomavaega (AS-AL) 2422 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-8577, Fax: 202-225-8757
Rep Ed Pastor (AZ-02) 2465 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington,
DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-4065, Fax: 202-225-1655
edpa...@mail.house.gov http://aspin.asu.edu/~pctp/pastor/pastor.html
Rep. Lynn C Woolsey (CA-06) 439 Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515-0529
Phone: 202-225-5161, Fax: 202-225-5163
woo...@mail.house.gov http://www.house.gov/woolsey/
Rep George Miller (CA-07) 2205 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-2095, Fax: 202-225-5609
gmi...@hr.house.gov http://www.house.gov/georgemiller/
Rep Nancy Pelosi (CA-08) 2457 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-4965, Fax: 202-225-8259
sfn...@hr.house.gov http://www.house.gov/pelosi/
Rep Fortney "Pete" Stark (CA-13) 239 Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-5065, Fax: 202-226-3805
pete...@hr.house.gov
Rep Henry A. Waxman (CA-29) 2204 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-3976, Fax: 202-225-4099
http://www.house.gov/waxman/
Rep Xavier Becerra (CA-30) 1119 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515-0530
Phone: 202-225-6235, Fax: 202-225-2202
Rep Julian C. Dixon (CA-32) 2252 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515-0532
Phone: 202-225-7084, Fax: 202-225-4091
Rep Esteban Edward Torres (CA-34) 2269 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515-0534
Phone: 202-225-5256, Fax: 202-225-9711
arco...@hr.house.gov http://www.house.gov/torres/
Rep Maxine Waters (CA-35) 2344 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-2201, Fax: 202-225-7854
Rep George E. Brown (CA-42) 2300 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-6161, Fax: 202-225-8671
talk...@hr.house.gov http://www.house.gov/georgebrown/
Rep Bob Filner (CA-50) 330 Cannon House Office Building , Washington,
DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-3461, Fax: 202-226-4169
Rep Diane DeGette (CO-01) 1404 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-4431, Fax: 202-225-5657
Rep Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-AL) 1424 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-8050, Fax: 202-225-3002
http://www.house.gov/norton/
Rep Corrine Brown (FL-03) 1610 Longworth House Office Building ,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 225-0123, Fax: 202-225-2256
Rep Carrie P. Meek (FL-17) 401 Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515-0917
Phone: 202-225-4506, Fax: 202-226-0777
http://www.house.gov/meek/
Rep Alcee L. Hastings (FL-23) 1039 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-1313, Fax: 202-226-0690
hast...@hr.house.gov http://www.house.gov/alceehastings/
Rep Cynthia A. McKinney (GA-04) 124 Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-1605, Fax: 202-226-0691
http://www.house.gov/mckinney/
Rep John Lewis (GA-05) 229 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC
20515-1005
Phone: 202-225-3801, Fax: 202-225-0351
Rep Neil Abercrombie (HI-01) 1233 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-2726, Fax: 202-225-4580
ne...@abercrombie.house.gov http://www.house.gov/abercrombie/
Rep Patsy Mink (HI-02) 2135 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington,
DC 20515-0917
Phone: 202-225-4906, Fax: 202-225-4987
Rep Jesse Jackson (IL-02) 313 Cannon House Office Building, Washington,
DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-0773, Fax: 202-225-0899
Rep Luis Gutierrez (IL-04) 408 Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-8203, Fax: 202-225-7810 lu...@mail.house.gov
Rep Danny Davis (IL-07) 1218 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-5006, Fax: 202-225-5641
Rep Lane Evans (IL-17) 2335 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington,
DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-5905, Fax: 202-225-5396
Rep Julia Carson (IN-10) 1541 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-4011, Fax: 202-226-4093 jca...@indy.net
Rep John Olver (MA-01) 1027 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-5335, Fax: 202-226-1224
ol...@mail.house.gov
Rep Jim McGovern (MA-03) 512 Cannon House Office Building, Washington,
DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-5759, Fax: 202-225-6101
james.m...@mail.house.gov
Rep Barney Frank (MA-04) 2210 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-5931, Fax: 202-225-0182
http://www.house.gov/frank/
Rep John Tierney (MA-06) 120 Cannon House Office Building, Washington,
DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-8020, Fax: 202-225-5915
Rep David Bonior (MI-10) 2207 Rayburn House Office Building ,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-2106, Fax: 202-226-1169
Rep Lynn N. Rivers (MI-13) 1724 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-6261, Fax: 202-225-3404
lri...@hr.house.gov http://www.house.gov/rivers/
Rep John Conyers (MI-14) 2426 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-5126, Fax: 202-225-0072
jcon...@hr.house.gov http://www.house.gov/conyers/
Rep Bennie G. Thompson (MS-02) 1408 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-5876, Fax: 202-225-5898
ms...@hr.house.gov http://www.house.gov/thompson/
Rep Melvin L. Watt (NC-12) 1230 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-1510, Fax: 202-225-1512
mel...@hr.house.gov http://www.house.gov/watt/
Rep Donald Payne (NJ-10) 2244 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-3436, Fax: 202-225-4160
Rep Jerrold Nadler (NY-08) 2448 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-5635, Fax: 202-225-6923
nad...@hr.house.gov http://www.house.gov/nadler/
Rep Major Owens (NY-11) 2305 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington,
DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-6231, Fax: 202-226-0112
Rep Nydia M. Velazquez (NY-12) 1221 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-2361, Fax: 202-226-0327
http://www.house.gov/velazquez/
Rep Charles Rangel (NY-15) 2354 Rayburn House Office Building ,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-4365, Fax: 202-225-0816
Rep Jose E. Serrano (NY-16) 2342 Rayburn House OfficeBuilding,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-4361, Fax:202-225-6001
jser...@hr.house.gov http://www.house.gov/serrano/
Rep Maurice Hinchey (NY-26) 2431 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-6335, Fax: 202-226-0774
hin...@mail.house.gov
Rep John LaFalce (NY-29) 2310 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-3231, Fax: 202-225-8693
Rep Marcy Kaptur (OH-09) 2311 Rayburn House Office Building ,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-4146, Fax: 202-225-7711
Rep Dennis Kucinich (OH-10) 1730 Longworth House Office Building ,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-5871, Fax: 202-225-5745
Rep Louis Stokes (OH-11) 2365 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-7032, Fax: 202-225-1339
Rep Sherrod Brown (OH-13) 328 Cannon House Office Building, Washington,
DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-3401, Fax: 202-225-2266
she...@hr.house.gov http://www.house.gov/sherrodbrown/
Rep Elizabeth Furse (OR-01) 316 Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-0855, Fax: 202-225-9497
furs...@hr.house.gov http://www.house.gov/furse/
Rep Peter A. DeFazio (OR-04) 2134 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-6416, Fax: 202-225-0373
pdef...@hr.house.gov http://www.house.gov/defazio/index.htm
Rep Chaka Fattah (PA-02) 1205 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-4001, Fax: 202-225-3127
http://www.house.gov/fattah/
Rep William Coyne (PA-14) 2455 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-2301, Fax: 202-225-1844
Rep Carlos A. Romero-Barcelo (PR-AL) 2443 Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-2615, Fax: 202-225-2154
http://www.house.gov/romero-barcelo/
Rep Robert C. Scott (VA-03) 2464 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-8351, Fax: 202-225-8354
bva...@mail.house.gov
Rep Bernard Sanders (VT-AL) 2202 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-4115, Fax: 202-225-6790
bsan...@hr.house.gov san...@igc.apc.org http://www.house.gov/bernie/
Rep James A McDermott (WA-07) 2349 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515 Phone: 202-225-3106, Fax: 202-225-2349
The Internet has been buzzing for the last week or two with discussions
and frantic e-mails of concern about Congress' so-called "Progressive
Caucus."
I'm a little surprised, since I first wrote about this group of
socialist subversives back in July -- warning that its approximately 60
members, including Maxine Waters, Barney Frank and John Conyers,
represent a large, unyielding voting and lobbying bloc pushing the
government inevitably toward the goals of its Democratic Socialists of
America sponsors. I referred to the group then and again now as
Congress' Red Army Caucus. No other shorthand description could possibly
do them justice.
Think about it. There are at least five Bolsheviks on the House
Judiciary Committee. Do you think anything -- any evidence -- could ever
persuade them to break with their party line against impeachment of
William Jefferson Clinton. Imagine the outcry if there were five members
belonging to some other extremist hate group -- American Nazi Party, Ku
Klux Klan, etc.
Yet, there's no moral difference. The Democratic Socialists' goal is
clear from their own literature. The goal is Communism. Never mind that
the history of that system is littered with more death, oppression and
destruction than any other "ism." Never mind that it has been
discredited everywhere it has been tried. The DSA believes the right
people just haven't been in charge. They want to try it here -- in the
United States of America.
The Progressive Caucus and congressional members are a big part of their
game plan. The Democratic Socialists actively seek out "celebrities" for
outreach purposes. They use them to recruit -- to achieve mainstream
credibility.
"While it's certainly true that one can't build a mass socialist
movement simply by recruiting celebrities, they are very important in
legitimizing both the organization and the concept of socialism,"
explains an organizational document geared toward its youth program.
"When you tell someone that Ron Dellums, Barbara Eisenreich, Gloria
Steinem, Wimpy Winpisinger and Ed Asner are members," it helps take the
horns off of socialism.
Furthermore, the Democratic Socialists' chief organizing goal is to work
within the Democratic Party.
"Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work," the same
document explains. "The Democratic Party is something the public
understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our
Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical
subculture and help integrate you to the milieu of the young liberals."
Yet, that radical subculture is alive and well within the Democratic
Socialists of America and its affiliate group, the Progressive Caucus of
Congress.
Take the song list at the DSA Website. It features, first and foremost,
"The Internationale," the worldwide anthem of Communism and socialism.
Another classic is "Red Revolution" sung to the tune of "Red Robin."
Here are the lyrics for that little ditty: "When the Red Revolution
brings its solution along, along, there'll be no more lootin' when we
start shootin' that Wall Street throng. ..." Then there's that memorable
old ballad, "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?" Never heard that one? You
haven't been in the congressional Progressive Caucus, lately, I guess:
"Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when
the revolution comes, We'll kill you all with knives and guns,
Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie."
Gee, imagine what the totalitarians in the Progressive Caucus what do if
they found that kind of extremist "hate speech" on the Website of a
right-wing congressional caucus.
Make no mistake. These folks are revolutionaries. They may dress in suit
and tie. They may not carry guns and bandoleers. But the Red Army Caucus
in Congress is at the vanguard of a Communist movement that has no
respect for the U.S. Constitution, individual rights and the freedoms
America takes for granted today.
Their rhetoric is a little more sophisticated at times than Stalin's,
but the goals are the same -- a dictatorship of the proletariat, that
oh, so elusive worker's paradise, re-education camps, you get the
picture.
In one article on the DSA site, a "fundamental restructuring of our
socio-economic order" is demanded.
"While the freedoms of democratic capitalism are gains of popular
struggle to be cherished, democratic socialists argue that the values of
liberal democracy can only be fulfilled when the economy as well as the
state is democratically controlled."
Gee, I can hardly wait.
Democratic-Socialist Reform
We have been told that Socialism is all right, when in fact it is not all
right. It is slavery with a beautiful face.
We are told that we can have Socialist reform and still be a Democratic
nation. Deceptive and misguided politicians in both the Republican and
Democratic parties, and the International Bankers, tell us that
Democratic-Socialism is in the middle of the road between Communism and
Fascism, and that we need a Democratic-Socialist state as we go into the
21st. Century with its global economy.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Socialist reform is a means to
consolidate and control wealth. Why do you suppose that bankers and the
super-rich promote it? Because the idea that socialism is a share-the-wealth
program is strictly a confidence game to get the people to surrender their
freedom to an all-powerful collective. As a result, through the legislative
process, like sheep going to slaughter, Americans are willingly and slowly
sacrificing their liberty in exchange for the false promises of an
increasingly Socialist State.
Simply put, socialism is defined as "a theory or system of social reform
which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just
and equitable distribution of property and labor." [Webster's Revised
Unabridged Dictionary (1913)] It is an economic system based on state
ownership of capital. It is the antithesis of what America is ... it is
contrary to our capitalistic society.
What socialism amounts to is government ownership and/or control over the
basic means of production and distribution of services and goods. This means
the government controls everything, including you.
In Socialism everything is regulated by the government and everything you do
is monitored by the government. While we may not have yet reached the point
where the state tells you what color you can paint your house, how many
children you may have, etc., instead the government tells you where you can
build your homes, your businesses, and even how much food storage you are
entitled too.
Americas slide toward Socialism can be seen as early as 1929 following the
Stock Market Crash, when America suddenly needed a "New Deal" in the form of
social welfare. The rate of the transformation has been increased in recent
years by the United Nations, whose entire purpose is to implement a
Socialist World Order.
America's gravitation toward socialism has been long-term and precedes even
the arrival of Bill and Hillary Clinton in the White House. Economist Milton
Friedman recently observed that "in 1950, total government spending,
federal, state, and local, amounted to less than 30 percent of national
income; in 1992, to nearly 45. In addition, government-mandated expenditures
by individuals and businesses have multiplied manifold ... The U.S. is today
more than half socialist, compared to perhaps a third in 1950."
There are the social and political voices talking about the unfair
distribution of wealth and resources - that a global system of sharing and
redistribution could remedy the social problems of cross-national envy, and
that if this were addressed, a major component of international strife and
war would be removed forever.
Clinton's "Bridge into the 21st Century" is built on the crumbled moorings
of the past. It is the same bridge built by the "New Deal" of FDR and the
"Great Society" of LBJ. These bridges led us into the abyss of unprecedented
big government. Our toll was a loss of freedom and dignity, and our
destination decades of encroaching bureaucracy and generations addicted to
the hand of government.
Clinton's favorite answer to all questions is government. Got a problem?
Bill Clinton's new government program can fix it. Lost your job? Sign up for
an employee retraining program. Feeling a little under the weather? A visit
to your regional health alliance will shape you up. Originally created to
defend and protect, our government is now being asked to provide. In short,
many Americans today think the government must be the answer to all societal
problems. And as the problems grow, so must the government.
Traditionally, Democrats have stood for big government, far-reaching
federally controlled and federally funded programs and taxation at levels to
match.
In the simplest of terms, the sum of Bill Clinton's administration amounts
to a federal government takeover of the management of American business,
health care, education and the American family. Clinton's actions over the
past few years demonstrate that he envisions much more than mere renewal or
reform; he wants to create an entirely new society controlled by a massive
Socialist government. One has to only scan through a few of Clinton's
policies in economic, spending, and tax strategy to see that sovereignty and
personal freedoms are the items actually targeted for reduction.
Bill Clinton's Foundational Philosophy for the Socialist State
At his acceptance speech, President Clinton singled out Dr. Carroll Quigley
as being one whom helped to form his political outlook. Quigley was a
liberal academic with a very identifiable world view. Quigley is known
principally for his 1,338 page tome called Tragedy and Hope: A History of
the World in Our Times originally published in 1966.
Quigley wrote approvingly of the power, influence and activities of what he
called "the network" that tries to rule the Western world. The "network"
always prefers Big Government, big federal spending, and the stability of a
planned society rather than the uncertainties of the free market. One
example of the power of the network is the way it has forced the American
taxpayers to spend some $10 billion a year on foreign giveaways every year
since World War II.
Quigley described the Council on Foreign Relations as one of several "front"
organizations set up by the network for the purpose of advancing its
internationalist schemes. He boasted: "I know of the operations of this
network because I have studied it for 20 years and was permitted for two
years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records."
Quigley asserted that he was personally acquainted with the dynastic
families of the super-rich, and he traced their immense power and influence.
For the most part, he was a fan of their goals and policies and said that
his chief difference with the "network" was that "it wishes to remain
unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be
known."
The "Hope" in his book's title represented the collectivist one-world
society that will exist when the "network" achieves its goal of
consolidating its rule. All who resist this man-made millennium represent
the "Tragedy," and Quigley asserted that it was too late for ordinary people
to fight it.
Updated
January 10, 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Wake Up!
There is a storm coming!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The Clinton Agenda
What's the true agenda behind all the rhetoric?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Clinton's Vision for the 21st. Century
Where does the bridge to the 21st Century lead?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Taxes
Who is enslaving your children with debt?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Welfare: Is It Biblical?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The False Green Gospel
Environmentalism
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
War on Christianity
Those who are working for the dissolution of our society have a spiritual
agenda.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The Impact of Feminism on the Family
"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's
movement must concentrate on attacking marriage."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The Homosexualization of America
So what's wrong with being gay, anyway?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
America's Godly Heritage
What children are not taught and how historical revisionists are influencing
culture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Living in a Post-Christian Culture
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Money, Money, Money
Your money, my money, any money ... They want it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Christians in Politics
American politics is not any longer about Democrats, Republicans, or
Independents ... It's not a fight between the Liberal Left and the Christian
Right ... It is all about what America is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Philosophical Roots of Change
How did we get to where we're at?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Justice Redefined
The redefining of justice and injustice is a prophetic sign of the last
days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The Slippery Slope
Once government begins to define life and humanity, there is no end to the
possibilities for subjective and selective determination as to who will be
allowed to live.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Exporting Clinton's Culture of Death
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Are You Saved?
The economic comrade of Clinton's who, though appointed to no official post,
helped form his economic strategy is Derek Shearer, longtime associate
fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, "which is committed to socialism
in America and sides with the Soviet Union on almost every important foreign
policy issue," according to a 1988 article in Policy Review. Shearer favors
socialism, but don't look for the words communist or socialism to show up
any time soon in Clinton's speeches or policy announcements.
In the book Economic Democracy, written with Martin Cornoy, Shearer says
corporations are too "impersonal and powerful" and that a strategy to
achieve economic democracy "must start by dismantling, or at least
restricting, the power of these corporations." Shearer and Carnoy call for a
"democratically" planned economy - one planned by government bureaucrats.
They also call for nothing less than complete government control of capital
markets. "A strategy of reform," they write, "must transfer capital from the
corporations to the public.... The logical vehicle for that process should
be the government." The objective, according to the book, is to provide a
vehicle for governmental takeovers of entire industries "without the
immediate financial and ideological burdens that large-scale nationalization
efforts would entail." This has been and continues to be attempted with the
Clinton Health Care plans and recent government intervention into the
tobacco industry.
America is quickly becoming a Socialist State. The following things are
characteristic of socialistic forms of government proposed by the Democratic
Party and illustrated by Hillary Clinton's "village".
The individual loses all rights and everything is done in the name of the
commonwealth (public) (read - "village"); you are officially the property of
the state and not an individual with wants, desires, and needs.
There is only the rich and the commonwealth. If you are not rich, then you
are a member of the commonwealth. The needs and wants of the rich come
before the needs and wants of the commonwealth. In the commonwealth there
are no individuals and no one has any rights whatsoever. All decisions in
your behalf are made by the state. Your children are the property of the
state and it is decided by the state what they will learn, who will teach
them, and what will become of them. As a parent, you have little or no say
in what becomes of your children, all decisions are made by the government
and you accept or become an enemy of the state.
The government owns and/or controls the basic means of production and
distribution of services and goods. We are told that business and other
things will be regulated but that we will still be free. Free to do what?
They will operate under the illusion of a free enterprise system. All
business and land, if not owned by the government or the rich, is controlled
and taxed very heavily. What a contradiction of terms. How can anyone have a
Socialist form of government with freedom? As stated, in a Socialist form of
government the rich rule and have the power, not the people.
Consider the actions the government has taken in recent years concerning
tobacco, health care, the environment, and the airline industry.
Vice President Al Gore recently announced new efforts to make air travel
safer and Americans seem eager to accept the further erosion of their rights
and pay even higher tarifs to government to protect them from an unseen
enemy. One lady I recently travelled with told me that she was willing to
undergo an extensive selective search of her luggage "if it would make
traveling safer." Safer than what? I ask. This administration has taken
advantage of the crash of TWA 800 to play on the fears of American
travellers. It would seem a foregone conclusion that the airplane was
brought down by a terrorist act - regardless of the fact there is no
conclusive evidence to date that it was a criminal act. This heightened
state of security at American airports is nothing more than another ploy of
the government to further control the airline business and raise another
"hidden" tax to pay for it.
The creation of a federal or state police force; the purpose of which is to
put down disturbances, political or otherwise, "root" out political enemies,
ensure the loyalty of the people, and enforce laws upon taxation, population
control, religion, the workplace, and the family unit.
Consider Clinton's now infamous 100,000 more police officers on the street.
Along with the government funded of those officers comes the federal control
over how the recipients of the funding are used. Will this new police force
be held accountable like the FBI? Attorney General Janet Reno promoted Larry
Potts-who coordinated the Waco raid and was censured for his role in the
1992 Ruby Ridge, Idaho, shoot-out -- to deputy director of the FBI.
The subjection or elimination, generally the latter, of all religious
institutions, with the exception of a state approved and mandated religion.
This "New World Order" institution will also be used to ensure the loyalty
of the people and will be used in the collection of taxes.
The Clinton presidency obviously presents a clear and present danger to the
traditional American way of life that has been grounded in Judeo-Christian
principles. But a much greater danger is on the horizon. This danger is the
socialistic serpentine worldwide government that the Scriptures say will
emerge in the end times (Rev. 13:7-8). This world empire, based in a
reunified Europe, will abrogate the sovereignty of every other nation on the
face of the earth. Its government will be run by godless, amoral Humanists
who will worship the creation rather than the Creator (Romans. 1:25).
The average American Citizen isn't going to give up his Constitution for
some World Government too easily. We and our ancestors have fought too long
and shed too much blood for it to give up easily.
The plan is for Americans to give up their freedom willingly. Socialist
reform is the only way that a one world order can be established without a
direct military confrontation.
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary
Americans ..."
Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A)
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
Reading that did not surprise me at all. Being the follower that you are it
would not be natural for you to be interested in or involved in sports. To
do so you would have to be willing and able to think for yourself and be
driven to be the best that you can be.
But since you have the psychological make up that you have you are much more
comfortable being one of the mindless sheep that are led through their lives
being told what to think, what to believe and what to say. The entire time
of course you have been assured that big brother, the liberal party, is
there for you, looking out for you, working for you, taking care of your
every need from the cradle to the grave .. or in other words being assured
that liberals are fighting to build a socialist society for you to live in.
Do you know what Winston Churchill said about socialism? He said:
The inherent vice of capitalism is it's unequal sharing of blessings. The
Inherent virtue of socialism is it's equal sharing of misery."
Now take a look at the liberal/socialist agenda and attempts to bring a
socialist system into being. Look at liberal/socialists and taxes. Take from
the rich and give to the poor ... in other words redistribution of wealth at
the hands of the government. Look at the failed health care plan that
Hillary wanted. That was pure socialism. Today Dick Gephardt is trying to
revive the socialist health care idea .. and he will fail just like Hillary
did .. other than of course that he will never be in the white house as
anything more than a guest and Hillary was the de-facto vice president.
Since I am mentioning the socialist agenda that liberals have I thought I
would add a little something to this message. A month or two ago while
watching CSPAN the host had a phone guest on and they were talking about how
the guest was running full page ads in newspapers calling for the
impeachment of President Bush, removal of Vice President Cheney and also
Sec. of State Colin Powell.
I knew that he was a crack pot when after being asked who pays for the ads
and having replied by saying that the guest pays for them himself and then
answered the question of where he gets his money by saying that he inherited
it from his capitalist father. The guest gave his web address so I went
there to see what sort of beliefs the guest had. What I found was incredibly
frightening.
This is the CSPAN guests web address http://www.walden3.org/ Something tells
me that you will pretty much see eye to eye with your fellow
liberal/socialist. I will post a bit of his ideas here for those who do not
feel like visiting his site or who would like to sample his site first
before making the journey themselves.
While reading what is below keep in mind that this is an example of the type
of person that supports the democrat/liberal/socialist party.
THE WALDEN THREE PROJECT
We have developed a model for a super-efficient, sustainable city that uses
integrated, pollution-free factories to manufacture most of what its
citizens consume. The city uses "waste" energy from factories to power other
factories and the city's electric plant. The "waste" steam from the electric
plant is piped to homes and businesses to heat them and their hot water
similar to the factory cities of old New England. Moreover, some of that
saved energy creates refrigeration using the process as refrigerators in
motor homes. Prevention and recycling of "waste" items is maximized by
standardized packaging designed for long term use and convenience. Recycling
and freight delivery are easy since the city's collection and transportation
systems are designed for multi-uses and computerized delivery. There is an
efficient commercial goods transport system as well as luxurious mass and
taxi transport but there are no automobiles, trucks, or "roads."
Transportation needs are minimized by home offices and high speed-internet
facilities for everyone.
The city's inhabitants all have jobs running these factories or other
functions of the city. Since the city makes the majority of what its
citizens consume, all citizens have a job for life. However, because of the
huge increase in efficiency and decrease in wasteful consumption such as the
automobile, these jobs are part time; the citizens do not have to work many
hours. Their free time can be used as they see fit: on capitalism, working
for capitalists, art, sports, learning, whatever they chose - they are
really free to choose. Moreover, their time working to run the community
builds a bond, a common cause, and an understanding among the citizens of
the city's problems and advantages. This causes continuing improvement of
the city.
There are no taxes at all: no sales, no income, no withholding, no
unemployment taxes, or fees. There are no rents for basic apartments. There
are fixed rents to offset construction costs and maintenance for
non-residential locations desired by anyone, capitalist to artist. In malls
and many retail locations, landlords take around 10% of the total sales from
the retailer, the entrepreneur. Most businesses are lucky to make 10% of
their total sales as net profit after all expenses, including a salary for
the owner. That means that the landlord, for just owning the property, makes
just as much or more as the entrepreneur, the creator of the wealth. The
entrepreneur therefore has to raise prices to pay this percentage of sales,
the same as a sales tax. Prices must be raised or costs/quality of goods and
services must be cut in order to pay this landlord imposed tax.
Everyone has a home office integrated with Kinko's type facilities in each
apartment or business center. Meeting rooms are available along with
catering as in a hotel. Public restrooms are plentiful and maintained by the
city so fraudulent "Out of Order" or "Customers Only" signs will never
frustrate people. Designers, engineers, artists, and writers are online with
the city's computer aided manufacturing machines that can turn their
inventions and ideas into physical reality. The city builds and supplies
itself with the products from its own plants that are producing concrete,
lumber, glass, bottle, paper, etc.
If you want a bricks and mortar location, you either apply for an available
site, pay for construction of a new one, or build your own under the city's
supervision with the city's materials to the city's standards or better. If
you want to go into business, you can do it on the city's net with online
assistance. Customer service will walk you through it rather than lording
their power, knowledge, or playing "Catch 22" since each "client" rates the
assistant's help. Ratings are similar to a tip. They are used to increase or
decrease the amount of time credited as having been completed by that
assistant. However, unlike a tip, they are not money out of someone's pocket
so there is no reason not to tip if the tip is deserved.
Families are social groups that share work, rewards, and facilities among
their members. Social Security, education for all children, child abuse
laws, protection of the environment, work safety regulations, etc. are all
elements of socialism. We would not do away with them. As every country in
the world does to varying degrees, we support a mixed economy of socialism
and capitalism. No system is perfect; no system has or ever will be pure.
Adam Smith's strength was his acceptance of reality. He and Marx agreed that
the labor it took to make something was its value. Even materials or energy
are just the labor it took to make or acquire them. Smith was realistic. He
realized that "men are wont to reap what they did not sow." This means that
people who had more than enough of something could demand more than the
labor it took to make it. Markets curbed this somewhat since there were
alternative suppliers. Specializing in producing something caused labor
savings. Specialists acquired special tools and supplies since he/she used
them all the time. Thus, the specialist could sell at a level somewhere in
between his labor and the labor the buyer would have to put out to make the
product himself in small quantities. At the extremes, those who were in
great need or desperate had to pay greatly. Supply and demand. Smith
abhorred the conditions of his day, but accepted markets as the best option
for his times.
Today, new conditions and technology have improved our options. If we look
at the labor needed to produce the goods and services that we actually need,
there must be excess capacity and duplication of facilities and efforts to
have a true market. If there is no excess capacity, all producers can charge
what they want because they have more orders than they can fill. If one
customer will not pay, the next one will. In addition, there must be sales,
public relations, accounting and legal assistance with their support
personnel in a large firm or someone's time devoted to those tasks in a
small one. None of those efforts produce the final product or service the
customer wants. Regarding necessities such as water, sewage, electricity,
transportation, housing, and food, there is no need for such waste.
Necessities have to be produced. We want the products or services, not the
accounting, contract, fancy corporate image, or super salesperson.
The city has a proactive system that focuses on maximizing service by
redirecting previously wasted labor towards improving the quality of the
product or service. The new system rewards those that do their job well by
vigorous, positive reaction to feedback, citizen's comments. Solutions will
be offered rather that making people hunt for a way through mazes. Now the
government, in order to cut costs seeking tax cuts, reduces the quality of
service. People have to stand in line wasting their time to maximize the
efficiency or the government employees. The result is a large net increase
in labor or time wasted by the country as a whole. Long-term waste for
short-term savings. With computerization and the labor freed from wasted
effort used to improve the quality of service, people seldom have to wait.
The goal of capitalism is to acquire money. If good products and/or good
service bring greater profits and the producers understand that it does,
then the producers will improve their products and services. However, good
products and good services take more labor, buildings, roads, better
materials, etc. to produce them. The producers must get back their costs
plus something for the risk. They deserve something for the risk since part
of the time they lose. To stay in business, they must make enough profit on
the good deals to pay for the money lost on the bad deals. As stated above
about transportation, this drives prices up and profits down. Capitalism is
inefficient in almost all ways but one: the use of incentives is the most
efficient management system. Rewards cause people not only to perform a
task, but to measure, record, and report it. This is much more efficient
that watching, finding, proving guilty, and punishing (punishment always
costs money) workers who may go "postal" and kill the manager or owner. If a
system rewards people, they will want to preserve it, its managers, and its
owners. Unfortunately, the capitalist system today gives unnecessarily large
(and counter productive in the long run) rewards to top management while
only offering ineffective hourly wages or salary for the vast majority.
Incentive has an accounting drawback: it must be measured and reported.
However, since capitalism requires accounting for its ultimate goals, it is
not an additional cost to capitalism.
The solution is a combination of socialism and capitalism in a highly
mechanized and computerized infrastructure, tended by people who receive
incentives based on the quality of their work producing products and
services that fulfill the inhabitants needs. There is cradle-to-grave
medical care for all conditions. Citizens will always have 1000 sq feet per
domicile at the minimum (multiple occupants will warrant increased area.)
There is built-in computer equipment tied to the city's net. Water, heat,
air conditioning where needed, and enough food to eat are guaranteed. Nice
furniture and fixtures are provided. There is free education in all subjects
at all levels. The city's online educational, reference, entertainment, and
other data are free to all, fostering creativity, productivity, and
enjoyment. One can upgrade through one's own efforts or spend one's time
doing something enjoyed directly. The city is based on logic and reality.
The new system is not and will not be arbitrary or perfect.
The city's philosophy and economics are open to rational debate based on
proven facts in a forum seeking truth. (See Albert Ellis' "Is Objectivism
[Capitalism/Libertarianism] a Religion.") We agree with Ayn Rand that every
act contains self-interest at some level: we do things because we like or do
not like the feeling we get. But unlike Rand, we think the most selfish
thing, once minimum necessities are met, is altruism; caring, smart altruism
though, not just throwing money at someone and walking away. To help
effectively takes getting involved and personal. This has a bonus. It
generates good feelings, pleasure. If you think about it, the only thing a
material thing can give you is a good feeling. If you can get a good feeling
from helping someone, it does not cost much and has a bonus: most of the
time that person helped wants to pay it back somehow. The city's motto is
"Pay It Forward." The help eventually comes back to everyone, one way or the
other. We all want to be good neighbors. Our neighbors have neighbors. Those
people have neighbors, and so it goes, until "what goes around, comes
around." Our neighborhoods never really end. The "circular flow" of money or
"multiplier effect" describes what happens each time a dollar is injected
into an economy. If I spend a dollar with you, you have a dollar to spend
with someone else. That person then spends it with someone else; and so on
until it comes back fairly rapidly and from more than one person. The
reverse is also true. In a collapsing economy the money "saved" is taken out
multiple times. Every worker is a customer in the big picture; fire a
worker, fire a customer. "Cast ye bread upon the waters and it will be
returned unto you 10 times." It only took 2000 years for Keynes to verify
Christ. In an expanding economy banks loan out money saved, minus an amount
they must set aside as a reserve for bad debts, to businesses that need it
to expand, minimizing the deflation effect of saving. We will show that the
city's economic and social theories are sound, but they are not fully
explained here yet. The work will never be done. It will change as society
changes and advances. But it is work that we love. We have the technology to
design systems and machines to do repulsive and tedious work. We think we
can offer a system where every individual can have work and a life that he
or she likes.
The city's school system is based on students' demonstrating their abilities
in skills needed for them to achieve a life plan they create. From the
beginning children are schooled by letting them watch and participate in
running the city, where it is safe, as children helped run farms and shops
for ages. If a child wants to be a fireman, we say, "OK, Johnny. You can be
a fireman. We'll start training you now. If you want to be a fireman, you
have to know about gases, heat energy, combustion, etc. To learn that, you
need to know math, reading, etc. Then the math word problems, English, and
other assignments are linked to something that excites, not dry abstractions
such as "a + b." No one wants to do tasks with unknown objectives or for
which they do not see as useful. As the children mature, their goals will
change, but the fundamentals will have been learned.
George Washington said, "The firmest pillar of democracy is the true
administration of justice." He said justice, not law. "The only stable state
is the one in which all men are equal before the law." - Aristotle. In our
system today, money determines your ability to hire attorneys, receive an
fair hearing, and prevail at court. The city's civil law system is based on
giving "value for value received" and bona fide [good faith] contracts, not
a "let the buyer beware" perspective. When a person enters into a contract,
it should be with confidence that the legal outcome will be fair. The legal
system is streamlined by legal aids sufficient to give everyone fast, equal
legal protection, not decision by a contest between champions with esoteric
knowledge. Hammurabi was the first to write the law down on stones so that
everyone could know it. The lawyers have, leprechaun-like, created a million
stones so that even they can't know it all. Not all lawyers are predatory.
Most are good people doing a job they believe is inevitable. It is as
Jonathan Swift wrote, the profession makes them act that way. We can still
love them as individuals. We condemn no one. We want lawyers to help design
the system. They know the answers. Uncertainly is uncomfortable at best.
While nothing is certain, we can have a system which is much more
predictable than our present chaos. Business wants it. People want it.
Since everyone is provided with their necessities, the only reasons for
crime would be mental neuroses. Mothers and fathers will never have to steal
to feed their babies. The criminal system will be swift and sure, but never
harsh. B. F. Skinner proved long ago that the frequency and inevitability of
the reward or punishment matters most, unless the punishment is brutal, a
poor choice since it damages the person for life. Punishment always has long
term costs that outweigh its short term savings. Punishment is a type of
terrorism, especially in the system under which we live. Besides, reward is
far more efficient. The capitalists are absolutely correct. If you punish
someone they will hide, lie, perhaps kill you. If you reward someone, they
will seek you out to get that reward. Which takes less effort? Frequency and
sureness are stressed because if someone gets away with something 10 times
and then the police get lucky and catch him or her, whether they punish that
person or not, the net effect is to reinforce the unwanted behavior.
All public areas are under open-access video observation: anyone in the city
can access any camera at any time. One can "follow" one's child to the
playground and report any bullying or accidents to the authorities for
immediate attention. The camera systems are already being installed in
public areas throughout in the US as well as businesses, except that only
the authorities can observe using them. Remember, the city has no prisons or
harsh punishments to fear. The city's method is to change behavior through
training and reward, arresting antisocial behavior swiftly when necessary,
but never punishing or seeking revenge. The city's socialization
(corrections) system will not lock up one disturbed individual with three
others in an 8 by 10 foot room for decades and expect them all to come out
good people who know how to get along. The city assigns police officers and
councilors that stay with the troubled individuals all the time, physically
and/or electronically, until they learn how to get along in society by
interacting in that society.
The city guides people to set realistic and worthwhile life goals. Part of a
realistic goal is a realistic plan to achieve it. The school and
socialization systems teach Rational Emotive Behavior [Unconditional
Acceptance] Theory so that most errors in the rational self-esteem area are
corrected early, preempting emotional problems later in life. We have
observed that all the major religions have a universal message: Love and
Help each other. Certainly we must not kill. Acceptance, mercy, and
meaningful work, are prerequisites to happiness. There is no wealth greater
than happiness. "The paths of glory lead but to the grave." As said before,
this system as presented is not complete. It is a work in process. Below is
the first energy-mass flow model, ready for testing, improvement and
comments by the public. It is of special interest to city/society planners,
engineers, and technicians, though probably boring to many. It will
determine the staffing and proportions needed to reach critical mass: enough
people and factories to produce enough to meet the reasonable consumption
requirements of the city's inhabitants; to be relatively independent of the
world's banks and other economies. Walden Three is really not ready for the
publicity it is receiving now. But we felt we had to speak out now to avoid
a world full of terrorists, a collapsed world economy. As We invite
criticism, improvements, and suggestions. This is under construction and
requires much more work. The burden of proof is upon us.
D.G. Porter
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught>
> Newsgroups:
> alt.fan.bill-clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics,alt.politics.bush,al
> t.radio.talk
> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 9:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Legacy of the Impeached Murderer
>
> > > That is a typical liberal ploy,
> > > to attack and discredit in hopes that others witnessing the event will
> not
> > > accept their opponents arguments regardless of the fact that the
> opponent
> > > knows what they are talking about.
> >
> > No, that is what reichwingers do, and then they will accuse their
> > opponents of the tactic.
>
> LIBERALS UNHINGED
LOL!
Where the fuck did you get THIS pile of shit!??
I mean, this piece is truly BIZARRE!
Is this typical of the stuff you read, & fill your mind with?
No wonder you're a adork.
> THE NATIVES ARE
D.G. Porter
>
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> news:3ED567...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> > Brian wrote:
> > >
> > > Dude wrote:
> > >
> > > > Once again your command of the English language boggles my mind.
> > >
> > > LOL,
> > > I too love how many words it takes d g to admit that he cant support any
> of his
> > > lies, and tries to cover up this fact with more lies and name calling.
> >
> > You're still insane.
>
> I have heard that the definition of insanity is performing the same task
> over and over again but expecting different results. That would define
> liberals fairly well.
As opposed to the reichwingers who just make shit up alla time and pass
it off as some kind of revelation from GOD.
That other piece you posted was a good example -- and I noted that you
left out the author's name and where you got it -- probably so I didn't
die laffing until AFTER I went through it.
There must be some knd of mass-delusion at work here. Idiots like
Limbaugh can get on a soapbox and start saying the craziest things, and
people eat it up and ask for more, and nod their heads like The Fatuous
Man is soe kind of See'r.
I mean, I've seen some crazy shit over the last 40 years, but this is
really the cake-taker. Only a few crazoids in the loon GOP of 1964
would have bought into the stuff that goes for "mainstream" Republican
thought now.
And the mantras! "Liberals this," "liberals that." You guys sound like
victims of Scientology brainwashing!
Wait, did I just figger it all out?
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> > news:3ED567...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> > > Brian wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dude wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Once again your command of the English language boggles my mind.
> > > >
> > > > LOL,
> > > > I too love how many words it takes d g to admit that he cant support
any
> > of his
> > > > lies, and tries to cover up this fact with more lies and name
calling.
> > >
> > > You're still insane.
> >
> > I have heard that the definition of insanity is performing the same task
> > over and over again but expecting different results. That would define
> > liberals fairly well.
>
> As opposed to the reichwingers who just make shit up alla time and pass
> it off as some kind of revelation from GOD.
You never give up do you? Even when you know that people are on to your worn
out old tactics you still keep trying to use them. That I'll have you know
is a main reason why the party of democrats is on the verge of a decade of
obscurity.
You have made up or passed on made up fantasy stories about republicans but
now you say that it's republicans that do that. Talk about the pot calling
the kettle black!
> That other piece you posted was a good example -- and I noted that you
> left out the author's name and where you got it -- probably so I didn't
> die laffing until AFTER I went through it.
At times things I post will not show everything on the screen that I copied.
Sometimes the authors name or the title of the article will not transfer
using copy. I'm far from being a computer expert so I can only guess that it
is because that portion was HTML or something. Normally when the title or
author's name is larger and in a colored box on the screen it will not
transfer using copy. Sorry if I am to lazy to type it in myself.
The fact though is it does not matter who the author is if the material is
factual. I know that you do not believe that though. If it doesn't come from
the mouth of the DNC, the Clinton's, James Carville, Paul Begala and the
like than to you the information isn't valid.
>
> There must be some knd of mass-delusion at work here. Idiots like
> Limbaugh can get on a soapbox and start saying the craziest things, and
> people eat it up and ask for more, and nod their heads like The Fatuous
> Man is soe kind of See'r.
I can't say that I agree with everything I have heard Rush Limbaugh say but
I can say that he is many times more honest and factual than people like Tom
Daschle, Sheila Jackson Lee, Charlie Rangel, Ted Kennedy, Dick Gephardt,
Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Chuck Schumer .. and a bunch more
like them.
>
> I mean, I've seen some crazy shit over the last 40 years, but this is
> really the cake-taker. Only a few crazoids in the loon GOP of 1964
> would have bought into the stuff that goes for "mainstream" Republican
> thought now.
And just what does that mean? Parties evolve, they change. There was a time
that democrats were respectable and good leaders. Those times are long gone
though.
>
> And the mantras! "Liberals this," "liberals that." You guys sound like
> victims of Scientology brainwashing!
I call a spade a spade. If you think that you can hide behind chosen names
or phrases and not be seen for what you are or for what the party of
democrats are you're fooling yourself.
>
> Wait, did I just figger it all out?
I honestly doubt that you are capable of finding anything out on your own.
You have been so inundated by liberal propaganda that you are now incapable
of free thought. You depend on others to tell you what you should think and
what you should say. If I were incorrect you would not have said half of
what you have said.
I could see an honest difference of opinion but that is not the case. You
have a blind hatred for republicans and when combined with the years of
liberal brainwashing you have been subjected to makes you incapable of
rational thought or objective evaluation of factual information.
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught>
> > Newsgroups:
> >
alt.fan.bill-clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics,alt.politics.bush,al
> > t.radio.talk
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 9:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: Legacy of the Impeached Murderer
> >
> > > > That is a typical liberal ploy,
> > > > to attack and discredit in hopes that others witnessing the event
will
> > not
> > > > accept their opponents arguments regardless of the fact that the
> > opponent
> > > > knows what they are talking about.
> > >
> > > No, that is what reichwingers do, and then they will accuse their
> > > opponents of the tactic.
> >
> > LIBERALS UNHINGED
>
> LOL!
> Where the fuck did you get THIS pile of shit!??
> I mean, this piece is truly BIZARRE!
> Is this typical of the stuff you read, & fill your mind with?
> No wonder you're a adork.
Once again your inability to form a rational response while still
desperately needing to feel superior have combined and the result is a
typical liberal response. Totally lacking in substance and void of all
rationality you reply with a personal attack.
Bravo liberal, bravo. Once again you have proven me to be correct.
D.G. Porter
What if I don't give a fuck if you believe me?
I know what I've done.
[ahem!]
The themes in the Quartet are hymn tunes that Ives had been familiar
with since his boyhood, holding for him a deep import: The first
movement (Chorale) is a fugue on the Missionary Chant (“From Greenland’s
Icy Mountains”) with Coronation (“All Hail the
Power of Jesus’ Name”) as a counter-subject. The second movement
(Prelude) quotes Beulah Land and The Shining Shore (“My days are gliding
swiftly by”). The third movement (Offertory) is based on Nettleton
(“Come thou font of every blessing”; also “Here
I raise my Ebenezer”) and also quotes Beulah Land and The Shining Shore,
and the fourth movement (Postlude) quotes Coronation, The Shining Shore,
and Webb (“Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus”). Ives’s earliest written
description of the Quartet notes that, “it had one movement [that had]
nothing to do with [the] R[evival] S[ervice music] & [this movement was]
much better [than the others].”1 No doubt he is referring here to the
Chorale. John Kirkpatrick writes in the Preface to the Fourth Symphony
that Ives
must have initially written this fugue for Horatio Parker at Yale, and
that Parker “probably took it as a joke” (as he seems to have taken much
of Ives’s music from this time).2 Kirkpatrick continues, “Like the
other fugues [written for Parker], this one
is also scholastic-minded, with strettos, mirrors, long pedal points,
and a closing augmentation. Ives was the regular organist at Center
Church during all his four years at Yale, and he must have played it
himself. It would make an ideal prelude — familiar, dignified, warmly
lyrical, and with just enough of the unexpected to suggest an inspired
vision.”3
And yet one wonders what Parker’s true reaction to this fugue — to the
Quartet as a whole — must have been. Jan Swafford observes in Charles
Ives — A Life with Music, “In a lecture of 1900 Parker denounced revival
music music as ‘vulgar with the vulgarity of the streets and the music
hall... Let the stuff be confined to the mission where it may do good.
Among people of any appreciable degree of refinement and culture it can
only do harm.’” Swafford continues, “To Parker, Ives’s string quartet
was redolent of the street and the music hall, of bad air and cheap
religiosity — far too removed from the splendid theaters, the cultured
old-Yankee salons, the wealthy Boston church that delineated Parker’s
milieu. Given Parker’s ideal of artistic purity, the
revival service itself reeked of some obscure sin, ‘evil music ...
harmful to our sense of beauty, to our aesthetic sensitivities.’ ...
What could Parker do, then, with this student who seemed incurably
infested with crude hymnody and program music, who
without shame could title a string quartet, that purest of genres, ‘From
the Salvation Army’?”4 And what could have been Parker’s reaction to
the seemingly endless modulations, particularly in the Prelude, often
covering several keys in as many measures?
Could this music have been one example of Parker’s accusing Ives of
“hogging all the keys at one meal”?5
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught>
> > Newsgroups:
> >
alt.fan.bill-clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics,alt.politics.bush,al
> > t.radio.talk
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 9:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: Legacy of the Impeached Murderer
Civil Rights During the Nixon Administration, 1969-1974
Editor: Hugh Davis Graham, Professor of History, University of Maryland,
Baltimore
Scholarly study of civil rights issues in the Nixon administration has been
hampered by the drawn-out litigation over control of Richard Nixon's
presidential papers. Now, the release of Nixon's White House Central Files
provides scholars a first look at documents that do much to illuminate this
stormy transitional period in civil rights legislation.
During the Nixon presidency, the concept of "equal rights" was broadened
from desegregation to include school busing, affirmative action in hiring,
women, the elderly, the physically disabled, and an expanding and
overlapping list of other groups.
Nixon's files on civil rights policy issues reveal the genesis of many
legislative and regulatory initiatives still in effect today. Part 1: The
White House Central Files additionally provides insights on presidential
decisions as ideologically disparate as Nixon's nomination of southern
jurists Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell to the U.S. Supreme Court
and his strengthening of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Other records report on the continuing controversy over school
desegregation, which spread nationwide during the early 1970s; state and
local reports on civil disturbances, including the activities of the
(Milton) Eisenhower Commission in 1969; the campus turmoil associated with
the violence at Jackson State and Kent State in 1970; and the report of the
Task Force on Women's Rights and Responsibilities.
The confidential White House Special Files on human rights are also included
in the collection. These contain the most sensitive policy documents from
the various Central Files and were segregated to restrict access to them.
The Special Files are especially interesting to researchers because of Nixon
's own handwritten and dictated comments. He often initiated action by
scribbling notations on daily news summaries and staff memoranda. Such
directives and queries in the President's own hand make this an
extraordinary archival source among presidential documents on civil rights.
Ordering Information
CIVIL RIGHTS DURING THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION, 1969-1974
Part 1. The White House Central Files
35mm microfilm (46 reels) with printed guide. ISBN 1-55655-133-9.
Source note: The collection consists of both the White House Central Files
and the White House Special Files, file category "HU" of the holdings of the
Nixon Presidential Materials Project in the National Archives, College Park,
Maryland. The documents represented in this publication are among the
records of the Nixon Presidential Materials Staff in the custody of the
National Archives of the United States. No copyright is claimed in these
official U.S. government records.
His accomplishments while in office included revenue sharing, the end of the
draft, new anticrime laws, and a broad environmental program. As he had
promised, he appointed Justices of conservative philosophy to the Supreme
Court. One of the most dramatic events of his first term occurred in 1969,
when American astronauts made the first moon landing.
Some of his most acclaimed achievements came in his quest for world
stability. During visits in 1972 to Beijing and Moscow, he reduced tensions
with China and the U.S.S.R. His summit meetings with Russian leader Leonid
I. Brezhnev produced a treaty to limit strategic nuclear weapons. In January
1973, he announced an accord with North Viet Nam to end American involvement
in Indochina. In 1974, his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, negotiated
disengagement agreements between Israel and its opponents, Egypt and Syria.
In his 1972 bid for office, Nixon defeated Democratic candidate George
McGovern by one of the widest margins on record.
D.G. Porter
and I don't have time to waste on this kind of crap -- but a soon as I
got to this I knew you were a complete loonie.
Dude wrote:
>
> 59 Socialists in Congress - 2002
> Socialists in Congress
I've read this drivel before and won't waste my time on it again
tonight.
Suffice it to say that you are so far off in right field that you left
the ballpark a mile behind and now cower in the parking lot behind the
MaxiMart.
So long, Bozo.
And the rest of your blather snipped...
D.G. Porter
>
>
> Bravo liberal, bravo. Once again you have proven me to be correct.
You're a nut. I don't deal with nuts.
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught>
> > Newsgroups:
> >
alt.fan.bill-clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics,alt.politics.bush,al
> > t.radio.talk
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 9:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: Legacy of the Impeached Murderer
The Foreign Policy Legacy of Richard Nixon
by Mike Knight
December 23, 2001
(view pdf)
Perhaps the most under looked aspect of each presidential administration is
the approach taken to and results of foreign policy. Foreign policy, in the
traditional sense, has been deemed an invalid measure of a president's
performance in office. However, when one does analyze the foreign policy of
past presidents, three have noticeably outperformed all the others: Woodrow
Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon, the most
contemporary of the three, effectively took a pragmatic approach to foreign
policy.
The best way to describe Nixon's approach to foreign to foreign policy is
pragmatic. In combination with statesman Henry Kissinger, the Nixon
administration defined the standards for foreign policy. In every situation,
including Vietnam , Cambodia , China , and even the Soviet Union , the
administration developed an end goal and built a comprehensive strategy to
achieve that goal. The three-pronged solution to the Vietnam War: bombing,
training, and negotiating, highlighted these incredible organization skills.
Nixon and Kissinger brought simplicity to a very complex arena employing
pragmatism and logic. Certainly, this technique was both intelligent and
successful.
Another central feature of Nixon's foreign policy was the issue of
protecting and serving the "national interest." Nixon combined homeland
defense, national security, and public opinion, which he referred to as the
"silent majority," to spread US messages in international affairs. For
example, the public showed a desire to end the Vietnam quagmire, so the
administration ended the conflict with minimal sacrifice to US national
security. Just as President Bush is trying to balance security and civil
liberties in today's world, Nixon had to balance these two issues and
succeeded in doing so. He ordered the bombing of Cambodia and Laos and the
training of South Vietnamese troops to fight to curtail communism, while
simultaneously ending the conflict. Nixon accomplished this with masterful
and deliberate foreign policy.
By combining these approaches, the administration succeeded abroad. In the
case of China , he improved the Sino-US partnership while working with the
Soviets. The Nixon administration achieved the first Strategic Arms
Limitation Treaty (SALT) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty (which
Bush just withdrew from) to preserve the security of the two powers. Then,
of course, was the ending of Vietnam with brilliance. These few examples
typify what was an incredibly triumphant administration in foreign affairs.
Richard Nixon and his administration utilized logical thought in an
effective approach to foreign affairs. Although the legacy of the
administration is scarred with resignation for power abuses on the domestic
front, there is no argument that the foreign policy used was unmatched in
contemporary times. Nixon passed on in 1994 and left this frequently
overlooked foreign policy legacy in the ground behind him.
Copyright 2001-2003 mikebknight.com
D.G. Porter
Tell it to the families of Americans killed by Pinochet in the stadium
in '73. Just for starters.
Dude wrote:
>
> Just as President Bush is trying to balance security and civil
> liberties in today's world,
OK, hold it right there. I'm not going to waste any more of my time.
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught>
> > Newsgroups:
> >
alt.fan.bill-clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics,alt.politics.bush,al
> > t.radio.talk
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 9:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: Legacy of the Impeached Murderer
Re-evaluating Richard Nixon:
his domestic achievements
by Joan Hoff
Prior to Watergate, journalists, scholars, and numerous politicians had
predicted that Nixon would be a cautious, if not actually a "do-nothing,
caretaker" president. Moreover, few listened in 1969 when he said that he
intended "to begin a decade of government reform such as this nation has not
witnessed in half a century." And most of us scoffed when in 1971 his speech
writers came up with the grandiose phrase, "the New American Revolution," to
describe his domestic programs. 1 Yet during his first term in office, Nixon
actively pursued fiveareas of domestic reform: welfare, civil rights
(including not only desegregation and voting rights, but also additional
rights for women and , economic and environmental policy, and reorganization
of the federal bureaucracy."2 Ultimately, these domestic programs may be
remembered longer than his currently better known activities in the realm of
foreign policy, and they may even minimize his negative Watergate image.
Nixon embarked on a systematic risk-taking course in both foreign and
domestic policy that attempted to update American Federalism through
government reorganization and revenue sharing, to revamp the entire welfare
system with the idea of a guaranteed annual income (which he preferred to
call a negative income tax), to dramatically expand spending for both
environmental and social service programs, to set in promote a "grand
design" for U.S. diplomacy based on the Nixon Doctrine, on devaluation of
the dollar and other foreign economic policies, on ending (after widening)
the war in Vietnam, and on establishing rapprochement with China and détente
with the USSR.
From the moment Nixon assumed office, the liberal and radical press, many
individual Democrats, and a few liberal Republicans interested in domestic
reform, concentrated their attention on his personality and political
ethics. They did this, not because Nixon's persona during his first years as
president offended them any more than usual, but, in part, because his early
substantive programs and specific domestic priorities threatened to co-opt
their own positions on a number of issues. They might have endorsed or
"accepted" some of these plans and ideas from a president they liked and
trusted, regardless of party, but not from "Tricky Dick."
In some instances, blatantly ignoring facts that normally would have made
such legislative and administrative innovations appealing to them, Nixon's
long-standing opponents refused to support certain of his domestic programs,
even though they represented, according to Daniel Patrick [Pat] Moynihan,
the "natural constituency" for most of his domestic policies. If Nixon's
domestic reforms were often opposed, as political scientist Paul J. Halpern
has noted, by those who "never even bothered to get the facts straight,"3 it
may well have been because many liberals simply could not believe that Nixon
would ever do the right thing except for the wrong reason. Thus, they seldom
took the time to try to determine whether any of his efforts to make the
1970s a decade of reform were legitimate, however politically motivated.
Consequently, they never accepted him in the role of a catalyst for domestic
reform.
The country had elected only one other Republican president since the onset
of FDR's reform administrations over thirty years earlier. Consequently, due
to the vacuum created by the breakdown in the New Deal consensus, Nixon
faced unprecedented opportunities for changing domestic. He also faced the
traditional problems of presidential governance; in this instance,
exacerbated by bureaucratic pockets of resistance from an unusual number of
hold-over Democrats. Such resistance was not new, but its magnitude was
particularly threatening to a distrusted Republican president who did not
control either house of Congress.
Another problem both Nixon's legislative and administrative attempts at
domestic reform encountered was the fact that initially his advisers could
not agree on how to present a package program to the public and Congress.
Although reform became the "watchword" of the administration by the end of
1969 no one, including the president was satisfied with the way in which
publicity and coordination of his domestic reform program had been handled.
This is different from saying that Nixon had no coherent domestic program,
as many still do. His interregnum task forces permitted him to hit the
ground running on several different domestic reforms as his comprehensive
address to the nation on August 8, 1969 indicated. That he did not have this
in place by his first hundred days in office, is often unfavorably compared
with Franklin Roosevelt, who faced a domestic crisis of unprecedented
proportions in 1933 and a Congress more willing by to deal with Great
Depression on an emergency basis. That there was little coherence (or as it
turned, consistency) to FDR's initial New Deal legislation, is usually
forgotten by those making this comparison. Yet even Nixon worried about
reaching his first hundred days in office without conveying to the public a
coordinated domestic program. Typically, Nixon's concern over the failure to
convince Congress and the public about his comprehensive reform program
stemmed from a more fundamental worry that it would hurt the image of the
United States abroad and thus negatively reflect on his major
concern-foreign policy.4
To counter the built-in partisan opposition, particularly to his
legislative, as opposed to administrative, actions for reform Nixon began to
cajole his staff March and April, 1969, about setting harder deadlines for
suggestions about domestic programs, about ways to incorporated constructive
Congressional ideas into such programs, and, most importantly, about
coordinating publicity on domestic issues. To this end an informal team,
known as the "Five O'Clock Group," began meeting daily in Haldeman's office
to discuss various the next day's publicity opportunities and public
relations problems in general. Their suggestions ranged from persuading
Cabinet members to be more "passionate" about administrative policies to
writing letters and making complaint calls about unfavorable comments by
columnists, television commentators and even those made on satirical
television programs like the Smothers Brothers. The "Five O'Clock Group" was
apparently composed of Haldeman (or his representative), Raymond Price,
Dwight Chapin, and various representatives from both the press and
legislative divisions within the White House.5
In talking about his domestic initiatives with me, Nixon insisted that all
of them reflected his own background and association with the progressive
wing of the Republican party.6 Aside from the improbability of such an
assertion, his domestic reforms were far from conservative by Republican or
Democratic standards. When I asked him what he considered his most important
achievements in domestic policy, he singled out his success in desegregating
southern schools and his Supreme Court appointments (Warren E. Burger, Harry
Blackmun, Lewis Powell, and William H. Rehnquist), still insisting that
Clement F. Haynsworth, Jr. would have been his best choice had he been
approved by the Senate, neglecting to mention that this nomination
demonstrated his handling of relations with Congress at their worst. Nixon
also included on his list of significant "firsts": his initiatives on the
environment and space, and his declared (and well financed) wars against
cancer, illegal drugs, and hunger.7
Ignoring all of his Supreme Court nominees, Nixon closest aides usually
placed revenue sharing and environmental and land-use policies higher on the
list of his domestic achievements than the former president did himself.
According to John Ehrlichman, this continuing difference of opinion arose
from the fact that Nixon paid more personal attention during his first term
to those domestic issues with "political juice," such as cancer research,
labor legislation, drugs, crime, taxes, desegregation, and welfare, than he
did to economic matters involving revenue sharing, housing, hunger,
transportation, and consumer protection, or environmental and general health
concerns. On those "gut" issues that Nixon considered "potent political
medicine," he became actively involved in policy formulation; the rest he
delegated to others, especially Ehrlichman-even the controversial subjects
of campus unrest and antiwar demonstrations.8
As for his domestic mistakes, Nixon told me wage and price controls, which
he said he only supported at the time because it looked as though Congress
would take this initiative to control inflation if the White House did not,
and the automatic cost of living adjustments (COLA) for Social Security
recipients. He said that COLAs made sense at the time but not in light of
the run-away inflation after he left office.9 Of course, many have logically
claimed that wiretaps, the creation of the "plumbers" unit within the White
House to plug information leaks and ultimately conduct break-ins, the
harassment of individuals on an "enemies" list, and even the mere
consideration of the "Houston Plan" for institutionalizing surveillance of
suspect groups and individuals were all domestic mistakes.10 While such
activities cannot be constitutionally or morally justified, my research has
shown that most of them originated in connection with Nixon's foreign, not
domestic, policies and therefore are not specifically relevant to his
federal reform programs, except that such key White House political aides as
Ehrlichman were intimately involved with many of these domestic covert
activities, as well as with several positive domestic reforms.
Nixon remained personally convinced, however, that supporters of
environmental legislation could be divided into two groups: those who were
actually opposed to private enterprise and those who were not. When it came
down to "a flat choice between smoke and jobs," Nixon privately and publicly
made no bones about favoring jobs and a strong economy. Instinctively he
never became an environmentalist; pragmatically, however, he did. As a
result, Nixon always insisted that OMB's cost-benefit analysis be brought to
bear on EPA's decisions as well as on other executive branch agencies-a
practice environmental activists still hold against him. He continues to
believe that the unusually detailed recommendations he made in his first
State of the Union address in January 1970 represented a "moderate" position
designed to appeal to the second procapitalist group of environmentalists.
In this message he called for $10 billion for cleaning the country's water
supplies and stricter air pollution regulations. Subsequently Nixon made
thirty-six environmental proposals and proclaimed the first Earth Week in
April 1971.11
By the summer of 1971 the New York Times was praising Nixon for having
evolved into an environmentalist. Indeed, the Clean Air Act of 1970 which
the administration supported remains the "most controversial and far
reaching effort to control air pollution." Other environmental legislation
supported by the administration (as a result of Ehrlichman's and Whitaker's
inside cajoling included: oil spill, pesticide anti-ocean dumping, noise
control, and state coastal zone management. There were only two flaws in
Nixon's pro-environmental stance and both are still typically remembered
while his positive record which "has yet to be improved upon by any
president," must be resurrected from Watergate dimmed memories.12
The first major area in which Nixon did not appear to fully support EPA
actions concerned obtaining compliance from the big four automobile
companies for emission control standards. The second flaw usually cited in
Nixon's environmental record was his veto of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 and attempt to impound appropriated by
Congress under this legislation. With considerably less pressure than
environmentalists, African-American and women's groups brought to bear on
him, Nixon endorsed an enlightened self-determination policy for Native
American Indians that changed the direction of policy as continued from the
New Deal through the Great Society.
Until Nixon's administration national policy had followed primarily an
integrationist approach aimed at terminating tribal ties. After appointing
Louis R. Bruce, a Mohawk in favor of self-determination, as commissioner of
Indian affairs, Nixon quickly moved to change federal Indian policy by
declaring in a special message to Congress on July 8, 1970, that the federal
government would assist Indians in pursuing "Self-determination. . . without
the threat of eventual termination." In this address the president assured
"the Indian that he [could] assume control over his own life without being
separated involuntarily from the tribal group."13
Nixon's determination to strengthen the Indians' sense of autonomy without
threatening their sense of community became even more evident when he asked
Congress to repeal the 1953 House Concurrent Resolution which had endorsed
integration at the expense of self-determination. Ironically, this
legislation dated from the time Nixon had been vice president. As president,
however, he effectively ended the policy of forced termination of tribal
status and turned over more decisions about Indian policies to the elected
tribal governments, and appeared to have lived up to earlier praise from
Bruce Willkie, the executive director of the National Congress of American
Indians (NCAI), who said in the fall of 1970 that Nixon was "the first U.S.
President since George Washington to pledge that the government will honor
obligations to the Indian tribes." Around the same time Navajo tribal head
Peter MacDonald, one of the few Native American Republicans, declared that
Nixon should "be viewed as the Abraham Lincoln of the Indian people."14
Nixon's official reversal of federal Indian policy ultimately led to the
enactment of a number of bills which strengthened tribal autonomy and land
claims. Most prominent among them were returning in 1970 the sacred Blue
Lake to the people of Taos Pueblo; negotiating the federal agreement in 1971
with the Florida Miccosukee tribe, one of the least assimilated groups in
the United States, acknowledging its right to control its own affairs;
restoring the previously terminated Menominee Tribe to federally-recognized
status (the Menominee Restoration Act of December 22, 1973).15
Instead of reacting punitively to increased Indian militancy on the part of
young "Red Power" militants who took over Alcatraz Island in 1969, Wounded
Knee in 1973, and caused $1.5 million dollars in damage at the Bureau of
Indian Affairs' (BIA) national headquarters in 1972 and 1973, Nixon
increased the budget of the BIA by 214 percent and requested a total,
all-agency budget of $1.2 billion for Indian affairs in fiscal year 1973, an
increase of $300 million in two years. Funds for improving the health of
American Indians doubled during his first term in office. In addition to
intervening on behalf of Native Americans in land disputes, Nixon initiated,
and Congress passed, legislation strengthening existing tribal governments,
restoring previously terminated tribal status, and financing tribal
commercial development. For example, his administration established the
first special office of Indian Water Rights; signed a bill authorizing the
Secretary of Agriculture to make direct and insured loans to Indian tribes
though the Farmers Home Administration; fostered tribal commercial
development through the Indian Financing Act of 1974; made special
arrangements for presenting to any federal court the Trust Council's
position defending Indian natural resources rights; filed a landmark Supreme
Court suit to protect Indian rights in Pyramid Lake; and pledged that all
available BIA funds to arranged to fit priorities set by tribal governments
themselves.16
Even though passage of the 1975 Indian Self-Determination and Educational
Assistance Act occurred after Nixon had resigned as president, it remains a
testimony to the fact that he, indeed, had set in motion much more than his
own "New Deal" for Native American Indians-many of whom viewed this measure,
which finally provided for direct contracting between the tribes and the
federal government to administer former BIA programs, as the most
significant piece of legislation since the Indian Reorganization Act of
1934.
Nixon's far-sighted attempts at welfare reform provided him with his first
disillusioning experience as president in the areas of government
reorganization and bureaucratic policy making. What he thought he learned
turned him away from cabinet government in pursuit of a corporate
presidency. The president's failure to restructure the welfare system made
him all the more determined to restructure the entire executive branch of
government. In this sense the demise of welfare reform became an impetus for
general reorganization of the federal bureaucracy.
The final defeat of Nixon's Family Assistance Program (FAP) in the Senate in
1972, however, led to some very impressive examples of incremental
legislation that may not have come to pass had it not been for the original
boldness of FAP. Congress finally approved, for example, Supplementary
Security Income (SSI) on October 17, 1972 even though this had originally
been included in his August 8, 1969 major address on domestic programs,
including his welfare proposals. Unlike FAP, SSI sailed through Congress
even though it also represented the Nixonian idea of federalizing part of
the U.S. welfare system and posed many administrative problems because it
would replace existing state and local programs.(This program did not go
into effect until January 1, 1974 and by that time had been modified several
times by Congress largely to protect Medicaid recipients from loss of
eligibility because of changes in other government assistance programs.)17
SSI constituted a guaranteed annual income for the aged, blind, and
disabled.
The passage of SSI and the defeat of FAP can only be explained in negative
political terms. First, it offered some immediate relief to states with
budget problems. Second, the aged, blind, and disabled were more "deserving"
in the minds of Congressmen than welfare mothers. Finally, SSI attracted
little publicity and was not touted as a "welfare reform" or a guaranteed
annual income.18 An added bitter pill to those who believed FAP was the fact
that the Senate before delivering a coup de grace to welfare reform in
October 1972 had passed new legislation requiring AFDC mothers "upon penalty
of loss of benefits" to register for work when her children were old enough
to go to school. This work requirement (so disputed by all sides in the FAP
debate) went into effect July 1, 1972-four months before the same Senate
killed FAP. Clearly, partisan politics prevailed to the detriment of
America's poor.
The demise of FAP also led Nixon to support uniform application of the food
stamp program across the United States,19 better health insurance programs
for low-income families, increased federal funding for students from
low-income families, and automatic cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) for
social security recipients to help them cope with inflation.
In addition to successful legislation that federalized aid to the old and
handicapped, and the COLA for social security, the Nixon administration
succeeded in expanding aid to education, through revenue sharing programs,
the creation of the National Student Loan Association to aid students from
low income families attend colleges and universities, a Career Education
Program to aid community college in teaching "critically needed skills, and
finally through the establishment of the National Endowment for the
Humanities. When Nixon's increased funding for elementary and secondary
beginning with the Education Amendments of 1972 are added to Nixon's other
social welfare spending programs the percentage of such expenditures
increased from 49 percent of the GNP 1965 to almost 60% in 1975.20
From the first to the last budget for which the Nixon administration was
responsible; that is, from 1970 through 1975, spending on all human resource
programs exceeded spending for defense for the first time since the Second
World War. Funding for social welfare services under Nixon grew from $55
billion in 1970 to almost $132 billion in 1975 making him (not President
Johnson) the "last of the big spenders" on domestic programs. This
represented an increase from 28 percent of all federal outlays to 40.4
percent, compared to a decrease in defense spending in the same period from
40 percent of all federal outlays (or $78.6 billion) to 26.2 percent (or
85.6 billion).21 Perhaps the domestic area in which Watergate dimmed or
skewed memories of the Nixon years more than anywhere else was civil rights.
This is understandable because in the course of his one-and-one-half terms
in office many in the country became rightly concerned with the violation of
the civil rights of those the administration deemed "enemies," especially
antiwar demonstrators and others suspected of opposing the its policies.
However, long before investigations brought these actual and rumored
violations to light, few wanted to give Nixon, who appeared to wear so
uncomfortably the affirmative-action mantle of LBJ, any benefit of the doubt
on this issue. Yet he proved an unexpected agent for change even in this
most difficult area of domestic reform.
Most Americans have long since forgotten, or never bothered to check, that
as vice president Richard Nixon had been a stronger supporter of civil
rights in the 1950s than either Eisenhower, Kennedy or Johnson. When he
presided over the Senate his rulings consistently favored those who opposed
the use of filibusters to block civil rights legislation and he chaired a
committee on government contracts that oversaw enforcement of
nondiscrimination provisions of government contracts, recommending in his
final report the establishment of "a positive policy of nondiscrimination"
by employers which he later supported as president. Nixon told me that he
supported civil rights for blacks and equal rights for women not because it
would "help" members of either group, but because "it was fair" and good for
the nation because it prevented "wasted talent."22
Enforcement of school desegregation had already been painfully sluggish
since the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), decision.
By 1968 only twenty percent of black children in the South attended
predominately white schools and none of this progress had taken place under
Presidents Eisenhower or Kennedy. Moreover, the most dramatic improvement
under Johnson's administration did not take place until 1968 because HEW
deadlines for desegregating southern schools were postponed four times by
LBJ following passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, by the spring
of 1968 a few lower court rulings and finally the Supreme Court decision in
Green v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 438 (1968), no longer offered any
president the luxury of arguing that freedom-of-choice plans were adequate
for rooting out racial discrimination or that de facto segregation caused by
residential pattern was not as unconstitutional as de jure segregation
brought about state or local laws.23
Despite the bitterness of the battle in Congress and between Congress and
the Executive Branch after Swann, the administration found itself forced
into a somewhat impressive statistical record on school desegregation. In
1968, for example, sixty-eight percent of all black children in the south
attended all-black schools and forty percent of black children in the entire
nation attended all-black schools. By the end of 1972, eight percent of
southern black children attended all-black schools and a little less than
twelve percent nationwide.24 Comparative budget outlays are equally
revealing. President Johnson expended $911 million for civil rights
activities, including $75 million for civil rights enforcement during the
1969 fiscal year. For the fiscal year 1973 the Nixon administration's budget
called for $2.6 billion in total civil rights outlays, of which $602 million
was earmarked for enforcement through a substantially strengthened Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).25
Although the EEOC was specifically created to enforce Title VII of the 1964
Civil Rights Act, it took over a decade to make the commission effective.
During that time, administrative guidelines evolved for enforcing
affirmative action. Two Johnson administration executive orders were
particularly important. In 1965 Executive Order No. 11246 prohibited racial,
religious, and alienage employment discrimination by federal contractors,
and in 1967 Executive Order No. 11375 added sex to this list. Executive
Order No. 11478 issued by Nixon in 1969 strongly exhorted federal agencies
"to establish and maintain an affirmative action program of equal employment
opportunity for all civilian employees," and during his administration the
EEOC conducted the first compliance reviews of hiring policies toward women
by institutions of higher education receiving federal grants. By August 1972
over 350 sex discrimination suits had been brought against such schools
across the country.26
While Presidents Kennedy and Johnson had employed the term "affirmative
action," it "did not have much bite" until the Nixon administration
announced a revised "Philadelphia Plan" in 1969 requiring federal
contractors in the construction industry to hire minority workers. Secretary
of Labor George Shultz later extended this plan to nine other cities. Shultz
also issued the first guidelines requiring businesses with federal contracts
to draw up "action plans" for hiring and promoting women.27 In other words,
not until the Nixon administration did "affirmative action" begin to become
synonymous with "civil rights." When the Rehnquist court decided in City of
Richmond v. J. A. Croson, 109 S. Ct. 706 (1989) that "set asides" for
minority construction workers were unconstitutional, much to the surprise of
most Americans, legal specialists recalled that they had been initiated with
the Philadelphia Plan twenty years earlier by the Nixon administration.
General revenue sharing became the most popular and substantive form of
Nixon's New Federalism. The 1972 State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act set
up a program for matching federal and state funds through revenue sharing
that ultimately distributed $83 billion to states and local government units
between 1972 and 1986 ($16 billion or almost one fifth under Nixonian
budgets for 1973 through 1975). This bonanza to governors and mayors in the
long run "helped to build the modern Republican party." At the time, it also
played an extremely important political role in reconciling Nixon with
Nelson Rockefeller and with other recalcitrant and skeptical individual GOP
governors and mayors, except for Ronald Reagan in California, who opposed
this new spending program then and later as president.
Most importantly, by 1972 the EEOC staff had risen from 359 in 1969 to 1,640
and its budget from $13.2 million to $29.5 million. Nixon's civil rights
enforcement budget for fiscal 1973 represented an eight-fold increase over
Johnson's for fiscal 1969. Enforcement funds for fiscal 1974 doubled those
of 1972 with the EEOC budget increasing from $20.8 million to $43 million
and the budget for the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department
increasing from $10.7 million to $17.9 million.28 These figures confirm that
the Nixon administration put money into civil rights enforcement although
its mouth was not always on the cutting edge of this controversial issue.
Nixon's support for small businesses dates back the creation of the Small
Business Administration (SBA) under Eisenhower. While campaigning for his
party's nomination 1969 he wrote to the president of the National
Association of Small Business Investment Companies reiterating his
commitment to "to closing the small business equity gap" and praising the
success of the SBA.Despite the SBA's bad reputation for mismanagement and
defaulted loans,29 it was Nixon's belief in its purpose that apparently led
him to expand the concept to include "blacks, Mexican-Americans,
Puerto-Ricans, [Native American] Indians, and others," with the creation of
the Office of Minority Business Enterprise (OMBE) by Executive Order 11458
in March 1969.
The Office of Minority Business Enterprise may have generated too much
grassroots expectation that went unfulfilled in the short run increased the
cynicism of civil rights leaders during Nixon's first term in office, but as
with desegregation of southern schools the statistical results are
impressive considering that the first year-and-one-half of OMBE's existence
was largely "exhortational." By mid-1972 before Stans left the Commerce
Department to head Nixon's re-election campaign, he had established over
fifty SBICS, largely with corporate funding of $18 million. By fiscal 1974
the budget for OMBE increased to $242.2 or 3000 percent.
Independent 1981 surveys by Nuestro Business Review and Black Enterprise
"showed that 45 of the top 100 Latino businesses had been formed between
1969 and 1976" indicated that 56 of the top 100 black firms had been
established "between 1969 and 1976, 30 of them in the years of 1969 through
1971 when the federal minority enterprise program was being launched." In
1985, one thousand black businessmen (and women) gave a testimonial dinner
in honor of Nixon and Stans for establishing the OMBE (now the Minority
Development Agency.
Except for abortion and the ERA (which he had always supported more strongly
before becoming president), on other women's questions Nixon proved much
more liberal than expected. During the Nixon first term, for example,
Congress approved the Equal Employment Opportunity Act; Title IX of the
Education Amendments Act, and prohibiting sex discrimination by educational
institutions receiving federal aid. Nixon personally insisted that Congress
broaden the U.S. Civil Rights Commission mandate to include sex
discrimination and amend the 1971 Revenue Act making child care expenses tax
deductible when both parents worked. In addition, Congress attached a number
of antisex discrimination provisions to such federally supported programs as
health training, revenue sharing, Appalachian redevelopment, and
environmental protection-all of which Nixon approved.30
Underneath these invigorated civil and political rights programs several
facts stand out. The Nixon administration 1) desegregated southern schools;
2) significantly increased funding for the enforcement of both group and
individual civil rights; 3) achieved court approval of goals in hiring
practices rather than quotas; and 4) clearly transformed the power and
responsibility for civil rights to a court-enforced approach based on
recommendations of permanent government affirmative agencies within the
executive branch. That these achievements did not endear Nixon to
conservatives of either party goes without saying, and like his welfare
program, they also did not ingratiate him with Democratic liberals, civil
rights leaders, or union leaders in the North. While scholars differ on the
reasons why, there is no denying, as with desegregation of southern schools
and public institutions, that Nixon improved civil and political rights for
women and minorities far outweighed those of his predecessors, belying the
"divisive public rhetoric" his administration employed in the process.31
Nixon remains the only modern president whose personality, rhetoric, and
image can be used with impunity to dismiss or ignore his concrete
achievements, especially in the area of expanding civil rights enforcement
in particular, and domestic reform in general. Like most modern presidents,
some of his positions on these issues were determined as much, if not more,
by his choice of advisers, than his own views or personality or personal
views. Nowhere is this more evident than with respect to Nixon's radical
domestic proposal for reforming the welfare system of the United States. All
his Republican and Democratic successors in the Oval Office from Ford
through Bush, Jr., including Carter and Clinton, were all more conservative
on domestic reform than the thirty-seventh president of the United
States-Richard Nixon.
The negative perceptions regarding Richard Nixon personally, as well as many
of his international and national initiatives, have gone through several
stages since August 1974 when he became the only president in U.S. history
to resign from office. At first liberals, in particular, and Democrats, in
general, had a heyday castigating the former president for fulfilling their
dire prophecy about him as the most evil, venal, lying, potentially
dictatorial aberration ever to occupy the White House. In the course of the
1980s, this Watergate view of Nixon, which ostracized him from mainstream
politics, began to be replaced by a more nostalgic view of the man-not among
mainstream Republicans who, if anything, became more conservative under
Reagan and Bush, Sr. than Nixon ever thought of being-but among some of his
long-standing left-of-center opponents. Finding themselves in a state of
disarray over how to combat the conservative backlash of the 1980s-the
length and depth of which they had not foreseen in 1974 when Nixon resigned
in disgrace-many liberals began openly praising his legacy of "rational and
systematic pursuit of a new world order," and wishing that they had his
farsighted domestic legislation, especially on welfare and environmental
issues, "to kick around" again.32 Almost thirty years after his resignation,
Nixon's progressive stance on many of the country's domestic problems
remained one of most positive aspects of his administration, as both parties
moved far to the right of his reforms on social service spending and
affirmative action.
Read Fred Graboske's response.
ENDNOTES
1. Ramparts, November 17, 1968, p. 35 (first quotation); Wall Street
Journal, April 2, 1969, p. 14; April 30, 1969, p. 1; National Review,
February 25, 1969, pp. 159-160. For the origins and use of these political
slogans see: Richard P. Nathan, The Plot That Failed: Nixon and the
Administrative Presidency (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975), pp. 17, 32
(ftnt. 5), 98, 100 (ftnt. 2); Public Papers of the Presidents: Richard
Nixon, 1969 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970), p. 789
(second quotation); and 1971 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
1972), p. 95 (third quotation. The refusal of liberals or radicals to give
his domestic programs any credence at the time is best represented in Alan
Gartner, Colin Greer, and Frank Riessman, eds., What Nixon is Doing to Us
(New York: Harper & Row, 1973).
Return to the Document
2. In addition to Nathan cited above, few scholars gave Nixon credit for
significant domestic reform. The only survey of Nixon's domestic reforms did
not appear until 1991. Unfortunately, with the exception of my article on
welfare and Hugh Graham's on civil rights, none of the articles in this
collection are based on original research from documents in the Nixon
Presidential Papers because the articles were first presented at the 1987
conference less than a year after these papers began to be released. See,
Leon Friedman and William F. Levantrosser, eds., Richard M. Nixon:
Politician, President, Administrator, (New York: Greenwood, 1991).
Return to the Document
3. Unpublished paper by Paul J. Halpern, "Personality, Politics and the
Presidency-The Strange Case of Richard Nixon," dated August 1, 1973, in the
Fawn M. Brodie Papers, Marriott Library, Special Collections Department,
University of Utah, Salt Lake, Utah.
Return to the Document
4. Nixon to Ehrlichman, October 10, 1969 (expressing concern about the
foreign perception of U.S domestic policy), President's Personal Files
[PPF], White House Special Files [WHSP], Nixon Presidential Material [NPM],
National Archives and Records Administration [NARA], Alexandria, Virginia.
Return to the Document
5. Meeting of "Five O'Clock Group," April 13,14, 1969, Haldeman Notes, Box
43; Nixon to Ehrlichman, January 25, February 5, March 1, March 13, 1969
Nixon to Ehrlichman, Arthur Burns, Bryce Harlow, March 12, 1969, Nixon to
Haldeman and Ehrlichman, April 14, 1969, PPF, WHSF, NPM, NARA. John Taylor,
administrative assistant to the expresident until 1990, to author, November
29, 1969.
Return to the Document
6. Author's interview with Richard Nixon, January 26, 1983. As early as 1958
Nixon said essentially the same thing to Stewart Alsop. A portion of that
interview can be found in the Saturday Evening Post, July 12, 1958. The
entire unedited transcript is in Box 42, Brodie Papers.
Return to the Document
7. Author's interview with Nixon, January 26, 1983. Recently released
documents about his Supreme Court appointments can be found in The Nixon
Presidential Materials Project [NPM], White House Central Files [WHCF],
Subject Files: Federal Government [FG] - Organizations, [EX]ecutive FG 51A
Boxes 3 and 4, National Archives and Records Agency, Alexandria, Virginia
[hereafter cited as Boxes, EX FG 51A, WHCF, NPM, NARA].
Return to the Document
8. Author's interview with John Ehrlichman, April 9, 1984; and John
Ehrlichman, Witness to Power: The Nixon Years (New York: Simon and Schuster,
1982), pp. 207-208. In 1972, Nixon's own list of "gut issues" was much
smaller than it had been in 1969, including only "cost of living, busing,
drug abuse, and possibly tax reform as it relates to property taxes." See
Nixon, Memoirs, p. 671.
Return to the Document
9. Author's interview with Nixon, January 26, 1983.
Return to the Document
10. Schell, Time of Illusion, pp. 111-116. For Nixon's rationale of the
"Houston Plan," see: Nixon, Memoirs, pp. 473-476.
Return to the Document
11. William Safire, Before the Fall, p. 592 (first quotation); DuBridge to
Nixon, February, n.d., 1969, Author's interviews with Nixon and Raymond
Price, January 26, 1983; and Wicker, One of Us, pp. 508-514. Memoranda on
the increasing political importance of the environment are concentrated in
Box 4, Whitaker Files, SMOF, WHCF, NPM, NARA.
Return to the Document
12. New York Times, July 13, 1971, p. 33, July 20, 1971, p. 12; Wicker, One
of Us, p. 511 (first quotation), 518 (last quotation); and "Nixon's First
Four Years," Press Release, December 14, 1972, Box 19, POF, WHSF, NPM, NARA.
Return to the Document
13. Nixon Public Papers, 1969, pp. 564-76 (quotations at 566); New York
Times, July 12, 1970, p. 4; U.S. News and World Report, September 14, 1970;
Commonweal, September 4, 1970, p. 432. In general Nixon's recently released
papers are excellent on Indian policy. See: Boxes 1-3, [Ex]ecutive Indians
Affairs, [EX IN], and Boxes 8, 14, 75-76, Bradley H. Patterson, Jr. Files,
SMOF, WHCF, NARA, NPM.
Return to the Document
14. "White House Fact Sheet," August 18, 1972, Finch Papers; Willkie quoted
in U.S. News and World Report, September 14, 1970, p. 700; and Kilberg to
Nixon, November 16, 1970, MacDonald quoted in Garment to Nixon, November 20,
1970, EX IN, Box 1, WHCF, NPM, NARA.
Return to the Document
15. New York Times, June 13, 1971, p. 111, December 3, 1970, pp. 1, 40,
December 16, 1970, p. 25; and Wicker, One of Us, p. 520.
Return to the Document
16. "White House Fact Sheet," August 18, 1972, Finch Papers; Garment to
Dennis J. Banks, October 12, 1972, EX IN, Box 2, WHCF, NPM, NARA; and New
York Times, April 14, 1970, p. 18, July 12, 1970, sec. 4, p.3; Washington
Post, August 23, 1973, p. G7; U.S. News and World Report, September 14,
1970, p. 68. See also, Raymond V. Butler, "The Bureau of Indian Affairs;
Activities Since 1945," The Annals (March, 1978), pp. 50-60; Vine Deloria,
Jr., "Legislation and Litigation Concerning American Indians," The Annals
436 (March, 1978), pp. 86-90.
Return to the Document
17. Nixon, Public Papers, 1969, p. 640; and Congress and the Nation
1973-1976 (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1977), 4:408.
Return to the Document
18. Patterson, The Welfare State, pp. 35-36.
Return to the Document
19. Food stamp appropriations increased from $610 million in 1970 to $2.5
million in 1973, although if the 1971 version of Nixon's FAP had passed it
called for giving cash payments to welfare recipients instead of food
stamps. See, Congress and the Nation (Washington, D.C.: Congressional
Quarterly, Inc., 1973), 3:628.
Return to the Document
20. For details see Carl Lieberman, "Legislative Success and Failure: The
Social Welfare Policies of the Nixon Administration," in Friedman and
Levantrosser, eds., Richard Nixon, pp. 113-115, 118-120; and Alfred M.
Skolnick and Sophie R. Dales, "Social Welfare Expenditures, 1950-1975,"
Social Security Bulletin, 39 (January 1976): 6, 12.
Return to the Document
21. Jodie T. Allen, "Last of the Big Spenders: Richard Nixon and the Greater
Society," The Washington Post, February 24, 1984, p. A15; Total Federal
Outlays, Defense Expenditures, and Defense as Percent of Total Federal
Outlays-U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United
States: 1975 (96th edition.) (Washington, D.C.: 1975), p. 314; Statistical
Abstract of the United States: 1979 (100th edition.) Washington, D.C.: 1979,
p. 364; Transfer Payments-Special Analyses, Budget of the United States
Government for Fiscal Year 1975 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1974), p. 13; and Special Analyses, Budget of the United States
Government Fiscal Year 1977 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1976), p. 31.
Return to the Document
22. A. James Reichley, Conservatives in an Age of Change: The Nixon and Ford
Administrations (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1981), pp.
174-175; President's Committee on Government Contracts, Final Report to
President Eisenhower, Pattern for Progress (Washington, D.C., 1960), p. 18;
and author's interview with Nixon, January 26, 1983.
Return to the Document
23. Statistical Abstract of the United States (Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1978), p. 151; Washington Post, July 4, 1972, pp. A11-12;
Reichley, Conservatives in an Age of Change, pp. 176-178.
Return to the Document
24. Statistical Abstract of the U.S., p. 151.
Return to the Document
25. "White House Fact Sheet," August 18, 1972, Finch Papers.
Return to the Document
26. Ibid.; Federal Register, 34: 12985.
Return to the Document
27. Samuel H. Beer, "In Search of a New Public Philosophy," in King, editor,
New American Political System, p. 35 (quotation); "White House Fact Sheet,"
August 18, 1972, Finch Papers; and Nathan, Plot That Failed, p. 16.
Return to the Document
28. "First Four Years," Press Release, December 4, 1972, Box 19, POF, WHCF,
NPM, NARA; and Business Week, March 24, 1973, pp. 74-75.
Return to the Document
29. Nixon to Elliot Davis, NASBIC president, July 11, 1968, Finch Papers;
Garment to Nixon, April 20, 1970, Box 2, EX HU2, WHCF, NPM, NARA; Washington
Post, June 8, 1981, p. C15 (Jack Anderson column); and Graham, Civil Rights
Era, p. 314.
Return to the Document
30. "Nixon's First Four Years," Press Release, December 14, 1972, Box 19,
POF, WHSF, NPM, NARA.
Return to the Document
31. Graham, Civil Rights Era, p. 445-449, 475 (quotation).
Return to the Document
32. Jodie T. Allen, "Last of the Big Spenders," Washington Post, February
24, 1983, p. A15.
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught>
> > Newsgroups:
> >
alt.fan.bill-clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics,alt.politics.bush,al
> > t.radio.talk
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 9:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: Legacy of the Impeached Murderer
> >
If you want to learn about President Nixon go to this site and have at it.
If you don't than it is obvious that you have little to no interest in
learning the facts about President Nixon and that you would much rather
believe the liberal propaganda about President Nixon.
George Grapman
won but insisted to Kissinger that they wait until after the 1972
election.
--
To reply via e-mail please delete "NOSPAM" from address.
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught>
> > Newsgroups:
> >
alt.fan.bill-clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics,alt.politics.bush,al
> > t.radio.talk
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 9:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: Legacy of the Impeached Murderer
President Richard Nixon, well known for his achievements in the area of
foreign policy and his failings in the Watergate scandal, was an influential
politician in the arena of social policy. Two issues - the environment and
abortion - will be studied in this study. If it can be shown that President
Nixon's policies on the environment and abortion became public policy, then
it can be asserted that he was an effective shaper of social policy.
[Ask Eric Hyer where to find a reference to Nixon's pro-choice personal
belief as opposed to his public one.]
Because of Nixon's tremendous influence on environmental policy, there are
numerous subcategories that could be plumbed including pesticide control,
the inner-city environment, public lands, sewage treatment, wildlife
preservation, and solid wasted disposal. For purposes of parsimony, I will
only develop three categories: air pollution, water pollution, and wildlife
preservation.
Nixon was a pragmatic politician and a skilled one at that.
This is not to say that Nixon had no personal political principles or causes
that he sincerely cared for. Yet, he was a calculating man. Therefore, it
is difficult to say for certainty what Richard Nixon, the man's, views were
on the environment. We can only speak of Nixon as the Nixon Administration.
[Is this relevant?]
Nixon was green, maybe the greenest president we have had
matched only by Bill Clinton. He took revolutionary stances on clean air,
water, and wildlife preservation. His initiatives included both the public
and private sectors.
Being the shrewd politician that Nixon was, he was greatly influenced by the
political environment that his administration worked in. The natural
environment was just gaining a momentum as a national movement
Nixon used the executive levers of power to forward his agenda on abortion
and environmental issues that would most benefit the public approval and
success of his administration. Yet, Nixon's fervor for social issues,
particularly environmental policy waned as public concern changed from
environmental issues to the pending energy crisis.
Nixon's Strength in each of his five roles as President in respect to
environmental issues.
Insert analysis from Daynes/Sussman here. What levers of power did the
president use to forward his policies on abortion and the environment.
Commander-in-Chief/Chief Diplomat
President Nixon used his military and diplomatic powers to
forward his environmental agenda, yet didn't use them to affect abortion
policy. Dealing with China, for example, Nixon didn't feel that their
differing views on abortion should impede diplomatic relations and any
mention of it was omitted from the Shanghai Communique.
Nixon included environmental issues in several international
agreements. After the Santa Barbara Oil Spill, Nixon focused more on water
pollution. During October 8 through November 2, 1973, representatives from
71 nations met in London to negotiate a anti-pollution treaty that Nixon had
requested. Nixon had included his secretaries of state, commerce, and
transportation to be involved in resolving the issue.
The treaty, called MARPOL 73 (an abbreviation of The Treaty of Maritime
Pollution of 1973), mandated new tanker regulations in both operation and
design, including double-hulled vessels, changed the rules of jurisdiction,
and included non-oil substances in the list of maritime protection.[1] Acco
rding to M'Conigle and Zacher, Nixon's address preceeding this conference
"significantly influenced" the achievements of the conference. "It was the
American government," they write, "which generated the most important
proposals and sought the necessary cooperation of the European maritime
powers for the conference."[2]
Chief Executive
Nixon was successful in using the powers of the chief executive to forward
his agenda on the environment and abortion. Similar to other patterns,
Nixon's executive orders weighed more heavily in the environmental arena
than that of abortion policy.
Through Executive Order # [Find the exact number and citation of this order]
Nixon rescinded an earlier executive order to allow abortions on U.S.
military bases.[3]
Legislative Leader
Members of Congress were just as concerned with paying credence to the
growing environmental lobby as was the Nixon Administration. Nelson
Rockefeller, a fellow Republican, and Senator Edmund Muskie (D-WI) were
among Nixon's foremost rivals on environmental policy. Muskie's legislative
agenda greatly shaped Nixon's. Nixon would competitively introduce his plan
to prevent Muskie's from gaining attention first.
On February 10, 1970, President Nixon delivered his first environmental
address to Congress. By setting the agenda, Nixon gained the upper hand in
the environmental movement.
Nixon's ability to shape the environmental dialogue is illustrated by
Senator Edmund Muskie (D-Me), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Water
Pollution, who held hearings on air and water pollution during March and
April. Nixon had made it appear that Muskie, the leading democratic
contender for the presidency was following Nixon's lead.
Party Leader/Public Opinion Leader
Nixon was a powerful party leader in environmental policy and
not a powerful leader in abortion policy. For the most part, abortion wasn'
t a debated issue during all three of Nixon's campaigns for the presidency.
The issue wouldn't appear in either the Republican or Democratic Party
platforms until 1980.[4]
The 1968 Republican Party Platform made only passing reference
to the environment during a section on natural resources. The paragraph
reads: "An expanding population and increasing material wealth require new
public concern for the quality of our environment. Our nation must pursue
its activities in harmony with the environment. As we develop our natural
resources we must be mindful of our priceless heritage of natural beauty."
Compare this with the following party platform in 1972, which
was engineered after most of Nixon's sweeping environmental legislation had
been passed. First, the reader notices that the environment now had its own
section and that its contents spanned three pages. The platform speaks of
the Nixon Administration giving "top priority in the Federal Budget to
environmental improvements" and a litany of bills that were passed. The
platform went on to call for 20 more environmental proposals that were
"still stalled" in the Congress, concluding with the promise that "We intend
to leave the children of America a legacy of clean air, clean water, vast
open spaces and easily accessible parks."[5]
Nixon's agenda had clearly shaped the party agenda. Yet, it is
not as clear if he shaped public opinion about the environment or whether
public concern for the environment. The latter seems more likely.
[Include polls]
The inagural of Earth Day in April of 1970 was the true genesis of the green
movement. "This was a national programme of teach-ins, clan-ups, 'ecofairs'
, vigils, marches, and other environmental events. Its success astonished
everyone, for at least three million enthusiasts across the country
participated in Earth Day activities. This was the birth of America's Green
movement, although no one was yet calling it by that name."[6] Rachel
Carson's Silent Spring was also contributing to environmental awareness and
therefore the pressure placed on the Nixon Administration to act.
"In 1965 Gallup conducted a poll in which people were presented with a list
of 10 national problems and were asked which three should get the most
attention from government over the next two years. Reducing pollution of
air and water was chosen by only 17 percent of the sample-placing ninth
behind improving highway safety and a little ahead of beautifying America.
A Gallup poll asking the same question in April 1970 resulted in 53 percent
choosing the anti-pollution option-third behind reducing crime. It is
doubtful that any great change in physical threat to the environment could
explain such an increase in public consciousness. Rather, the placement of
the physical environment on the national agenda resulted from a political
process involving media, issue entrepreneurs, and interest groups
interacting with events such as the Santa Barbara oil spill."[7]
The Influence of the Nixon Administration in Shaping the Environmental and
Abortion Policies of the Congress
The National Clean Air Act of 1970 was Nixon's most sweeping measure during
his administration. It required automobile manufacturers to reduce carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions by at least 90 percent of the levels
being produced in 1970. Manufacturers who violated these standards would be
fined $10,000 a vehicle. Also, national air quality standards were imposed
on the states. New factories or plants that would be sources of air
pollution would be required to meet the new national standards with their
emissions limits.
The Environmental Protection Agency was given concurrent power with the
states. Violations of the National Clean Air Act standards were made
punishable by $25,000-a-day fines and one-year jail sentences. Second
offenders are subject to $50,000-a-day fines and two-year sentences.
Furthering his bullypulpit power as the president, Nixon excluded Senator
Muskie, author of the "Muskie" Bill to the White House signing ceremony.
The Influence of the Nixon Administration in Shaping the Environmental
Polices and Abortion Policies of the Supreme Court.
Richard Nixon did not effectively shape the environmental and abortion
policies of the Supreme Court, nor the lower federal courts. The first
federal ruling on abortion came early in the Nixon Adminsitration's first
term in U.S. v. Vuitch. A district court in the District of Columbia
struck down the District's abortion statute as unconstitutional retrieving
language from an earlier ruling by the California State Supreme Court. The
phrase, "allowing abortions to preserve the mother's life or health" was
declared a violation of the Due Process Clause because of its ambiguity.
The ruling also connected abortion with the right to privacy and said that
the interest of the state to infringe on this right had not been evidenced.
The ruling also noted the socio-economic inbalance of abortions, claiming
that poor women were being discriminated against in the enforcement of the
previous statue. In 1971, the Supreme Court upheld Vuitch and added to
it, saying that the meaning of a mother's "life and health" included
"psychological as well as physical well-being."[8]
Roe v. Wade, handed down about the same time that Nixon resigned the
presidency [When was Roe v. Wade handed down? Month and year.] ended any
ambitions that Nixon had to shape abortion policy through the judiciary. He
had clearly declared abortion to be an unacceptable form of birth control,
and Roe changed the dialogue forever.
[Environmental cases of the Supreme Court?]
[Find out who Nixon appointed to the Supreme Court and how they voted on Roe
v. Wade. Were Nixon appointees subject to a litmus test of any sort to be
put on the bench? ]
The Influence of the Nixon Administration in Shaping the Environmental and
Abortion Policies of the Federal Bureaucracy.
The bureaucracy is where Richard Nixon was most effective in shaping the
social policies of abortion and the environment. His success in the
environmental arena is especially noteworthy. Essentially, Nixon not only
influenced federal bureaucratic policy on the environment, he formed it.
His design continues to shape environmental policy today. Nixon's shaping
of the bureaucracy coincides with his legislative successes, for it was
through the Congress that he formed new bureaucratic organizations.
Richard Nixon influenced the bureaucracy greatly in the areas of abortion
and the natural environment. On _____ he issued Executive Order # ___ which
instructed all federal agencies to be environmentally conscious.
Nixon also restructured his policies on abortion within the military.
Previous to the Nixon Administration, the government funded abortions among
military personnel.
Formation of the Environmental Protection Agency
Formation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Executive Orders
Conclusion
Nixon's policies on then environment largely became public policy. He was
not as effective in influencing abortion policy. The Supreme Court,
instead, became the major shaper of the abortion dialogue. It would be
incorrect to say that Nixon was an ineffective, or only 50% effective shaper
of social policy because of his inability to influence abortion policy. To
truly affect abortion policy requires time to change the ideological
configuration of the Supreme Court. This takes great time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
[1] Barkdull, John. Nixon and the Marine Environment, Presidential Studies
Quarterly, New York, Summer 1998, Vol. 28.
[2] M'conigle and Zacher, Pollution Politics, and international Law, p
107-8, 27.
[3] Levy, Leonard W. and Louis Fisher. 1994. The Encyclopedia the American
Presidency. Simon and Schuster: New York. 3.
[4] The party platforms can be found in The Encyclopedia of the Republican
Party and The Encyclopedia of the Democratic Party. Geore Thomas Kurian,
ed. Sharpe Reference: New York.
[5] 1972 Republican Party Platform, in Encyclopedia of the Republican Party.
[6] Ambrose, 397
[7] Ingram, Heln M. and R. Kenneth Godwin, eds. 1985. Public Policy and the
Natural Environment. JAI Press. Grenwich, Connecticut.: 5.
[8] Tatalovich, Raymond and Byron W. Daynes. 1981. The politics of abortion.
Praeger, New York. 27.
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught>
> > Newsgroups:
> >
alt.fan.bill-clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics,alt.politics.bush,al
> > t.radio.talk
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 9:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: Legacy of the Impeached Murderer
Nixon Reconsidered
Dialogues
This article is adapted from his forthcoming book, The Age of Reagan: A
Chronicle of the Closing Decades of the American Century.
August 1999
by: Steven Hayward
The 25th anniversary last week of President Richard Nixon's resignation
brought back a flood of confused recollections from those troubled late
years of the mid-1970s. A new poll showed not surprisingly that a large
number of Americans are fuzzy about exactly what Watergate was all about,
and there appears to be some creeping symmetry from the Clinton impeachment
experience, with a plurality of Americans now saying Nixon should have stuck
it out and fought the charges against him.
Watergate will forever cast a shadow over Nixon's legacy, and distort our
understanding of the character of his administration. Liberals then and now
revile Nixon-an attitude which he reciprocated. There are many sources of
this animosity, going back to his role in the exposure of Alger Hiss's
espionage in 1948 and his "Red-baiting" campaign against Helen Gahagan
Douglas in 1950. Liberals would never forgive these transgressions against
good will and good taste. "Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter,"
journalists Louis Chester, Godfrey Hodgson, and Bruce Page wrote in their
fine book An American Melodrama, "there is no doubt that there exists in
America a durable reservoir of hostility toward Richard Nixon." Quite aside
from the personal animosity Nixon generated, there was also an undercurrent
that Nixon's election in 1968 was a fluke, that his administration was
somehow illegitimate, because, after all, the Democrats are the natural
ruling party. Nixon was only the second Republican president since Hoover,
and the first, Eisenhower, was discounted because his election was seen as a
reflection of his personal popularity (Democrats had wanted him to run as
their candidate before Ike declared himself a Republican), and not as a sign
that Republicans had genuine appeal to a majority of voters. Even Daniel
Patrick Moynihan, who had urged Democrats in 1967 to work with thoughtful
conservatives, shared this condescension toward Republicans: "The
Republicans cannot govern on any sustained basis in America. They simply do
not have the intellectual or moral basis on which to build consensus. . .
They had no program, far less a mandate to put one in effect. They had
almost no thinkers, almost no writers. . . Its periods in office have been
and are likely to continue to be little more than interludes brought on by
Democratic internal dissidence."
It is largely because of these hardened personal and political positions
that conservatives then and now have tended to rally to Nixon's cause while
liberals maintain a blind hatred for him. In fact the Nixon public policy
record would justify reversing these allegiances; any other president who
compiled Nixon's domestic and foreign record would be regarded as standing
firmly in the liberal progressive tradition. Johnson has gone down in the
history books as the big spender for social welfare programs, yet federal
spending grew faster during Nixon's tenure than during Johnson's. It was
under Nixon that social spending came to exceed defense spending for the
first time. Social spending soared from $55 billion in 1970 (Nixon's first
budget) to $132 billion in 1975, from 28 percent of the federal budget when
LBJ left office to 40 percent of the budget by the time Nixon left in 1974.
While Nixon would criticize and attempt to reform welfare, he nonetheless
approved massive increases in funding for other Great Society programs such
as the Model Cities program and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Some of the changes in spending policies that Nixon supported,
such as automatic cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients
and other entitlement programs, contributed to runaway spending trends in
successive decades. Federal spending for the arts, which went mostly to
cultural elites who hated Nixon, quadrupled. Economist Herbert Stein, who
served on Nixon's Council of Economic Advisers, summed up this dubious
record: "The administration that was against expanding the budget expanded
it greatly; the administration that was determined to fight inflation ended
by having a large amount of it."
The explosion in spending was matched by an equally dramatic explosion in
federal regulation-from an administration that regarded itself as
pro-business. The number of pages in the Federal Register (the roster of
federal rules and regulations) grew only 19 percent under Johnson, but a
staggering 121 percent under Nixon. In civil rights, Nixon expanded the
regime of "affirmative action" racial quotas and set-asides far beyond what
Johnson had done. In other words, Nixon consolidated the administrative
state of the Great Society in much the same way that President Eisenhower
(for whom Nixon served as Vice President) consolidated the New Deal. Ronald
Reagan would run and govern as much against the legacy of Nixon as he would
the legacy of the Great Society, and it was a number of Nixon's
administrative creations that would cause Reagan the most difficulty during
his White House years. Yet at the same time Nixon deserves the credit for
assembling the new political coalition of working class and ethnic voters
who would later become known as "Reagan Democrats." Nixon was the first
Republican to win a majority of working class, Catholic, and labor union
voters, as well as voters with only a grade school education. In the
political sense Nixon played Moses to Reagan's Joshua. This is Nixon's
greatest paradox.
The key to understanding the Nixon paradox, several biographers have pointed
out, may lie in the 19th century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli.
Moynihan recalls giving Nixon a list of the ten best political biographies
that he thought Nixon should read, which list included Lord Charnwood's
Lincoln, Alan Bullock's Hitler, and Robert Blake's Disraeli. Five weeks
later Nixon said to Moynihan, "I've read them all. Now, about Disraeli."
Nixon identified with Disraeli on several levels. Disraeli, born a Jew in
Christian England, knew that he was never quite "respectable." "There was
something about Disraeli," Robert Blake wrote, "which those who constitute
that mysterious but nevertheless recognizable entity, 'the establishment,'
could never quite countenance. . . The charge of insincerity and lack of
principle has often been made against Disraeli." Like Nixon, Disraeli had
risen to the summit of British politics after early success and promise in
public office had ended abruptly, with his prospects seemingly ruined.
Randolph Churchill, father of Winston, once summarized Disraeli's life as
"Failure, failure, failure, partial success, renewed failure, ultimate and
complete triumph." Having been down and out after losing two elections
within two years, Nixon could identify with Disraeli's experience. Blake's
description of how Disraeli revived his and his party's political fortunes
when both were at low ebb neatly tracked Nixon's experience in the
mid-1960s: "Disraeli exploited this situation with cautious adroitness,
mending the party machine, waiting shrewdly upon events, and above all
attacking Gladstonianism for its radical implications. The old feuds in the
party were forgotten . . . and Disraeli became . . . the leader around whom
moderate opinion began to crystallize."
But the real attraction for Nixon was intellectual. Disraeli was what would
be called in today's oxymoron a "progressive conservative." Disraeli had
been the prime mover of the Reform Bill of 1867, which widened the franchise
beyond the landholding class. It was a bold reform that the Liberal party
had dared not attempt when it held power. Conservative policy, Disraeli
thought, was the policy of true progress. Disraeli is thought to have
attracted much of the newly enfranchised middle class to the ranks of the
Tory party. The political lesson was not lost on Nixon. "You know very
well," he said to Moynihan, "that it is the Tory men with liberal policies
who have enlarged democracy." This could easily serve as the motto for Nixon
's first term.
To be sure, Nixon had many conservatives in his cabinet and on the White
House staff. Some of his key aides and appointees included figures who would
play central roles in the Reagan administration, including George Shultz,
Caspar Weinberger, Martin Anderson, and Pat Buchanan. And many of Nixon's
political instincts were straight Republican chamber-of-commerce style
conservatism. But the more dominant intellectual side of Nixon yearned to
transcend the conventional categories. "I am an intellectual, too," Nixon
told a task force of scholars he assembled in New York after the election to
advise him on social policy-a group, Nixon knew, among whom very few had
voted for him. Theodore White recalled his first meeting with Nixon before
the 1968 campaign: "He'd been reading some things recently by this fellow
Moynihan, for example-very good stuff; did I know Moynihan and what did I
think of him?" So it came as no surprise that one of Nixon's early staff
appointments was the ubiquitous Moynihan to chair an Urban Affairs Council,
which Nixon intended to be the equivalent in stature, importance, and
function to the National Security Council. "Moynihan," Herbert Stein
observed, "was Nixon's soaring kite reaching out for the liberal chic
Eastern establishment, whose respect Nixon did not have but wanted."
Moynihan was to be the Henry Kissinger of domestic policy. Though Moynihan
had been a thoughtful critic of the Great Society, he remained a committed
champion of government social programs in general. "We may well have been
the most progressive administration on domestic issues that has ever been
formed," Moynihan later commented. "It was amazing what he [Nixon] would say
yes to. . . It is not likely that the Nixon Administration will ever be
credited for what it tried to do." When Moynihan wrote these words in 1973
he could have no idea how thoroughly Watergate would vindicate his judgment.
Nixon attempted to reverse course at the outset of his ill-fated second
term, and set himself to the herculean task of taming the bureaucracy and
getting control of federal spending. He brought to the effort the same
dogged determination he employed in all of his political endeavors. Perhaps
he might have vindicated the trust and support conservatives had given him.
We shall never know; the attempt was strangled in its cradle by the
unfolding Watergate scandal. It might be viewed as both the great tragedy of
Nixon and his great character weakness. Given the intent of his second term,
the liberalism of his first term seems more to have been an attempt at
appeasement with liberalism. But Nixon was too thoughtful a student of
history (as well as an admirer of Churchill) to believe that appeasement of
your enemy can work. Nixon's liberal domestic policy inclinations therefore
remain his greatest mystery.
Steven Hayward is senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, and an
adjunct fellow of the Ashbrook Center.
James
>President Richard Nixon, well known for his achievements in the area of
>foreign policy and his failings in the Watergate scandal, was an influential
>politician in the arena of social policy. Two issues - the environment and
>abortion - will be studied in this study. If it can be shown that President
>Nixon's policies on the environment and abortion became public policy, then
>it can be asserted that he was an effective shaper of social policy.
On the eve of his election in 1968, Richard Nixon secretly conspired
with the South Vietnamese government to wreck all-party Vietnam peace
talks as part of a deliberate effort to prolong a conflict in which
more than 20,000 Americans were still to die, along with tens of
thousands of Vietnamese and Cambodians.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4049515,00.html
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> Dude wrote:
> >
> >
> > Bravo liberal, bravo. Once again you have proven me to be correct.
>
> You're a nut. I don't deal with nuts.
>
Translation from liberal languange to English:
Liberal language: "You're a nut. I don't deal with nuts."
English translation: I can't defend my position with verifiable facts and I
know I am getting my liberal butt kicked so I want to find a way to get out
of this and still save face.
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> What about ? It's crap.
>
> Tell it to the families of Americans killed by Pinochet in the stadium
> in '73. Just for starters.
>
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > Just as President Bush is trying to balance security and civil
> > liberties in today's world,
>
> OK, hold it right there. I'm not going to waste any more of my time.
In other words once again something factual stops you cold in your tracks
because of your refusal to accept reality.
Dude
ready to give up at one point? They were within two weeks of ending
hostilities when an increase in the number and size of peace protests in the
U.S. caused President Nixon to make changes that gave North Vietnam the will
to fight on?
"George Grapman" <sfge...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3ED6B7E2...@NOSPAMpacbell.net...
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> Brian wrote:
> >
> > "D.G. Porter" wrote:
> >
> > > Dude wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Once again your command of the English language boggles my mind.
> > >
> > > What if I told you I get paid to write, and this is how I relax?
> > > [Seriously, go to a decent library and check out a CD called "Ives
Plays
> > > Ives." On the now-dead CRI label. If they also have "A Portrait of
> > > Charles Ives" on EMI, check that out too. I'm also getting paid to
> > > write something on his 1st string quartet, which I am not enjoying
very
> > > much but the fee is worth it.]
> >
> > What if we dont believe you?
>
> What if I don't give a fuck if you believe me?
> I know what I've done.
>
> [ahem!]
>
Sad .. very sad. It is such a shame that someone who goes to such lengths to
attempt to show his superiority isn't intelligent enough to realize that
every time they respond like you did above you only prove your own
ignorance.
Something else that is sad is that people like you refuse to accept the fact
that your personal opinions and liberal party propaganda do not create
reality. Regardless of what you want to believe the facts will forever
remain the facts.
> The themes in the Quartet are hymn tunes that Ives had been familiar
> with since his boyhood, holding for him a deep import: The first
> movement (Chorale) is a fugue on the Missionary Chant ("From Greenland's
> Icy Mountains") with Coronation ("All Hail the
> Power of Jesus' Name") as a counter-subject. The second movement
> (Prelude) quotes Beulah Land and The Shining Shore ("My days are gliding
> swiftly by"). The third movement (Offertory) is based on Nettleton
> ("Come thou font of every blessing"; also "Here
> I raise my Ebenezer") and also quotes Beulah Land and The Shining Shore,
> and the fourth movement (Postlude) quotes Coronation, The Shining Shore,
> and Webb ("Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus"). Ives's earliest written
> description of the Quartet notes that, "it had one movement [that had]
> nothing to do with [the] R[evival] S[ervice music] & [this movement was]
> much better [than the others]."1 No doubt he is referring here to the
> Chorale. John Kirkpatrick writes in the Preface to the Fourth Symphony
> that Ives
> must have initially written this fugue for Horatio Parker at Yale, and
> that Parker "probably took it as a joke" (as he seems to have taken much
> of Ives's music from this time).2 Kirkpatrick continues, "Like the
> other fugues [written for Parker], this one
> is also scholastic-minded, with strettos, mirrors, long pedal points,
> and a closing augmentation. Ives was the regular organist at Center
> Church during all his four years at Yale, and he must have played it
> himself. It would make an ideal prelude - familiar, dignified, warmly
> lyrical, and with just enough of the unexpected to suggest an inspired
> vision."3
>
> And yet one wonders what Parker's true reaction to this fugue - to the
> Quartet as a whole - must have been. Jan Swafford observes in Charles
> Ives - A Life with Music, "In a lecture of 1900 Parker denounced revival
> music music as 'vulgar with the vulgarity of the streets and the music
> hall... Let the stuff be confined to the mission where it may do good.
> Among people of any appreciable degree of refinement and culture it can
> only do harm.'" Swafford continues, "To Parker, Ives's string quartet
> was redolent of the street and the music hall, of bad air and cheap
> religiosity - far too removed from the splendid theaters, the cultured
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> I wasn't gong to bother with this one -- since it was over 50K in size
> and I don't have time to waste on this kind of crap -- but a soon as I
> got to this I knew you were a complete loonie.
>
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > 59 Socialists in Congress - 2002
> > Socialists in Congress
>
> I've read this drivel before and won't waste my time on it again
> tonight.
In other words you refuse to accept that the party of democrats is full of
socialists and that they have a socialist agenda.
>
> Suffice it to say that you are so far off in right field that you left
> the ballpark a mile behind and now cower in the parking lot behind the
> MaxiMart.
Once again you have boggles my mind with your ability to recall the most
minuet details of historical fact. Gee .. you sure proved me wrong with that
one!
>
> So long, Bozo.
I will accept your surrender and show magnanimity ........I can honestly say
that you aren't afraid to try. You failed miserably but at least you tried.
Kill for Peace
And succeeded in widening the war, causing public support to rise for
the communists in Cambodia and Laos, and in 1975 those two countries
went communist. And we all know what happened in Cambodia.
>training of South Vietnamese troops to fight to curtail communism, while
>simultaneously ending the conflict. Nixon accomplished this with masterful
>and deliberate foreign policy.
Funny how the conservatives of his time weren't happy:
Feb 20 1972: Billy James Hargis wrote in his Christian Crusade Weekly
newsletter about Nixon’s sins: "His enthusiastic support for
unilateral disarmament; his suicidal Red China policy; his blundering
mistake in supporting pro-Red Chinese Pakistan in the Indian-Pakistan
War; his determination to send military aid to avowed enemies, such as
Communist Yugoslavia and Communist Chile, prove that the man had
something in mind besides what benefits the nation."
-------------
"I don't believe anyone that I know in the
administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear
weapons."- Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, at a hearing
of the Senate's appropriations subcommittee on
defense, May 14, 2003
"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear
weapons." - Vice President Cheney on NBC's Meet
the Press, March 16, 2003
Pope Dilbert
"Kill for Peace" <r...@black.com> wrote in message
news:3jmedvki236bcv8ak...@4ax.com...
What wasn't funny was watching our people (and some Vietnamese) scramble to
get the hell out of the city since the North Bietnamese were already at teh
outskirts.
Good thing the S. Vietnamese Army was trained ... they apparently gave the
escapees a whole extra ten minutes.
George Grapman
> Did you know that not to long ago it was found out that North Vietnam was
> ready to give up at one point? They were within two weeks of ending
> hostilities when an increase in the number and size of peace protests in the
> U.S. caused President Nixon to make changes that gave North Vietnam the will
> to fight on?
>
You "forgot" to provide a cite.
Dude
While I did not serve in Vietnam my brother in law did serve two terms of
duty. Most of his friends served one or more tours of duty in Vietnam. All
of them that were in areas where they found themselves in firefights with
NVA that had bases in Cambodia and or supplied from bases in Cambodia have
said that the only way to deal with it was to go into Cambodia.
The war in Vietnam was run horribly from the start. Politicians made
military decisions based on political agendas and limitations. You can not
fight a war like that and expect to win, or at least not win in a reasonable
period of time and with acceptable losses.
The NVA used Cambodia much the same as the North Korean MIGS, supplied by
the Soviet Union and flow by Soviet Pilots, used Manchuria. Allowing an
enemy force safe haven is not wise militarily. President Nixon found himself
in a tough situation. Ignore the NVA's Cambodian camps and supplies and in
doing so risk higher American casualties and a prolonged war or move
militarily into Cambodia. What made the choice more difficult was the
attitude of some Americans of the war and any widening of the war. The
choice he made was of course to move militarily but to do so in secret if
possible. That did not help him when it came to public opinion but
militarily it was the correct decision.
It can be argued either way that President Nixon's decision to send forces
into Cambodia was the right things to do or the wrong thing depending on
what ones beliefs are but based on what Vietnam vets that were in the
effected areas have told me it was the right thing to do in their opinion.
I'm sure that all the arm chair generals who never heard a shot fired in
anger and who's anti-war/anti Nixon background will soil themselves while
reading this.
>
> >training of South Vietnamese troops to fight to curtail communism, while
> >simultaneously ending the conflict. Nixon accomplished this with
masterful
> >and deliberate foreign policy.
>
> Funny how the conservatives of his time weren't happy:
>
> Feb 20 1972: Billy James Hargis wrote in his Christian Crusade Weekly
> newsletter about Nixon's sins: "His enthusiastic support for
> unilateral disarmament; his suicidal Red China policy; his blundering
> mistake in supporting pro-Red Chinese Pakistan in the Indian-Pakistan
> War; his determination to send military aid to avowed enemies, such as
> Communist Yugoslavia and Communist Chile, prove that the man had
> something in mind besides what benefits the nation."
>
>
> -------------
> "I don't believe anyone that I know in the
> administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear
> weapons."- Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, at a hearing
> of the Senate's appropriations subcommittee on
> defense, May 14, 2003
>
> "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear
> weapons." - Vice President Cheney on NBC's Meet
> the Press, March 16, 2003
There is no such thing as a reconstituted nuclear weapon. What liberals made
a big deal out of was that V.P. Cheney left out one word in the above
statement, the word is program. In almost every CIA Report about Iraq
prefious to Iragi Freedom you will find the phrase reconstituted nuclear
weapons program. That is what V.P. Cheney was saying.
Have you ever in your life said something and somehow managed to drop a
word?
He is more of what V.P. Cheney said: ""We know he has used chemical weapons.
We know he has reconstituted these programs since the Gulf War. We know he's
out trying again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a
long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al
Qaeda organization."
Did you noticed the words "trying again to produce?"
Dude
ending the war when he was a guest on Greta Van Susteren's show On the
Record on FOX News. If you are a subscriber you should be able to find the
interview in the FOX archives and watch it yourself.
I did find this however ... you can search further if you want.
"From 1969 to the end of the war, over 20,000 American soldiers lost their
lives in a war that the United States did not have the resolve to win. If
General Giap was accurate in his assessment that North Vietnam was going to
seek a conditional surrender but stopped due to the sensationalism of the
American news media and the anti-war protests following the 1968 Tet
Offensive, it follows that those who participated in these anti-war
activities and misreporting have to share partial responsibility for those
20,000 + Americans deaths.
We won the war on the battlefield but lost it back home on the college
campuses and in the city streets."
http://www.1stcavmedic.com/tet_offensive_of_1968.htm
"George Grapman" <sfge...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:d4dc976.03053...@posting.google.com...
tokugawa
>
> Watergate will forever cast a shadow over Nixon's legacy, and distort our
> understanding of the character of his administration. Liberals then and now
> revile Nixon-an attitude which he reciprocated. There are many sources of
> this animosity, going back to his role in the exposure of Alger Hiss's
> espionage in 1948
Was Hiss a guilty? The debate rages on.
Did Hiss get a fair trial? Definitely not. There was massive
government misconduct, including:
1. An FBI agent knowingly lied on the witness stand,
2. The FBI withheld evidence which would have acquitted Hiss, and
3. The FBI infiltrated the Hiss defense team.
When this knowledge became public in the mid-1970s, Hiss became
the only person whose legal disbarment was reversed. He was
allowed to practice law again.
D.G. Porter
"Dude" doesn't care. "Dude" is a nut.
FWIW, Hiss was tried for perjury, not espionage.
Dude
"tokugawa" <truth_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fb0ae2f1.03053...@posting.google.com...
1. Can you or anyone else accurately quote me where I said that President
Nixon was perfect, flawless, or even great?
The answer is no. I said he was a good president. He, like President Bush
now, was the right man at the right time and his achievements can not be
diminished by his flaws and involvement in the Watergate cover up.
2. Can you tell me where your comments about Hiss are germane to the
discussion of if President Nixon was a good president or not?
The answer is that your comments are not germane. I have never said that
President Nixon was morally correct in some of what he did. I never have
tried to cover up for President Nixon. That is why in the material I have
posted I did not edit or filter what had been written about President Nixon.
In all but a few cases I posted in it's entirety the information I found.
The only things that I left out, and just in a few cases, was highly
redundant information or information about his youth or after his presidency
ended and other information that in no way had any connection with his years
in the white house.
I did not post fluff pieces and do no and will not ever claim that President
Nixon was without fault. But I clearly have shown that President Nixon was a
good President.
What astonishes me so much is that liberals will refuse to admit to the
things that President Nixon and President Reagan did that were of tremendous
value to our nation because of the scandals that they were part of or close
to but at the same time the same liberals will sing the praises of one of
the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider him
tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
ridden administration in history.
Liberals are hypocrites. Liberals survive by the double standard. A liberal
will viciously attack someone like Sen. Lott for what he said but they build
statues to someone like Sen. Byrd, the ex KKK member who was paid by the KKK
to recruit new members. During the last presidential election liberals
mercilessly attacked Mrs. Bush because many years earlier she had been
involved in an automobile accident where he boyfriend was killed. Those same
liberals consider Sen. Kennedy to be one small step away from Sainthood,
even though while driving under the influence of alcohol he drove off a
bridge and fled the accident scene leaving a young woman, still alive in the
car, to drown. After Vice President Cheney held the energy conference
liberals began to whine about the secrecy of the meeting and demanded to see
who was involved and what was said and what plans were made, even though
such meetings have always been legally held in secrecy and kept secret. They
pointed to Hillary's secret health care conference what was forced to reveal
information.Liberals cried and wrung their hands and the time and said that
it was wrong, that such meetings have always been held in secret and should
remain secret, but what they did not know or tried to keep the public from
learning is that Hillary was not an elected member of our government. She
and any meetings she held were not protected in he same was that similar
conferences that have or will be held, say like the one V.P. Cheney held, so
there was no correlation between the two events. Still the liberals screamed
like little girls with skinned knees and said that if Hillary's conference
information had to be released then V.P. Cheney's energy conference
information had to be released.
Dude
In March 1996 the U.S. National Security Agency/Central Security Service,
which specializes in code making and code breaking (see Cryptography),
appeared to implicate Hiss when it released transcriptions from the VENONA
Project, a secret U.S. effort to collect and decrypt secret Soviet KGB and
military intelligence messages from the 1940s. A transcript of a message
from March 30, 1945, describes a conversation with a Soviet agent who, the
transcription says, was "probably Alger Hiss."
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> tokugawa wrote:
> >
> > "Dude" <Du...@MyPlace.net> wrote in message
news:<vddef26...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > >
> > > Watergate will forever cast a shadow over Nixon's legacy, and distort
our
> > > understanding of the character of his administration. Liberals then
and now
> > > revile Nixon-an attitude which he reciprocated. There are many sources
of
> > > this animosity, going back to his role in the exposure of Alger Hiss's
> > > espionage in 1948
> >
> > Was Hiss a guilty? The debate rages on.
> >
> > Did Hiss get a fair trial? Definitely not. There was massive
> > government misconduct, including:
> >
> > 1. An FBI agent knowingly lied on the witness stand,
> >
> > 2. The FBI withheld evidence which would have acquitted Hiss, and
> >
> > 3. The FBI infiltrated the Hiss defense team.
> >
> > When this knowledge became public in the mid-1970s, Hiss became
> > the only person whose legal disbarment was reversed. He was
> > allowed to practice law again.
>
> "Dude" doesn't care. "Dude" is a nut.
You must have an amazingly inaccurate dictionary if you define me as being a
nut and believe you are accurate. The reason I say that is it is evident
that in your dictionary the definition of someone who is accurate is to be a
nut.
>
> FWIW, Hiss was tried for perjury, not espionage.
The entire piece can be found below but the last two paragraphs are the most
interesting so I copied them first ... but the rest can found below.
In 1992 Hiss asked officials from the former USSR to check their newly
opened archives for information about the case. Russian General Dmitri A.
Volkogonov, a historian and chairman of a commission on the files of the
Soviet secret police (KGB), announced that he could find no evidence in KGB
files that Hiss had been involved in Soviet intelligence operations.
Volkogonov acknowledged, however, that such files could either have been
destroyed or were in archives to which he had no access.
In March 1996 the U.S. National Security Agency/Central Security Service,
which specializes in code making and code breaking (see Cryptography),
appeared to implicate Hiss when it released transcriptions from the VENONA
Project, a secret U.S. effort to collect and decrypt secret Soviet KGB and
military intelligence messages from the 1940s. A transcript of a message
from March 30, 1945, describes a conversation with a Soviet agent who, the
transcription says, was "probably Alger Hiss."
Encyclopedia Article from Encarta
Hiss Case
Hiss Case, the investigation, trial, and conviction of Alger Hiss, a former
high official in the United States Department of State. The case lasted from
1948 to 1950. As the result of his testimony before the House Committee on
Un-American Activities in 1948 and 1949 and subsequent investigations by the
U.S. Department of Justice, Hiss was convicted of perjury for denying his
involvement in a Soviet spy ring. The case was part of a general inquiry
into Communist activity in the United States that began during the Truman
administration and continued through the so-called McCarthy era, when
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy became the primary force behind the inquiry.
Hiss, who was president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in
1948, had previously served as a lawyer or administrator in the U.S
. Departments of Agriculture, Justice, and State. He was secretary general
of the conference that organized the United Nations in 1945. Hiss's accuser,
Whittaker Chambers, was an American writer and for several years an editor
of the weekly newsmagazine Time. Both men were well known and respected by
their colleagues.
In 1948, however, Chambers testified before the Committee on Un-American
Activities that he had been a Communist in the 1920s and 1930s and a courier
in transmitting secret information to Soviet agents. He charged that Hiss
was also a Communist, and that he had turned classified documents over to
Chambers for transmittal to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).
Hiss denied the charges and challenged Chambers to repeat them when he was
open to prosecution for libel. Chambers repeated the accusations on a radio
broadcast and in a newspaper interview, and Hiss brought two suits for
slander against him. In defense, Chambers produced microfilm copies of
documents that were later identified as classified papers belonging to the
Departments of State, Navy, and War, some apparently annotated by Hiss in
his own handwriting. The Department of Justice conducted its own
investigation, and Hiss was indicted for perjury. The jury failed to reach a
verdict, but Hiss was convicted after a second trial in January 1950. At
both trials, Chambers' sanity was one of the predominant issues. Hiss was
sentenced to a five-year prison term and was paroled in 1954, still
maintaining his innocence. Both men involved presented their own versions of
the case, Chambers with Witness (1952) and Hiss with In the Court of Public
Opinion (1957).
The political circumstances surrounding the investigations of Communism at
the time led many public figures to support Hiss, at least in the early
stages of the case. Prominent in pressing the case against Hiss was Richard
M. Nixon, a Republican member of the House Committee on Un-American
Activities and future president of the United States, to whom the case
became a stepping-stone to national recognition.
In 1992 Hiss asked officials from the former USSR to check their newly
opened archives for information about the case. Russian General Dmitri A.
Volkogonov, a historian and chairman of a commission on the files of the
Soviet secret police (KGB), announced that he could find no evidence in KGB
files that Hiss had been involved in Soviet intelligence operations.
Volkogonov acknowledged, however, that such files could either have been
destroyed or were in archives to which he had no access.
In March 1996 the U.S. National Security Agency/Central Security Service,
which specializes in code making and code breaking (see Cryptography),
appeared to implicate Hiss when it released transcriptions from the VENONA
Project, a secret U.S. effort to collect and decrypt secret Soviet KGB and
military intelligence messages from the 1940s. A transcript of a message
from March 30, 1945, describes a conversation with a Soviet agent who, the
transcription says, was "probably Alger Hiss."
Hiss Case
Hiss Case, the investigation, trial, and conviction of Alger Hiss, a former
high official in the United States Department of State. The case lasted from
1948 to 1950. As the result of his testimony before the House Committee on
Un-American Activities in 1948 and 1949 and subsequent investigations by the
U.S. Department of Justice, Hiss was convicted of perjury for denying his
involvement in a Soviet spy ring. The case was part of a general inquiry
into Communist activity in the United States that began during the Truman
administration and continued through the so-called McCarthy era, when
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy became the primary force behind the inquiry.
Hiss, who was president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in
1948, had previously served as a lawyer or administrator in the U.S
. Departments of Agriculture, Justice, and State. He was secretary general
of the conference that organized the United Nations in 1945. Hiss's accuser,
Whittaker Chambers, was an American writer and for several years an editor
of the weekly newsmagazine Time. Both men were well known and respected by
their colleagues.
In 1948, however, Chambers testified before the Committee on Un-American
Activities that he had been a Communist in the 1920s and 1930s and a courier
in transmitting secret information to Soviet agents. He charged that Hiss
was also a Communist, and that he had turned classified documents over to
Chambers for transmittal to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).
Hiss denied the charges and challenged Chambers to repeat them when he was
open to prosecution for libel. Chambers repeated the accusations on a radio
broadcast and in a newspaper interview, and Hiss brought two suits for
slander against him. In defense, Chambers produced microfilm copies of
documents that were later identified as classified papers belonging to the
Departments of State, Navy, and War, some apparently annotated by Hiss in
his own handwriting. The Department of Justice conducted its own
investigation, and Hiss was indicted for perjury. The jury failed to reach a
verdict, but Hiss was convicted after a second trial in January 1950. At
both trials, Chambers' sanity was one of the predominant issues. Hiss was
sentenced to a five-year prison term and was paroled in 1954, still
maintaining his innocence. Both men involved presented their own versions of
the case, Chambers with Witness (1952) and Hiss with In the Court of Public
Opinion (1957).
The political circumstances surrounding the investigations of Communism at
the time led many public figures to support Hiss, at least in the early
stages of the case. Prominent in pressing the case against Hiss was Richard
M. Nixon, a Republican member of the House Committee on Un-American
Activities and future president of the United States, to whom the case
became a stepping-stone to national recognition.
In 1992 Hiss asked officials from the former USSR to check their newly
opened archives for information about the case. Russian General Dmitri A.
Volkogonov, a historian and chairman of a commission on the files of the
Soviet secret police (KGB), announced that he could find no evidence in KGB
files that Hiss had been involved in Soviet intelligence operations.
Volkogonov acknowledged, however, that such files could either have been
destroyed or were in archives to which he had no access.
In March 1996 the U.S. National Security Agency/Central Security Service,
which specializes in code making and code breaking (see Cryptography),
appeared to implicate Hiss when it released transcriptions from the VENONA
Project, a secret U.S. effort to collect and decrypt secret Soviet KGB and
military intelligence messages from the 1940s. A transcript of a message
from March 30, 1945, describes a conversation with a Soviet agent who, the
transcription says, was "probably Alger Hiss."
>
D.G. Porter
Dude wrote:
>
> one of
> the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider him
> tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
> rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
> ridden administration in history.
You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
worse...
How Soon We Forget Real Corruption Gleeful charges by Republicans
that Whitewater is comparable to Watergate and that the Clinton
Administration is more corrupt than any recent administration
are ludicrous when compared to the actual record of corruption
in the Reagan-Bush administration and when it is noted that the
charges against Clinton result from goings-on in Arkansas long
before he became President. With Reagan, scandals occured while
he was President. Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Haynes
Johnson's book, "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in
the Reagan Years" (1991, Doubleday), chronicles the U.S.'s
fall from dominant world power to struggling debtor nation
during the Reagan years. Johnson says "two types of problems
typified the ethical misconduct cases of the Reagan years,
and both had heavy consequences to citizens everywhere.
One stemmed from ideology and deregulatory impulses run
amok; the other, from classic corruption on a grand scale."
"By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had
been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject
of official investigations for official misconduct and/or
criminal violations. In terms of number of officials
involved, the record of his administration was the
worst ever." (P. 184).
> Liberals are hypocrites. Liberals survive by the double standard. A
liberal
> will viciously attack someone like Sen. Lott for what he said but they build
> statues to someone like Sen. Byrd, the ex KKK member who was paid by the KKK
> to recruit new members.
Byrd renounced the Klan decades ago -- Lott is still an asshole to ths
day. You know this yet you continue to lie. You are a lying sack of
shit and all your posts are revisionist propogandistic crap.
D.G. Porter
He turns 91 this week, so it’s possible Ronald Reagan can’t remember.
But Jim Washburn can’t forget
As time goes by, it becomes clear that President Reagan was not only a
great
president but also one of our greatest, right up there with FDR, Lincoln
and
maybe George Washington.
—Dana Rohrabacher, in the Feb. 7, 2001, Daily Pilot
Move over, Lincoln—we’d like to blast Ronald Reagan’s features onto
Mount
Rushmore. Erect a monument to him in every county. Engrave him on the
$10
bill. Make a book extolling his character and achievements mandatory
reading
for schoolkids.
He saved us from the Red Threat and from Jimmy Carter. He brought back
morning in America. He is America. With a flick of his mighty pen, he
turned
ketchup into a vegetable. All hail Ronald Reagan!
Jesus, can’t we just send him a "Best Wishes" card and leave it at that?
Being president is a tough gig, even for one such as Reagan, who,
according
to aides, worked two to three hours per day, napped at cabinet and
summit
meetings, and spent more than a year of his eight years in office
kicking
back on his California ranch. Living in the White House entails
difficult
decisions, crises to be dealt with, and the dragging responsibility of
being
the most powerful person in the world. It ages one unnaturally. Reagan
even
took a bullet for us on the job. Thank the man for that.
But when you talk about canonizing him, you can go suck a sprinkler
head.
Ronald Reagan may have been a likable guy—even in the White House, he
answered his fan mail, sometimes enclosing a check to a citizen going
through hard times—but his administration was also flat-out the most
anti-democratic, hoodwinking, lying, Constitution-flouting,
despot-coddling,
rich-enriching, deficit-building, environment-despoiling,
health-endangering, paranoid, cynical and fundamentally corrupt one in
our
nation’s history. Name a strip mine for it if you must, but no
monuments,
please.
Chances are you’re reading this for one of two reasons: you agree with
me
and enjoy getting pissed-off all over again at the perfidies of the
1980s;
or, more likely here in Reagan Country, you disagree and enjoy getting
pissed-off reading liberal crap.
It’s you latter folk I’d like to talk to here. I’ve enjoyed pissing you
off,
and I look forward to many more prosperous years of doing so. But even
more,
I want to convince you I’m right on this one because the nation we
allowed
ourselves to become in the 1980s was a rank perversion of the freedom
and
righteousness we all long for. I don’t blame Reagan for that so much as
I do
the nation that so blindly followed him. And if we don’t now take the
hard
look that many of us were unwilling to take then, we’ll go sliding right
down that phlegmy slope again.
MYTHMAKING
Ronald Reagan was born 91 years ago this Tuesday in Tampico, Illinois,
and
as a teen growing up in Dixon, Illinois, he worked summers as a
lifeguard,
reputedly saving 77 swimmers from drowning. In college, he became a
student
leader and even led a protest against his school’s authoritarian
president.
After college, he landed work as a sportscaster in Davenport, Iowa, and
though he’d never actually seen a major-league game, he invented vivid
color
to tart up the bare stats he read off a Morse code ticker tape. Many
years
later, he loved telling people about the time the wire went dead for six
minutes and he kept going, improvising the action and passing it on as
fact
to his listeners.
(Curiously, Walter Cronkite says that was his story, which he related to
then-President Reagan one night and was surprised to later find Reagan
telling the story as his own.)
In Hollywood, his rugged looks, honed announcer’s voice and perfect
memory
landed him parts. Among his other roles, he made four films playing a
secret
agent named Brass Bancroft. For want of other superlatives, you could
say
his acting was dependable. In 1942, he went into the Army and spent the
duration of the war at Hal Roach studios in Culver City making training
films.
Reagan became active in the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), eventually
becoming
its president. In 1952, rather than recuse himself because he was signed
with the talent agency MCA, he led SAG in granting MCA a special waiver
to
go into TV production, greasing the way for it to become a media giant.
Fortune smiles upon the just, and the following year, MCA rewarded
Reagan by
landing him a gig hosting the General Electric Theater program for the
then-amazing sum of $125,000 per year. His duties also entailed becoming
a
spokesman for GE, traveling the country on their dime as he toured
factories
and made speeches touting free enterprise and damning "Marx-inspired"
programs like Medicare and Social Security. In 1961, when questioned by
a
grand jury about the special consideration his union had given MCA,
Reagan,
known then for his near-photographic memory, frequently said under oath
that
he couldn’t remember.
Once a Roosevelt liberal, Reagan was by now a solid conservative, which
some
attribute to the influence of his second wife, Nancy. They married when
she
was one and a half months pregnant, a fact we note only in light of the
moral standards Reagan later tried to impose on others.
While his acting career had sputtered by the 1960s, he had become such a
popular and well-paid conservative speaker that when he decided to run
for
office, he didn’t work his way up the political ranks but aimed right
for
governor of California.
With substantial financial backing from MCA, two oilmen and a car
dealer,
his campaign presented a near-first in politics: instead of being
managed by
the party, Reagan hired outside consultants, who in turn employed
psychologists at the Behavioral Sciences Corp. to package their
candidate
and craft position papers that would push the public’s buttons. All this
for
a man who touted himself as an aw-shucks, common-sense political
outsider.
Even before Reagan moved into the governor’s mansion, the same team of
admen
and psychologists went to work on a White House run. Against party
wishes,
he subsequently ran in presidential primaries against Richard Nixon and
Gerald Ford.
His record as governor is mixed. Despite his tax-cutting cant as a
candidate, he gave California the biggest tax increase in its history (a
necessary one, granted, because exiting Governor Pat Brown, a Democrat,
had
left a deficit). Though he later claimed he hadn’t understood it, Reagan
signed one of the nation’s most liberal abortion laws. On the other
hand,
when the legislature annually voted to repeal old laws that made
felonies of
sex acts most couples engage in, Reagan vetoed them each time, true to
the
Republican hypocrisy of wanting government out of the boardroom but not
the
bedroom.
In actual accomplishment, his two terms in Sacramento were notable for
their
inertia; little action followed the fiery rhetoric Reagan employed on
the
stump. On that front, at least, he was a firebrand, with his tough-guy
talk
against hippies, war protesters and campus activists—"If it’s a
bloodbath
they want, so be it"—creating the "law and order" message his rival
Richard
Nixon rode to the White House.
Reagan’s growing reputation for ignoring facts when they didn’t conform
to
his vision—such as his justification of our involvement in Vietnam by
claiming it had historically been two countries—accelerated when he set
his
sights on the White House. Campaigning against Gerald Ford in 1976,
Reagan
asserted Ford was weak on defense and had let the U.S. become No. 2 in
the
world, neither of which was true. He repeated the same charges four
years
later against Jimmy Carter, who had merely served as an officer on a
nuclear
sub as opposed to Reagan’s sterling military record as a movie pretty
boy.
Carter had backed numerous new weapons programs and increased military
spending every year he was in office (just as Bill Clinton did,
regardless
of George W. Bush’s similar claims).
Running against Carter in 1980, Reagan again campaigned as the
quintessential outsider and Everyman, despite having spent his life as a
Hollywood movie star, high-paid corporate shill and professional
politician
with a $3 million home. With ex-CIA director George Bush onboard as his
running mate, most Everymen also didn’t have former and active CIA
agents
providing them with intelligence on the sitting president’s
foreign-policy
moves. Those connections may also have come in handy in the theft of
Carter’s
debate notes for Reagan.
We will not dwell here on the controversial allegations of the October
Surprise, in which the Reagan camp reputedly negotiated with Iran to
deny
Carter an election boost by delaying the release of 52 American
hostages,
beyond saying that former Reagan campaign and White House aide Barbara
Honegger makes a compelling case against the man she once revered in her
book, October Surprise. That treasonous deal, she asserts, explains why
the
secret arms shipments to Iran didn’t begin in 1985 but in 1981 and
continued, she writes, "regardless of whether American captives were
released, tortured, killed or seized anew in Lebanon. It explains why
U.S.
arms shipments to Iran continued even after Iran’s culpability in the
bombing of the U.S. barracks and U.S. embassies in Beirut and Kuwait had
been clearly demonstrated." And that raises a good question: Why, unless
there was an incriminating debt owed, would a U.S. administration trade
arms
for any reason to a country that had cold-bloodedly murdered 241 of our
Marines, sailors and soldiers in their bunks in a Beirut outpost?
THE WRECKING CREW
I may be wrong, but I’m never in doubt.
—Ronald Reagan
One thing that sets Reagan apart from Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and
other lying presidents is that Reagan believed his own lies. Even in the
thick of the Iran-contra scandal—when Reagan was caught in one untruth
after
another and a Los Angeles Times poll showed that only 14 percent of
Americans believed he wasn’t lying—he was never contrite. From his
perspective, I suspect, he wasn’t lying: his reality was simply too
great to
be contained by the truth.
Some have argued that Reagan literally couldn’t tell the difference
between
his role as president and roles he’d played or seen in the make-believe
world of movies. When addressing an audience of Congressional Medal of
Honor
winners, Reagan told them the tear-welling story of one medal winner, a
B-17
pilot who had gone down with his plane rather than abandon a trapped,
injured gunner. It was a touching story, but it never happened. Rather
than
recount the story of one of the genuine heroes seated before him,
Reagan’s
tale was from the 1944 film A Wing and a Prayer, fiction recycled as
fact.
He once told Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir that he had witnessed
the
suffering of the concentration camps firsthand, filming their liberation
with the Signal Corps in World War II. Not unless there were death camps
along Santa Monica Boulevard: Reagan was in California for the entire
war.
At one point, deep in the mire of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, Beirut
dispatched an ambassador to the White House. Reagan was awakened to meet
with the man, who told the president and his aides a tale of treachery,
terror and the apocalypse. The diplomat later noted that Reagan seemed
to
listen with real appreciation. Then the diplomat paused, and Reagan
asked,
"Did anyone ever tell you that you look like Danny Thomas?"
When he proposed his Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983, the Star Wars
technology he spoke of bore less relation to what scientists thought
possible than to an "inertia projector" he had guarded in the 1940
Warner
Bros. spy movie Murder in the Air.
His era of movies didn’t deal in ambiguities but clearly defined good
guys
and bad guys. There’s no drama if the bad guy is a pushover, so in
Reagan’s
real-time movie, the Soviet Union became the Evil Empire. He claimed
they
had superiority over us in submarine and missile technology, when the
opposite was true. With our multiwarhead missiles, we had a clear atomic
superiority, if such a thing even matters once you’re untold megatons
beyond
mutually assured destruction. Reagan stated the Soviets were engaged in
a
massive military buildup, while its growth had been essentially flat
since
1975, with most of its new resources supporting its war in Afghanistan,
which proved to be the Soviets’ Vietnam.
And now, of course, it has become our Afghanistan, with our troops
fighting
a regime of extremist thugs, some of them "freedom fighters" the Reagan
administration trained and armed to fight the Soviets. Osama bin Laden
was
one of the freedom-hating freedom fighters enjoying the U.S.’s
none-too-particular largesse back then.
In Reagan’s world of absolutes, there were no pollution problems and the
homeless were that way because they chose to be. Jobless? Reagan would
wave
a 30-page want-ads section at you, heedless that most of the jobs
required a
high level of skill. Welfare was to be judged wholly on the evidence of
a
"Chicago Welfare Queen," who in Reagan Anecdote Land had used 80 names
and
30 addresses to bilk the system of $150,000 but in reality was a woman
accused of using four names to accrue $8,000.
Recall how Republicans hammered Al Gore as a habitual liar after he
uttered
a few half-truths? Reagan quite possibly never gave a speech without
lying,
and it wasn’t dopey stuff about what medications his dog was taking but
instead was the material that shaped his administration.
Based on a few skewed anecdotes about wasteful, bureaucratic government,
Reagan set about dismantling it. The people he brought in to head the
various departments were mostly persons with a noted antipathy for those
departments, such as Secretary of the Interior James Watt, whose
previous
job was running anti-environmentalist Joseph Coors’ Mountain States
Legal
Foundation. Watt proudly didn’t enforce the Endangered Species Act or
strip-mining laws, gave billions of dollars of publicly held coal
reserves
to private companies, and tried to put another 30 million acres of
public
land into private hands.
Watt said he saw no need to preserve our environment for future
generations
because he was convinced the Lord was returning soon to scourge the
earth
clean anyway. That’s good, solid science for you: the world is just a
big
cheese wheel, and Reagan’s godly men were privileged to know the
expiration
date, so forget about having respect or wonder for the magnificent and
fragile processes that make the planet work, forget future generations
or a
sense of responsible stewardship. Just shut up and drink your slurpy.
Watt’s counterpart at the Environmental Protection Agency, Anne Gorsuch,
was
similarly lax about enforcing existing laws and allowed the agency’s new
policies to be shaped by the same corporations accused of violating
pollution laws. When Congress questioned these cozy ties, the Reagan
administration initially refused to turn over requested documents (for
which
Gorsuch was cited for contempt of Congress), not for national security
reasons or a compelling argument of executive privilege, but simply
because
they didn’t want the people to know the people’s business. You can draw
your
own parallels to Dick Cheney’s current stonewalling on his secret
meetings
with Enron officials.
One bit of good environmental action emerged from the Reagan years:
Congress
passed an extension of the Clean Water Act. Reagan vetoed it, of course,
but
Congress overrode his veto.
In other areas, antitrust regulations were ignored, workplace safety was
compromised, medical research and services were curtailed, understaffing
and
underfunding of agencies contributed to everything from lax customs
inspections to space shuttle explosions, AIDS was a disease Reagan
couldn’t
even bring himself to mention, and ketchup was almost reclassified as a
vegetable for school lunch programs.
Don’t like rap music? Blame Reagan. His administration slashed
inner-city
programs like Head Start, and his budget cuts forced schools to drop
"nonessential" programs such as the arts. Remove the music education and
access to instruments from kids who still have an artistic impetus, and
you
get rap.
As we Californians learned anew in our energy-deregulation woes, a bit
of
government regulation isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In 1982, Reagan
signed
the law deregulating the savings and loan industry, announcing, "All in
all,
I think we’ve hit the jackpot," which many wealthy thieves did—leaving
the
rest of us to pay the casino for the most expensive boondoggle in U.S.
history. Though there were plenty of Democrats involved in that mess,
don’t
forget to thank Reagan as well for costing us hundreds of billions of
dollars in freeing us from those fussy regulations.
Nowhere were Reagan’s civic Luddites more cynically effective than at
the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Programs intended to
finance and build low-cost housing for the poor instead became a cash
trough
for the administration’s cronies. In eight years of unabated corruption
that
only came to light during the Bush administration, HUD, Congress found,
had
lost billions of taxpayer dollars to fraud and mismanagement.
As if cutting HUD’s budget 57 percent hadn’t been enough, much of the
remaining funding was allocated by ideological appointees with no
housing
experience, low-cost or otherwise. They awarded contracts to persons
with
even less experience, such as James Watt, who, after being forced from
his
Interior job for telling one racist joke too many, was paid $440,000 for
making a few phone calls to HUD.
One outraged observer wrote, "It now appears that the taxpayers will
take a
loss of at least $2 billion [it ultimately was more than $8 billion] on
the
cozy little, sleazy little, greedy little deals that were made. Let it
be
said up top: the primary responsibility for this debacle lies squarely
in
the lap of Ronald Reagan."
The source of this quotation? Conservative columnist James J.
Kirkpatrick.
Like Dubya’s call today to let "faith-based" organizations cure
society’s
ills, Reagan said he believed his budget gouges could be offset by
citizens
practicing the biblical notion of tithing, as he said, "the giving of a
tenth to charity." Reporters’ perusal of Reagan’s tax records found that
he
was giving more like a hundredth—1.4 percent—of his own earnings to
charity.
And the next time someone tries to tell you that Reagan was a fiscal
conservative, remind them that he left the country with a financial debt
that surpassed the debts accrued under all other U.S. presidents
combined
and that he never once submitted a balanced budget to Congress. That bit
of
fiscal restraint was left to a Democrat, Bill Clinton.
Speaking of Bubba, the conservative-bias media went apeshit when he
pardoned
fugitive financier Marc Rich. Imagine the howls if Rich had gone on to
kill
his ex-wife, dismember her body and burn it. Oregon authorities in
December
2000 arrested Robert Wendell Walker Jr. for doing just that to his
former
bride. Reagan had pardoned the convicted bank robber in 1981.
Law-enforcement authorities could not recall another instance in which
such
a violent criminal had received a presidential pardon. Walker had no
political ties, and no one knows to this day why Reagan cut him loose.
YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH
Not every government office suffered under Reagan. He bloated the
Pentagon
with the largest peacetime military buildup in our history, while the
National Security Council, which had a staff of 35 at the height of the
Vietnam War under LBJ, swelled to 255 employees under Reagan. Spying on
American citizens reached new heights, with numerous examples of
government
infiltration of labor unions and of organizations opposed to our
involvement
in Central and South America.
And we were pretty involved, backing the wrong sides in El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras, Chile, Argentina and other military dictatorships
or
oligarchies where citizens were living under hideously worse
circumstances
than our founding fathers had endured. In many cases, they were virtual
slaves, with no vote and no rights in dictatorships that routinely
tortured
and murdered opposition voices. (Guatemala’s three-decade-old military
regime, described by Reagan as "totally committed to democracy," killed
more
than 200,000 of its own people in the 1980s. In Argentina, it has since
been
revealed, the babies of murdered political prisoners were given up for
adoption to members of the ruling class.) Yet, by Reagan’s measure, the
citizens of these countries and others like them—consider the example of
Ferdinand Marcos’ Philippines—were supposed to be proud that the
government
torturing and murdering them wasn’t communist.
Shortly after moving into the White House, Reagan told The Wall Street
Journal, "Let us not delude ourselves. The Soviet Union underlies all
the
unrest that is going on. If they weren’t engaged in this game of
dominoes,
there wouldn’t be any hot spots in the world."
By that world-view, if it weren’t for Russia, South Africa would have
been a
nation of happily disenfranchised darkies singing in the mines. If
Reagan
had his way, there might still be a brisk market in "Free Nelson
Mandela"
T-shirts. It was only by overriding Reagan’s veto that Congress joined
the
rest of the civilized world in passing sanctions against the brutal,
racist
South African government.
I know people who met Reagan, and they didn’t think he seemed like the
sort
of fellow who’d cozy up to murderers or enjoy blighting the environment.
Was
he evil? I think it was more that he simply didn’t get it. He had his
beliefs, and information that didn’t fit those confines was rejected out
of
hand. As one of his White House aides put it, "Reagan doesn’t have the
knack
for weighing alternatives."
He kept to his storehouse of hoary anecdotes and invented scenarios that
always arrived at the same conclusions: communism was the only threat to
our
well-being, and big government was too much like communism. You could be
a
sultan, a generalissimo, a puppet, whatever, just so long as you claimed
not
to be a communist and let American businessmen do their thing on your
soil.
At home, you could privatize government functions out to the sleaziest
privateers, and that was preferable to effective government programs.
If you didn’t see the world as he did, you were being duped. When, on
June
11, 1982, nearly a million people rallied in New York’s Central Park to
support a nuclear freeze, Reagan dismissed that huge and historic
protest as
the work of "foreign agents."
It simplifies life when you never test your beliefs or consider the
views of
others. Reagan took a similarly simple approach to being the chief
executive, essentially working the way that he had for GE: he showed up
when
required, donned makeup, read a speech well and left the details to
others.
"It’s very unusual to have a president who is not interested in policy
at
all," remarked Henry Kissinger, whose impression was that Reagan knew
little
of foreign affairs and was uninterested in learning. "He would try to
avoid
policy discussions. If he couldn’t, he’d resort to his cue cards. . . .
He
was an actor, the quintessential actor. What he said was what he
believed."
When Reagan eventually traveled to Russia, he was reportedly astounded
to
learn that—contrary to his deepest beliefs about America representing
truth,
justice and blue Superman-like hair—many Soviet citizens lived in fear
of
the United States. Jeez, just because he had them ringed with nukes,
derided
them as the Evil Empire, and at times raised serious doubts as to
whether
Reagan could tell his lunch from a launch code? Him, the man with his
finger
on the button, who had once erroneously asserted that Trident missiles
could
be recalled once launched? The president whose staff members spoke in
terms
of a "winnable" nuclear war "if there are enough shovels to go around"
to
dig shelters? The leader who had joked over a live radio microphone, "My
fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you that I just signed
legislation
which outlaws Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
In his first press conference as president, Reagan said of the Soviets,
"They reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to
cheat, in order to attain their ends." It’s a description that eight
years
later would sum up the Reagan White House.
DARK MATTER
Reagan once told a story about agents of Nicaragua’s Sandinista
government
pulling a freedom-loving newspaper editor from his home and executing
him in
front of his pleading children. He related this tale with unbridled
anger
and contempt for cowards who would do such a thing. But like many a
Reagan
tale told with utter conviction, it was an utter fabrication. When the
Great
Communicator’s press office was asked for the details of this atrocity,
they
had to admit it hadn’t happened—or anything like it.
The Sandinistas were not the world’s most democratic government, but
they
were infinitely more so than the dictator they deposed, Anastasio
Somoza.
His family had treated Nicaragua like its own private labor camp since a
U.S. intervention brought them to power in the 1930s. Perhaps Reagan had
his
S’s confused: in the 1970s, a Somoza business partner had an opposition
newspaper editor murdered. And it was members of Somoza’s feared
National
Guard who executed American ABC newsman Bill Stewart in the streets of
Managua. Unlike Reagan’s fiction, that latter event was captured on
film.
Once the Sandinistas ousted Somoza in 1979, in a few short years, they
drastically cut their nation’s malnutrition and infant-mortality rate,
raised literacy and embarked on other ambitious public programs, without
the
benefit of the U.S. aid lavished on Somoza (who had fled the country
with a
fortune believed to be worth between $100 million and $500 million).
They
could have been more democratic than they were, but it’s hard to be
perfect
when the world’s most powerful nation is trying to crush you.
More on that soon, but let’s first look at some of the other fronts on
which
the Reagan administration was staving off the communist menace.
Not content with possessing enough nukes to destroy all human life
several
times over, the Reagan administration attempted to up the ante through a
broad "reinterpreting" of the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty. This effort
attracted the ire even of hawkish Georgia Senator Sam Nunn, and the
Senate
Foreign Relations Committee issued a report calling it "the most
flagrant
abuse of the Constitution’s treaty process in 200 years of American
history."
In 1983 Reagan proposed his Strategic Defense Initiative, which he
posited
as "a shield that could protect us from nuclear missiles just as a roof
protects a family from rain." For the rest of his time in office, Reagan
and
his camp would routinely claim that "genuine breakthroughs have been
made,"
only to have SDI scientists counter that there were no breakthroughs and
that they were upset by the White House hype. Sixteen hundred U.S.
scientists sent a letter to Congress asserting that the program was
wasteful
and only spurred the arms race. By 1987, even the top people in the SDI
program were admitting that it might never be able to protect the
population
and would, at best, only be able to shield some of our missiles from
attack.
To counter international fears that SDI could give the U.S. a
first-strike
advantage, Reagan claimed he would share the technology with the
Soviets.
Top military officials followed in his wake to say, no, we wouldn’t. The
Soviets themselves gave little credence to Reagan’s offer, since, as
Mikhail
Gorbachev pointed out, the U.S. was unwilling to share even
dairy-farming
technology with them.
The SDI research money was in addition to our military budget, which,
coupled with rich-favoring tax cuts, gave us the multitrillion debt
we’ve
been saddled with ever since. As if all those resources weren’t enough,
the
White House also diverted a substantial chunk of Federal Emergency
Management Agency monies to build nuke-shielded mobile communications
centers, handy only if your emergency happened to be an atomic war. That
left the agency shortchanged for the workaday disasters—floods,
hurricanes,
earthquakes and the like—that didn’t stir Reagan’s fancy the way
armageddon
did.
Two decades and $100 billion later, we are not one whit safer, which is
what
happens when you sell wishful thinking as science.
After Gorbachev came to power in 1985, the White House never noticed
things
were changing and didn’t notice until the Bush administration was
blindsided
by the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Reagan always enjoyed recounting his first private meeting with
Gorbachev in
Geneva, which he made sound like a movie scene: he coaxed the Soviet
leader
aside to a private room where, he said, the two of them could get to
know
each other man-to-man. Unless they did it by kissing, it’s hard to see
how,
since neither spoke the other’s language.
D.G. Porter
They might as well have done without interpreters at the summits, for
all
the attention Reagan paid. Members of his administration have since said
they went to the Reykjavik summit mainly because they saw it as a meet
’n’
greet that could give their man a boost in the polls. They arrived
unprepared and were caught off-guard by the sweeping arms-reduction
proposals the Soviets made, including an offer to reduce even
conventional
forces. Reagan countered by telling jokes with anti-Soviet punch lines
and
relating a story he’d read in People magazine about a 1,200-pound man.
Even
Reagan fan Colin Powell found the president’s lack of preparation
offensive.
After that first day of meetings, Reagan told an aide, "I’d better go do
my
homework. Mikhail has all those details."
The sticking point in the summits was always Reagan’s cherished if
chimeral
Star Wars plans. Gorbachev, whose scientists told him the same things
about
its feasibility that American scientists were saying, ultimately told
Reagan, "Go ahead and deploy it. Who am I to tell you what to do? I
think
you’re wasting money. I don’t think it will work."
When the two sides did eventually forge an INF treaty, it was signed at
precisely 1:45 p.m. on Dec. 8, 1987, because that’s when Nancy Reagan’s
astrologer, Joan Quigley, said to sign. Quigley, it transpired, made
several
decisions for the White House. I know a Christian Republican who told me
last year that he could never vote for John McCain because the war-hero
senator had once been involved with a New Age organization. This same
man
adores Reagan and is unbothered by the notion of a president who paid
more
attention to arcane mumbo jumbo than he did to the "details" of waging a
nuclear war.
While America continued to build guns and missiles, Gorbachev acted
unilaterally to reduce Soviet conventional and nuclear forces. The
tremendous political and social changes rippling through the USSR,
Reagan
boosters will tell you, were due to the Gipper standing tall.
Bullpucky. What happened is what the grand old Republican Harold Stassen
had
predicted: the Soviet Union collapsed under its own dead weight.
Gorbachev
was a realist who recognized the system had failed. He didn’t need a
fantasist like Reagan to tell him change was needed. Russians wanted
what
the West had, and it wasn’t missiles or Reagan’s hair dye. They wanted
Levi’s
and rock & roll, the very music James Watt had tried to ban from
America’s
Fourth of July celebration in D.C.
While Reagan had little effect on the Soviet Union, he had a devastating
one
on Central America, where a popular revolution and a subsequent election
had
brought the Sandinistas to power in Nicaragua, and another revolution
was
raging in El Salvador.
Within two months of taking office, the White House and the CIA covertly
created an insurgent force to wage war on Nicaragua. Some who joined
Reagan’s
fight were patriots who had fought against Somoza but felt betrayed by
the
new regime’s move to the left. Most, though, and the ones Reagan’s CIA
backed, were the same ex-National Guard totalitarian thugs the country
had
just rid itself of. Their anointed leader, Enrique Bermudez, had headed
the
National Guard and been Somoza’s military attaché in Washington. Reagan
called these goons "the moral equivalent of the founding fathers"
struggling
at Valley Forge.
U.S. support for the contras, as they were dubbed, was originally sold
to
Congress as a limited operation to staunch the flow of arms to rebels in
El
Salvador. When it became clear the White House was instead orchestrating
the
overthrow of the Nicaraguan government, congressmen weren’t happy. On
Dec.
8, 1982, they passed the Boland Amendment prohibiting funding for the
contras. The amendment carried in the House 411 to 0.
The White House later got Congress to approve limited funding for food
and
medical supplies. What they didn’t mention was that they were still
secretly
funding the contras against the wishes—and outside the knowledge—of the
American public.
In January 1984, Reagan secretly approved the CIA’s covert mining of
Nicaraguan harbors, intended to block shipping and destroy the country’s
feeble economy. Ships from several nations were subsequently damaged,
including a Soviet oil tanker. When the CIA’s role was revealed by The
Wall
Street Journal that April, there was a new uproar, leading to a second
funds-stopping Boland Amendment passed in October.
By law, the White House was required to inform the Senate Select
Committee
on Intelligence of the covert operation. It hadn’t, and committee
chairman
Barry Goldwater (a shining example of what a Republican can stand for)
was
incensed, writing to CIA director Bill Casey, "I am pissed-off. . . .
This
is an act violating international law. It is an act of war. For the life
of
me, I don’t see how we are going to explain it."
The International Court of Justice agreed when Nicaragua brought the
case to
the Hague. While the U.S. had frequently used the same court to enforce
international agreements, Reagan chose to ignore its ruling this time,
making us a rogue state in the eyes of much of the world.
The covert, illegal funding of the contras continued, with Colonel
Oliver
North and others soliciting secret contributions from foreign states,
making
us beholden to them in ways we were never meant to know about. Among the
nations entrusted with this potential blackmail material were Saudi
Arabia,
Taiwan and the Sultanate of Brunei, who sent millions to numbered Swiss
bank
accounts administered from the White House. One bit of comic relief: the
Sultanate was given the wrong account number and deposited $10 million
into
some lucky stranger’s account.
Other strange bedfellows were enlisted, such as Panamanian leader, CIA
employee and No. 1 drug runner Manuel Noriega. Clandestine flights
delivered
arms to the contras and came back loaded with cocaine destined for the
U.S.
That several top contras were smuggling coke into the States is
established
fact. If you have doubts that the CIA or White House knew of this, read
the
literature and make up your own mind. Such allegations would be harder
to
believe, though, if known truths weren’t barely more conscionable.
These elaborate steps—Swiss accounts, dummy corporations, secret
flights,
etc.—were taken not to deceive the Nicaraguans, who could pretty well
figure
out where the bullets were coming from, but to deceive the American
Congress
and public.
It is a grand irony that the White House’s free-market attitude and
penchant
for secrecy crippled even the efforts closest to Reagan’s heart: our
military buildup was matched by gigantic procurement corruption
scandals,
and—in the only way the contras were similar to the troops at Valley
Forge—the mercenaries in the field were often underfed and ill-equipped
because everyone on down the line was grabbing a cut of the action for
themselves.
In trying to win overt support for the contras, Reagan sank to the
lowest
level of fearmongering and hucksterism when he made speeches citing the
number of miles between Nicaragua and Harlingen, Texas, as if the
besieged
Sandinistas were going to hop on a Greyhound bus and wage war on us.
This
while we were mining their harbors, violating their airspace, sabotaging
their economy and secretly funding a war of terror against them—burning
crops; bombing power stations; and massacring men, women and children.
Reagan’s scare tactics were all the more cynical given that the only
Americans killed in Nicaragua had been murdered by the contras. It was a
similar story across the border in El Salvador, where Reagan
wholeheartedly
supported the military government, despite the fact that U.S.-supplied
soldiers raped and murdered three American nuns, along with killing an
archbishop and anyone else they felt like. Confronted with the evidence,
Reagan aides argued (until even they were shamed into silence) that the
nuns
were rebel gunrunners.
Our American tax dollars used to kill Americans, even nuns, in the name
of
defeating godless communism: if I had to live with a contradiction like
that
rattling around inside my head, I’d pray to get Alzheimer’s.
In 1981, Reagan, who had criticized Carter for negotiating with Iran,
declared, "America will never make concessions to terrorists" and said,
"Let
terrorists beware: when the rules of international behavior are
violated,
our policy will be one of swift and effective retribution."
We could almost imagine the missiles flying toward our avowed foes. What
we
couldn’t imagine was that those missiles would be flying aboard cargo
jets,
delivered to those enemies to use at their pleasure. Reagan also sent
them a
cake and a Bible.
The nagging October Surprise question aside, by 1985, the administration
was
shipping arms to Iran, ostensibly in exchange for American hostages, and
arranging for intermediary countries such as Israel to do so as well, in
violation of the Arms Control Export Act, an embargo on Iran the U.S.
had
arranged—and in violation of the president’s own tough talk. The
president
is required to make a finding to Congress of covert acts, informing
select
members of the acts and justifying how the nation would be served by
them.
Reagan didn’t, another violation of the law.
In October 1986, CIA recruit Eugene Hasenfus was shot down over
Nicaragua
while on an arms run to the contras, and the truth came oozing out in
the
following weeks: the White House had been arming our enemies in secret
and
using the profits to fund a covert war to kill people who were not our
enemy.
While the White House paper shredders were working overtime, Reagan
addressed the nation on Nov. 13, 1986. Even more emphatically than our
dear
Bill Clinton later intoned, "I did not have sex with that woman," Reagan
faced the familiar cameras and said, "These charges are utterly false."
He
proceeded to lie about trading arms for hostages, about the amount of
arms
traded, and about having kept U.S. officials in the dark.
Six days later, he was back on TV, repeating some of those lies and
adding
new ones. Though a presidential aide issued corrections within the hour
and
Reagan’s own diaries showed he was in the arms-for-hostages loop, he
could
never bring himself to admit what he’d done. Rather, he told conflicting
stories to the press and three irreconcilable versions of events to
Congress.
Others took the fall while staffers raised the shield of "plausible
deniability" high around Reagan—raised it so high that, if Bill Clinton
had
taken a similar tack, he might just as reasonably have argued that he
didn’t
know his own dick was being Hoovered.
During the congressional hearings on the scandal, Senator John Kerry
said of
the Reagan White House, "They were willing to literally put the
Constitution
at risk because they believed there was somehow a higher order of
things,
that the ends do in fact justify the means. That’s the most Marxist,
totalitarian doctrine I’ve ever heard of in my life. . . . You’ve done
the
very thing that James Madison and others feared when they were
struggling to
put the Constitution together, which was to create an unaccountable
system
with runaway power . . . running off against the will of the American
people."
BEDTIME FOR DEMOCRACY
At the last Reagan/Gorbachev summit—by which time the changes in the
Soviet
Union were evident to everyone except Reagan—the Russian leader asked
Colin
Powell, "What are you going to do now that you’ve lost your best enemy?"
A good question because, under Reagan, America had ceased being America.
It
no longer stood for anything, only against some other thing. While
Reagan
lectured Russian college students about freedom, he had debased the word
beyond meaning by his actions in Central America, where we lay abed with
tyrants and murderers, and at home, where his government conspired to
act in
secret for the selfish advantage of a few.
The core values of Reagan’s governance lay not in a representative
republic
or, as Kerry suggested, a communist state, but instead hearkened all the
way
back to feudalism. Your feudal lord didn’t have to heed your wishes or
act
in your interests. For your allegiance, he only had to offer to protect
you
from the lord on the next hill, who was pointing your way and telling
his
vassals the same thing: that a dark woods lay between, where dark things
must happen so that you might sleep secure, things you had best not ask
about, children.
Who better than a movie star, America’s royalty, to convey the message
that
God shone his grace on some more than others? These chosen ones, your
leaders and captains of industry, were more equal than others, capable
of
handling the secrets and backroom deals, and if they benefited from
that, it
’s because they deserved to. It’s no wonder that such men felt a kinship
with the despots and satraps of the world, who stood for everything
America
supposedly didn’t.
But what about Reagan’s popularity? Those who have recently been rouging
Reagan’s image like to remind us that he won re-election with the
largest
total vote count in U.S. history. They are less keen on telling how by
1987,
polls showed that Gorbachev was more popular with Americans than their
own
president was. Nor do they note that the candidate with the
second-greatest
vote count in our history, Al Gore, wound up teaching college instead of
being president.
Still, there’s no ignoring that Reagan was—and remains—a very popular
American figure. One explanation to me is that when our founding fathers
were rebelling against the British monarchy, a lot of Americans didn’t
share
their fervor but preferred to go on clinging to a monarch’s hem. I doubt
the
percentages have changed much since then. There are still many folks who
would rather have a daddy figure or lord up on the hill to tell them
simple
lies, rather than to be accountable themselves for the responsibilities
of
freedom.
Oliver North and his ilk were only able to work in the dark because so
few
Americans were willing to shine a light there. To some, it never
occurred
that unchecked power might be misused. To entirely too many others, a
cynical world-view prevailed that it’s a compromised, dog-eat-dog world
where corruption and injustice are the accepted coin of the realm. And a
lot
of people simply watched TV.
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, so listen to the voices in
Washington now: the ones using the fight against "evildoers" instead of
the
"Evil Empire" as a reason to trample our civil rights; the ones willing
to
stifle a worker’s right to strike but not a power consortium’s right to
imperil our state’s economy and public safety; the ones anxious to risk
a
new Cold War and higher deficits with their unworkable Star Wars sequel;
the
ones sacrificing the environment to an ideology that confuses freedom
with
boundless exploitation; the ones who have named Iran-contra figure John
Negroponte—accused of covering up U.S.-sponsored death squad activities
in
Honduras (including the murder of an American priest; spot a trend
here?)—to
represent our nation’s ideals and aspirations in the United Nations. All
this under the aegis of another fumbling, nice-guy president.
Goddamn it! This is not the nation we envisioned when we were kids,
proud to
see our flag flying, proud of the just, kind, freedom-loving people we
believed ourselves to be. This is not the reality we want our own kids
to
have to wake up to.
Everyone says they love their country. But love is action, and the
American
Dream is nothing more than a dream if people don’t act on it.
At a 1985 White House reception at which Elie Wiesel was awarded the
Congressional Gold Medal, the famed Holocaust expert attempted to
dissuade
Reagan, unsuccessfully, from participating in a ceremony at Bitburg, a
German cemetery where elite SS troops were interred. Having witnessed
the
Holocaust, Wiesel said, "I have learned the danger of indifference, the
crime of indifference. For the opposite of love, I have learned, is not
hate, but indifference."
steve horan
>
> campuses and in the city streets."
And in the Texas Air Reserve.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.1stcavmedic.com/tet_offensive_of_1968.htm
>
>
>
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> Nutburger Alert in Full Progress...
>
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > one of
> > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider
him
> > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
> > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
> > ridden administration in history.
>
> You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> worse...
Go ahead and list the policy successes of President Clinton. Tell us what he
did that was good. I can tell you one thing that he did damned good ... and
that is destroying the economy.
Dateline: March 8, 2001
The ex-Klansman showed his true colors when asked by Fox News Sunday morning
talk show host Tony Snow about the state of race relations in America. Sen.
Byrd warned: "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in
my time.
The ex-Klansman allegedly ended his ties with the group in 1943. He may have
stopped paying dues, but he continued to pay homage to the KKK. Republicans
in West Virginia discovered a letter Sen. Byrd had written to the Imperial
Wizard of the KKK three years after he says he abandoned the group. He
wrote: "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its
rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union."
The ex-Klansman later filibustered the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act -
supported by a majority of those "mean-spirited" Republicans - for more than
14 hours. He also opposed the nominations of the Supreme Court's two black
justices, liberal Thurgood Marshall and conservative Clarence Thomas. In
fact, the ex-Klansman had the gall to accuse Justice Thomas of "injecting
racism" into the Senate hearings.
The ex-Klansman vowed never to fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I
should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to
rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race
mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
Considering that since leaving the KKK Senator Byrd still supported the
terrorist organization and as recently as 2001 used the "N" word TWICE on
national TV I don't think that Senator Byrd is fooling anyone. All he did
was pull the wool over the eyes of voters and hide behind a facade of having
transformed when in fact he always has been and continues to be a racist.
"You are a lying sack of shit and all your posts are revisionist
propogandistic crap."
Once again I have to respond to your mean spirited personal attacks. I know
how frustrating it can be to not have a leg to stand on when it comes to
trying to find something that is both good and factual about your political
party and it's members in government because there was a time that I thought
that democrats knew the answers. What I soon enough learned is that the
party of democrats that my parents used to talk about and the party of
democrats that we have today are as different as night and day. Back then
they were democrats and had a great degree of morality and honesty to them,
now they are socialists lacking in ideas, abilities, morality and honesty.
The reason you dislike me so much is because I tell the truth, I only deal
in facts, not in propaganda. You can say anything you like, call me names,
label me nuts, a liar or what ever you want but nothing that you can
possibly say will change reality. Facts are facts and you are incorrect in
most of what you have said. Your liberal revisionist history propaganda has
not replaced and will never replace historical fact regardless of how many
times you and others like you repeat it. That is why you dislike me, because
I am not ignorant enough to fall for the pack of lies that you have fallen
for.
Senator Robert Byrd, Ex-Klansman
Byline: Michelle Malkin
Dateline: March 8, 2001
The ex-Klansman showed his true colors when asked by Fox News Sunday morning
talk show host Tony Snow about the state of race relations in America. Sen.
Byrd warned: "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in
my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make
our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so
much."
The ex-Klansman's admirers praise his historical knowledge, mastery of
procedural rules, and outspokenness. They refer to the Senate's senior
Democrat as the "conscience of the Senate." They downplay his
white-sheet-wearing days as a "brief mistake" - as if joining the Klan were
like knocking over a glass of water. Oopsy.
This ex-Klansman wasn't just a passive member of the nation's most notorious
hate group. According to news accounts and biographical information, Sen.
Byrd was a "Kleagle" - an official recruiter who signed up members for $10 a
head. He said he joined because it "offered excitement" and because the Klan
was an "effective force" in "promoting traditional American values."
The ex-Klansman allegedly ended his ties with the group in 1943. He may have
stopped paying dues, but he continued to pay homage to the KKK. Republicans
in West Virginia discovered a letter Sen. Byrd had written to the Imperial
Wizard of the KKK three years after he says he abandoned the group. He
wrote: "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its
rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union."
The ex-Klansman later filibustered the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act -
supported by a majority of those "mean-spirited" Republicans - for more than
14 hours. He also opposed the nominations of the Supreme Court's two black
justices, liberal Thurgood Marshall and conservative Clarence Thomas. In
fact, the ex-Klansman had the gall to accuse Justice Thomas of "injecting
racism" into the Senate hearings.
The ex-Klansman vowed never to fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I
should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to
rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race
mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
Here's the formula. If a conservative is embarrassed, it makes the front
page, full story. If a liberal is embarrassed, it plays deep inside the
paper, just an item in a column.
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> Nutburger Alert in Full Progress...
>
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > one of
> > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider
him
> > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
> > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
> > ridden administration in history.
>
> You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> worse...
By Stephen Robinson in Washington
A FORMER FBI agent who served in the White House has claimed that President
Clinton hides under a blanket as he is driven to assignations with a woman
in a Washington hotel room.
Gary Aldrich, who retired from the FBI last summer after 30 years' service,
makes the allegation in a book entitled Unlimited Access. He also describes
several heated rows between Mr Clinton and his wife, Hillary. The claims
were reported in several American newspapers yesterday and the New York Post
ran its report under the headline "The Wild House". A White House spokesman
dismissed the allegations as "trash".
Mr Aldrich says that when Mr Clinton wants to meet the unidentified woman,
he leaves the White House after midnight lying under a blanket on the back
seat of a car driven past the Secret Service guard-post by his close friend,
Bruce Lindsey. Mr Lindsey was named this month as co-conspirator in a Little
Rock bank fraud trial.
Mr Aldrich alleges that the two men drive about half a mile to the basement
of the Marriott Hotel where Mr Clinton takes a special goods lift to a room
hired in someone else's name. Mr Lindsey, the president's most trusted
adviser, reportedly waits in the car for his friend to return. Mr Aldrich
does not speculate upon the identity of the woman Mr Clinton is visiting
other than to say he understands she might be a "celebrity". Mr Aldrich adds
details of another alleged relationship the president enjoys with a young
member of the White House staff, who is also unnamed but is described as
"very attractive but a little dizzy".
He also claims knowledge of several rows between Mr and Mrs Clinton,
including one on inauguration day in January 1993 over a demand by Mrs
Clinton that she should have the office normally reserved for the
vice-president. Mrs Clinton lost the argument, but the exchange became so
heated that Secret Service agents wondered whether they should intervene, he
says.
The order swiftly went out from the First Lady's office that knickers were
to be worn at all time
Mr Aldrich makes no secret of his dislike for the Clintons and their circle
of advisers, whom he sees as a group of muddle-headed liberals. He records
that Mrs Clinton is known to staff as Queen Hillary because of her imperial
manner and hostility to subordinates. Mr Aldrich claims that many employees
on Mr Clinton's staff had taken drugs over the years and he says a colleague
once found two male officials having sex in the showers.
He retired after three "unhappy years" in the White House, which he said
reminded him of his earlier career on the streets dealing with mobsters. But
this time, he says, he was "fighting a new mafia, this one from Arkansas".
Mark Fabiani, a White House spokesman, dismissed Mr Aldrich's claims as
"trash for Right-wing cash" based on mixture of "rumour and innuendo".
Some of Mr Aldrich's account should be treated with scepticism because of
his political bias, but a lot of it accords with previous published accounts
of the strains and stresses of life in the White House.
Senators investigating the White House's handling of confidential FBI files
on members of past Republican administrations are taking Mr Aldrich
seriously. Some of his allegations were raised yesterday during a hearing of
a Senate judiciary committee which is trying to determine who called up the
files.
Among his more bizarre assertions is that one young volunteer worker was
upbraided by Mrs Clinton for not wearing knickers under a short skirt.
According to Mr Aldrich, the order swiftly went out from the First Lady's
office that knickers were to be worn at all time.
Mr Aldrich also claims that he was told by Craig Livingstone, the former
head of personnel security at the White House, that Vince Foster expressed
concern that rumours of his affair with Mrs Clinton were about to re-surface
shortly before his apparent suicide in July 1993.
White House admits using files from FBI
By Hugh Davies in Washington
Whitewater fails to sink Clinton's re-election hopes
THE White House has confirmed that officials keep the names of 200,000
people on a computer database, most of them members of Congress, campaign
contributors and journalists.
The announcement which continued the row over FBI background files provoked
allegations concerning invasion of privacy. The project was begun in 1993,
when Hillary Clinton was worried about what she regarded as betrayals of
incidents in her private life to the media. This was also when the White
House began storing in a vault sensitive FBI documents on Republicans.
The database lists political loyalties as well as whether the subjects are
friends of the Clintons. Barry Toiv, a White House aide, said the computer
information was purely to help in deciding whom to invite to the White
House, as well as to keep track of Mr Clinton's supporters. The database,
apparently nicknamed "Big Brother" internally, is being likened to Lyndon
Johnson's "favours file", but Republicans are seizing on it as further
evidence of privacy violation.
Congressman John Boehner challenged the White House yesterday, saying that
if the information were so innocuous there was no harm in releasing it.
"Many of us are concerned that this looks like an enemies' list that's being
created at the White House." Susan Molinari, another Republican, said:
"Every day there are new revelations coming from this White House in terms
of the way they used their power."
People whose files turned up in the White House vault are now surfacing on
TV chat shows
It has also emerged that the number of FBI files at the White House was 700,
not 408 as the administration first stated. In addition, Anthony Marceca, a
Pentagon aide who worked on them, routinely took home information from the
FBI papers, storing it on computer discs.
Craig Livingstone, the Democratic political operative in charge of the
documents, who has been forced to quit his White House job, has had details
of his FBI check disclosed in Congress. It turns out that he lied about his
academic record and admitted using various drugs "up until about 1985".
People whose files turned up in the White House vault are now surfacing on
TV chat shows, all livid and most doubting the official explanation that it
was an honest mistake by low-level aides. Mary Carroll said that among
questions asked of her by the FBI was if she had "cheated" on her husband.
Linda Chavez, director of the US Commission on Civil Rights in the Reagan
administration, said her file, obtained under the Freedom of Information
law, included a lie that she had been fired, together with information that
her father had been arrested for a violent crime. Her initial shock turned
to rage when she realised that the date of the arrest was after he had died.
The FBI had mixed him up with a man of the same name.
UNLIMITED EXCESS
The Mainstream Media Savage Aldrich
By Edward Zehr, July 8, 1996
The Washington Weekly, (http://dolphin.gulf.net)
A newly published book by a retired FBI agent with 30 years of service, who
was assigned to the White House during the Bush and Clinton administrations,
is being used by the Clinton administration to provide the opening they need
to extricate themselves from a descending spiral of negative publicity.
According to the Washington Times, "the book has sent Clinton aides into
hyperdrive, trying to paint Aldrich as a key figure in a conservative plot
to trash the president and first lady."
The former agent, Gary Aldrich, has written a book titled "Unlimited
Access," which makes a number of allegations of a sensational nature
regarding the private lives of the president, his wife and members of the
White House staff. The author has been vehemently criticized by the
mainstream media for basing a number of his allegations on accounts provided
by unnamed sources
According to Aldrich, Mr. Clinton was late to his own inauguration due to
Mrs. Clinton's adamant insistence that she be given the White House office
traditionally reserved for the vice president. She backed down only after
being told that Al Gore had threatened to resign rather than submit to the
humiliation of being denied the office that was rightfully his by tradition.
Aldrich noted that the altercation between the president and the first lady
became so heated at one point that the Secret Service agents present
considered intervening to protect the president.
Aldrich also claims that Craig Livingstone told him Vince Foster had
expressed serious concern about rumors that he had been having an affair
with Hillary Clinton. Foster was said to have believed, shortly before his
death, that the rumors were about to surface in a Washington newspaper and
"was worried sick about it." (The allegation did appear in the American
Spectator some time after Foster's death). Livingstone maintains that he had
never actually met Vince Foster.
A "highly placed, credible" source is cited by Aldrich as saying that
Hillary was given a major role in determining domestic policy in return for
supporting her husband after Gennifer Flowers alleged that she and Mr.
Clinton had been involved in a 12-year affair. According to the source, the
deal was brokered by former White House counsel Lloyd Cutler prior to the
1992 election. Cutler has denied this.
According to a London Times article that was published on Saturday, June 29,
Aldrich, who was responsible for clearing presidential appointees,
maintained that "security was so lax that he found evidence of 'willful
endangerment' of the President and national security." He complained that
many of the young White House staffers who lacked security clearance were
allowed to handle classified documents.
Perhaps the most controversial account in Aldrich's book involves the
allegation that Mr. Clinton slipped away from his Secret Service protectors
on a number of occasions to engage in nighttime trysts with an unnamed lady
at the Marriott Hotel. The president is described by Aldrich lying, covered
with a blanket, on the back seat of a car driven by his friend and White
House advisor Bruce Lindsey. Mr. Clinton is said to have taken a service
elevator from the underground garage in the hotel straight to the room of
his lady friend, returning, sometimes hours later, to be driven back to the
White House by Lindsey who had waited patiently in the automobile the whole
time.
Quite apart from the extraordinary forbearance required of Mr. Lindsey, the
story has several difficulties. The hotel management point out that the
service elevator ascends from the service entrance rather than the parking
garage, for example. A spokesman for the Secret Service insists that the
president could not possibly leave the White House without the knowledge of
his bodyguards. U.S. News reports, however, that a secret tunnel,
constructed during the Reagan administration, connects the Oval Office to
the president's living quarters in the East Wing. The tunnel was to provide
an escape route in case of a terrorist attack. (There is also said to be an
older tunnel connecting the White House to the State Department building by
way of an underground garage). Reagan is said to have used the tunnel to
sneak Richard Nixon into the White House for consultation on foreign policy.
The article suggests that the president could use the tunnel to leave the
White House with minimal chance of detection.
SHERMAN H. SKOLNICK vs. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
==============================================
Document "A" [Received by U.S. District Court July 18, 1996]
------------------------------------------------------------
[Case 96C 4373]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
SHERMAN H. SKOLNICK and JOSEPH ANDREUCCETTI,
Plaintiffs, )
vs.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON; AMY ZISOOK; MARK ZISOOK;
H.C. VALENT;.JOHN E. GIERUM; GERALD H.
PARSHALL, Jr.; ROBERT ALEXOVICH; and ten JOHN
DOES and JANE ROES (whose identity is not now
known to plaintiffs),
Defendants. )
VERIFIED COMPLAINT.
Sherman H. Skolnick and Joseph Andreuccetti, plaintiffs, complain
against the defendants Hillary Rodham Clinton, Amy Zisook, Mark
Zisook, H.C. Valent, John E. Gierum, Gerald H. Parshall, Jr.,
Robert Alexovich, and ten John Does and Jane Roes (whose identity
is not now known to plaintiffs), and allege as follows:
Count One.
Sherman H. Skolnick and Joseph Andreuccetti plaintiffs, complaint
against the defendants Hillary Rodham Clinton, Amy Zisook, Mark
Zisook, H.C. Valent, John E. Gierum, Gerald H. Parshall, Jr.,
Robert Alexovich, and ten John Does and Jane Roes (whose identity
is not now known to the plaintiffs) and allege as follows:
1. Jurisdiction and venue is hereby invoked pursuant to 28
U.S.C.A. $ 1331, and the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments of
the U.S. Constitution and case law precedents pursuant thereto,
including but not limited to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403
U.S. 388 (1971), as to some of the aforesaid defendants acting
under the sham and pretense of federal authority, but without
actual authority for the acts and doings hereinafter complained
of.
2. That the matter in controvery for each defendant exceeds the
jurisdictional minimum exclusive of interest and costs.
3. That plaintiff Sherman H. Skolnick is a citizen of the United
States and a resident of the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
4. That plaintiff Joseph Andreuccetti is a citizen of the United
States and a resident of the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
5. Most every act and doings done by defendants, hereinafter
complained of by plaintiffs, was done in the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
6. That some of the defendants acted under the sham and pretense
of federal authority but without actual authority to do the acts
and doings hereinafter complained of by plaintiffs.
7. A trial by jury is hereby demanded pursuant to provisions of
law, including but not limited to F.R.C.P. Rule 38(b) and Rule
57.
8. Since 1958, plaintiff Skolnick is a crusader against court
corruption and political murders and seeks as a remedy to bring
to public attention certain instances of judicial and other
bribery and political murders. Since 1971, plaintiff Skolnick's
public disclosures have been on a recorded phone commentary, a
regular phone number, heard by a large number of callers each
week. Since 1991, plaintiff Skolnick has been a regular
panelist, now moderator and producer, of a public access cable TV
show, called "Broadsides", cablecast each week to a large
viewership in Chicago and in some suburbs. Since 1994, plaintiff
Skolnick's comments on judicial corruption and political murders
have appeared on Internet, on various alternative news groups and
are now archived and presented on various Websites.
9. In these capacities of plaintiff Skolnick, plaintiff
Andreuccetti contacted plaintiff Skolnick in 1991, and sought
help and public exposure in long-pending injustices perpetrated
in and out of state and federal courts against plaintiff
Andreuccetti.
10. That defendants, each of them, individually, and jointly,
severally, and in concert with each other and other persons,
have been part of a scheme as follows:
(a) to obstruct the due course of justice as to plaintiffs, and
to damage plaintiffs in their persons, properties, and federal
constitutionally protected rights, privileges, and immunities, as
hereinafter more fully set forth;
(b) to obstruct public disclosure and disclosure in official
tribunals, by plaintiffs, of the secret details of the unlawful
transfer of a 50 million dollar portion of 58.4 million dollars
of funds of the Federal Home Loan Bank, parked and held in
custody, and supposed to be so, with Household Bank and Household
International in the Chicago area, and supposed to be held to
make good the claims of plaintiff Andreuccetti.
(c) the use of said 50 million dollar unlawful transfer by
defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton was to cover up 47 million
dollars that was misappropriated and embezzled, and/or otherwise
unlawfully encumbered, used, or removed from an Arkansas savings
and loan, Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, as to which
defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband, William
Jefferson Clinton, committed or caused to be committed, and
allowed, permitted, and condoned, and acquiesced in, acts and
doings punishable under provisions of the federal criminal code.
Part of the scheme included for defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton
to proceed to have acts and doings done against the plaintiffs,
with said defendant pretending to have federal authority; that
although said defendant occupies an office in the White House,
she has no actual federal authority but was part of the scheme to
pretend she did.
11. That in January, 1994, plaintiff Skolnick was sitting in his
wheelchair in the hallway of one of the floors of the site of the
federal courts in Chicago, the Dirksen Federal Building, 219
South Dearborn St., Chicago, IL 60604. Defendant John E. Gierum
came up to plaintiff Skolnick and insisted on talking to
plaintiff about certain matters that were bothering said
defendant. At the time, the defendant appeared highly rattled
and agitated. In a few moments, plaintiff Skolnick and defendant
Gierum were joined by plaintiff Andreuccetti who was coming from
parking his vehicle.
Defendant Gierum told plaintiffs that he was closely aligned with
defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton, being from the same Chicago
suburb of Park Ridge as the Rodham family and having gone to law
school with her brother. Defendant Gierum, pointing to plaintiff
Skolnick, said to plaintiffs, "If you are correct, as you seem to
be, what have I been doing the last ten years?", meaning to be
understood by defendant Gierum and was so understood by
plaintiffs, that defendant Gierum was then and there confirming
that plaintiffs are correct about the very high level corruption,
obstruction of justice as to plaintiffs, is true and correct, and
that Gierum knows about the unlawful matters as herein and
hereinafter set forth and that Gierum has gone along with such
corruption and is a part of the same.
12. Thereafter, on the same day in January, 1994, the discussion
between plaintiffs and defendant Gierum resumed outside the Park
Ridge law offices of defendant Gierum. Said defendant came out
of his office and sat in the front seat of plaintiff
Andreuccetti's vehicle; Gierum sat next to Skolnick and
Andreuccetti sat right behind them. Then and there defendant
Gierum admitted and confessed, as follows, including but not
limited to:
(a) that defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Clinton White
House are trying to frame Gierum and send him to prison by way of
blaming Gierum for the unlawful transfer of the said 50 million
dollars, as hereinbefore described.
(b) That because of very high level corruption, defendant Gierum
would not be able to defend himself, irrespective of the law and
the facts that might otherwise protect him or support his
position.
(c) Whereupon, plaintiff Skolnick said to defendant Gierum,
"John, you seem to be a skilled attorney; you can beat the rap."
Defendant Gierum responded, "No, I can't. It's fixed. I'll no
doubt be calling you from a faraway jail." Whereupon, defendant
Gierum had tears in his eyes as he began talking of his young
child that depends on him and that in jail he would not be able
to take care of that child. "They'll frame their own mother",
defendant Gierum said in anguish, meaning defendant Hillary
Rodham Clinton and her husband. That despite his admissions and
confession, Gierum was a participant in said unlawful transfer.
13. That thereafter, as known to defendant Gierum, and as known
to defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton, plaintiff Skolnick made
numerous public mentions of the matters as in paragraphs 12, (a)
through (c) inclusive, and for some two years after January,
1994, defendant Gierum did not dispute or challenge the same.
That the matter was referred to in court by plaintiff
Andreuccetti, and defendant Gierum did not challenge or dispute
it there either.
14. That in furtherance of the scheme, as hereinbefore
mentioned, defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton, by and through
defendant Gerald H. Parshall, Jr., on February 16, 1995, did,
caused to be done, committed, allowed, permitted, and condoned,
and acquiesced in the following:
(a) that for the purposes of said hereinbefore described scheme,
defendant Parshall, acting for defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton,
and Parshall purporting to be a Clinton Justice Department
official, flew in to Chicago, and threatened, coerced, and
terrorized plaintiffs Skolnick and Andreuccetti in a hallway
outside Courtroom 1858, Dirksen Federal Building, Chicago,
Illlinois, as follows:
(b) That in a menacing and threatening voice, defendant Parshall
said to plaintiffs Skolnick and Andreuccetti, while Parshall was
pointing to Skolnick sitting in his wheelchair, that Parshall was
going to meet privately with Chief Bankruptcy Judge John D.
Schwartz, to get Schwartz to jail Skolnick to stop Skolnick from
investigating and making public statements relating to the
hereinbefore described scheme and certain matters admitted to and
confessed by an Internal Revenue official of the Criminal
Investigation Division as hereinafter set forth. Meaning to be
understood by defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton by and through
defendant Parshall, and so understood by plaintiffs, that
defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton, by and through her confederate
defendant Parshall, was going to ex parte and privately get
Schwartz to misuse his federal authoriity , to arbitrarily and
without authority or jurisdiction over Skolnick, to jail
Skolnick, to stop Skolnick from investigating and publicly
disclosing matters relating to the hereinbefore dsscribed scheme
by defendants.
(c) then and there clearly visible to defendant Parshall, acting
for and on behalf of defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton, was that
plaintiff Skolnick is a helpless, paraplegic invalid in a
wheelchair. That the acts and doings of defendant Hillary Rodham
Clinton, by and through defendant Parshall, were done to
terrorize plaintiff Skolnick and coerce plaintiff Andreuccetti
standing right next to Skolnick's wheelchair, and did so
terrorize and coerce plaintiffs.
(d) That U.S. Magistrate Joan H. Lefkow who occupies said
Courtroom 1858, and her deputy clerk overheard said threats,
terror, and coercion directed against plaintiffs in the hallway.
The deputy clerk of said Magistrate came to the door and stated,
"We inside (meaning her and the Magistrate) can hear everything
you are saying. Please move away from this doorway". At the
time, Magistrate Lefkow was being manipulated by defendant
Hillary Rodham Clinton and defendant Parshall, in that the
husband of defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton had just prior
thereto appointed Lefkow to be a U.S. District Judge, and said
appointment was being manipulated by a top Justice Department
official, Sheila Foster Anthony, sister of Clinton White House
deputy counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr., who died mysteriously in
July, 1993.
As known to defendants Hillary Rodham Clinton and Parshall,
plaintiff Skolnick as a commentator had made public statements
that defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Clinton Justice
Department were covering up what Skolnick and others believed was
the murder of Foster.
15. That on or about April, 1995, defendant Hillary Rodham
Clinton flew in to Chicago to appear on the Oprah TV Show,
telecast out of Chicago for nationwide distribution. That said
defendant, in describing plaintiff Skolnick, said that Skolnick's
comments have to be blocked. By words, phrases, and statements,
said defendant stated plaintiff is an evil person and should be
obstructed in what he is doing. Meaning to be understood by said
defendant, and so understood by plaintiffs, that Skolnick's
investigation of said hereinbefore described scheme, is to be
obstructed by whatever means possible, even unlawful methods.
That by said statements, said defendant confirmed and ratified
that she was acting to terrorize and coerce plaintiffs, as
hereinbefore described, by and through defendant Parshall and
others. Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton said in referring to
plaintiff Skolnick as assisted in his TV Show by plaintiff
Andreuccetti, that there is a person in this town (meaning
Chicago) doing a TV about me (meaning Hillary) who has to be
stopped. Meaning plaintiffs are to be "enemies of the state" on
an "enemies list".
16. That defendants Hillary Rodham Clinton and Parshall were in
a position to know that Chief Judge Schwartz was the very one
they could use to seek to misuse his federal authority to falsely
jail Skolnick, to stop plaintiff Skolnick from investigating,
with plaintiff Andreuccetti, and by terror to block Skolnick's
said TV program referred to by defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton,
the hereinbefore described scheme. On or about December, 1994,
Judge Schwartz addressed all the lawyers and other persons then
and there in his court, as follows:
"That man in the wheelchair, Sherman Skolnick. I don't want to
find out that any of you watch or pay any attention to his
television show." Which was meant as a warning to lawyers and
other persons that come into the courthouse, that something bad
will happen to them if they dared to watch Skolnick's Monday
evening program "Broadsides" on public access Cable TV in Chicago
and some suburbs.
17. That shortly after the matters with defendant Gierum, as in
paragraphs 12 through 12(c) inclusive, preceding, plaintiff
Skolnick discussed the Gierum matter on Skolnick's recorded phone
commentary and on Skolnick's public access Cable TV Show. Also,
plaintiff Skolnick assisted with a story about what Gierum said
in a one million circulation newspaper in Germany.
18. Whereupon, defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton, under the
pretense of federal authority but without actual authority to do
so, put plaintiffs Skolnick and Andreuccetti on a so-called
"enemies list", to be targeted by the Internal Revenue Service,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other state and federal
agencies, without any basis in law or in fact to warrant or
authorize said plaintiffs to be so targeted.
19. Up to about October, 1994, defendant Amy Zisook was a
consultant in the White House to defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton
and to her husband, the President; and acting in an advisory and
other capacities for and on behalf of Household Bank and
Household International in respect to the Gierum matter, as in
paragraphs 12 through 12 (c) inclusive, preceding, and in
furtherance of the scheme as hereinbefore described.
20. On or about July, 1994, defendant Mark Zisook in furtherance
of the matter in paragraph 19 preceding, and in furtherance of
having plaintiffs on the said "enemies list"; and in furtherance
of the scheme hereinbefore described; that defendant Mark Zisook,
under the cover of being a purported insurance salesman, obtained
entrance into the private residence in Bensenville, Illinois, a
Chicago suburb, of plaintiff Andreuccetti and his wife Noemi.
Under the pretense of purporting to seek to sell plaintiff
insurance, defendant Mark Zisook proceeded to grill plaintiff
Andreuccetti and his wife, as to their business, as to their
family, as to their life style, as to matters that relate to
their politics, and what plaintiff knows about defendant Hillary
Rodham Clinton.
Defendant Mark Zisook, describing to plaintiff, regarding
defendant Amy Zisook, called her "my sister", and said that
shortly "my sister has to leave the White House because it is a
sinking ship", a statement calculated to elicit data from
plaintiff Andreuccetti as to the hereinbefore described unlawful
secret transfer of 50 million dollars implicating Household Bank
and Household International and defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton
and others, as in paragraph 10 through 10(c) inclusive,
preceding; and as to Household, with plaintiff Andreuccetti not
knowing at the time that defendant Mark Zisook's relative,
defendant Amy Zisook, has been in an advisory capacity to
Household and in other capacities with them.
That defendant Mark Zisook found some way to conduct himself and
the conversation, that he stayed many hours at the private
residence of plaintiff Andreuccetti. Said defendant while
purporting to sympathize with the viewpoints of plaintiff as to
defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton; that defendant Mark Zisook
acted that way by way of extracting from plaintiff data having
nothing whatever to do with the selling to plaintiff purported
insurance.
21. That the acts and doings of defendant Amy Zisook, by and
through defendant Mark Zisook, were in furtherance of defendant
Hillary Rodham Clinton having plaintiffs Andreuccetti and
Skolnick on said "enemies list", to target plaintiffs for
espionage and to find some way to coerce them.
22. That a scheme related to that in paragraphs 10 through
10(c) preceding was the following:
(a) that top officials of the Internal Revenue Service in Chicago
set about to steal for their own personal use and benefit,
millions of dollars of properties, called Kingspoint
Condominiums, in Addison, Illinois, a Chicago suburb, rightfully
belonging to plaintiff Andreuccetti;
(b) that said officials had the blessings and connivance of
Robert Cesca, acting inspector general of the U.S. Treasury,
described by law enforcement officers that Cesca is the highest
mafia representative in the U.S. government. That Cesca has
arranged to conceal official documents that incriminate
defendants including Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband.
(c) that for the purposes of so stealing plaintiff Andreuccetti's
valuable properties, said top IRS officials were in a position to
blackmail Chicago Chief Federal Bankruptcy Judge John D.
Schwartz, in that Schwartz had been a director of First National
Bank of Cicero which through a fraud, pushed plaintiff
Andreuccetti into involuntary bankruptcy; that Schwartz put
himself in charge of all matters purporting to relate to
plaintiff Andreuccetti, including state court litigation over
which Schwartz had no lawful jurisdiction. Further, another
blackmail point against Schwartz was that he apparently had not
filed any proper income tax in thirty years. And still further,
that Schwartz had over 140 million dollars parked offshore in his
name.
(d) Moreover, an additional blackmail point of said top IRS
officials to work a corrupt and malign influence on Judge
Schwartz to their benefit, to the benefit of Household
International and Household Bank, and to the great detriment of
plaintiff Andreuccetti, was that the financial affairs of Judge
Schwartz were interwoven with a strange purported Cadillac
dealer, Emil Denemark, interwoven with Marcinkus, the Vatican
Bank, and First National Bank of Cicero.
(e) That the top IRS officials allowed, permitted, condoned,
approved of, and acquiesced in, that a purported Bankruptcy
Trustee, Jay Steinberg, linked to Household International and
Household Bank, caused to be filed in the name of plaintiff
Joseph Andreuccetti, false and fraudulent income tax forms and
returns, without the knowledge or permission of plaintiff Joseph
Andreuccetti. Among other things, by said false and fraudulent
forms and returns, the top IRS officials, aided by Steinberg,
covered up a 900 hundred thousand dollar to one and one half
million dollar embezzlement to the damage of plaintiff
Andreuccetti.
(f) that said top IRS officials, aided by Robert Cesca, acting
inspector general of the U.S. Treasury, and according to law
enforcement personnel, the highest ranking mafia representative
in the U.S. government, have covered up the theft of plaintiff
Andreuccetti properties for their own personal use and benefit,
by causing the land titles of the same to disappear. That to
cover up the unawful transfer and other related matters, that
tend to incriminate defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton and her
husband, that Cesca and his confederates have concealed documents
relating to Hillary and Bill Clinton and relating to matters
herein of high-level corruption of top officials of IRS in
stealing plaintiff Andreuccetti's valuable property for their own
personal benefit.
23. That in furtherance of the said scheme, and to coerce and
terrorize plaintiff Andreuccetti, defendants Hillary Rodham
Clinton, John E. Gierum, and Gerald H. Parshall, Jr., acting
jointly and severally, and in concert with one another, caused,
approved of, condoned, and acquiesced in the following:
(a) That on May 13, 1996, defendant H.C. Valent came to the
private residence of plaintiff Andreuccetti, in the Chicago
suburb of Bensenville, Illinois, and then and there in a loud,
threatening, and menacing voice, said to plaintiff Andreuccetti's
wife, Noemi, to wit:
"You and your husband are criminals and I am going to confiscate
all your furniture and your clothes, and all these vehicles near
your house" meant by said defendant to cause great stress and
anguish to plaintiff Andreuccetti recuperating from a triple
bypass open heart operation, by so terrorizing plaintiff's wife;
and did so cause plaintiff great terror, stress, and anguish.
That defendant H.C. Valent did these acts and doings under the
sham and pretense of being a purported Revenue Officer of the
Internal Revenue Service, but without actual authority to do so;
but done under the sham and pretense of federal authority and
while defendant Valent in a loud and threatening voice and
menacing gestures repeatedly pushed her purported badge into the
face of plaintiff's wife.
24. That this was caused to be done by defendant Hillary Rodham
Clinton putting plaintiffs on the aforesaid "enemies list"; to
obstruct the due course of justice as to plaintiffs; to coerce
and terrorize plaintiff Andreuccetti with the defendants knowing
that plaintiff Andreuccetti assists plaintiff Skolnick in various
ways as to the aforementioned public access Cable TV Show, such
as plaintiff Andreuccetti transporting the cable tapes, such as
plaintiff Andreuccetti transporting plaintiff Skolnick who is a
paraplegic and needs a wheelchair and special handling to get
around; such as plaintiff Andreuccetti aiding and assisting
Skolnick as a crusader as previously described.
25. That many of the aforementioned acts and doings were caused
because the plaintiffs obtained the following confessions and
admissions:
26. That on September 20, 1994, Plaintiff Sherman H. Skolnick
and plaintiff Joseph Andreuccetti went to the 14th floor of the
Kluczynski Building, headquarters in Chicago of the Internal
Revenue Service, at 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.
Plaintiffs there went to the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal
Investigation Division. Skolnick said he is a journalist and
wishes to speak with the Chief or acting Chief of C.I.D.
27. A woman came to a door, said she speaks for the Chief, later
identifying herself as Lynette Redmer, and ushered Skolnick and
Andreuccetti to a conference room.
28. Skolnick stated that he is a journalist, gave his card, and
stated he is head of "Hotline News" and participant of a TV Cable
Show, "Broadsides", and founder/chairman, Citizen's Committee to
Clean Up the Courts. He stated he is there with Andreuccetti,
hereinafter "Joe", to report corruption, involving, among other
things, corruption of U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee Jay Steinberg.
29. Skolnick told her that Steinberg, in the name of Joe, has
been preparing, and causing to be prepared, and causing to be
filed, false and fraudulent federal tax forms and returns,
without the knowledge or permission of Joe.
30. That Steinberg has concealed that there was a 900 Thousand
Dollar embezzlement involving Christian Henning, Jr.,
nephew/godson of Bishop Paul Marcinkus, recent head of the
Vatican Bank. That Henning falsely stated that he was a partner
of Joe. That Joe was falsely and fraudulently put into
involuntary bankruptcy in 1984, still pending, by, among other
things, a purported loan to him by First National Bank of Cicero.
That Joe never received said funds which instead were applied by
Henning and others for other purposes. That said Bank has been
dominated by Henning's Uncle, Paul Marcinkus, until recently head
of the mafia-dominated Vatican Bank. That Henning had corrupted
the U.S. Attorney's office in Chicago, including but not limited
to Assistant U.S. Attorney William R. Hogan, Jr., now on
administrative leave because of charges of misconduct. Result:
that Henning escaped adequate punishment.
31. Ms Redmer, by words and statements, showed that she already
knew and knew much about much of the foregoing, and did not
dispute Skolnick's recital of said facts and confirmed that Hogan
took bribes in civil and criminal matters, to protect Household
International, as in the federal prosecution in Chicago, of U.S.
vs. John Best.
32. By words and statements, in discussion with Skolnick, Ms
Redmer confirmed that her agency was having difficulty in an
apparent tax evasion case being put together against Hogan. She
confirmed that the difficulty was that Hogan was making charges,
by way of rebuttal and blackmail, that upwards of six federal
judges in Chicago were corrupt and took bribes, including but not
limited to Judge James F. Holderman, Judge Marvin E. Aspen,
Suzanne B. Conlon, and Chief Bankruptcy Judge John D. Schwartz.
33. That Ms Redmer was already fully aware of circumstances and
details regarding Joe having been the owner of Kingspoint
Condominiums, in Addision, Illinois. She was aware and confirmed
that Robert Belavia together with Wallace Lieberman had stolen
said property; that Lieberman on other occasions was a U.S.
Bankruptcy auctioneer, that Belavia is a long-known mobster
previously having apparent government immunity.
34. She was aware that FBI agent Mike "Chuckie" Peters, who she
knows, has been accused of murdering or arranging the murder of
Lieberman near the First National Bank of Cicero, just before
Christmas, 1991.
35. She stated she worked on the Belavia case, and that higher
ups, in her agency, who she understood to be corrupt, were
anxious to have Belavia prosecuted on some offense, to get him
out of the way.
36. By words and statements, she confirmed that top officials of
her agency, on the next higher level, have corruptly taken as
their own personal property, the said Kingspoint Condominiums
properties; and confirmed that this was aided and abetted by
Edward J. Lesniak, Household International, First National Bank
of Cicero, among others.
37. By words and statements she confirmed that said corrupt
doings by the higher-ups in her agency, were accomplished by
having the land titles and related records as to Kingspoint, to
disappear, to be unavailable by alleged computer so-called
"glitches", and other devices of concealment of ownership.
38. By words and statements, she confirmed that she recognized
that Chief Bankruptcy Judge in Chicago John D. Schwartz in Joe's
long-standing case, was highly corrupt. She did not deny or
dispute that Judge Schwartz has a net worth of 140 million
dollars and has not filed a proper federal tax return in thirty
years. She cautioned Skolnick that it was improper for him, "to
have those records", of her agency.
39. She confirmed that she was aware of the facts of corruption
at the highest level in the IRS in Chicago, as detailed about
Chicago and Los Angeles in a Congressional Report in 1990 by
Cong. Doug Barnard. She said, "Let's deal with Chicago -- don't
tell me about L.A."
40. She confirmed that she was aware that the higher ups in her
agency were secret and silent partners in at least two
mafia-owned vending companies in Chicago Heights. That said
corrupt IRS officials were aiding the mafia people to elude and
escape IRS problems.
41. She confirmed that her higher ups, who she knew and
understood to be corrupt, were allowing, permitting, and
condoning, various corrupt Bankruptcy Trustees, not just Jay
Steinberg in Joe's matter, to file false and fraudulent federal
tax returns and details; by way of concealing the plundering of
bankrupt estates and money laundering the proceeds, or even
putting persons and firms not actually bankrupt into the
bankruptcy court to be plundered.
42. She then and there said, "What is the point of you and me
talking about all this when those higher up than me in IRS are
corrupt? What's the point of me even making a report?" Skolnick
answered that his contacts in the building will watch to see how
the higher ups in her building are going to try to cover up my
complaint. She said, to Skolnick, "Do you have contacts in
C.I.D.?" He said, "You can presume that."
43. She used words and statements to show she had inside
knowledge of Joe's problem. She referred to a 54 or more million
dollar fund parked by Resolution Trust Corporation with Household
International, part of the details of Joe's various pieces of
litigation. Turning to Joe, she said, "Well , your claim against
the fund is mostly 32 million dollars punitive damage claim from
your DuPage matter", which Joe disputes. She said, "The transfer
(secretly ) of 50 million dollars to Little Rock, that was
Whitewater, right?" Skolnick confirmed that is correct. "They
only needed 47 (million) down there, what happened to the 3
million difference?" Confirming that she knew from inside
details that the President and First Lady are accused by some in
R.T.C. of being implicated in the embezzlement of 47 million
dollars missing from Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan of Little
Rock. "Do you know exactly where in a secret trust they have the
50 million in Little Rock?" she said to Skolnick who said, "The 3
milllion difference is for so-called 'transportation' expense,
that is, street tax." She was aware that John E. Gierum was
implicated in said transfer and was a close crony of the First
Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.
44. She discussed with Skolnick and Joe, a firm known as
Glenrock Co., secretly owned by Chicago Mayor Richie Daley and
his business crony Jeremiah Joyce. Skolnick said to her, "I
notice you are not writing down anything about Glenrock." She
answered, "That's the Rostenkowski matter -- I can't go into
that."
45. She confirmed that she knew and was aware that Glenrock, a
multimillion dollar operation in Northlake, Illinois, Brookfield,
Wisconsin, and Indianapolis, Indiana, did not keep proper records
for IRS and did not pay their proper income tax, and confirming
that the corruption was "wired all the way to the (IRS)
Commissioner" in Washington, D.C.
46. That after a discussion between Skolnick, Joseph
Andreuccetti, and the said Lynette Redmer, speaking as she said
for the Chief of C.I.D., for some hour and a half, she stood up.
As she did, Skolnick said to her, "Tell me straight in front, is
everything said by the three of us the truth -- you, me , and
Joe? Do you already know it to be the truth?" Whereupon, she
answered, "It is the truth, everything said in this room is the
truth", and she ushered Sherman H. Skolnick and Joseph
Andreuccetti out of the room and toward the elevator.
47. That the scheme, as in pararaphs 10 through 10(c),
preceding, for the unlawful transfer of 50 million dollars
portion of 58.4 million dollars of funds of the Federal Home Loan
Bank, parked with Household Bank and Household International in
the Chicago area, and supposed to be held to make good the claims
of plaintiff Andreuccetti; said transfer was in three legs or
three steps, including but not limited to, as follows:
(a) from the Chicago area, to Little Rock, Arkansas;
(b) from Arkansas, disguised as purported funds of Arkansas
Development Finance Authority, wired by way of Fuji Bank to the
Cayman Islands;
(c) and from there disguised as funds relating to purported
insurance transactions, sent or wired to secret coded accounts in
Switzerland, for the benefit of defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton
under the code "Chelsea Jefferson".
48. Referring to the second leg or second step of the same, are
the remarks of Congressman Dan Burton (R., Indiana), on May 29,
1996:
"ADFA [Arkansas Development Finance Authority] was created by
Governor Clinton in 1985 to provide economic development loans in
Arkansas. In December of 1988, ADFA deposited $50 million in a
Japanese bank in the Cayman Islands. I have a copy of the
contract that I will enter into the record. I have also
delivered a copy of this document to the Independent Counsel's
office. Why would an economic development agency in Arkansas
deposit $50 million in a bank in the Cayman Islands? The Cayman
Islands are a well-known center of money laundering for drug
dealers. The State Department's international narcotics control
report described the Caymans as 'a haven for money laundering'".
And also: "One of the questions that I think is very, very
important is why did the Arkansas Development Financial Authority
send $50 million of Arkansas money to the Cayman Islands to
deposit in a bank in the Cayman Islands, which is a major drug
transit point acknowledged by almost every DEA agent in the
world?" And also: "I have the electronic bank transfer
statements in my office. I am going to put them in the
Congressional Record. There is no doubt the money was wired to
the Cayman Islands. The question needs to be asked, why was it
wired? Why would the Governor of Arkansas allow that?"
Congressional Record, 5/29/96, H5627-28.
49. Like the plaintiffs in the instant case, Cong. Burton
apparently is also on some "enemies list" of defendant Hillary
Rodham Clinton. As a consequence the Congressman apparently has
been coerced into not following through on his promise to put the
documents into the congressional Record and a promise he made,
"Tomorrow night, since I am out of time now, Mr. Speaker, I will
go into more detail on the $50 million that was Arkansas money
that was transferred to the Cayman Islands, a major transit point
for drug trafficking in this hemisphere."
50. The aforementioned unlawful transfer of the said 50 million
dollars was for the benefit of defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton
and to the great damage and detriment of plaintiff Andreuccetti.
51. On June 13, 1996, plaintiffs Skolnick and Andreuccetti met
with defendant Robert Alexovich who alleges he is a "revenue
officer, Internal Revenue Service". Related to said defendant
were the details as in paragraph herein preceding 23(a), adopted
here by reference as if verbatim here set forth. Defendant
Alexovich said it was unlawful for defendant H.C. Valent to do
such acts and doings, but defendant Alexovich said to plaintiffs,
"That did not happen". Yet, defendant Alexovich has no personal
knowledge of said event and could not know whether it did or did
not happen.
52. Defendant Alexovich told plaintiffs that he did not know of
the matters as in preceding paragraphs herein 10 (a) through (c)
inclusive, 22 through 22(f) inclusive, 25 through 46 inclusive,
all adopted herein by reference as if verbatim here set forth.
Yet, prior to said meeting on June 13, 1996, defendant Alexovich
had in his custody and possession documents, papers, and records
by plaintiffs as to said matters. In his statements defendant
made false declarations, knowingly so, in furtherance of the
schemes as hereinbefore set forth.
53. After the said June 13, 1996, defendant Alexovich supplied
to plaintiff Andreuccetti false and misleading data calculated to
aid and abet the higher ups at the Internal Revenue Service in
having stolen, for their own personal use and benefit, the
valuable properties of plaintiff Andreuccetti.
(a) that in response to plaintiff Andreuccetti's complaint that
Bankruptcy Trustee Jay Steinberg filed false and fraudulent forms
and returns in the name of plaintiff Joseph Andreuccetti,
defendant Alexovich sent plaintiff a note stating, "here are some
of the records of filing you requested re: the billing statement
you submitted," with various sheets showing only zeroes and
containing the statement "return not present for this account";
thus evading records, known to said defendant, of an embezzlement
of between 900 thousand dollars and one and a half million
dollars which damaged plaintiff, as known to said defendant, and
should have been therein shown.
(b) that in so doing, by all his acts and doings, defendant
Alexovich sought to unlawfully cover up that a form 211 by
plaintiff Andreuccetti was falsely rejected, with the statements:
"William & Hillary Clinton et al." and "(1) recovery was too
small to warrant payment of reward. (2) Information was
previously known to the Service or available in public records
readily accessible to the Service. (3) Information furnished did
not cause investigation."
A copy of said alleged response to plaintiff's form 211 is
attached hereto and made a part hereof; and a copy attached and
made a part hereof of said form 211, being an Application for
Reward for Original Information.
54. That defendant Robert Alexovich did these acts and doings
under the sham and pretense of being a purported and alleged
Revenue Officer of the Internal Revenue Service, but without
actual authority to commit, condone, cause to be done, and
acquiesce in, said acts and doings; but done under the sham and
pretense of federal authority, in furtherance of the schemes
hereinbefore set forth. That defendants Alexovich and Valent
have filed and caused to be filed, false papers and documents
calling for the seizure of property of plaintiff Andreuccetti.
55. That acts and doings were done, caused to be committed,
allowed, permitted, and condoned, and acquiesced in, by ten
defendants being John Does and Jane Roes whose identity is not
now know to the plaintiffs all in furtherance of the schemes and
acts and doings hereinbefore set forth.
56. That defendants, each of them, individually, severally,
jointly, and in concert, and aiding and abetting one another,
have by their foregoing acts and doings against plaintiffs, have
deprived plaintiffs Skolnick and Andreuccetti of federal
constitutionally protected rights, privileges, and immunities,
including but not limited to the following:
(a) Under the First Amendment, the right of plaintiffs to gather
news and inquire into wrongdoing by defendants and persons acting
with them, including persons and officials in high position and
places; with the right of plaintiffs not to be damaged in their
persons and properties while so doing, by the acts and doings
unlawfully done by defendants.
(b) Violation of plaintiffs' rights under the First Amendment in
that "Congress shall make no law respecting...the right of the
people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
As hereinbefore set forth, the defendants have obstructed the due
course of Justice, unlawfully damaging plaintiffs in their
persons and properties, while plaintiffs are involved in
petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances.
(c) Under the Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
The right of plaintiffs not to be spied on including the right
not to be spied on inside their private residences by persons
acting for others in high places, like for defendant Hillary
Rodham Clinton; done under the sham and pretense of authority but
without actual authority to do the acts and doings hereinbefore
complained of.
(d) Violating the Fifth Amendment, the defendants have interfered
with the liberty of plaintiffs and deprived plaintiffs of
property without due process of law.
(e) The acts and doings of defendants violate plaintiffs' rights
under the U.S . Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 3,
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed".
Defendants have caused plaintiffs to be designated as
"criminals", to be threatened in their liberty, persons, and
properties, as "enemies of the state" and put on defendants'
"enemies list".
57. That plaintiffs Skolnick and Andreuccetti have been damaged
in the amount of One Hundred Million Dollars.
58. Wherefore, plaintiffs Sherman H. Skolnick and Joseph
Andreuccetti ask damages against the hereinbefore named
defendants, and each of them, of One Hundred Million Dollars and
costs and fees as provided by law, and such other and further
relief as plaintiffs may be entitled to under the circumstances.
COUNT TWO.
----------
Plaintiffs Skolnick and Andreuccetti complain against the
defendants as all named in Count One, and allege as follows:
1-55 inclusive as in Count One, adopted herein by reference as if
verbatim here in set forth.
56. That defendants, each of them, individually, jointly, and
severally, and in concert, have caused and are causing the
circulation of data contending that plaintiffs are as follows:
(a) that plaintiffs Skolnick and Andreuccetti are members of or
supporters of Posse Comitatus and are in the category of what is
known as "domestic terrorists"; and as such, that these
plaintiffs are dedicated to and actually do, damage and injure
public officials in their person and property;
(b) that plaintiffs Skolnick and Andreuccetti use, cause to be
used, instigate or foment the use of, Federal Land Patent
procedures to damage and injure public officials in their person
and property.
(c) that plaintiffs are so-called "illegal tax protectors" and/or
foment said movement; that said plaintiffs actively engage in the
same or make a business of taking cash and other valuable goods
and services, for plaintiffs' personal use, from members of said
movement;
(d) that plaintiffs make and engage in a business and enterprise
of arranging, fomenting, instigating and/or persuading other
persons to form offshore trusts, for the purpose and apparent
purpose of aiding and abetting persons to evade and circumvent
the Laws of the United States;
(e) that plaintiffs are so-called "gun nuts and are trigger-happy
persons, dangerous to the public welfare and actively aid and
abet others as such, to the detriment of public officials, public
welfare, domestic tranquilty, and national security; that these
plaintiffs seek to do physical violence against the persons and
properties of public officials;
(f) that plaintiffs bring lawsuits and administrative procedures
to use the pendency of such, often belabored and purposely
delayed, often long pendency of such, to carry out a secret
agenda of blackmail directed against public officials and others;
and to deter public officials from proceeding to prosecute
plaintiffs for supposed crimes;
57. That defendants rely on such data as being true when, in
fact, such data are completely false and have never been done or
committed by plaintiffs. Defendants circulate such data knowing
full well it is false.
58. That defendants cause a secret code to be attached to state
and federal records labeling, identifying, and targetting
plaintiffs and each of them, as in such data.
59. That defendants circulate such data in private, ex parte,
and in secret, to public officials that in any way have cases and
procedures effecting plaintiffs, so that there is an obstruction
justice, damaging plaintiffs. A few of the many examples:
(a) such data was circulated to Chicago Federal District Judge
George W. Lindberg, who had pending a case by plaintiff
Andreuccetti seeking a remedy for fraudulently begotten
judgments, corruptly obtained by opponents of said plaintiff
corrupting John D. Schwartz. Based on such false data, Judge
Lindberg identified plaintiff Andreuccetti as "Posse Comitatus",
denied him all relief as an "enemy of the state" and called
plaintiff Andreuccetti's associate, plaintiff Skolnick, "a liar",
even though Skolnick was neither a party to the litigation nor a
sworn witness. Based on this, the way was opened to falsely
seize, in November, 1993, plaintiff Andreuccetti's residence,
without a valid writ, and to seize and steal Cable TV tapes known
to be at said plaintiff's residence since he transports the same
for the said show; and seizing and stealing all his books,
papers, court records, financial records, and such, and carrying
them away in a private vehicle under the sham and pretense of
deputy sheriffs; said items have never been returned to said
plaintiff.
(b) Based on this, federal law enforcement personnel follow
plaintiff Skolnick around the Dirksen Building, site of the
federal courts, as an alleged "domestic terrorist", interfering
with Skolnick gathering news as an electronic journalist and
moderator of "Broadsides" said public access Cable TV program;
and interfering with Skolnick attending open court sessions as a
spectator and journalist.
Plaintiffs ask the Court not to have to list here all the other
examples known by plaintiffs, but if requested by the Court to do
so, plaintiffs will give a more comprehensive list.
60. Re-alleged from Count One, as if verbatim here set forth,
paragraphs 56, 56(a), 56(b), 56 (c), 56(d), and 56(e).
61. Realleged from Count One, as though verbatim here set forth
paragraphs 57 and 58.
Count Three.
------------
Plaintiffs Skolnick and Andreuccetti complain against the
defendants as all named in Count One, and allege as follows:
1-55 inclusive as in Count One, adopted by reference as if
verbatim here set forth.
56. Re-alleged from Count Two, adopted by reference as if
verbatim here set forth, paragraphs 56 through 60 inclusive. As
to Bill of Attainder, re-allege from Count One, paragraph 56(e).
57. Re-alleged from Count One, adopted by reference as if
verbatim here set forth paragraphs 57 and 58.
[signed] [signed]
Joseph Andreuccetti Sherman H. Skolnick
990 County Line Road 9800 So. Oglesby Ave.
Bensenville IL 60106 Chicago IL 606174870
(708) 860-9930 (312) 375-5741
Plaintiff, Pro Se Plaintiff, Pro Se
VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT.
--------------------------
The undersigned under the penalties for perjury and provisions of
28 U.S.C.A. $ 1746, certify that the matters stated in the
foregoing Verified Complaint, Counts One, Two, and Three, are
true and correct to their personal knowledge, or are matters of
record or of law, and in either case, are true. Executed on July
18, 1996.
[signed] [signed]
Joseph Andreuccetti. Sherman H. Skolnick.
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> Nutburger Alert in Full Progress...
>
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > one of
> > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider
him
> > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
> > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
> > ridden administration in history.
>
> You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> worse...
NEW GOVERNOR REOPENS CASE EMBARRASSING TO CLINTON
Hope for Justice Rekindled
By Cathy Tapie, July 29, 1996
The Washington Weekly, (http://dolphin.gulf.net)
A spokesman for Arkansas' new Governor Huckabee has told the Washington
Weekly that an old case of injustice in Arkansas will be re-opened. The case
could turn out to be very embarrassing to Bill Clinton.
The story reads like a scenario right out of the movie "Deliverance" and is
not recommended for the faint of heart. Reported on June 2, 1996 in the New
York Post and chronicled in the book "Unequal Justice," it starts around
1984 and goes like this:
Forty nine year-old Wayne Dumond, father of six and Vietnam Veteran, had
been telling his church congregation about suddenly disappearing automobiles
in their community. It would later turn out that the local county sheriff,
Coolidge Conlee, was the culprit. It seems he was running, among other
things (a casino at the Sheriff's office and drug running), a handy little
car- theft ring. The sheriff was corrupt. Which is not necessarily unusual
for Arkansas.
Needless to say, Wayne Dumond's vocality about disappearing cars was a thorn
in this sheriff's side.
Long about this same time frame, a 17 year old girl was allegedly kidnapped
and raped. But the girl was Governor Bill Clinton's cousin, a little known
fact and well kept secret at the time. Her father is also a millionaire and
a big contributor to Bill Clinton's various election campaigns and her
mother worked in Governor Clinton's "inner circle."
Guess which innocent man got fingered and ultimately convicted despite
overwhelming (suppressed) evidence of his innocence? Wayne Dumond. But this
is where the story turns even uglier.
While an innocent Wayne Dumond was awaiting sentencing (later meted out at
life plus 20 years), it seems that two masked men, acting on orders of the
corrupt county Sheriff Coolidge Conlee, burst into Wayne's home. They had
guns and knives. They hog tied Wayne. They raped him. Then, as if that
wasn't enough, with surgical scalpels, they castrated him.
If it hadn't been for Dumond's two sons coming home from school and calling
for help, Dumond might well have bled to death.
But there's more.
After the Sheriff Conlee's sociopathic cretins had had their way with Wayne
and finished their brutal amateur surgical procedure - even as he lay in a
hospital bed, near death, after having lost 3/4 of his blood supply from his
butchered groin, the good Sheriff went to the Dumond family's bloodied home
and retrieved the body parts so that he could display them in a jar on his
desk with a caption that read: "That's what happens to people who fool
around in my county."
What did Bill Clinton do about it? Absolutely nothing. In fact, after 4-1/2
years in prison, the parole board decided to release Dumond. But did Bill
Clinton sign the release?
As reported in the New York Post, according to the managing editor of the
Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Bill Clinton had a "romping, stomping fit" about
it. He refused to sign the release.
Even though their innocent father was doing time in prison after having his
manhood mutilated, the Dumond family did have a modicum of relief when they
were awarded $20,000 in a lawsuit of "outrage." But that money went to
compensate for damages when someone (I wonder who?) burned down the family
home while they were in hiding from vigilantes and no insurance was paid.
It is now 12 years later and where is this cast of characters?
- Wayne Dumond? Still in prison
- Governor Bill Clinton? President of the United States.
- Sheriff Coolidge Conlee? Died in prison after being sentenced to 160 years
on extortion and drug-dealing charges. But he was never punished for his
crimes against Wayne Dumond.
- The allegedly raped girl and her parents? Not yet identified and probably
living happily ever after.
- The alleged rapist(s)? Of the two men the girl initially identified
(before she was "talked to" by her father and Sheriff Conlee), it is alleged
that she dated one of them. Neither has been charged.
- The "vigilantes" that burned down the Dumond home? Not caught.
- The deranged amateur surgeons? Not caught.
Will the guilty be caught and punished? Is there light at the end of the
tunnel for Wayne Dumond? Even though Dumond will never have his manhood
back, will the new governor of Arkansas sign his release and see that the
guilty are punished?
"We are very aware of the case. The governor is awaiting Dumond's
application for clemency to be submitted to the Arkansas Post Prison
Transfer Board," says Huckabee spokesman Jim Harris, "State law requires
that this be done before the governor can consider it, so we are just
waiting for the application and the governor will then be able to review the
whole thing and do what is right and fair." The new governor of Arkansas has
his work cut out for him on this one.
This case is not just about Arkansas corruption. This case is not just about
injustice in Arkansas under Governor Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton has taken
his operation national and into the White House. There is mounting evidence
that points to an equal level of corruption and egregious violation of civil
rights at the highest levels of the White House. Perhaps Arkansas justice
will finally be served under Governor Mike Huckabee, but will justice ever
be served while or even after Bill Clinton and his kind have run the United
States of America?
Time will tell.
[Printed in the July 29, 1996 issue of the Washington Weekly]
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> Nutburger Alert in Full Progress...
>
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > one of
> > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider
him
> > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
> > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
> > ridden administration in history.
>
> You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> worse...
SICK WILLIE: A Second Opinion
(Dr. Paul Fick interviewed on the "Alive Across America" radio program on
March 21, 1996)
March 21, 1996: "ALIVE ACROSS AMERICA" with guest DR. PAUL FICK, author of
"THE DYSFUNCTIONAL PRESIDENT; inside the mind of Bill Clinton".
Dr. Fick is a psychologist who specializes in dysfunctional families. He has
observed President Clinton at a distance and knows of his family background.
Duffy: Paul, let's start off by setting the record perfectly straight... you
have never interviewed Bill Clinton, you have never met him personally?
Dr. Fick: That is correct. If, in fact, I had I would have been very
hesitant to write the book because there would have been CONFIDENTIALITY
restrictions that would have limited me.
Duffy: Isn't it kind of odd to do a personality profile and have never met
them?
To my understanding this is the only book that has ever been written about a
U.S. President that is a personality assessment, and, in fact, states that
Bill Clinton's personality difficulties hamper his capacity to function
effectively as an administrator.
Duffy: You traveled to Little Rock and interviewed about sixty people who
were close to Bill Clinton. Some from both sides?
Dr. Fick: That's absolutely correct. I spoke to very dear friends of Bill
Clinton's. That was my objective. To speak to people who had a clear
perception of his personality.
I also did two and one-half years of biographical research for the book. I
spoke with fellow professionals to get second intursory opinions as well.
Duffy: Interesting that most of his supporters, when you approached them
about writing this book, their first question was, "Are you authorized by
the White House? Why do you think that was so important to Clinton
supporters?
Dr. Fick: Some of the people who asked me that question... I decided to
by-pass those particular interviews, because... actually I was asked if it
was White House APPROVED, and I didn't think that I needed a seal of
approval to write a book. Secondly, I was in a situation where many of Bill
Clinton's friends were initially hesitant because they said that they had
provided information to other writers and did not like the way it was
represented in the writing. I assured them... I tape-recorded the
conversations and I assured them that any quotes that were used would be
utilized verbatim and that those individuals who were supportive of Bill
Clinton, it would be specified that that was true.
Duffy: Let's get down to some of the problems that most of us have observed
in Bill Clinton during the 3-1/2 years of his presidency... Problems with
the truth - he says one thing, he changes his mind - he's late, which is
driving his staff crazy, they tell me in Washington. Are these the symptoms
that you observed and made you say, 'Wait a minute here! These are all
indicative of a psychological profile, a pattern, here.'
Dr. Fick: That's correct. The first time or two that I saw Bill Clinton on
TV during the 1992 campaign, it was readily apparent to me what was wrong
with Bill Clinton. And that is one thing that has baffled me... why this has
not been a discussion that was been formulated even during the campaign.
You'll recall the questions regarding 'character' issues that were raised by
the Bush campaign, but it was never specified exactly WHAT the source of
those problems was.
You have an individual who, it is very well documented in my book alone I
believe there are 26 pages of statements that Bill Clinton has made that are
PROVEN not to be true. BLATANT LIES! I mean, we are talking about an
individual who is protecting his hide for political purposes. We are talking
about an individual who functions in this capacity, not only in his
professional life, but on a DAILY basis in his personal life, according to
very close friends.
We're talking about an individual who - it has been very well documented in
terms of his INDECISIVENESS - the CHAOS that's created by Bill Clinton. The
constant approval seeking. He's an INSOMNIAC, he's an OVEREATER, he is a
COMPULSIVE SEXUAL ADDICT.
What we have here is a picture of an individual who is SO characteristic of
an adult child of an alcoholic, who has not resolved his complications. This
is well known, this particular type of psychological issue. We're talking
about behavioral problems. We are NOT talking about a personality disorder.
That is one of the main reasons why I believe that it is acceptable to write
this book despite the fact that I am a licensed professional. I guess it is
even more important that it IS written by a professional because it adds to
the strength of the information.
Duffy: For those who are not familiar with Bill Clinton's family, tell a bit
about the alcoholism that was part of Bill's growing up years.
Dr. Fick: Bill Clinton grew up in a home in which his biological father died
three months prior to Bill Clinton's birth. When he was 4 years old his
mother married Roger Clinton, Sr. and this was to be the major turning point
in Bill Clinton's life and the problems that we subsequently see in the Bill
Clinton presidency. Roger Clinton, Sr. was a VIOLENT alcoholic who
frequently beat Bill Clinton's mother. She stated that Bill Clinton,
himself, was severely emotionally abused by Roger Clinton, Sr. There were
frequent alcoholic outburst, there were frequent separations, Bill Clinton's
mother characterized Roger Clinton, Sr.'s absence from the home during his
various binges as a circumstance where there was relief. Imagine the message
being transmitted to your child when it is a relief when you father is gone.
Things were so violent in this home that on one occasion, Bill Clinton's
stepfather shot a gun, in Bill Clinton's presence, at Virginia Kelly,
narrowly missing her head.
When Bill Clinton was fourteen years old, his mother separated from Roger
Clinton, Sr. - one year later they remarried over Bill Clinton's objections.
Roger Clinton had made the promise that he would discontinue drinking. But
the promise was not held by him.
And interestingly, Duffy, one of the things we saw when there was the
remarriage... after Bill Clinton had attempted to stand in the way of that;
he then CHANGED his name from BLYTHE to CLINTON. That is a clear, in the
initial example of this individual, Bill Clinton, who is our current
President, ACQUIESCING/APPROVAL SEEKING, DESPITE the true feelings that he
was having inside of him.
Duffy: We're just laying GROUNDWORK, ladies and gentlemen, so don't go away.
We've got some BOMB SHELLS to unveil before we leave the air....
Duffy: Paul, we all remember the picture of Bill Clinton meeting his boyhood
idol, John F. Kennedy, in the Rose Garden at the White House and shaking his
hand. How does that fit into all of this? I mean, he had to be an
overachiever.
Dr. Fick: That is an excellent point you make regarding overachievement.
Because that is a key related to understanding to Bill Clinton... Children
that grow up in these homes display symptoms from a moderate to severe form
as adults. They also take on various roles. Bill Clinton, himself, assumed
what is commonly referred to as the HERO ROLE. And the hero is the child,
who on the one hand presents to the community, school, and in his
neighborhood, of, in the essence... the perfect child. He's the
overachiever, the one who goes above and beyond what one would think would
be almost humanly possible.
The reason for that is that there is a presentation to the outside community
that everything is A-OK inside the Clinton home. I mean obviously, how could
there be a problem there if the child is so wonderful? The difficulty is, is
that the child that assumes that role does not have an outlet for the
resentment that he experiences. For the chaos, for the sadness that takes
place, and what happens is that that child continues on this path of
overachievement into his adult years, while carrying everything along with
him, RESENTMENT, that not only is from his childhood but is built up along
the way. That resentment ends up in situations in which the individual SETS
HIMSELF UP for major complications and for falls because of the resentment
that he HAS to OVERACHIEVE.
Duffy: Because this is a Christian talk show, Paul, we see Bill carrying his
Bible faithfully to church every week, then he takes these very liberal
positions on abortion, on homosexuality.. I mean if he's trying to impress
everybody with his Christian faith, he's alienated the Christian community
in America. Does that fit into this overall pattern? Is there any parallel
here?
Dr. Fick: Well the parallel that exists is that when children are from these
circumstances and don't get their life squared away, they don't formulate,
inside, a sense of true value/true beliefs. Can you imagine for a moment
walking into a home as a child; you don't know what's going to take place.
You don't know if Dad is going to be seemingly OK; meaning not drunk and not
violent. You don't know whether he's going to be drunk; you don't know
whether he's going to be violent or any of the above. So what ends up
happening is that you're constantly having to react to other people. You're
reactive to the environment. When that takes place, the child does not have
the freedom to develop his own thoughts; his own beliefs and his own values.
He merely REACTS to people.
So Bill Clinton, in essence, carries with him what's known as the IMPOSTER
syndrome. Where there isn't this value development that takes place, so he
presents to people what he BELIEVES what they want to experience of him,
rather than what he's truly about.
Duffy: So on the one hand he's presenting this face that he's the Christian
and on the other hand to the Liberal community he's the pro-abortion, the
pro-homosexual. Is that what you're saying?
Dr. Fick: Right. Well, I certainly don't want to be in a position of
characterizing Bill Clinton as a Christian or not a Christian because I
can't see into his heart. But I will say that the presentation that Bill
Clinton is WILLING to present to various groups is what he believes that
WANT - to be seen.
Duffy: What about the WOMEN? We had the Gennifer Flowers affair and Sally
Perdue, I mean there was a string of them that came to light during the
campaign. What is that side of the Bill Clinton personality reflect?
Dr. Fick: Well, Duffy, that string is actually very LONG, unfortunately.
What it presents is an individual who does not have a random sexual affair,
regardless of the moral impropriety of having an affair. What we have is an
individual who is COMPULSIVELY SEXUAL in nature. I wrote in my book that is
not a difference between Bill Clinton and his stepfather, in that his
stepfather abused alcohol and Bill Clinton abuses women, via sexual contact.
Duffy: Why in the world, knowing Hillary, as this intelligent, driven
person... why does she stick with a guy who's been running around on her?
Who's never been faithful? Why?
Dr. Fick: I think there's a two-fold answer to that. Hillary, herself, has
obviously received a position of power. But even that would be a high price
to pay for this type of circumstance. What we see is that Hillary is not all
that different than women that find themselves in a relationships such as
this, where they are willing to tolerate a great deal. Originally, there is
this sense where the person in Hillary's role is going to be the one who
enters into this person's life and straightens him out, or her out,
depending upon the situation. Hillary is more controlling than Bill Clinton
is. In essence Bill Clinton is out of control, needing to be controlled.
Hillary attempts to take on that role.
I think at this point that things are so out of control within their
relationship that she's, in essence, given up....
Duffy: We could spend the entire rest of the hour talking about the
relationship between them, but I want to skip on to CHAPTER 16 of your book.
This is the chapter that I found most interesting... this is the chapter on
BERT DICKEY. Could you fill us in on a little background, Paul?
Dr. Fick: You use the word SHOCKING... I agree with you. I think back to
June 18, 1994 when I taped this interview for the first time and met Mr.
Dickey, I was BOWLED OVER myself. Mr. Dickey has served on the Arkansas
Democratic Party State committee, the Executive Committee, the Finance
Counsel there. He was an alternate delegate to the Democratic convention in
1980, a delegate to the Democratic conference in 1982. He held campaign fund
raisers for Governor in his home. He had significant contact with Governor
Clinton from the late 1970s to his election as President. And he also has a
DOCTORATE in Education from the University of Tennessee. We are talking
about a very CREDIBLE individual.
Duffy: In addition to being a political operative, was he also a political
DONOR?
Dr. Fick: He certainly was a donor, and there's an interesting story that
goes along with that, because it WASN'T your typical donations that were
made. On the one hand, certainly Mr. Dickey did make legitimate campaign
contributions, but he also had made some, according to what he told me, that
exceeded the bounds of legal campaign contributions. It's a fairly involved
story, but it is simple when we get down to specifics of how the money was
brought in to various individuals. So, let me back up a little, in terms of
HOW Bert Dickey RECEIVED the money. This is all according to Bert Dickey who
was on the scene & definitely purports this to be true... Governor Clinton,
himself, would SELL STATE COMMISSION POSTS in the State of Arkansas.
Duffy: He would SELL them?
Dr. Fick: Yes, the way that this would take place would be, for example, if
you wanted to be on the HIGHWAY Commission you would make this known to Bill
Clinton. Bill Clinton would SET the PRICE for the commission post you
wanted, you would either come up with the cash, and hopefully would get the
post. Often times Bill Clinton would promise the commission to more
individuals than he had slots available, but basically he would set the
price - Highway Commission, the going rate was $50,000 - if you came up with
the $50,000 you got the appointment.
The question then was WHAT TO DO WITH THE CASH? Here we have, for the first
time, an ALLEGATION of Bill Clinton personally ACCEPTING cash by ILLEGAL
means. The second thing that happened was - there were large sums of money
that needed to be distributed and LAUNDERED. Bill Clinton allegedly,
according to Mr. Dickey as well, knew exactly what took place with those
funds. Basically there were TWO individuals that RECEIVED the cash, they
transferred the money to various friends of Bill. One of those, of course,
was Mr. Dickey.
Mr. Dickey related a story to me of one occasion in which he had been asked
to write VERY LARGE campaign contributions. At this time he was beginning to
sour on Bill Clinton and he declined. However, he was then asked if he would
write two campaign contributions for $100.00...one on his behalf and one on
behalf of his wife. He said that he'd be willing to do that. These two
individuals that had been given money by Bill Clinton told him to hold off
for a moment and they would be right over. A lot of people live in the same
complex. A few moments later they came over and they gave him twenty-eight
(28) $100 bills and asked him to write two (2) $1,500 checks to the
campaign. So, in essence, they gave Dickey $2,800 and Bert wrote $3,000
worth of checks contributing only $200 dollars of his own money.
Bert then asked, 'Well, what do I do if the IRS questions me about this?'
and he was instructed by these individuals, 'just to lie to the IRS and tell
them that he had sold farm equipment for cash.' Now, what's fascinating
about that end of it is.. this information has been passed on now to the
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL's OFFICE and the FBI. The FBI is taking this info VERY,
VERY SERIOUSLY, in fact, Bert Dickey and I were IN their office in Little
Rock, and they have COPIES of these checks, but there's MORE to this story
than meets the eye.
Duffy: We'll get into this in a moment. This is news that the mainstream
MEDIA is NOT reporting. We have been on this since I came on the air as your
host on LIVE ACROSS AMERICA. Here is a psychologist who wrote a book
analyzing the personality of BC and all of a sudden he winds up being part
of the Special Prosecutors investigation; being called by the FBI.... Duffy:
We're only able to hit the high spots right now, but you can read it [the
book] cover to cover. It's fascinating reading. It's essentially a book that
was released a few years ago.
Before we get back to talking about Bert Dickey... are you a Christian,
Paul?
P: Yes I am.
D: The Eighth Commandment is very important to you - you shouldn't lie, bear
false witness against... you know all of that part of the scripture. What
motivates you to get into this in such detail?
P: Well, when I wrote the book I kept it in a fairly skeleton form because I
was under the assumption that what would happen would be that REPORTERS
would fall all over themselves trying to get to the BOTTOM of this story. I
found that that is a very, very difficult to do because the White House,
ITSELF, directly intervenes in the PUBLICATION of those stories. That has
happened on several occasions related to THIS INFORMATION.
Two months ago I received a contact from the office of the Independent
Counsel in Washington D.C. requesting that I provide them with this
information. Of course, I complied. Immediately following their receipt of
this information I was contacted by FBI agents in Little Rock, Arkansas who
were assigned to THIS area (the sale of commissions) of the investigation by
the Independent Counsel's office. They requested that I provide them with
all the info that I had and they also requested MEETINGS with Mr. Dickey,
which have taken place.
So basically what we have is a circumstance where this info is ESSENTIAL -
that the AMERICAN people KNOW IT... Duffy, you are courageous enough to
provide the forum for it and as long as this info is 100% factual, and I'm
certain that it is... I'M GOING TO SAY IT.
Duffy: Well, you can send me a card in a couple of months wishing me a very
happy AUDIT. I would imagine that that is where this is.... but getting back
to the story. We have people who are saying that they walked into Bill
Clinton's office, handed him money and they were expecting on the other side
to get appointed to the Highways Commission or the Fish & Game Commission
and these various commissions in Arkansas. What happened to the money?
Dr. Fick: A portion of the money was distributed to friends of Bill, and
false campaign checks were written back into the campaign such as what Mr.
Dickey had stated is what he'd done. Massive amounts of money had been
collected. Mr. Dickey, himself, was personally responsible for distributing
large amounts of money... sometimes up to a QUARTER of a MILLION dollars per
campaign cycle in 'walking around money' for MINORITY VOTE BUYING in Eastern
Arkansas.
Duffy: You can do some SERIOUS walking around with a quarter of a million
dollars! I would say.
Folks, we're focusing in on Chapter 16 of Dr. Paul Fick's book. It's
fascinating. We've certainly opened up a whole can of worms here....
Duffy: We heard the stories that Bill Clinton would go into churches; and
that he would appear, and then after the church service are you saying that
he would take cash money and spread it around to vote?
Dr. Fick: Well, that is one of the ways it was done... the other way was
that Mr. Dickey, himself, would contact ministers of various churches,
undertakers, drivers in the area who assisted people to getting to the vote.
What would happen is that they would collect the money. Those individuals
would actually keep the money and they would assure the votes of their
parishioners or contacts that they had in Arkansas.
Now, a fascinating aspect of that is, it wasn't enough to illegally
distribute money that had been illegally obtained... but there also had to
be an assurance that those votes would come to fruition. What happened
was... these people would be given PALM CARDS. A palm card is a small card
that fits in the palm of the hand and it lists every individual within each
district that Bill Clinton wanted elected. So his name, obviously, is at the
top and everyone from the top job on down to dog-catcher that Bill Clinton
wanted elected, was on this list. People would take this list into the
voting booth and vote according to who was on the list. Now some of the
people were illiterate in that area. I don't know if that was due to the
fact that Hillary was in charge of the EDUCATION department in Arkansas, or
not... but there's a large percentage of individuals in that particular area
that are illiterate [laughter] and of course THOSE VOTES couldn't be lost.
Those people were given STRINGS with KNOTS tied in them and they would stick
the strings into their pockets, take them into the voting booth, line the
string up with the ballot, and everywhere where there was a knot, they would
mark the ballot.
Duffy: I mean, what we're talking about here is an incredible conspiracy...
and the FBI knows all about this?
Dr. Fick: Now they do! As of the middle of January Bert Dickey and I were in
the IC's office in Arkansas, providing this information.
And I'll tell you... you talk about SHOCKING, Duffy, it not only included
the information on the names that WE HAD, but there was a SUBSTANTIAL number
of ADDITIONAL names that the FBI inquired about.
Duffy: So the FBI is knowledgeable about all of this and they've pursued it
even beyond the info that you've given them?
Dr. Fick: Yes, there was already an investigation underway and my assumption
was that they were quite pleased to have this ADDITIONAL info. I think that
what we saw recently was the initial step in this type of investigation
coming to fruition. There were two individuals that come to mind... HERBY
BRANSCUM & ROB HILL...
Duffy: Are both bankers.
Dr. Fick: That's correct. They also are both individuals who received
APPOINTMENTS from BC. Herby Branscum had been appointed to the HIGHWAY
COMMISSION and Rob Hill served on the BANKING COMMISSION in Arkansas.
Duffy: What's the connection? Let's look at it this way... Paul, this is as
old as politics, isn't it? I mean you make a contribution, and later on when
I'm elected to office, I'm going to appoint you. That goes on in State
capitals and in Washington, doesn't it?
Dr. Fick: I think the difference is.. for individuals that are making a
contribution and are receiving a political favor, and perhaps that's even a
wide-ranging term, because it could just be people that have like minds who
are in support of the candidate. That's one thing...
What we're talking about here are SALES by the Governor of Arkansas for
these commissions. You will not find, for example, $50,000 of the campaign
contribution in accordance with the resulting Highway commission. It was not
done. It was BEHIND THE SCENES.
Duffy: That, friends, is SERIOUSLY AGAINST THE LAW....
Duffy: We were touching on two names... the bankers from Arkansas - Branscum
and Hill - who are in a peck of trouble right now, aren't they Paul?
Dr. Fick: Yes, they have been indicted and the indictments DIDN'T specify
the purchase of the Highway or Banking commissions. I will say that when I
had my initial contact with the FBI, they were very interested in
information in that vein related to these two gentlemen. And there certainly
has been a lot of talk regarding Herby Branscum's appointment to the Highway
Commission as it followed on the heels of some apparent contributions.
Duffy: We have so many incredible stories that you have shared with me off
the air, but one of them had to be the scene that you described in Bill
Clinton's office. In the Governor of the State of Arkansas... and was Bert
Dickey there when all this happened?
Dr. Fick: It WAS WITNESSED by Bert Dickey. Someone had been given the
promise by the Governor that if he paid Bill Clinton $40,000 in cash that he
would receive a particular appointment. However, the gentleman arrived for
the stated appointment to give the Governor the $40,000 and he only had
$20,000 in cash, promising to pay an additional $20,000 in several weeks.
Bill Clinton became INFURIATED, as he often does actually, GRABBED the
$20,000, and the two of them actually had a TUG-OF-WAR with $20,000 between
the two of them! Bill Clinton, allegedly RIPPED the money out of this
individuals hand, put the $20,000 in his pocket - in an IRATE fashion told
him, 'I'm keeping the $20,000 and you are NOT going to get the appointment!'
And in fact, what ended up happening, was that individual supposedly was
given a lesser appointment.
Duffy: You looked Bert Dickey right square in the eyes... do you believe
this guy?
Dr. Fick: I have met with Bert Dickey on a number of occasions subsequently
to that. I am confident that it is true. Investigators from various
newspapers have sorted through this info. They not only have VERIFIED THE
TRUTH, they have had White House individuals CONFIRM that it is true and
they also have come up with additional names beyond those that I know.
Duffy: Some people say that Bert Dickey was one of they guys that was
promised one of these appointments and he didn't get it and he's just
disgruntled... making up a bunch of stories.
Dr. Fick: Well, I think he is very disgruntled with Bill Clinton, per se,
but that doesn't mean that what he's saying is not true. I think that
there's AMPLE EVIDENCE that indicates that it is.
Duffy: Make note of those two names - Branscum and Hill - there's every
reason to believe that when they come to trial that they too are going to be
asking that the President of the United States come testify in their trial.
I mean, this is getting repetitive... it's almost getting ridiculous! My
guest this evening, Dr. Paul Fick. He wrote the book The Dysfunctional
President; Inside the Mind of Bill Clinton....
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> Nutburger Alert in Full Progress...
>
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > one of
> > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider
him
> > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
> > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
> > ridden administration in history.
>
> You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> worse...
>
Department DisclosureI finds it remarkable that the Bush-Cheney Justice
Department is so committed to defending the illegalities of the Clinton-Gore
administration
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch presented oral argument before a three judge
panel of the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in
a case involving the privacy and constitutional rights of Clinton campaign
finance scandal whistleblower Johnny Chung.
Judicial Watch represents Johnny Chung in a suit against the Department of
Justice. Mr. Chung's privacy and constitutional rights were violated when
the Justice Department publicly disclosed Mr. Chung's location in an attempt
to intimidate and penalize him for revealing Clinton campaign finance
abuses. Chung, a Clinton fundraiser who admitted to funneling money from
China's military to the Democratic National Committee to help Bill Clinton,
provided important testimony concerning fundraising abuses despite repeated
threats to his life from Communist Chinese government operatives.
A lower court had dismissed the case on the grounds that the time period in
which to bring the suit had expired. Judicial Watch argued that because Mr.
Chung had been in fear for his life, and thus unable to bring suit earlier,
that the time period should be extended.
"The Department of Justice is supposed to enforce laws, not bully and
intimidate cooperating witnesses who possess 'politically inconvenient'
information. I find it remarkable that the Bush-Cheney Justice Department is
so committed to defending the illegalities and corruption of the
Clinton-Gore administration. Nevertheless, we are confident of a successful
appeal," stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
news:3ED7CE...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
>
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > one of
> > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider
him
> > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
> > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
> > ridden administration in history.
>
> You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> worse...
http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/clinton-scandals.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Bill Clinton will probably be remembered as the most corrupt president in
American history. Aside from being the ONLY popular elected president ever
impeached, Bill Clinton's legacy extends to little more than widespread
rococco corruption. On this page we look at the great events (scandals) of
the Clinton presidency and what they involve.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The Scandals:
Whitewater
Cattlegate
Nannygate
Helicoptergate
Travelgate
Gennifer Flowersgate
Filegate
Vince Fostergate
I wonder where those Whitewater billing records came fromgate
Paula Jonesgate
Federal Building campaign phone callgate
Lincoln bedroomgate
White House coffeegate
Donations from convicted drug and weapons dealersgate
Buddhist Templegate
Web Hubbell hush moneygate
Lippogate
Chinese commiegate - Clinton was practically endorsed by red China Update!
Let's blame Kenneth Starrgate
Zippergate/interngate - the Lewinsky affair itself
Perjury and jobs for Lewinskygate - the aftermath
Willeygate
Web Hubbell prison phone callgate
Selling Military Technology to the Chinese Commiesgate
Coverup for our Russian Comrades as Wellgate
Wag-the-Dog-gate
Jaunita Broaddrick gate
PBS-gate
Email-gate
Vandalgate
Lootergate
Pardongate
Bonus: Humorgate: some mishaps and mysteries around the Clintons. This is
just humor in a serious scandal page.
Haircutgate
Hillary talks with Eleanor Rooseveltgate
Burgergate
Joycelyn Elders
Is this Administration Shameless?
The Bill Clinton Tiananmen Peace Tour Vacation
The Lewinsky Speech
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
news:3ED7CE...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
>
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > one of
> > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider
him
> > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
> > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
> > ridden administration in history.
>
> You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> worse...
"If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people he
should resign." Bill Clinton in 1974"
Clinton Leaves Office! Jail to the Chief!
It's official! Bill Clinton is no longer president! The most corrupt
administration in the history of this nation is now over...yet the scandals
haven't slowed down by any means. Even out of office, the FORMER president
can't seem to abide by the law. Even his departure from office was a
disgrace leaving us with three new scandals! Many have inquired as to the
future of this page now that Clinton has left office. The CCRH's answer:
This page will remain open as long as Clinton's corruption is an issue, both
in and out of office, and most importantly for the history books. As the
history of the Clintongate administration is written, many contemplate the
central issue of Bill's term in office: his impeachment. Sadly the
revisionists are already at work claiming impeachment was not warranted.
This page will remain to set the record straight noting the Legal
Justification that perjury is impeachable - The House was completely within
its Constitutional rights.
This page is designed to serve as a comprehensive collection of information
surrounding the highly corrupt activities of FORMER president Clinton's
administration. Ranging from the solid facts and evidence, to the humorous
anecdotes, thorough information about the Clinton presidency is included. To
use this page, scroll down to the "features" section for a list of topics.
Popular pages include an introduction to all the "gates" and "waters" of the
Clinton administration, a list of convictions from the many Clinton
scandals, lists of solid evidence against Clinton as presented in the Starr
report and in other publications, and a guide to the legal understanding of
how impeachment works.
Reflections on Impeachment
Years of repeated lies, scandals, illegal and possibly treasonous
acts, and disgustingly perverse behavior have caught up with Bill Clinton.
The United States House of Representatives took the necessary bold
condemnation of this sorry excuse for a president by impeaching him for
perjury and obstruction of justice. Clinton is only the second president to
ever have been impeached. Bill Clinton's senate trial, however, did not
fare so well. While demanding cooperation from Republicans, the Senate
Democrats displayed the truth behind their 'bipartisan' facade. I guess
bipartisanship only occurs when Republicans give in to Democrats. Then
again, one could expect such a verdict in a trial when 45% of the Senate had
already chosen to vote for acquittal long before Clinton was even impeached.
The Senate practically agreed in unanimity that Clinton broke the law, then
acquited him! It is a sad day when certain members of Congress place their
allegiance to their party and leader, a sorry excuse for one at that, above
the Constitution and rule of law. Message to the spineless Democrats and
Republican dissenters: Think for yourself for a change!
"If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people he
should resign." Bill Clinton in 1974
D.G. Porter
>
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> news:3ED7CE...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> > Nutburger Alert in Full Progress...
> >
> > Dude wrote:
> > >
> > > one of
> > > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider
> him
> > > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
> > > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
> > > ridden administration in history.
> >
> > You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> > Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> > worse...
>
> Go ahead and list the policy successes of President Clinton. Tell us what he
> did that was good. I can tell you one thing that he did damned good ... and
> that is destroying the economy.
Ridiculous claim. Like everything else you post.
Why should I bother trying to "refute" the junk you post? It'd be like
trying to"refute" claims that te Earth is flat or the center of the
universe.
Guess what, "Dud"? There are "white niggers." I was raised by one. My
dear ole Dad was the biggest brown-noser I ever came to know. Even
after he resigned (in disgrace) from the Irvine Company (which owns a
fifth of the land in this-here county), he brown-nosed his former
colleagues whenever his son (me) got a letter published in the local rag
denouncing their development plans for one of the biggest estuaries in
the state (eventually bought by the state, but not until the company
President who opposed turning it into a park died, and his successor
decided to deal with the state, FWIW). He was also one of the stupidest
fucking idiots I ever knew -- whenever things got "going good," he'd
manage to fuck it up -- and you really have to fuck up to have to resign
from the Masons when you've reach Deputy Grand Master. So I not only
don't fault Byrd for that remark, I agree with him.
> The ex-Klansman allegedly ended his ties with the group in 1943. He may have
> stopped paying dues, but he continued to pay homage to the KKK. Republicans
> in West Virginia discovered a letter Sen. Byrd had written to the Imperial
> Wizard of the KKK three years after he says he abandoned the group.
Wow -- 1946 -- just yesterday!
> He
> wrote: "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its
> rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union."
>
> The ex-Klansman later filibustered the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act -
> supported by a majority of those "mean-spirited" Republicans - for more than
> 14 hours.
Many Senators who supported the Act in principle opposed one provision
-- I forget which one it was -- it was the one Gore Sr. also opposed.
> He also opposed the nominations of the Supreme Court's two black
> justices, liberal Thurgood Marshall
Now I really want a cite on this one. So much of the stuff youpost is
absolute bullshit, I can't believe any of it even when I'm almost sure
it's true.
> and conservative Clarence Thomas. In
> fact, the ex-Klansman had the gall to accuse Justice Thomas of "injecting
> racism" into the Senate hearings.
He did. (Thomas, that is.) Thomas (and Scalia too) also committed
perjury in their confirmation hearings and should be impeached and
thrown out.
> The ex-Klansman vowed never to fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I
> should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to
> rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race
> mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
And ... what year did he say that? What would that little inconvenient
fact be?
> Considering that since leaving the KKK Senator Byrd still supported the
> terrorist organization
And what year did he still support them? Oh, yes, 1946 -- just
yesteday.
> and as recently as 2001 used the "N" word TWICE on
> national TV
Big fucking deal. Frank Zappa used it too. You calling Zappa a racist?
> I don't think that Senator Byrd is fooling anyone. All he did
> was pull the wool over the eyes of voters and hide behind a facade of having
> transformed when in fact he always has been and continues to be a racist.
You have no credibitlity on this or any issue, but knock yourself out.
> "You are a lying sack of shit and all your posts are revisionist
> propogandistic crap."
>
> Once again I have to respond to your mean spirited personal attacks. I know
> how frustrating it can be to not have a leg to stand on when it comes to
> trying to find something that is both good and factual about your political
> party and it's members in government
Definitely, there's an odor of buillshit in the air here -- I wonder
why?
> because there was a time that I thought
> that democrats knew the answers. What I soon enough learned is that the
> party of democrats that my parents used to talk about and the party of
> democrats that we have today are as different as night and day. Back then
> they were democrats and had a great degree of morality and honesty to them,
> now they are socialists lacking in ideas, abilities, morality and honesty.
I smell BULLSHIT...
Anyway, I agree with you that the party changed -- it's now just an
imitation of the Repubicans. That's why I left them in 1990.
SOCIALISTS MY ASS. God damn, to morons like you anyone to the left of
Bob Dole is a socialist.
> The reason you dislike me so much is because I tell the truth, I only deal
> in facts, not in propaganda.
I really don't expect you to admit you're a liar and a revisionaist, but
hey!
> You can say anything you like, call me names,
> label me nuts, a liar or what ever you want but nothing that you can
> possibly say will change reality. Facts are facts and you are incorrect in
> most of what you have said. Your liberal revisionist history propaganda has
> not replaced and will never replace historical fact regardless of how many
> times you and others like you repeat it. That is why you dislike me, because
> I am not ignorant enough to fall for the pack of lies that you have fallen
> for.
Yeah, pal, whatever...
> Here's the formula. If a conservative is embarrassed, it makes the front
> page, full story. If a liberal is embarrassed, it plays deep inside the
> paper, just an item in a column.
Another loon lie from the "dud."
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
news:3ED7CE...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
>
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > one of
> > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider
him
> > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
> > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
> > ridden administration in history.
>
> You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> worse...
This one is a must for anyone who believes that the major corporate scandals
in the news that last year or two began under President Bush.
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
news:3ED7CE...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
>
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > one of
> > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider
him
> > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
> > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
> > ridden administration in history.
>
> You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> worse...
T H E P R O G R E S S I V E R E V I E W
The Clinton Legacy
The Progressive Review
RECORDS SET
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted
or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a
total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and
16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals
and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or
pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton
administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor
charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton
story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was
associated before entering the White House.
Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and
D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan
administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally
indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different
standard in "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By
the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been
convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official
investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms
of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the
worst ever."
STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION
- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas to date
(including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton
business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3
CRIME STATS
- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine
who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment,
fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses)
refused to be interviewed: 122
SMALTZ INVESTIGATION
- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving
charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy
and associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million
CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES
FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED
Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion,
kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans,
illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6),
perjury, obstruction of justice.
OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED
BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS
AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED
IN THE MEDIA
Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign
campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical
violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of
witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors,
perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal
investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of
justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug
trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state
officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions
or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court
testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by
medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of
the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and
his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing
jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition
and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of
employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents,
withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges
against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug
traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White
House.
ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMERS
Number of Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress that
they didn't remember, didn't know, or someting similiar.
Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey ******** 161
Bill Burton ********** 191
Mark Gearan *********** 221
Mack McLarty *********** 233
Neil Egglseston ************ 250
Hillary Clinton ************ 250
John Podesta ************* 264
Jennifer O'Connor ***************** 343
Dwight Holton ***************** 348
Patsy Thomasson ********************* 420
Jeff Eller *********************************** 697
THE CLINTON LEGACY:
LONELY HONOR
Here are some of the all too rare public officials, reporters, and others
who spoke truth to the dismally corrupt power of Bill and Hill Clinton's
political machine -- some at risk to their careers, others at risk to their
lives. A few points to note:
- Those corporatist media reporters who attempted to report the story often
found themselves muzzled; some even lost their jobs. The only major dailies
that consistently handled the story well were the Wall Street Journal and
the Washington Times.
- Nobody on this list has gotten rich and many you may not have even heard
of. Taking on the Clintons typically has not been a happy or rewarding
experience. At least ten reporters have been fired, transferred off their
beats, resigned, or otherwise gotten into trouble because of their work on
the scandals. Whistleblowing is even less appreciated within the government.
One study of whistleblowers found that 232 out of 233 them reported
suffering retaliation; another study found reprisals in about 95% of cases.
- Contrary to the popular impression, the politics of those listed ranges
from the left to the right, and from the ideological to the independent.
- We have not included victims of the Clinton machine, some of whom have
acted with considerable danger and at considerable risk to themselves. They
will be included on a later list.
PUBLIC OFFICIALS
MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ was a prosecutor on the staff of Kenneth Starr. His
attempts to uncover the truth in the Vincent Foster death case were
repeatedly foiled and he was the subject of planted stories undermining his
credibility and implying that he was unstable. Rodriguez eventually
resigned.
JEAN DUFFEY: Head of a joint federal-county drug task force in Arkansas. Her
first instructions from her boss: "Jean, you are not to use the drug task
force to investigate any public official." Duffey's work, however, led deep
into the heart of the Dixie Mafia, including members of the Clinton machine
and the investigation of the so-called "train deaths." Ambrose
Evans-Pritchard reports that when she produced a star witness who could
testify to Clinton's involvement with cocaine, the local prosecuting
attorney, Dan Harmon issued a subpoena for all the task force records,
including "the incriminating files on his own activities. If Duffey had
complied it would have exposed 30 witnesses and her confidential informants
to violent retributions. She refused." Harmon issued a warrant for her
arrest and friendly cops told her that there was a $50,000 price on her
head. She eventually fled to Texas. The once-untouchable Harmon was later
convicted of racketeering, extortion and drug dealing.
BILL DUNCAN: An IRS investigator in Arkansas who drafted some 30 federal
indictments of Arkansas figures on money laundering and other charges.
Clinton biographer Roger Morris quotes a source who reviewed the evidence:
"Those indictments were a real slam dunk if there ever was one." The cases
were suppressed, many in the name of "national security." Duncan was never
called to testify. Other IRS agents and state police disavowed Duncan and
turned on him. Said one source, "Somebody outside ordered it shut down and
the walls went up."
RUSSELL WELCH: An Arkansas state police detective working with Duncan. Welch
developed a 35-volume, 3,000 page archive on drug and money laundering
operations at Mena. His investigation was so compromised that a high state
police official even let one of the targets of the probe look through the
file. At one point, Welch was sprayed in the face with poison, later
identified by the Center for Disease Control as anthrax. He would write in
his diary, "I feel like I live in Russia, waiting for the secret police to
pounce down. A government has gotten out of control. Men find themselves in
positions of power and suddenly crimes become legal." Welch is no longer
with the state police.
DAN SMALTZ: Smaltz did an outstanding job investigating and prosecuting
charges involving illegal payoffs to Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, yet
was treated with disparaging and highly inaccurate reporting by the likes of
the David Broder and the NY Times. Espy was acquitted under a law that made
it necessary to not only prove that he accepted gratuities but that he did
something specific in return. On the other hand, Tyson Foods copped a plea
in the same case, paying $6 million in fines and serving four years'
probation. The charge: that Tyson had illegally offered Espy $12,000 in
airplane rides, football tickets and other payoffs. In the Espy
investigation, Smaltz obtained 15 convictions and collected over $11 million
in fines and civil penalties. Offenses for which convictions were obtained
included false statements, concealing money from prohibited sources, illegal
gratuities, illegal contributions, falsifying records, interstate
transportation of stolen property, money laundering, and illegal receipt of
USDA subsidies. Incidentally, Janet Reno blocked Smaltz from pursuing leads
aimed at allegations of major drug trafficking in Arkansas and payoffs to
the then governor of the state, WJ Clinton. Espy had become Ag secretary
only after being flown to Arkansas to get the approval of chicken king Don
Tyson.
DAVID SCHIPPERS, was House impeachment counsel and a Chicago Democrat. He
did a highly creditable job but since he didn't fit the right-wing
conspiracy theory, the Clintonista media downplayed his work. Thus most
Americans don't know that he told NewsMax, "Let me tell you, if we had a
chance to put on a case, I would have put live witnesses before the
committee. But the House leadership, and I'm not talking about Henry Hyde,
they just killed us as far as time was concerned. I begged them to let me
take it into this year. Then I screamed for witnesses before the Senate. But
there was nothing anybody could do to get those Senators to show any
courage. They told us essentially, you're not going to get 67 votes so why
are you wasting our time." Schippers also said that while a number of
representatives looked at additional evidence kept under seal in a nearby
House building, not a single senator did.
JOHN CLARKE: When Patrick Knowlton stopped to relieve himself in Ft. Marcy
Park 70 minutes before the discovery of Vince Foster's body, he saw things
that got him into deep trouble. His interview statements were falsified and
prior to testifying he claims he was overtly harassed by more than a score
of men in a classic witness intimidation technique. In some cases there were
witnesses. John Clarke has been his dogged lawyer in the witness
intimidation case that has been largely ignored by the media, even when the
three-judge panel overseeing the Starr investigation permitted Knowlton to
append a 20 page addendum to the Starr Report.
OTHER
THE ARKANSAS COMMITTEE: What would later be known as the Vast Right Wing
Conspiracy actually began on the left - as a group of progressive students
at the University of Arkansas formed the Arkansas Committee to look into
Mena, drugs, money laundering, and Arkansas politics. This committee was the
source of some of the important early Clinton stories.
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SCANDALS E-LIST: Moderated by Ray Heizer, this list
has been subject to all the idiosyncrasies of Internet bulletin boards, but
it has nonetheless proved invaluable to researchers and journalists.
JOURNALISTS
JERRY SEPER of the Washington Times was far and away the best beat reporter
of the story, handling it week after week in the best tradition of
investigative journalism. If other reporters had followed Seper's lead, the
history of the Clintons machine might have been quite different.
AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD of the London Telegraph did a remarkable job of
digging into some of the seamiest tales from Arkansas and the Clinton past.
Other early arrivals on the scene were Alexander Cockburn and Jeff Gerth.
CHRISTOPHER RUDDY, among other fine reports on the Clinton scandals, did the
best job laying out the facts in the Vince Foster death case.
ROGER MORRIS AND SALLY DENTON wrote a major expose of events at Mena, but at
the last moment the Washington Post's brass ordered the story killed. It was
published by Penthouse and later included in Morris' "Partners in Power,"
the best biography of the Clintons.
OTHERS who helped get parts of the story out included reporters Philip
Weiss, Carl Limbacher, Wes Phelan, David Bresnahan, William Sammon, Liza
Myers, Mara Leveritt, Matt Drudge, Jim Ridgeway, Nat Hentoff, Michael
Isikoff, Christopher Hitchens, and Michael Kelly. Also independent
investigator Hugh Sprunt and former White House FBI agent Gary Aldrich.
The Clintons, to adapt a line from Dr. Johnson, were not only corrupt, they
were the cause of corruption in others. Seldom in America have so many come
to excuse so much mendacity and malfeasance as during the Clinton years.
These rare exceptions cited above, and others unmentioned, deserve our deep
thanks.
THE CLINTON LEGACY
The Hidden Election
USA Today calls it "the hidden election," in which nearly 7,000 state
legislative seats are decided with only minimal media and public attention.
The paper took brief notice because this is the year the state legislatures
perform their most important national function: drawing revised
congressional districts based on the most recent census.
But there's another important national story here: further evidence of the
disaster that Bill Clinton has been for the Democratic Party. According to
the National Conference of State Legislatures, Democrats held a 1,542 seat
lead in the state bodies in 1990. As of last November that lead had shrunk
to 288. That's a loss of over 1,200 state legislative seats, nearly all of
them under Clinton. Across the US, the Democrats control only 65 more state
senate seats than the Republicans.
Further, in 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than
the Republicans. After November, the Republicans control one more than the
Democrats. Not only is this a loss of 9 legislatures under Clinton, but it
is the first time since 1954 that the GOP has controlled more state
legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968).
Here's what happened to the Democrats under Clinton, based on our latest
figures:
- GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 48
- GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 8
- GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 11
- GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254
as of 1998
- State legislatures taken over by GOP since Clinton became president: 9
- Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became
president: 439 as of 1998
- Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton became
president: 3
NATIONAL CONF OF STATE LEGISLATURES
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/hstptyct.htm
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/demshare2000.htm
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
news:3ED7CE...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
>
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > one of
> > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider
him
> > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
> > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
> > ridden administration in history.
>
> You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> worse...
The post modern roots
of the Clinton administration
The following is an excerpt from "Shadows of Hope: A Freethinker's Guide to
Politics in the Times of Clinton" by Progressive Review editor Sam Smith.
Written after just one year of the Clinton administration, "Shadows of Hope"
was the first book to reveal the deep character flaws, amorality and
political inconsistencies of the president and those around him. TO ORDER
Not all the myths of the Clinton campaign were for public consumption. There
were also the myths it created for and about itself.
At the center of the Clinton team's internal mythology were some of the
values that characterized America's upwardly mobile minority of the 1980s.
Most Americans lost ground in this decade; the real income of a male worker
with only a high school education dropped some 15%. Gaps showed up
everywhere. According to economist Robert J. Samuelson, the difference
between th
e best and the worst paid college graduates grew as did that between the
best and the worst paid lawyers.
But there was a small group of winners and the Clinton people were among
them. They had gone to the best undergraduate schools and the best law or
business schools. A few had made millions during the 80s. They possessed
boundless self-confidence, a strong sense of entitlement, a willingness to
work extremely hard and long to win admission to the society of the
hyper-successful, and were neither burdened nor blessed with notable
institutional, family or community ties.
Clinton and his team had grown up as many of the communal support systems of
society were disintegrating. Family, church, and neighborhood were all on
the ropes. Politics was also breaking down: not only had the machines faded,
but the parties were faltering and Congress splintering. Extraordinary
national common symbols were gone as well: the Kennedys, Rev. King, and --
just as the 80s began -- John Lennon. Young America entered the decade very
much alone.
Thus the egocentrism of yuppie America did not originally spring from greed,
but from an apparent reality; it truly seemed a struggle between oneself and
the rest of the world. Quietly, and unnoticed at first, the economy was
following community into disarray and a Darwinian imperative took hold.
Winning became its own justification.
The Clintonites' sense of entitlement stemmed from qualities they valued in
themselves and others: intelligence, skill in communications, and a
managerial ability to rise above the factions and ideologies of everyday
life.
The intelligence they admired was not that of the philosopher, the artist
nor even that of a good street politician or business entrepreneur. It was
of the sort that excelled in the accumulation and analysis of information
and data. It was the skill of the lawyer or academician who could find every
defect in an argument and compose every possible counter-argument. As
congressional aide and former Washington Monthly editor Jonathan Rowe would
say during Clinton's first year, "The proposals they send up here are term
papers; they have no politics in them."
Politics has many traps for those who rely on rationality and analysis, for
it requires not only objective calculation but a blending of experience,
morality and knowledge into judgments that can not be parsed and decisions
that can not be charted. And it frequently demands choices before all their
implications can be calculated.
Further, skillful campaigners, no matter how brilliant their account of the
inadequacies and injustices of current affairs, will not necessarily become
wise or intelligent incumbents. The jobs are so different that one
politician, burdened with the newly discovered problems of office, remarked,
"Hell, I didn't want to be governor; I just wanted to be elected governor."
When Clinton, the lawyer, became president some of the decisions he faced
seemed to propel him towards catatonia. In contrast, Harry Truman, the
haberdasher, directly and simply made even tougher choices and yet slept
well the same night. Clinton, seeing the possible flaws in a policy, would
hesitate, pull back. Roosevelt, on the other hand, understood that
government was a constant act of experimentation, and that experimentation
included failure.
The second virtue, the ability to communicate, is one common to all animals.
What distinguishes human beings, it has been noted, is that they can also
think. This is not a mere quibble, because people who use the verb
communicate a lot tend to mean something closer to a frog's baroomph than an
essay by Emerson. In response to their communications they seek not thought
nor an articulated response, but a feeling. We are supposed to feel like
having a Michelob, feel like the president's bill will stimulate the
economy, feel like all our questions about healthcare have been answered.
The rhetoric of contemporary "communications" is quite different from that
of thought or argument. The former is more like a shuttle bus endlessly
running around a terminal of ideas. The bus plays no favorites; it stops at
every concept and every notion, it shares every concern and feels every
pain, but when you have made the full trip you are right back where you
started.
Consider Mrs. Clinton's comment on the death penalty:
We go back and forth on the issues of due process and the disproportionate
minorities facing the death penalty, and we have serious concerns in those
areas. We also abhor the craze for the death penalty. But we believe it does
have a role.
She paused dutifully at major objections to the death penalty yet finished
her homily as though she had never been to them at all. In the end, the
president would propose fifty new capital crimes in his first year.
The approach became infectious. As the Clinton administration was attempting
to come up with a logical reason for being in Somalia, an administration
official told the New York Times that "we want to keep the pressure on
[General] Aidid. We don't want to spend all day, every day chasing him. But
if opportunity knocks, we want to be ready. At the same time, we want go get
him to cooperate on the prisoner question and on a political settlement."
If you challenge the contemporary "communicator," you are likely to find the
argument transformed from whatever you thought you were talking about to
something quite different -- generally more abstract and grandiose. For
example if you are opposed to the communicator's proposed policy on trade
you may be accused of being against "change" or "fearful of new ideas" and
so forth. Clinton is very good at this technique. In fact, the White House
made it official policy. A memo was distributed to administration officials
to guide them in marketing the president's first budget. The memo was
titled: HALLELUJAH! CHANGE IS COMING! It read in part:
While you will doubtless be pressed for details beyond these principles,
there is nothing wrong with demurring for the moment on the technicalities
and educate the American people and the media on the historic change we
need.
Philip Lader, creator and maitre d' of the New Year's "Renaissance"
gatherings attended by the Clintons for many years, liked this sort of
language as well. Said Lader on PBS:
The gist of Renaissance has been to recognize the incredible transforming
power of ideas and relationships. And I would hope that this administration
might be characterized by the power of ideas. But also the power of
relationships. Of recognizing the integrity of people dealing with each othe
r.
There is an hyperbolic quality to this language that shatters one's normal
sense of meaning. Simple competence is dubbed "a world-class operation,"
common efficiency is called "Total Quality Management," a conversation
becomes "incredibly transforming," and a gathering of hyper-ambitious and
single-minded professionals is called a "Renaissance" weekend.
Some of the language sounds significant while in fact being completely
devoid of sense, such as "recognizing the integrity of people dealing with
each other." Some of it is Orwellian reversal of meaning such as the
president's pronouncement after his first budget squeaked through: "The
margin was close, but the mandate is clear." This is the language not of the
rationalists that the communicators claim to be, but straight from the car
and beer ads. One might ask, for example, exactly what has really been
transformed by the "power of ideas and relationships" at Renaissance other
than the potential salaries, positions and influence of those participating.
The third virtue claimed by the Clintonites is the ability to arise above
the petty disputes of normal life -- to become "post-ideological." For
example, the president, upon nominating Judge Ginsberg to the Supreme Court
called her neither liberal nor conservative, adding that she "has proved
herself too thoughtful for such labels." In one parenthetical aside, Clinton
dismissed three hundred years of political philosophical debate.
Similarly, when Clinton made the very political decision to name
conservative David Gergen to his staff, he announced that the appointment
signaled that "we are rising above politics."
"We are," he insisted, "going beyond partisanship that damaged this country
so badly in the last several years to search for new ideas, a new common
ground, a new national unity." And when Clinton's new chief of staff was
announced, he was said to be "apolitical," a description used in praise.
Politics without politics. The appointee was someone who, in the words of
the Washington Post, "is seen by most as a man without a personal or
political agenda that would interfere with a successful management of the
White House."
By the time Clinton had been in office for eight months he appeared ready to
dispense with opinion and thought entirely. "It is time we put aside the
divisions of party and philosophy and put our best efforts to work on a
crime plan that will help all the American people," he declared in front of
a phalanx of uniformed police officers -- presumably symbols of a new
objectivity about crime.
Clinton, of course, was not alone. The Third Millennium, a slick Perotist
organization of considerable ideological intent, calls itself
"post-partisan." Perot himself played a similar game: the man without a
personal agenda.
The media also likes to pretend that it is above political ideology or
cultural prejudice. Journalists like Leonard Downie Jr. and Elizabeth Drew
don't even vote and Downie, executive editor of the Washington Post, once
instructed his staff to "cleanse their professional minds of human emotions
and opinions."
"What part of government are you interested in?" I asked a thirtysomething
lawyer who was sending in his resume to the new Clinton administration. "I
don't have any particular interest," he replied, "I would just like to be a
special assistant to someone." It no longer surprised me; it had been ten
years since I met Jeff Bingaman at a party. He was in the middle of a
multi-million dollar campaign for US Senate; he showed me his brochure and
spoke enthusiastically of his effort. "What brings you to Washington?" I
asked. He said, "I want to find out what the issues are."
If you got the right grades at the right schools and understood the
"process," it didn't matter all that much what the issues were or what you
believed. Issues were merely raw material to be processed by good
"decision-making." As with Clinton, it was you -- not an idea or a faith or
a policy -- that was the solution.
This purported voiding of ideology is a major conceit of post-modernism --
that assault on every favored philosophical notion since the time of
Voltaire. Post-modernism derides the concepts of universality, of history,
of values, of truth, of reason, and of objectivity. It, like Clinton, rises
above "party and philosophy" and like much of the administration's
propaganda, above traditional meaning as well.
Like Clinton, the post-modernist is obsessed with symbolism. Giovanna
Borradori calls post-modernism a "definitive farewell" to modern reason. And
Pauline Marie Rosenau writes:
Post-modernists recognize an infinite number of interpretations (meanings)
of any text are possible because, for the skeptical post-modernists, one can
never say what one intends with language, [thus] ultimately all textual
meaning, all interpretation is undecipherable.
She adds:
Many diverse meanings are possible for any symbol, gesture, word . . .
Language has no direct relationship to the real world; it is, rather, only
symbolic.
Marshall Blonsky brings us closer to Clinton's post-modernist side in
American Mythologies:
High modernists believe in the ideology of style -- what is as unique as
your own fingerprints, as incomparable as your own body. By contrast,
postmodernism. . . sees nothing unique about us. Postmodernism regards "the
individual" as a sentimental attachment, a fiction to be enclosed within
quotation marks. If you're postmodern, you scarcely believe in the "right
clothes" that take on your personality. You don't dress as who you are
because, quite simply, you don't believe "you" are. Therefore you are
indifferent to consistency and continuity.
The consistent person is too rigid for a post-modern world, which demands
above all that we constantly adapt and that our personalities, statements
and styles to become a reflection for those around us rather than being
innate.
Later, Blonsky (perhaps illuminating why Gennifer Flowers and the draft and
ever-changing policy positions don't matter) writes, :
Character and consistency were once the most highly regarded virtue to
ascribe to either friend or foe. We all strove to be perceived as consistent
and in character, no matter how many shattering experiences had changed our
lives or how many persons inhabited our bodies. Today, for the first time in
modern times, a split or multiple personality has ceased to be an eccentric
malady and becomes indispensable as we approach the turn of the century.
Other presidents have engaged in periodic symbolic extravaganzas, but most
have relied on stock symbols such as the Rose Garden or the helicopter for
everyday use. Clinton, on the other hand, understands that today all power
resides in symbols and devotes a phenomenal amount of time and effort to
their creation, care and manipulation. Thus the co-chair of his inauguration
announced that people would be encouraged to join Clinton in a walk across
Memorial Bridge a few days before his swearing-in. "It signifies the way
that this president will act," Harry Thomason said. "There are always going
to be crowds, and he's always going to be among them."
As a post-modernist, Clinton is in some interesting company. Such as Vanna
White, of whom Ted Koppel remarks, "Vanna leaves an intellectual vacuum,
which can be filled by whatever the predisposition of the viewer happens to
be." Blonsky reports that Koppel sees himself as having a similar effect and
says of Bush's dullness: "You would think that the voter would become
frustrated... but on the contrary he has become acclimated to the notion
that you just fill in the blank." And then Koppel warns: "It is the very
level of passion generated by Jesse Jackson that carries a price." Clinton
understands the warning and the value of the blank the viewer can fill in at
leisure.
Of course, in the postmodern society that Clinton proposes -- one that rises
above the false teachings of ideology -- we find ourselves with little to
steer us save the opinions of whatever non-ideologue happens to be in power.
In this case, we may really only have progressed from the ideology of the
many to the ideology of the one or, some might say, from democracy to
authoritarianism.
Among equals, indifference to shared meaning might produce nothing worse
than lengthy argument. But when the postmodernist is President of the United
States, the impulse becomes a 500-pound gorilla to be fed, as they say,
anything it wants.
Michael Berman describes one postmodernist writer's "radical skepticism both
about what people can know and about what they can do [passing] abruptly
into dogmatism and peremptory a priori decrees about what is and what is not
possible." The result, Berman says, can be a "left-wing politics from the
perspective of a rightwing metaphysics," not a bad description, it turns
out, of President Clinton's health care policy.
That postmodernism is confusing there is no doubt. Stephen Miller, writing
in American Enterprise, quotes the editor of a collection of essays on the
subject attempting a definition: "I have regarded Postmodernism as a
theoretical and representational 'mood' developing over the last twenty
years." Novelist and semiotician Umberto Eco says the term appears to be
"applied today to anything the user of the term happens to like."
Certainly Mrs. Clinton found the concept troubling. In a speech some have
compared to Jimmy Carter's maladroit oration on malaise, she said:
We are, I think, in a crisis of meaning. What do our governmental
institutions mean.? What do our lives in today's world mean? What does it
mean to be educated? What does it mean to be a journalist? What does it mean
in today's world to pursue not only vocations, to be part of institutions,
but to be human?
We lack at some core level meaning in our individual lives and collectively.
Quoting a dying Lee Atwater as saying, "You can acquire all you want and
still feel empty," Mrs. Clinton went on:
We need a new politics of meaning. Now, will it be easy to do that? Of
course not. Because we are breaking new ground. . It's not going to be easy
to redefine who we are as human beings in this post-modern age . . .But part
of the great challenge of living is defining yourself in your moment.
Columnist Charles Krauthammer cast a skeptical ear towards all this:
Heavy, as we used to say in college. Yes, there is more to life than power
and prestige. Yes, there is more than politics and economics. Yes, life
needs meaning. Most adults, I dare say, have come to these thundering
truisms early in life.
Trite indeed, a fast-track lawyer's yearning out of sync with the 94% of
Americans who say they believe in God. Another example of the current trend
towards intellectual cross-dressing in which ministers mess in politics and
politicians pretend they are theologians. Yet in the speech was a cry for
something to grab, something solid in the moment-driven, symbol-pumped
postmodernism of the life she and her husband have known. And Mrs. Clinton
did touch on a common sense that something is missing, better expressed by
UCLA history professor Joyce in the journal Liberal Education: noted
We live in an era of posts. The buildings going up around us are postmodern.
Our age is postindustrial. Our literary criticism poststructural. We have
postpositivist sociology, postbehavioral political science, and
postanalytical philosophy: Ours is clearly an age that knows where it has
been and senses that it is no longer there.
Later, she says:
We continue to think within a liberal frame of reference even as we chip
away at the frame. What we no longer share is liberalism's potent,
energizing, cohering faith in progress. The use of "post" language to locate
ourselves in cultural time indicates that we still identify ourselves
through the old convictions. We have not rejected liberal values so much as
we have lost liberal certitude.
Of course, Bill Clinton, as in other matters, is far from pure in his
post-modernism. He likes facts and data too much. Writing about the
president at the end of his first 100 days, Arkansas columnist Paul
Greenberg remarked, "What the clintonized culture hath wrought is summarized
pithily in one of the better chapters of Jack Butler's new novel, Living in
Little Rock with Miss Little Rock: 'People. . . understood reality as
machinery rather than God's own dream of existence, intelligence as
information rather than judgment.'" Clinton might sell his programs with the
postmodernist's flair for symbolism and indifference to truth and
consistency, but he would head the most rationalistic government this
country has seen since Robert MacNamara and his whiz kids attempted to
purify Vietnam.
In Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West the Canadian
historian John Ralston Saul argues: "When the 18th-century philosophers
killed God, they thought they were engaged in housekeeping-- the evils of
corrupt religion would be swept away, the decent aspects of Christian
morality would be dusted off and neatly repackaged inside reason." Instead
says Saul, came "a theology of pure power -- power born of structure, not of
dynasty or arms. The new holy trinity is organization, technology, and
information."
Reviewing Saul's work for the Utne Reader, Jeramiah Creedon wrote:
The new priest is the technocrat, someone who interprets events not morally
but 'within the logic of the system.' Saul's point is that reason alone has
no inherent virtue; it is simply an intellectual tool. In fact, when reason
is allowed to unfold in an ethical vacuum, untempered by common sense, the
results are apt to be terrible. The classic example is the 'perfectly
rational' Holocaust, planned by the Nazis with 'the clean efficiency of a
Harvard case study.' . . . Reason has also created a recurring human type
well suited to perpetuating it: the leader for whom calculation is
everything.
To embrace all of this -- from cold logic to hip logos -- and to create a
technicolor technocracy without drowning in the contradictions was a tour de
force. To the trinity of organization, technology and information, the
Clinton team had added a spectacular symbolic sound and light show.
In Work of Nations, seminal Clintonite Robert Reich described the world's
emerging new elite as "symbolic analysts" who spend their time "manipulating
symbols. Blonksy goes further:
Connotation today -- far beyond advertising phenomenon -- is no longer
merely 'hidden persuasion' but is in fact a semiosphere, a dense atmosphere
of signs triumphantly permeating all social, political, and imaginative life
and, arguably, constituting our desiring selves as such.
The Clinton campaign would ultimately become a victim of its own success in
manipulating the semiosphere, for it would not only fool us, it would, once
in office, delude itself. But in July 1992, everything was still in tact,
albeit after a few symbolic alterations in which the media gladly
acquiesced. The message -- what with Ms. Flowers, the draft and the
drifts -- had gone awry. The campaign let it be known that the Clintons
would be "reintroduced" at the convention. They were and few seemed to find
it at all strange or disingenuous, for we had become postmodern, too.
The convention at times looked more like a leveraged takeover than a
political gathering. Clinton operatives were busy spinning off the unwanted
assets of the Democratic Party -- blacks, unions, the cities and
progressives, as longtime workers of the firm, from Jesse Jackson to Gov.
Casey, were told they'd have to take a cut in pay or that their services
were no longer needed. If you took a loyalty pledge you got a few moments on
the podium and one sentence in the candidate's acceptance speech (where
liberals were lumped with the homeless as among the pariahs of America), but
after such cameo appearances you were expected to shut up and get out of the
way so the lawyer-lobbyist kill-or-be-killed tough guys could turn the party
into a lean, mean and profitable corporation.
They didn't fool around. Even the language had a yuppie baron's tone to it.
One businessman reported getting a call from Clinton fundraiser Rahm Emanuel
that began, "The governor's gonna be in Chicago next week, and he wants to
see you. Bring $10,000 or don't come." The day before the election, Clinton
campaigner Paul Begala told a reporter the campaign couldn't coast, it had
to "drive a stake" through the GOP's heart. And Newsweek reported Clinton
responding to a Bush offensive by saying, "I want to put a fist halfway down
their throats with this. I don't want subtlety. I want their teeth on the
sidewalk."
After you cut through the talk about a "new covenant" and "inclusion" and so
forth, much of the Clinton campaign was about political power in its purest
sense. There was mention of "vision," but as they say in Texas, it was all
hat and no cattle. These weren't people out to build coalitions or create a
movement, only to win and make sure everyone knew they had. Later, Time
would calculate that phrase new covenant had virtually disappeared by the
spring of Clinton's first year in office.. A check of five major newspapers
found it mentioned 45 times in July 1992, 31 times in August, but only four
times the following April.
To a few, the convention reintroduction via film and telethon rhetoric was
bizarre and tasteless. Imagine, one Democrat suggested, FDR on the podium
telling the full story of his struggles with polio or Harry Truman turning
off-stage a la Clinton and saying huskily, "I love you, Bess." But to many
more, especially party workers desperate to end their 12 years of exile, it
was an appealing and fully credible myth.
It worked, thanks is no small part to the semiotic sophistication of
Clinton's glitzkreig, which borrowed from television's disease-of-the-week
specials to create the shameless bathos of the candidates' acceptance
speeches and then immediately proceeded to evoke every male buddy tale from
Huckleberry Finn to Newman & Redford by sending its stars across America
together on a bus. It wasn't Greyhound or, as Washington Post columnist Tony
Kornheiser put it, "891 hard miles with a warm Dr. Pepper and a stale cheese
sandwich," but nobody seemed to care. Nothing that would happen in the next
three months would quite match it. Fortunately for Clinton, it didn't have
to.
The 80s began with the murder of John Lennon. In the early 90s, Mark David
Chapman explained it this way: "I wasn't killing a real person. I killed an
image. I killed an album cover."
Within days of the election, Ford began running a TV ad using a voice-over
that sounded just like Clinton delivering a speech to an enthusiastic
audience. Or was it really Clinton delivering a speech to an enthusiastic
audience? Or really Clinton selling cars a few days after his election?
We had helped put Clinton in the center of the semiosphere. He knew how it
worked and how to work it. But did we?
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
news:3ED7CE...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
>
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > one of
> > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider
him
> > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
> > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
> > ridden administration in history.
>
> You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> worse...
>
White House Hides Clinton Fund-raising Scandal From Congress
NewsMax.com Wires
Friday, Sept. 7, 2001
WASHINGTON - The House Government Reform Committee on Thursday prepared to
subpoena the Bush administration for documents relating to Justice
Department investigations of the Clinton administration's fund-raising
scandal. But the White House said it was prepared to invoke executive
privilege to keep the documents secret, shocking congressional
investigators.
Subpoenas were also planned for another set of documents related to
Boston-area organized crime.
Two sets of documents involve the Justice Department's decision not to seek
an independent counsel after the 1996 campaign fund-raising scandals that
hit both parties during the Clinton administration.
The other 13 documents relate to Justice Department records involving a
series of investigations into organized crime in New England, which resulted
in key government informants being indicted for a slew of crimes in 1995.
The committee has been investigating the use of informants in investigations
of organized crime.
Led by Committee Chairman Dan Burton, R-Ind., investigators sought a deal
with the Bush administration over the release of the documents. The White
House said the decision would be in the "best interests of the
administration of justice."
The "president has accepted the recommendation of White House counsel
Alberto Gonzalez and is prepared to invoke executive privilege over these
documents," an administration official said.
He said that though the documents had no bearing on actions of the Bush
administration, White House lawyers had determined that "it was in the best
interests of the administration of justice that prosecutors be able to think
about options in a case without making those considerations public."
Why Would Bush Cover Up for Clinton?
The decision to seek executive privilege for the documents of another
administration's scandals shocked investigators, a committee source said.
"We were somewhat surprised to see the White House exert executive
privilege," the committee source said. "The documents we requested do not go
directly to private conversations between past presidents and attorneys
general. We even specifically said we didn't want documents related to open
investigations.
"We've been negotiating with them for months, and at no time did they even
mention that they would claim any privilege."
The committee sources said the subpoenas did not request grand jury
information or documents related to open or continuing investigations, which
they said should have made the president more responsive to the request.
Copyright 2001 by United Press International.
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
news:3ED7CE...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
>
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > one of
> > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider
him
> > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
> > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
> > ridden administration in history.
>
> You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> worse...
Clinton Scandals Continue To Surface
Nov. 6, 2002
The General Accounting Office (GAO) reported last week that 16 percent of
our National Guard and Reserve pilots and air crew have transferred out of
their combat positions. An additional 18 percent of those surveyed have also
stated their intent to transfer or leave.
Did they suddenly lose their zeal for flying? Are they fatigued after years
of service? Are they avoiding possible deployment for an invasion of Iraq?
None of the above; the pilots' departure has nothing to do with flying or
with war. The GAO discovered that those pilots departed because the Clinton
Administration ordered them to receive the anthrax vaccine, and 86 percent
of those who did take the shots reported adverse side effects.
Now, after scores of resignations and hundreds of careers destroyed by
courts martial, we discover that our brave servicemen and women were right
to resist the anthrax orders, and the government was fatally and corruptly
wrong. A lawsuit filed by two Connecticut Air Force Reserve pilots asserted
that the vaccine used on the military was never properly tested, and the
Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) recent response was to halt use of
existing stocks of the vaccine.
Several months earlier, the FDA had ordered that a warning be included in
the vaccine's insert package stating that the vaccine can harm people with
immunity disorders, can cause a host of serious long- term adverse
reactions, and could already be responsible for six deaths and a number of
birth defects. These warnings were based on complaints by military vaccine
users since 1998 and show an injury rate that far exceeds casualty rates in
combat.
The FDA warning also states that adverse reactions are expected in 5 to 35
percent of people who get the injection. That is an absolutely shocking
danger difference from the advertised 0.2 percent rate when Clinton ordered
everyone in the military to be given the vaccine.
Clinton saw in the anthrax vaccine a way to stick it to the military he
"loathed," literally, while handing a pot of gold to an important political
ally. It was win-win for the Clintonistas, but lose/lose for our finest
servicemen and women.
The biggest beneficiary of the order to force the anthrax vaccine on the
military was Admiral William Crowe, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff who had provided political "cover" for Clinton at a key moment
during his bid for the presidency in 1992. Crowe personally vouched for
Clinton against charges that he was a draft- dodger.
A grateful President Clinton rewarded Crowe with the plum appointment as
Ambassador to England. But even that was not enough; Clinton handed BioPort,
a corporation where Crowe was a director and a stockholder, an exclusive
multi-million-dollar contract to supply 2.4 million servicemen with the
anthrax vaccine.
Crowe reportedly received substantial stock in BioPort's parent company
without paying for it. A Pentagon audit in April 2000 revealed that BioPort
wasted funds on "excessive travel costs, excessive severance pay and
unsubstantiated consulting costs," including $1.28 million in "unreasonable"
bonuses for senior management.
About a year after BioPort contractually obligated itself to supply the
anthrax for $25.7 million, the Clinton Administration nearly doubled its
promised payments to $49.8 million even though the FDA repeatedly cited
BioPort for quality deficiencies, and BioPort failed federal inspections
again and again. BioPort was even indemnified against all liability from
adverse reactions to the vaccine, which Army Secretary Louis Caldera
admitted was "unusually hazardous" for certain recipients.
An emergency medicine physician at Keesler Air Force base in Mississippi,
Captain John Buck, chose to face a court-martial rather than be injected
with the vaccine. "A red lump on the arm is not something that scares me,"
Buck said, "but an autoimmune disorder for the rest of my life is."
The Clinton Administration cruelly court-martialed hundreds of servicemen
for declining the unsafe, untested vaccine.
The anthrax vaccine, which was imposed on servicemen and women alike, was
never tested for harm to unborn children. Clinton's feminist advisors would
never permit treating women differently from men, even for the sake of
avoiding birth defects.
The number of deaths that the FDA now concedes could have been caused by the
anthrax vaccine exceeds the casualties from the anthrax itself when the
mails and office buildings were contaminated last year. The postal workers
showed good common sense when 98 percent of them rejected the government's
hard-sell sales talk to be voluntarily injected with the vaccine.
We are waiting for the Department of Defense to do the right thing: restore
the careers, with rank and pay, of the hundreds of servicemen and women who
were punished for refusing a corrupt order to be injected with the unsafe,
untested and unnecessary vaccine. One reason we elected George W. Bush was
to remedy Bill Clinton's mistakes, and this is a good place to start.
Phyllis Schlafly column 11-06-02
D.G. Porter
>
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> news:3ED7CE...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> > Nutburger Alert in Full Progress...
> >
> > Dude wrote:
> > >
> > > one of
> > > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider
> him
> > > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
> > > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
> > > ridden administration in history.
> >
> > You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> > Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> > worse...
> FBI agent tells of Clinton's 'secret trips to meet woman in hotel'
> By Stephen Robinson in Washington
>
> A FORMER FBI agent who served in the White House has claimed that President
> Clinton hides under a blanket as he is driven to assignations with a woman
> in a Washington hotel room.
>
> Gary Aldrich,
GARY ALDRICH??? That IDIOT!?
Nothing that Aldrivch wrote is worth taking seriously. BUT it tells
even more about your loonie views that you take his claims seriously.
Hey, Aldrich is the LOONIE who said that <GASP!> Hillary dishonored the
White House Christmas tree by putting an ornament on it that had
ERECTIONS! HORRORS!!! (What a stupid fuck.)
> Some of Mr Aldrich's account should be treated with scepticism because of
> his political bias,
No shit, Sherlock.
And what's with the redundant, binary-sized posts, clown?
> SHERMAN H. SKOLNICK vs. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
Oh GOD! SKOLNICK! BWAH HA HA HA!!!!!
Hey, I used to call up his number and listen to his stuff. Slowly but
surely I realized he's a bit what we call "teched." "Oh YEAH???" Heh,
I remember fondly the days when I'd run his stuff on my Pacifica radio
show -- first I was intrigued, then I realized the guy was maybe a bit
overly-anxious, and I had to edit his stuff before I'd air it, then I
realized I was dealing with a bizzarro, like Lowell Ponte (another nutso
I came to know through Pacifica).
You're a loonie, you'r posts are binary-sized, and your sources are just
as loonie as you are.
Case closed.
D.G. Porter
>
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> news:3ED7CE...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> > Nutburger Alert in Full Progress...
> >
> > Dude wrote:
> > >
> > > one of
> > > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider
> him
> > > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
> > > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
> > > ridden administration in history.
> >
> > You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> > Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> > worse...
>
> NEW GOVERNOR REOPENS CASE EMBARRASSING TO CLINTON
> Hope for Justice Rekindled
> By Cathy Tapie, July 29, 1996
> The Washington Weekly, (http://dolphin.gulf.net)
[SNIP]
> [Printed in the July 29, 1996 issue of the Washington Weekly]
I saw all this and more during Clinton's terms. I kept asking myself,
if there is something to all these allegations and alleged scandals, why
isn't it all over the mainstream press?
Your loonie pals would answer, "It's the LLLLLLLLIBERAL MEDIA!" But I
know that's a myth. So there must have been another reason.
Well, these stories never grew legs. None of them. Barbara Honneger
was more credible that the people (like David Hale) trying to tar
Clinton with everything from murder to bad hair days.
And the penultimate paragraph ("Bill Clinton has taken his operation
national and into the White House") destroys whatever credibility this
whole article might have had with me. I knw the guy got raped and
castrated, but no credible link to Clinton ever came out. If one had,
Clinton would never have stood a chance for re-election. (I didn't vote
for him in '96 anyway.)
So, this was run in '96 -- what's the news in 2003? What did time tell?
D.G. Porter
>
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> news:3ED7CE...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> > Nutburger Alert in Full Progress...
> >
> > Dude wrote:
> > >
> > > one of
> > > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider
> him
> > > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
> > > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
> > > ridden administration in history.
> >
> > You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> > Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> > worse...
>
> SICK WILLIE: A Second Opinion
> (Dr. Paul Fick interviewed on the "Alive Across America" radio program on
> March 21, 1996)
Oh no, not those LOONS...
> March 21, 1996: "ALIVE ACROSS AMERICA" with guest DR. PAUL FICK, author of
> "THE DYSFUNCTIONAL PRESIDENT; inside the mind of Bill Clinton".
> Dr. Fick is a psychologist who specializes in dysfunctional families. He has
> observed President Clinton at a distance and knows of his family background.
>
> Duffy: Paul, let's start off by setting the record perfectly straight... you
> have never interviewed Bill Clinton, you have never met him personally?
>
> Dr. Fick: That is correct.
I hear the strains of Schoenberg's "LOONIE BOZO"...
> Duffy: Because this is a Christian talk show, Paul,
That's another one with zilch credibility.
You can keep your Duffys and Robetsons and Falwells...
D.G. Porter
>
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> news:3ED7CE...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> > Nutburger Alert in Full Progress...
> >
> > Dude wrote:
> > >
> > > one of
> > > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider
> him
> > > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
> > > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
> > > ridden administration in history.
> >
> > You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> > Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> > worse...
> >
> Judicial Watch claims Johnny Chung's Life Put in Jeopardy by Justice
> Department DisclosureI finds it remarkable that the Bush-Cheney Justice
> Department is so committed to defending the illegalities of the Clinton-Gore
> administration
Ah yes, why would that be?
(Judicial Watch, Scaife, Federalist Society, clowns...)
D.G. Porter
>
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> news:3ED7CE...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> > Nutburger Alert in Full Progress...
> >
> > Dude wrote:
> > >
> > > one of
> > > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider
> him
> > > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
> > > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
> > > ridden administration in history.
> >
> > You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> > Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> > worse...
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/clinton-scandals.html
I'm supposed to take seriously some loon's site on tripod?
D.G. Porter
>
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> news:3ED7CE...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> > Nutburger Alert in Full Progress...
> >
> > Dude wrote:
> > >
> > > one of
> > > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider
> him
> > > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
> > > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
> > > ridden administration in history.
> >
> > You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> > Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> > worse...
> >
>
> White House Hides Clinton Fund-raising Scandal From Congress
> NewsMax.com Wires
Newsmax?????
That does it.
D.G. Porter
>
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> news:3ED7CE...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> > Nutburger Alert in Full Progress...
> >
> > Dude wrote:
> > >
> > > one of
> > > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider
> him
> > > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
> > > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
> > > ridden administration in history.
> >
> > You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> > Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> > worse...
>
> Clinton Scandals Continue To Surface
>
SCHLAFLY?????????? That loonie cunt????? Aw, Jeez...
You are one fuckin' LUNATIC. Everything you come up with has LOONIE
written all over it.
George Grapman
> I heard Henry Kissenger say that North Vietnam was within two weeks of
> ending the war when he was a guest on Greta Van Susteren's show On the
> Record on FOX News. If you are a subscriber you should be able to find the
> interview in the FOX archives and watch it yourself.
>
> I did find this however ... you can search further if you want.
>
>
You can hear Kissinger and Nixon on the White house tapes agreeing
that the war could not be won but agreeing that Noxon would appear to
be weak if he settled before the 1972 election.
> "From 1969 to the end of the war, over 20,000 American soldiers lost their
> lives in a war that the United States did not have the resolve to win. If
> General Giap was accurate in his assessment that North Vietnam was going to
> seek a conditional surrender but stopped due to the sensationalism of the
> American news media and the anti-war protests following the 1968 Tet
> Offensive, it follows that those who participated in these anti-war
> activities and misreporting have to share partial responsibility for those
> 20,000 + Americans deaths.
>
> We won the war on the battlefield but lost it back home on the college
> campuses and in the city streets."
>
>
>
>
> http://www.1stcavmedic.com/tet_offensive_of_1968.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> "George Grapman" <sfge...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:d4dc976.03053...@posting.google.com...
> > "Dude" <Du...@MyPlace.net> wrote in message
> news:<vddj8t1...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > Did you know that not to long ago it was found out that North Vietnam
> was
> > > ready to give up at one point? They were within two weeks of ending
> > > hostilities when an increase in the number and size of peace protests in
> the
> > > U.S. caused President Nixon to make changes that gave North Vietnam the
> will
> > > to fight on?
> > >
> >
> >
> > You "forgot" to provide a cite.
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> > news:3ED7CE...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> > > Nutburger Alert in Full Progress...
> > >
> > > Dude wrote:
> > > >
> > > > one of
> > > > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not
consider
> > him
> > > > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he
was
> > > > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and
scandal
> > > > ridden administration in history.
> > >
> > > You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> > > Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> > > worse...
> >
> > Go ahead and list the policy successes of President Clinton. Tell us
what he
> > did that was good. I can tell you one thing that he did damned good ...
and
> > that is destroying the economy.
>
> Ridiculous claim. Like everything else you post.
If you talk to anyone who knows the economy and the events of the last
decade or more you will hear the same thing from them that I have said. Only
liberal propagandists will say otherwise.
The last four years of the Clinton administration they falsified the nations
'books' in an effort to hide their failure. By 1999 they had inflated their
numbers in excess of 20%. One effect was that Alan Greenspan increased
interest rates to curb the inflation he saw in the fake Clinton numbers.
In fact the economy was already flat and when the interest rates increased
the economy dropped almost as fast as Clinton could drop his pants when he
saw a woman.
Speaking just from personal experience in 2000 sales where I was at the time
employed dropped 50% from the year before.
One of my close friends owns two automobile dealerships and every month of
2000 sales dropped until in December they had the worst month in their
history, much worse than their first month in business with just one
dealership. The two dealerships combined did not sell as many news cars as
the smaller less profitable dealership had sold the December before.
> Why should I bother trying to "refute" the junk you post?
Maybe to try to look like you're talking about for a change would be a
fairly good reason to give it a try.
Go hear and read a bit.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98oct/clintec.htm
I knew that you could not do it. I knew that there was no way that you
compile a list of positive achievements by President Clinton.
People like you rip and tear at Presidents that were good at what they did
and then you praise President Clinton like he was the best there ever was.
But when asked what was good about President Clinton you are unable to reply
with anything factual. You know that anything that you come up with can and
will be factually picked apart.
Evidently you have a very 'different' definition of "white niggers" from
most everyone else. I have NEVER heard any for or usage of the "N" word
defined as being a brown noser.
Even
> after he resigned (in disgrace) from the Irvine Company (which owns a
> fifth of the land in this-here county), he brown-nosed his former
> colleagues whenever his son (me) got a letter published in the local rag
> denouncing their development plans for one of the biggest estuaries in
> the state (eventually bought by the state, but not until the company
> President who opposed turning it into a park died, and his successor
> decided to deal with the state, FWIW). He was also one of the stupidest
> fucking idiots I ever knew -- whenever things got "going good," he'd
> manage to fuck it up -- and you really have to fuck up to have to resign
> from the Masons when you've reach Deputy Grand Master. So I not only
> don't fault Byrd for that remark, I agree with him.
I am happy to read that you hold your father in such high regard and have
such a tremendous respect for him.
>
> > The ex-Klansman allegedly ended his ties with the group in 1943. He may
have
> > stopped paying dues, but he continued to pay homage to the KKK.
Republicans
> > in West Virginia discovered a letter Sen. Byrd had written to the
Imperial
> > Wizard of the KKK three years after he says he abandoned the group.
>
> Wow -- 1946 -- just yesterday!
>
So you are saying that there is a statute of limitations on unacceptable
acts? If so just how many more years before, by your own logic, will
President Nixon no longer be able to be regarded as having been less than
acceptable? If Senator Byrd gets a pass because of the number of years that
have passed between now and the date of the factual piece of evidence I
posted you would have to do the same with people like President's Nixon and
Reagan, wouldn't you? If time washes someone clean of things they did in the
past I guess that right about now you are ready to start singing the praises
of Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin?
You just to hypocritical to admit to your liberal double standards and will
cling to your faceless blind hatred of President's Nixon and Reagan?
As for the year of certain Senator Byrd statements or activities keep in
mind that he used the "N" word TWICE in one single interview in 2001.
> > He
> > wrote: "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see
its
> > rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union."
> >
> > The ex-Klansman later filibustered the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act -
> > supported by a majority of those "mean-spirited" Republicans - for more
than
> > 14 hours.
>
> Many Senators who supported the Act in principle opposed one provision
> -- I forget which one it was -- it was the one Gore Sr. also opposed.
>
> > He also opposed the nominations of the Supreme Court's two black
> > justices, liberal Thurgood Marshall
>
> Now I really want a cite on this one. So much of the stuff youpost is
> absolute bullshit, I can't believe any of it even when I'm almost sure
> it's true.
This is how the article below ended.
".......It's hard to know because in those days he was too busy
filibustering the 1964 Civil Rights Act and opposing the nomination of
Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court. What would Lincoln say?"
>
What Would Lincoln Say of Robert Byrd
By Nathan Porter
BSNN.net
While Tom Daschle received all the headlines for his rhetorical hemorrhage
on the Senate floor this week, it was Robert Byrd who, as usual, filled me
with a combination of outrage, hatred, and hilarity. Watching the old cock
peck and cluck around the Senate has become a bizarre hobby of mine. More
often than not he embarrasses himself through his demented outbursts, and
there is no one in politics more worthy of eternal embarrassment than Robert
Byrd.
"I am disgusted by the tenor of the war debate that has seemingly overtaken
this Capital City," Byrd said stamping his feet across the Senate floor.
"The debate has taken an ugly turn, forcing many to question the motivations
of this Administration's efforts to place America's sons and daughters in
harm's way."
"Is the President determined to make the great party Abraham Lincoln the war
party?" he continued. "What would Abraham Lincoln say if he were here?"
Good question, Senator. I suspect Lincoln might say your degeneracy appears
to be pretty rapid. Or he might say that we should have faith that right
makes might. He might say a house divided against itself cannot stand. That
this government cannot endure permanently divided half-right and half-wrong.
Senator Byrd droned on: "It is despicable that any President would attempt
to use the serious matter of impending war as a tool in a campaign year.
The blood of our sons and daughters-our soldiers, sailors, and airmen-have
far more value than a few votes in a ballot box. There is nothing more
sobering than the decision to go to war, but the Administration has turned
the decision into a bumper-sticker election theme."
"I have been in this Congress for fifty years," Byrd continued, "and I have
never seen a President or Vice President stoop this low."
Oh really? LBJ fabricated events to get the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, Nixon
used the White House as his personal crime syndicate, and the atrocities of
Clinton and Gore are simply too numerous to mention. But Bush speaking the
truth is as low as it gets.
What is despicable and low is that this son of the KKK would invoke the name
of Lincoln and discuss the value of our soldier's blood to use his war
against war as a campaign tool. And one can only assume that the valuable
blood of which Byrd speaks is only that of Caucasian soldiers. For it was
Senator Byrd who declared he would never fight in the armed services with a
"Negro" by his side. "Rather I should die a thousand times," he once wrote,
"and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see
this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to
the blackest specimen from the wilds."
What would Lincoln say, Senator Byrd? Would he say, "Whenever I hear anyone
arguing for racial discrimination I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on
him personally"?
Think about this for a minute. Byrd would rather see Old Glory trampled in
the dirt never to rise again. He would rather the United States cease to
exist than suffer the personal indignity of fighting along side a person of
color. Perhaps that is Senator Byrd's real problem with the Bush
Administration's position on Iraq. Its national security team has been
degraded by "race mongrels" like Colin Powell and Condi Rice, and "white
niggers" like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, and in the demented, racist mind of
Robert Byrd it's time for this nation to be trampled in the dirt never to
rise again. What better way to accomplish this than to sit idly by as rogue
nations and terror networks acquire weapons of mass destruction.
What would Lincoln say? Would he say it's better to leave nothing for
tomorrow which can be done today? Would he say if all do not join now to
save the good old ship America this voyage, no one will have a chance to
pilot her on another voyage?
Senator Byrd ended his desk-thumping rant by making the anti-war argument du
jour: "For the first time in the history of the Republic, the nation is
considering a preemptive strike against a sovereign state. America fights
wars, but America does not begin wars."
This is a very popular argument, but like so many things uttered by
politicians, it simply is not true. One can begin by examining the suspect
rationale for the Mexican-American War. And what were Korea and Vietnam if
not pre-emptive strikes? I don't recall the US being attacked by either
country, yet we spilled the blood of American soldiers, black and white
alike, attempting to preempt Soviet domination of the entire planet. Was
Senator Byrd opposed to that? It's hard to know because in those days he was
too busy filibustering the 1964 Civil Rights Act and opposing the nomination
of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court. What would Lincoln say?
And .....
This also is just a portion of the entire article .. but the rest can be
read below in it's entirety.
"Senator Byrd's opposition to both African-American Supreme Court nominees
Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas gives us grave concern for any future
nominees of color that may be sent forth by this President or any other. It
is our belief that Senator Byrd's opposition has nothing to do with the
beliefs of liberal or conservative, but is just racism in general."
Did you see that last bit? Did you notice where it said "It is our belief
that Senator Byrd's opposition has nothing to do with the beliefs of liberal
or conservative, but is just racism in general.?" It was said by Kevin
Martin, Political and Government Affairs Director of the African American
Republican Leadership Council .. not by me.
Monday, Jan. 6, 2003 10:43 a.m. EST
Civil Rights Activists Protest Sen. 'KKK' Byrd
While the White House and Republican Party leaders have sat on their hands
as former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd continues to reign as a top Senate
leader, a group of civil rights and conservative activists will launch a
lunchtime protest on Monday against the West Virginia Democrat, demanding
that he remove himself from the line of succession to the presidency and
resign from his post as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
In a press release issued Sunday, Kevin Martin, Political and Government
Affairs Director of the African American Republican Leadership Council,
invited those concerned about Byrd's atrocious record on race to join
members of his and other civil rights groups like the Brotherhood
Organization for a New Destiny (BOND) and Project 21, along with members of
the Web site FreeRepublic.com, at the noon protest at Byrd's Hart Building
Senate office.
Martin said the protest would specifically address the following issues:
"Senator Byrd's appearance as Georgia Confederate General Paul J. Semmer in
the upcoming Civil War Epic 'Gods and Generals.' We firmly believe that
Senator Byrd has no business playing this role given his past ties to the Ku
Klux Klan and past support of segregationist principles.
"We are demanding that Senator Byrd remove his name from consideration as
the Democrat choice for Senate pro tempore when the Senate returns to
session on January 7, 2003. It is our belief that Senator Byrd does not
represent the mainstream of Americans and has no place in the line of
succession to the Presidency should the Democrats regain the majority.
"Senator Byrd's opposition to both African-American Supreme Court nominees
Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas gives us grave concern for any future
nominees of color that may be sent forth by this President or any other. It
is our belief that Senator Byrd's opposition has nothing to do with the
beliefs of liberal or conservative, but is just racism in general.
"It is our belief that as a former Majority Leader, Ranking Chairman and
Ranking Member again of the Senate Appropriations Committee, that Senator
Byrd has used his influence to silence criticism by the Congressional Black
Caucus and so-called civil rights groups. We demand that Senator Byrd gives
up his seat on the Appropriations Committee and that Senate Democrat Leader
Tom Daschle reassign him to another committee.
"We demand that Robert Byrd issue a public apology for his racist and
bigoted statements made on 'Fox News Sunday' in 2001. Senator Byrd's
comments have no place in the halls of our great Senate and should not be
tolerated by his fellow Senators."
Byrd has never apologized in person for the his nationally televised racist
outburst, in which he used the epithet "n----rs" twice, but instead issued a
written statement of apology immediately after the "Fox News Sunday"
broadcast.
"The coalition gathered here today believes that any debate on race put
forth by the Democrat Party and its liberal operatives is nothing more than
a scam as long as Robert Byrd's behavior and voting record on civil rights
issues is not included in the debate," said Martin.
"Senator Byrd is not within the mainstream of 21st century politics and our
coalition is gathered here today to finally make this known to the American
people."
> > and conservative Clarence Thomas. In
> > fact, the ex-Klansman had the gall to accuse Justice Thomas of
"injecting
> > racism" into the Senate hearings.
>
> He did. (Thomas, that is.) Thomas (and Scalia too) also committed
> perjury in their confirmation hearings and should be impeached and
> thrown out.
>
> > The ex-Klansman vowed never to fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I
> > should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt
never to
> > rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by
race
> > mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
>
> And ... what year did he say that? What would that little inconvenient
> fact be?
>
The year is immaterial. He said it .. he meant it .. and you liberals love
him and give him a pass.
> > Considering that since leaving the KKK Senator Byrd still supported the
> > terrorist organization
>
> And what year did he still support them? Oh, yes, 1946 -- just
> yesteday.
See how hypocritical you are? Senator Lott made a statement that was twisted
into something he did not say and people like you wanted to hang him but
when your party has someone who was a paid member of the KKK and even after
claiming to have cut his ties with the terrorist group he still supported
them you say ... "And what year did he still support them? Oh, yes, 1946 --
just yesteday."
Ok ... here is a simple question for you.
Was Robert Byrd a member of the KKK?
>
> > and as recently as 2001 used the "N" word TWICE on
> > national TV
>
> Big fucking deal. Frank Zappa used it too. You calling Zappa a racist?
Red Herring .... not germane to the conversation.
>
> > I don't think that Senator Byrd is fooling anyone. All he did
> > was pull the wool over the eyes of voters and hide behind a facade of
having
> > transformed when in fact he always has been and continues to be a
racist.
>
> You have no credibitlity on this or any issue, but knock yourself out.
Coming from someone that is yet to say a single credible thing you have some
nerve questioning someone else's credibility.
>
> > "You are a lying sack of shit and all your posts are revisionist
> > propogandistic crap."
> >
> > Once again I have to respond to your mean spirited personal attacks. I
know
> > how frustrating it can be to not have a leg to stand on when it comes to
> > trying to find something that is both good and factual about your
political
> > party and it's members in government
>
> Definitely, there's an odor of buillshit in the air here -- I wonder
> why?
I can tell you two things that will help to remove the odor. Open a few
windows in your home and take a shower.
>
> > because there was a time that I thought
> > that democrats knew the answers. What I soon enough learned is that the
> > party of democrats that my parents used to talk about and the party of
> > democrats that we have today are as different as night and day. Back
then
> > they were democrats and had a great degree of morality and honesty to
them,
> > now they are socialists lacking in ideas, abilities, morality and
honesty.
>
> I smell BULLSHIT...
Again ... shower and open windows.
> Anyway, I agree with you that the party changed -- it's now just an
> imitation of the Repubicans.
If you honestly think that the present day party of democrats is in even the
slightest way an imitation or replication of the republican party than you
have serious, and I do mean SERIOUS, reality issues.
That's why I left them in 1990.
> SOCIALISTS MY ASS. God damn, to morons like you anyone to the left of
> Bob Dole is a socialist.
You have been so indoctrinated into the socialist ways that you don't have a
clue what is going on. You think that democrats are not socialists? You
REALLY need to check into a reality clinic pal. You're not rational.
>
> > The reason you dislike me so much is because I tell the truth, I only
deal
> > in facts, not in propaganda.
>
> I really don't expect you to admit you're a liar and a revisionaist, but
> hey!
I can not admit to that because unlike you I do not lie about things like
this. Possibly because you are so accustomed to rewriting history it would
seem easy enough for me to admit to what you said but since I live in
reality, deal with proven fact and do not accept propaganda I am unable to
admit to what you said. Simply put .. it would be a lie for me to say those
things.
>
> > You can say anything you like, call me names,
> > label me nuts, a liar or what ever you want but nothing that you can
> > possibly say will change reality. Facts are facts and you are incorrect
in
> > most of what you have said. Your liberal revisionist history propaganda
has
> > not replaced and will never replace historical fact regardless of how
many
> > times you and others like you repeat it. That is why you dislike me,
because
> > I am not ignorant enough to fall for the pack of lies that you have
fallen
> > for.
>
> Yeah, pal, whatever...
I didn't expect you to accept what I said. You, like almost every liberal,
believe that if you tell a lie enough times it will eventually become the
truth ... the way it has in your twisted mind.
And I know that this is repeating myself but Adolph Hitler used that same
tactic. He believed that if you told a lie enough times it will eventually
become the truth and the larger the lie the more believable it will be.
That in a nutshell describes you and almost the entire liberal party.
>
> > Here's the formula. If a conservative is embarrassed, it makes the front
> > page, full story. If a liberal is embarrassed, it plays deep inside the
> > paper, just an item in a column.
>
> Another loon lie from the "dud."
Facts are fact pal ... facts are facts ... and it is a fact that no matter
how harmless of a statement a republican makes if it can be twisted and spun
into sounding like it has a different meaning it will be front page news but
when liberals make fools of themselves it is in most cases buried.
Dude
"George Grapman" <sfge...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:d4dc976.03053...@posting.google.com...
> "Dude" <Du...@MyPlace.net> wrote in message
> > I heard Henry Kissenger say that North Vietnam was within two weeks of
> > ending the war when he was a guest on Greta Van Susteren's show On the
> > Record on FOX News. If you are a subscriber you should be able to find
the
> > interview in the FOX archives and watch it yourself.
> >
> > I did find this however ... you can search further if you want.
> >
> >
>
> You can hear Kissinger and Nixon on the White house tapes agreeing
> that the war could not be won but agreeing that Noxon would appear to
> be weak if he settled before the 1972 election.
Let's see ... Henry Kissenger said the war could not be won ... the
leadership of North Vietnam felt the same way ....that's sort of a stalemate
or a Mexican standoff .. isn't it? Gee .. what changed to make one of them
change their attitude .. oh .. the peace protestors ... that's right.
Never in anything I had written or copied and posted will you find anything
saying that Henry Kissenger knew that North Vietnam was on the verge of
surrendering. What I wrote and posted is fairly new information. What is
says is how close the United States was to success in Vietnam and how with
the help of the peace protestors the United States went on to snatch failure
from the jaws of success.
D.G. Porter
anyway.
Dude wrote:
>
> I am happy to read that you hold your father in such high regard and have
> such a tremendous respect for him.
Hey "Dud," if I told you half of what the guy did, you'd have about as
much respect for him as I do.
Here's just one tidbit: His mom's dying words to him were, "You're still
a son of a bitch." (She was a crusty old Texan, born 1880 in
Halletsville, lived to see age 88.)
And then, after his last employer fired him for putting some "tail" on
the company payroll, he bankrupted himself (on the tail), and then ran
up over $30,000 in bad debts (for the tail) from friends before offing
himself, in disgrace (and having been dumped by the tail), and simply
expecting his children, whom he gave nothing and would have nothing to
do with (except for show), to pay them off.
He was a conservative Republican too. In fact, had he taken that offer
from San Pierce to join Reagan's HUD in 1981 (got the offer in 1980), he
might have died of natural causes an not in self-inflicted destitution.
In restrospect, my sister and I decided that had we known all, we would
have sold the expensive crypt he had bought, had him cremated, and
dumped the idea of the Masonic funeral.
> Ok ... here is a simple question for you.
>
> Was Robert Byrd a member of the KKK?
Yes.
I used to be a Republican. Am I one now? And that was only 40 years
ago.
> > > and as recently as 2001 used the "N" word TWICE on
> > > national TV
> >
> > Big fucking deal. Frank Zappa used it too. You calling Zappa a racist?
>
> Red Herring .... not germane to the conversation.
Because you find it inconvenient.
From "You are what you is", 1981:
A foolish young man, of the Negro persuasion
Devoted his life to become a Caucasian.
He stopped eating pork. He stopped eating greens.
He traded his dashiki for some Jordache jeans.
He learned to play golf and he got a good score.
Now he says to himself, "I ain't no nigger no more."
Is Zappa a racist?
>
> Coming from someone that is yet to say a single credible thing you have some
> nerve questioning someone else's credibility.
I have plenty of nerve. You have no credibility. Especially with your
anti-Clinton collection of crap. Schlafly, NewsMax, "Clinton
Body-count" site junk, Skolnick...
>
> That in a nutshell describes you and almost the entire liberal party.
You qualify as an AmeriNazi based on that statement.
Something else doesn't escape me -- you seem to have a lot of these long
and windy aricles about Clinton easily within your reach. You didn't
just type them up today. Obviously you are a collector, and this
collection took a long time to build. That tells me you're just plain
loonie. Only a loonie would be so obsessed.
That goes right along with your assembling revisionist crap on Reagan
and Nixon.
Also, I noticed this year that Byrd was no big problem with you loons
until he started being effective in opposing Smirk. Again with the
collecting.
Finally, regarding your "liberal propoganda" claim, anything that you
don't want to believe becomes same, and anyone who doesn't buy yopu
bullshit becomes a victim of same. Loon Alert in Red Zone.
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> > news:3ED7CE...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> > > Nutburger Alert in Full Progress...
> > >
> > > Dude wrote:
> > > >
> > > > one of
> > > > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not
consider
> > him
> > > > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he
was
> > > > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and
scandal
> > > > ridden administration in history.
> > >
> > > You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> > > Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> > > worse...
> >
> > SICK WILLIE: A Second Opinion
> > (Dr. Paul Fick interviewed on the "Alive Across America" radio program
on
> > March 21, 1996)
>
> Oh no, not those LOONS...
Once again you demonstrate your inability to accept information based on the
source and not on the validity of the information of credibility of the
presentor.
>
> > March 21, 1996: "ALIVE ACROSS AMERICA" with guest DR. PAUL FICK, author
of
> > "THE DYSFUNCTIONAL PRESIDENT; inside the mind of Bill Clinton".
> > Dr. Fick is a psychologist who specializes in dysfunctional families. He
has
> > observed President Clinton at a distance and knows of his family
background.
> >
> > Duffy: Paul, let's start off by setting the record perfectly straight...
you
> > have never interviewed Bill Clinton, you have never met him personally?
> >
> > Dr. Fick: That is correct.
>
> I hear the strains of Schoenberg's "LOONIE BOZO"..
>
> > Duffy: Because this is a Christian talk show, Paul,
>
> That's another one with zilch credibility.
> You can keep your Duffys and Robetsons and Falwells...
So if something is said or reported by a Christian radio or television show
it is impossible for the information to be factual, accurate or correct?
Again you have shown your obnoxious habit of discounting information based
on your personal beliefs instead of the content and validity of the
information
As much as I disagree with you if you were able to provide verifiable facts
to back up what you say I would have to admit that you had been correct in
some circumstances but you refuse to do so. You post personal opinion,
muddled memories and liberal party propaganda with just a pinch of mistruth
and urban legend tossed in for flavor. topping it all off with a few off
color expletives.
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> > news:3ED7CE...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> > > Nutburger Alert in Full Progress...
> > >
> > > Dude wrote:
> > > >
> > > > one of
> > > > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not
consider
> > him
> > > > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he
was
> > > > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and
scandal
> > > > ridden administration in history.
> > >
> > > You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> > > Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> > > worse...
> > >
> > Judicial Watch claims Johnny Chung's Life Put in Jeopardy by Justice
> > Department DisclosureI finds it remarkable that the Bush-Cheney Justice
> > Department is so committed to defending the illegalities of the
Clinton-Gore
> > administration
>
> Ah yes, why would that be?
> (Judicial Watch, Scaife, Federalist Society, clowns...)
>
Thank you for another example of your incredible ability to turn factual,
truthful information into falsehoods and lies by the simple task of
declaring the person or group that reported the information as being
"clowns."
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> > news:3ED7CE...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> > > Nutburger Alert in Full Progress...
> > >
> > > Dude wrote:
> > > >
> > > > one of
> > > > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not
consider
> > him
> > > > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he
was
> > > > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and
scandal
> > > > ridden administration in history.
> > >
> > > You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> > > Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> > > worse...
> >
> > http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/clinton-scandals.html
>
> I'm supposed to take seriously some loon's site on tripod?
>
There you go again .... you wave your magic wand and .... poof ....
mystically and magically the information is rendered useless, false, fake,
propaganda, lies, revisionist history and part of the vast right wing
conspiracy when just moments before it was factual information.
Just how do you do that?
Whitewater:
Most of Clinton's involvement in the Whitewater scandal took place while
Clinton was governor of Arkansas. Whitewater is the name given to the
alleged banking and real estate scandals of Clinton and his friends. After
money loss and a failed real estate venture, an illegal method to recover
the losses was conceived. The scandal involves Clinton allegedly pressuring
Arkansas Small Business Administration (SBA) worker David Hale into making
an SBA loan to Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan. The money from the loan
was then funneled out with cashier checks and personal accounts (many under
false names) to pay for Clinton's debts from the failed Whitewater land
project. In other words, tax dollars bailed Bill and Hillary out of a
financial crisis after illegal means were used to acquire them.
The President's friends and land deal associates, Fmr. Gov. Jim Guy
Tucker and Jim and Susan McDougal, who were involved in Madison Guaranty
Savings and Loan and the Whitewater land deal, were recently convicted for
their involvement in the scandal. Subpoenaed billing records of the Rose
Law Firm, which Hillary Clinton worked for and which is involved in
Whitewater, mysteriously showed up in the White House in January 1996.
Among the finger prints on these records were those of Hillary Clinton.
While this case has been open for several years, facts are still being
revealed. President Clinton testified on behalf of his convicted friends
during their trial. After countless trials and hearings, Susan McDougal
refuses to speak on the issue, though a bailout check signed by her, and
with Clinton mentioned on it, has been displayed as evidence Mysteriously,
few reasons exist for her to remain silent except what many allege to be
pressure and/or threats from Bill Clinton. This scandal is still under
investigation. Over a dozen convictions have come from it thus far.
Back
Cattlegate:
This scandal involves Hillary's investment of approximately $1,000 in
cattle futures. Not much later $100,000 had been "earned." In other words,
Hillary invested a small amount of money and made a several thousand percent
profit from it under very questionable circumstances.
Back
Nannygate:
An early scandal about Zoe Baird's business relations with illegal
immigrants effectively stopped Clinton's first Attorney General nominee.
Back
Helicoptergate:
David Watkins, at the time a Clinton aide, used the presidential
helicopter to make golf trips. Each use of the Helicopter cost taxpayers
thousands.
Back
Travelgate:
The Clintons fired seven white house travel office employees in favor of
hire cousins and friends. The employees were lifelong employees in good
standing. After stating no other reason for the firings than the employees
were viewed as disloyal to the administration, officials began to question
the White House. Soon after the firings were questioned, the White House
allegedly used the FBI to investigate the employees then attempted to ruin
the worker's reputation by making the fact of an FBI investigation public.
Travel employees ended up spending their life savings defending themselves
in court against the false charges. Further investigation revealed that
former travel office chief Billy Dale's FBI file was among the nine hundred
plus requested files of Filegate.
Back
Gennifer Flowersgate:
In 1992 Clinton denied a 12 year affair with Gennifer Flowers. She
taped phone calls with him but he claimed they were false. After appearing
on television branding Flowers a liar and strongly denying the relation,
Clinton has again changed his story. Now he has admitted to at least some
of the affair. It ironically turns out Clinton is the liar (big suprise).
How can we trust this guy?
Back
Filegate:
This Clinton scandal involves the discovery of over 900 Republican FBI
files in the White House. Files of former Secretary of State James Baker,
former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, and Newt Gingrich's
spokesman Tony Blankley were found to be on this list. Upon the discovery
of these files, the White House issued an excuse claiming that the files
were mistakenly requested by a White House employee working with an outdated
list. They were called a simple "snafu." Investigations into Filegate
revealed that not a common White House worker but the President's friend and
close advisor, Anthony Marceca, had requested the files. When the
presidency starts illegally compiling an enemies list it is a sure sign he
is not fit to serve office and that, just maybe, a crime has been committed.
Back
Vince Fostergate:
Soon after Clinton lawyer Vince Foster committed suicide under
mysterious circumstances, his office was cleared out. Along with his office
went the Whitewater billing records and several key pieces of evidence.
Evidence suggests that Clinton associate Bernard Nussbaum purposely delayed
access to the office to investigators. Not to mention the mysterious
suicide in which there is some hint that evidence was tampered with.
Witnesses have testified they saw Clinton aides clearing the supposedly
sealed office.
Back
I wonder where those whitewater billing records came fromgate:
Years after they had disappeared from Vince fosters office, subpoenaed
Whitewater billing records appeared in the White House. In January of 1996
an aide stumbled across them sitting on a table in the White House. They
couldn't have been sitting their all these years unnoticed. Hillary's
finger prints were on them.
Back
Paula Jonesgate:
Paula Jones sued Bill Clinton after alleging he exposed himself to her
in an Arkansas hotel room. After inviting her to what was supposed to be a
promotion. Jones claims she was pressured by Clinton as he made advances on
her. Though the administration has fought the entire way, refusing to
cooperate with investigation while constantly attacking Jones's credibility,
the case has been successful in revealing many more scandals of the Clinton
presidency. Although the case was thrown out recently, it was successful in
uncovering several other of Clinton's affairs as well as declaring that the
president is not above the law (supreme court). More may come of this one
with an appeal. Now that the Supreme Court has specifically defined sexual
harassment, the Jones case has a good chance of coming back! Clinton has
also become the first US president cited for contempt of court. His
testimony under oath was ruled as both false and designed to be evasive and
obstruct the course of the Paula Jones case. Clinton faces being disbarred
and a potential of over a million dollars in fines due to this contempt
charge.
Back
Federal Building Campaign Phone Callgate:
Algore made over 75 illegal phone calls to solicit contributions to the
DNC from federal property yet Janet Reno refuses to investigate it further.
Janet Reno launched another investigation of these phone calls. Note:
soliciting campaign donations from federal property is illegal in America.
Why does Algore get away with breaking the law?
Back
Lincoln Bedroomgate:
DNC donors were allowed to spend the night in the Lincoln bedroom for a
contribution of $150,000. Make your reservations now by contacting the Gore
2000 campaign. I'm sure Bill will help out his friend on the campaign.
This just proves that the White House is for sale. See the names here
Back
White House Coffeegate:
Another donations prize for the $50,000 range. Over 100 coffee visits have
been confirmed. These visits gave the DNC over $25 million. See the names
here
Back
Donations from convicted drug and weapons dealersgate:
The Clintons and Algore were photographed on numerous occasions meeting
with drug ring leader Jorge Cabrera at fundraiser events. Other Clinton
donations came from a convicted illegal arms dealer, Chinese government
agents, and many other drug smugglers. Many photographs only reconfirm this
data
Back
Buddhist Templegate:
Algore attended a money funneling event/fundraiser for the DNC at a
buddhist temple then claimed he never knew about it being a fundraiser.
Buddhist monks were used in a money funneling scam to the DNC. This could
be big
Back
Web Hubbell hush moneygate:
This scandal involves what seems to be extra income from a mysterious
source. Web Hubbell supposedly received certain payments after he had been
convicted for crimes in other Clinton scandals. Though much of this
remains to be investigated, some theories tie the Lippo Group into this
scandal. Though this one is in early stages of investigation, knowing the
Clinton administrations past history, anything could come of this. Keep on
the lookout for more on this one.
Back
Lippogate:
The term given to the illegal foreign donations to Clinton from the
Indonesian Lippo group. A total of $452,000 in illegal donations was given
to the DNC. Other evidence suggests that the Lippo group has ties to Clinton
friend and convict Web Hubbell. John Huang, a Clinton cronie and former
Commerce department official with top level FBI clearance - even for several
months after his dismissal from his post - pled guilty to funneling Lippo
group and Chinese donations. Unfortunately for Bill, foreign campaign
contributions are illegal.
Back
Chinagate:
Attempts were made by Communist China to funnel money to the Clinton
campaign and influence elections in 1996. Charlie Trie, one of Bills
trusted DNC fundraisers, attempted to funnel this money. When faced with
indictment he fled to China for refuge. Another money funneler for the
communists and Clinton campaign, Johnny Chung, is now in jail. The funds
came from divisions of the Chinese army, one of which had been caught only
months earlier while attempting to smuggle AK-47's to LA street gangs. This
is the government of RED CHINA - definitely a serious matter. If any
scandals do catch up with him, which probably will happen, this is by far
the worst. Amidst the sex scandals another DNC fundraiser scandal, Johnny
Chung, openly admitted to knowingly taking funds from the Chinese
government. Chung also testified that the DNC knew the source of this money
was communist China. They accepted it anyway. The money is said to have
been funneled through Chinese government official Liu Chao-ying then Chung
and then to the DNC. Even more revealing was that Liu Chao-ying, daughter
of Liu Hauqing (recent head of the Chinese military and top official of the
Chinese communist party) and a Peoples Liberation Army and Chinese space
agency official, attended a DNC fundraiser. Here she was photographed with
Clinton. Chung also visited the White House over 45 times. Chung took
several thousand dollars from commies and contributed them to a partisan
candidate for President of the United States and leader of the free world.
Chung was only a powerful campaign contributer/supporter with ties to the
DNC and White House. Johnny Chung testified under oath to Congress on his
admitted relations with the Chinese Commies and the ties to the President.
Ironically Chung is one of a very small number of people who had greater
White House access than Monica Lewinsky! Chung is said to have made over 50
visits compared to Monica's 39! Even better, only a week later Charlie Trie
entered a guilty plea for his fundraising crimes and agreed to talk with
investigators! Who next? Well it happened to be John Huang! Huang, another
Clinton cronie, pled guilty to funneling Chinese funds less than a week
after Trie! Well, at least we know the commies endorse Bill Clinton for
president.
Back
IRS Tax auditgate:
Though the IRS has long been a political tool, major abuses for
political reason have a link to the Clinton presidency. Remember that this
is a presidency that at one time was compiling an enemy list with 900
illegally requested FBI files - all of which were of Republicans. Several
conservative groups have been subjected to IRS probes in recent years. The
strange part arises, however, when comparison is made to groups of the left.
These "random" investigations, almost all of which produced no results,
included many conservative groups and no liberal groups. Some organizations
targeted by the probes were the NRA, a political foundation of Oliver
North's, and The Heritage Foundation. Many other groups and businesses have
alleged that they were monitored through devices such as phone taps. Though
it may seem skeptical, I would not put anything past this administration.
Oddly enough, the democrats get away with millions in illegal foreign
campaign donations. It would seem the IRS would find at least an
opportunity in this area!
Back
Zippergate/interngate - the Lewinsky affair itself:
Monica Lewinsky made 37 visits to the White House AFTER she left to
another job. She admitted in taped phone calls to a long affair with Bill
Clinton in the oval office. Her account has only been reinforced by an
immunity agreement in which she gave testimony of the affair. Also
suggested was that Bill Clinton gave her instructions to hide the matter. A
Secret service agent testified of escorting her to Clinton. Lewinsky turned
over a stained dress from which DNA has positively traced the stain to Bill
Clinton. Also turned over were answering machine tapes and a photograph.
Bill Clinton admitted to a relationship, one he long denied, on August 17,
1998. In doing so he destroyed his credibility and let down all who had
spent the previous seven months defending him. It takes a great arrogance
to think of oneself as above the law. Bill Clinton has been impeached for
lying in grand jury deposition and for obstruction of justice in attempt to
coverup as a direct result of this scandal.
Back
Perjury and jobs for Lewinskygate - the aftermath:
Along with the Lewinsky scandal comes evidence that she was instructed
how to hide the affair by Clinton and offered a job by Vernon Jordan - as
an "incentive" to remain quiet. It's kind of stretching it to think of this
as all a mere coincidence. Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice
surrounding the job offering.
Back
Willeygate:
Lifelong Democrat Kathleen Willey has directly accused President Clinton
of fondling her in the White House then attempting to hide it. Why would a
Clinton supporter attack Clinton? She did appear on national TV and accuse
the leader of the free world of fondling her and then pressuring her to lie
about it. It's the word Bill Clinton, a president who has a reputation for
lying, verses the word of Kathleen Willey, a Democrat and enthusiastic
Clinton supporter who would have little reason to attack him (not to mention
the word of several others with whom the president has been accused by).
Back
Web Hubbell prison phone callgate:
This scandal surrounds Web Hubbell, former bureaucrat, ,Clinton friend
and partner, and convicted criminal. While in prison, Hubbell was taped
making phone calls in which methods to achieve pardon and evidence on other
Clinton scandals was discussed.
Back
Selling Military Technology to the Chinese Commiesgate:
Essentially, Bill Clinton has given military technology to Communist
China. This information included satellite guidance technology and enough
information for communist China to modernize their nuclear arsenal. Reports
suggest that China has missiles positioned to where they could attack us.
Chinese missile weapon technology has greatly improved due to Clintons
"gift." Keep in mind that a guidance chip was also found missing from an
American satellite that crashed on take off over China. The military is
investigating who removed it since the crash site was blockaded for several
hours following the crash - restricted to Chinese officials. Launching our
satellites on Chinese rockets from communist China? Another Clinton policy.
Remember also that this all came out just as Clinton and the Chinese
dismissed investigations into the "China Scandals" as groundless. I think
Johnny Chung proves otherwise. Many investigations are underway with the
most recent being the Cox report which revealed that China was actively
spying on the United States and had been stealing top secret nuclear weapons
plans for two decades. Worse, Clinton was informed of the espionage problem
months and years in advance of it breaking to the public yet did absolutely
nothing about it and even continued to transfer other technology and pursue
close relations with China! Maybe the commies finally received something in
return for all the campaigning and donations they made to Bill's reelection.
This is yet another to keep your eye on.
Back
Illegal Funds for Advertisementsgate:
On Janet Reno decided investigate evidence that Bill Clinton wrongly
used DNC funds to bypass spending limits on 1996 campaign advertisement.
Again Reno faultered to pressure from Democrats by refusing to appoint an
investigator. This matter needs to be investigated but it is up to Congress
now. Similar measures involving Al Gore are also under investigation.
Back
Coverup for our Russian Comrades as Wellgate:
This recently revealed "snafu" involves a CIA memo that was sent to
Algore's office. The memo included evidence of major corruption in Russian
leadership. It was returned with little more than a post it note telling
the CIA that Gore didn't want to here about it right now. The reports
included charges that former Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin used
many illegal means for personal gain. Chernomyrdin is said to have charged
$1 million for a meeting with a German businessman. The CIA set aside the
evidence that this event occurred because of Gore's dismissal of the earlier
reports. So power is being sold by the same guys we give massive aide
checks to? Then again selling power is not a crime according to the Clinton
administration. I don't see any difference between this incident and the
'96 coffee breaks.
Back
Wag-the-Dog-gate:
This applies to the repeated use of the United States military to draw
attention away from the presidential impeachment and expulsion proceedings.
Please make no mistake. All of the listed actions are fully justified.
Their timing, however, has been manipulated to suit Bill Clinton's desire to
use them as a political bailout tool. Three incidents where Clinton has
used military action to divert press attention have occurred. The second
was simply a use of timing as given. The first and third actions were
manuevered to occur when they fit Clinton best politically.
Three days following a disastrous attempt at apology on August 17, 1998 Bill
Clinton launched a missile attack on several facilities in an attempt to
halt terrorist Osama Bin Laden. Though this attack was neccessary, Clinton
seems to have purposely delayed it for political reasons. The attack on Bin
Laden had in fact been proposed over a week in advance but was delayed by
Clinton. Clinton then acted when he felt it was politically appropriate.
The day following a settlement with Paula Jones, Clinton made an aborted
strike on Iraq. Though the timing of this event was probably the least
manueverable of three incidents worthy of pointing out, Clinton did act at
an excellent time for press coverage. He successfully kept the Jones
settlement off the news for an entire weekend.
The third incident is the most blatantly obvious manipulation of power. One
day before he was to be impeached, Clinton called an uncharacteristic
suprise air attack on Iraq. Though the stated reason was refusal to allow
UN weapons inspections, one must note that Saddam Hussein acted no
differently than he had in the preceding six months. Though Hussein's
actions have long warranted a military strike, Clinton prevented any action
until the time suited him. To delay his inevitable impeachment, Clinton put
American lives in the line of fire by striking Iraq. This action alone
constitutes among the lowest forms of manipulation and abuse of power that
America has ever seen.
Back
Jaunita Broaddrick Gate:
Yet another female indescretion from Clinton's Arakansas history! Jaunita
Broaddrick, a former Clinton campaigner in Arkansas, appeared on national
television and accused Clinton of raping her in the late seventies. Again
we have the word of an ordinary citizen with past allegiance to Clinton as a
campaign worker faced against a proven perjurer and chronic liar with a long
history of adultery and womanizing. Congratulations to the Democrats in the
Senate! You just acquited an apparant rapist!
Back
PBS-gate:
The most recent in a series of scandals involving PBS soliciting donor
lists to liberal activist groups directly involves the Clinton
administration. In at least three cases it has been discovered that PBS
recieved donor lists to solicit directly from the Clinton-Gore 1996
campaign, a violation of federal law. This issue alone has greatly damaged
PBS's credability while placing the question of federal funding for PBS
under severe scrutiny. As of now, the administration has refused to answer
any questions about the matter
Back
Email-gate:
The Whitehouse email system apparantly contained a glitch that allowed
thousands of emails to escape record, many of which were evidence to other
Clinton scandals. The nature of this glitch was allegedly undisclosed so as
to hide email evidence from investigators
Back
Vandalgate:
Before leaving the White House, members of the Clinton administration,
particularly the Vice Presidents office, are reported to have vandalized the
Whitehouse as a "prank" on the incoming Republican administration. Democrats
have tried to downplay this scandal and dismiss it as false, but the fact
remains that several pranks did occur including the removal of "W" keys off
computer keyboards. This prompted office supply companies to donate
replacement keyboards and keys. Elsewhere the Clinton staffers wrote lewd
messages on door nameplates and left their trash including pizza boxes
(perfectly fitting for the Clinton administration) in the offices.
Back
Looter-gate:
Bill and Hillary Clinton left the Whitehouse with their pockets full -
full of silverware, furniture, and pretty much everything else they could
grab that wasn't theirs. Included was a multi thousand dollar furniture set
belonging to the interior department, which the Clintons had tried to claim
as a gift before being forced to return it under pressure and outrage.
Back
Pardongate:
On the night before and morning of his departure from office, Bill
Clinton made several controversial "midnight" pardons. Aside from pardoning
political allies and scandal co-conspirators such as Susan McDougal, Henry
Cisneros, and his brother Roger, Bill pardoned fugitive criminal millionaire
Marc Rich. Rich was charged in the early eighties with several felony
offenses but fled to Switzerland to avoid facing trial. Among Rich's crimes
were oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis and ties to arms
smuggling. Amazingly, Clinton completely disregarded pardon protocol in the
Rich case and failed to properly inform many authorities in the justice
department of Rich's fugitive status. The story becomes more interesting
considering that Marc Rich's ex wife Denise, who fought for his pardon, is a
close Clinton friend and DNC donor. Denise Rich gave $1 million in
contributions to the DNC, $450,000 to Bill Clinton's library fund, and
$70,000 to Hillary Clinton's senate campaign according to the Washington
Times (2/22/00). The Rich pardon appears to be a political pay off and,
though the president may constitutionally pardon anyone, it appears he
abused his authority in a quid pro quo pardon in exchange for political
donations. Clinton's pardon of Rich has prompted criticism from even the
most liberal Clinton defenders and several prominent Democrats. Former
President Carter called the pardon "disgraceful" while Senator Tom Harkin
and even Rep. Barney Frank criticized it!
But that is by no means all. Hillary Clinton's brother Hugh Rodham was
paid over $400,000 dollars for successfully fighting for pardons and
commutations for criminals Carlos Vignali and Almon Glenn Braswell, two
included in Clinton's last minute pardons and commutations list. Upon the
eve of this story breaking, Hillary and Bill denied any knowledge of Hugh's
involvement and, under pressure, called on him to return the money.
Translation: they got caught.
Dude
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message
news:3ED7CE...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> Nutburger Alert in Full Progress...
>
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > one of
> > the worst presidents of all time, President Clinton, and not consider
him
> > tarnished or his so called achievements diminished even though he was
> > rightfully impeached and was the leader of the most corrupt and scandal
> > ridden administration in history.
>
> You an always tell a nut when they compare Clinton to either or both
> Nixon and/or Reagan and try to sell me that turd that Clinton was
> worse...
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 24, 1998
TDD (202) 514-1888
NEWS ADVISORY
President Clinton has decided today to grant pardons to 33 individuals.
Attached is a list of those persons and the offenses of which they were
convicted.
####
98-609
USDOJ LIST MISSING!!!
Here is an AP article from FreeRepublic's Whitewater Archives -
December 26, 1998
Clinton Pardons 33 Criminals, Including 3 for Lying Under Oath
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- With a stroke of the pen on Thursday, President Clinton
removed the last hurdle standing between Kevin Lester Teker and his
steadfast determination to become a rescue mission pilot with the Civil Air
Patrol.
The President pardoned Teker for a 1989 conviction of buying and detonating
explosives, clearing his name along with those of 32 others who also
received acts of executive clemency on Christmas Eve.
"This is something that completes my greatest goal," Teker, 33, said in a
telephone interview from Seattle after a reporter informed him of the
pardon. With it, he said, he can now pass the background checks to become an
active pilot for the Washington State Civil Air Patrol.
Thirty-two others received the same early Christmas present from Clinton.
Their offenses ranged from conspiring to manufacture marijuana to being AWOL
in the Korean War. The President, charged in a House impeachment vote last
Saturday with lying under oath and obstructing justice in the investigation
of his affair with Monica S. Lewinsky, pardoned three people for lying to
government agencies or a bank. Clinton issued 21 pardons at Christmastime
last year, and has granted executive clemency to 110 people since he took
office in 1993.
Besides Teker, the 32 others who received pardons were:
Haig Ardash Arakelian, California, 1975, possession of marijuana.
Estel Edmond Ashworth, Texas, 1974, mail theft by a postal employee.
Vincent Anthony Burgio, California, 1972, possession of counterfeit
government documents.
Thomas Earl Burton, Virginia, 1982, attempted possession with intent to
distribute cocaine.
Jesse Cuevas, Nebraska, 1984, unauthorized possession of food stamps.
Harry Erla Fox, Army court-martial at Fort Devens, Mass., 1961, being absent
without leave.
James William Gardner, Wyoming, 1983, conspiracy to distribute cocaine.
Alejandro Cruz Guedca, Army court-martial, location unavailable, 1949, theft
of government property.
Sebraien Michael Haygood, New York, importing cocaine.
Warren Curtis Hultgren Jr., Texas, 1982, conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute cocaine.
Sharon Sue Johnson, Arkansas, 1986, bank embezzlement.
Ronald Ray Kelly, Marine Corps court-martial, location unavailable, 1969,
unlawful absences and escape.
Francis Dale Knippling, South Dakota, 1985, conversion of mortgaged
property.
Michael Ray Krukar, Alaska, 1988, distribution of marijuana.
Michael Francis Larkin, Massachusetts, 1984, making false statements to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Leslie Jan McCall, Oklahoma, 1988, using telephone in cocaine distribution.
Bobby Joe Miller, Texas, 1982, failing to report or concealing a felony.
William Edward Payne, Oregon, 1965, attempted gambling tax evasion.
Robert Earl Radke, California, 1981, attempted income tax evasion.
David Walter Ratliff, Oklahoma, 1981, making false statements to the Federal
Government.
Billy Wayne Reynolds, Texas, 1981, mail fraud.
Benito Maldonado Sanchez Jr., Texas, 1960, possession of marijuana.
Vicki Lynn Seals, Texas, 1984, making a false statement to a federally
insured bank while a bank employee.
Lewis Craig Seymour, Oklahoma, 1979, distribution of PCP.
Irving A. Smith, Maryland, 1957, conspiracy to fix prices.
Darrin Paul Sobin, California, 1987, conspiracy to produce marijuana.
Monty Mac Stewart, Oklahoma, 1983, fraud conspiracy, mail fraud, aiding and
abetting a false income tax return.
John Timothy Thompson, Oklahoma, 1986, using telephone in cocaine
distribution.
Paul Loy Tobin, Alabama, 1968, interstate transport of a stolen car.
Gerald William Wachter, Pennsylvania, 1974, conspiracy to move stolen goods.
Marian Lane Wolf, Texas, 1988, failing to report or concealing a felony.
Samuel Harrell Woodward, Air Force court-martial, location unavailable,
1952, being absent without leave.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CIV
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1999
TDD (202) 514-1888
NEWS ADVISORY
PRESIDENT GRANTS PARDONS
WASHINGTON, D.C.- President Clinton today granted pardons to 37 individuals.
Attached is a list of those persons.
PARDONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT CLINTON:
December 23, 1999
Name District Sentenced Offense
Meredith Marcus Appleton, II W. D. Okla. 1990 Conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute cocaine and to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846.
Steven Laurence Barnett E. D. Calif. 1987 Misapplication of bank funds and
aiding and abetting the same, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 657.
Russell Carl Clifton N. D. Calif. 1977 Transmission of a false distress
signal, 47 U.S.C. § 325 (misdemeanor).
Albert McMullen Cox S. D. Ga. 1987 Bribery of a public official, 18 U.S.C. §
201(b).
Bernard Earl Crandall C. D. Ill. 1985 Theft from interstate shipment, 18
U.S.C. § 659.
Eugene Harold Del Carlo N. D. Calif. 1979 Misdemeanor conspiracy and
blackmail, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 873.
Kenneth Lee Deusterman D. Minn. 1991 Misdemeanor false statement to HUD, 18
U.S.C. § 1012.
Frank Allen Els E. D. Wash. 1976 Possession of an unregistered firearm, 26
U.S.C. § 5861(d).
Arthur Neil Evans N. D. Calif. 1954 Protecting and assisting a deserter from
the U.S. Army, 18 U.S.C. § 1381.
Elizabeth Marie Frederick (fka Elizabeth Sigmon) D. So. Dak. 1987
Distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1).
Jackie Lynn Gano N. D. Iowa 1976 Receiving money or benefits through
transactions of federal credit institution with intent to defraud while
officer or employee of institution, 18 U.S.C. § 1006.
Daniel Clifton Gilmour, Jr. D. So. Car. 1985 Importation of marijuana, 21
U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960, 963, and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Michael Lee Gilmour D. So. Car. 1985 Importation of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§
952(a), 960, 963, and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Theodore Avram Goodman S. D. Calif. 1981 Unauthorized sale of government
property, 18 U.S.C. § 641.
Michael Charles Jorgensen D. N. Mex. 1981 Misprision of a felony, 18 U.S.C.
§ 4.
Leonard Charles Kampf E. D. Va. 1990 Conveyance of government property
without authority, 18 U.S.C. § 641.
PARDONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT CLINTON:
December 23, 1999
Name District Sentenced Offense
Kenneth Marshall Knull Navy general court-martial 1976 Disobeying a lawful
general order, negligently suffering destruction of military property,
negligently hazarding two Naval vessels, Articles 92, 108, and 110, UCMJ.
Reza Arabian Maleki D. No. Dak. 1984 Conspiracy to make false statements to
INS; making of false statements to INS, and aiding and abetting the same, 18
U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, and 1001.
William Ronald McGuire E. D. N.Y. 1978 Income tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. § 7201.
Freddie Meeks Navy general court-martial 1944 Making a mutiny during
wartime.
Steven Dwayne Miller E. D. Tex. 1985 Possession of counterfeit Federal
Reserve notes with intent to sell or otherwise use same, 18 U.S.C. § 474.
Jodie David Moreland W. D. La. 1987 Conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(6), and 846.
Lloyd Robert Odell E. D. Wash. 1983 Theft of government property, 18 U.S.C.
§ 641.
John Richard Palubicki E. D. Wis. 1988 Conspiracy to defraud the IRS; income
tax evasion, 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 26 U.S.C. § 7201.
Patricia Ann Palubicki E. D. Wis. 1988 Conspiracy to defraud the IRS; income
tax evasion, 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 26 U.S.C. § 7201.
Mark Edwin Pixley Oregon 1991 Aiding in the manufacture, by cultivation, of
marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Theodore Alfred Rhone District of Columbia 1987 Wire fraud and aiding and
abetting same, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1343.
Warren David Samet S. D. Fla. 1968 Transporting, concealing, and
facilitating the transportation of marijuana that was acquired without
paying the tax imposed, 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a)(2).
Steven Elliott Skorman N. D. Ga. 1972 Distributing lysergic acid
diethylamide (LSD), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
Ronald Marsh Smith Army general court-martial 1977 Stealing mail matter,
Article 134, UCMJ.
PARDONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT CLINTON:
December 23, 1999
Name District Sentenced Offense
Richard Beauchamp Steele S. D. Tex. 1989 Conspiracy to eliminate competition
by fixing prices in interstate commerce, 15 U.S.C. § 1.
Christine Ann Summerbell (fka Christine Ann McKeown) W. D. Wis. 1984 Theft
of mail by postal employee, 18 U.S.C. § 1709.
Robert A. Suvino W. D. Ark. 1988 Conspiracy to commit mail fraud and mail
fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1341.
Daniel Larry Thomas, Jr. N. D. Ohio 1987 Illegal use of a communication
facility to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 843.
Howard Edwin Walraven W. D. Ark. 1968 Theft from an interstate shipment, 18
U.S.C. § 659.
Martin Harry Wesenberg E. D. Wis. 1964 Willfully failing to pay the special
occupational tax on wagering, and aiding and abetting same, 26 U.S.C. § 7203
and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (misdemeanor).
Virgil Edwin West N. D. Okla. 1982 Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1341.
D.G. Porter
I remembe the contempt he had for Congress. I remember when he
declared, "I LIED," and was proud of it. I didn't know until a few days
later that Fatuous Falwell had all his clowns tune in that day, on his
instruction, but I do remember a lot of morons saying and writing stuff
like, "Good! He should have lied to Congress! Congress is dominated by
commies! Go Ollie!" Obviously, "Dud," you were one of them.
I also remember him saying that he was shredding documents when Ed
Meese's "investigators" were in the next room. Obviously Meese's clowns
knew what he was doing and didn't want to interrupt him.
I also remember "Potted Plant" Sullivan coaching him through his whole
testimony.
I also remember that asshole Poindexter, with his little head-shakes of
"No, you Congress-commies don't understand." I remember that obnoxious
asshole Beckler, who exploded when Sarbanes noted for the record that he
had coached Poinsy on every question. "I have not coached this
witness!" he screamed. Of course, *he* wasn't under oath when he spoke
that lie.
If you had watched the hearings you would remember those things too.
North and Poindexter should have been shot for treason.
Remember the day the papers all had the story about FEMA and the opening
of internment camps? Remember how Democrat Inouye gavelled Jack Brooks
down on the issue? That was the clincher -- Dems were going to
whitewash it for Reagan. And Lyman admitted as much the following
Spring.