Time: Fri Dec 12 17:14:25 1997 To: From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: CONGRESS ACTION: December 7, 1997 (fwd) Cc: Bcc: sls References: <snip> > >CONGRESS ACTION: December 7, 1997 >================ > >THE CLINTON LEGACY: "...we live in a Nation of laws and no power sits >above those laws." That reminder was contained in the official >congressional report on the standoff, and deaths, of the Branch >Davidians at Waco, Texas. > > When this nation was founded, it was decided that there would be no >royalty in this country, which meant in practical terms that nobody, not >even the highest government officials, were above the law. What we have >seen over the last five years is that a disturbing number of people in >this country no longer value the Rule of Law, and seem to be unconcerned >when high government officials place themselves above the law, and then >try to justify their lawbreaking as necessary in pursuit of some >"greater good". Which simply translates into keeping themselves in >office. Consider the following official conclusions directly from the >congressional findings in several investigations over recent years: > >Travel Office: > "...White House officials unleashing the full powers of the Federal >Government against the seven former workers. ...These actions constitute >a gross abuse of the rights of seven American citizens and their >families." > "...an enormous and elaborate cover-up operation, housed in the White >House Counsel's Office..." > "...it [the White House] obstructed and frustrated all >investigations...it made frivolous claims of executive privilege; it >abused its powers to smear innocent citizens..." > "Never before has a President and his staff done so much to cover up >improper actions and hinder the public's right to learn the truth." > "...implicated the President in a cover-up that was base and broad." > "President Clinton and high ranking members of his administration, >including four successive White House Counsels, engaged in unprecedented >abuses of executive power and executive privilege." > "The White House stonewalled all investigations into the White House >Travel Office firings and related matters..." > >FBI Files: > "...White House improperly requested hundreds of confidential FBI >background files seemingly without any justification. This was a >violation of the constitutional rights and private lives of many >upstanding citizens." > "FBI Louis Freeh stated that the White House's actions constituted, >'egregious violations of privacy.' " > >Waco: > "Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen and Deputy Secretary Roger Altman >acted highly irresponsibly and were derelict in their duties." > "ATF's investigation...was grossly incompetent." > "...the affidavit filed in support of the warrants contained an >incredible number of false statements." > "If the false statement in the affidavits...were made with >knowledge of their falsity, criminal charges should be brought..." > > If any private citizen was the subject of federal investigations >which rendered those findings, they would be indicted and prosecuted, >and probably go to prison. Which high-level members of the Clinton >administration have been indicted for those activities? Which ones have >been prosecuted? Which high-level members of this administration are in >jail for those activities? And those are just three of the scandals >we're familiar with. What about campaign fundraising? Whitewater? Ruby >Ridge? Hillary's secret health care task force? And the list goes on and >on. At the highest levels of this administration, the Rule of Law has >broken down, the laws seem no longer to apply. Government officials who >place themselves above the law should concern every citizen who values >freedom. The worst part of it all is that nobody cares. For all the >anger directed by so many people at Bill Clinton, he is not the problem. >He, and those like him, are just symptoms of the deeper problem. If a >con-man drifts into town and manages to hoodwink the populace, we may >blame the con-man for taking advantage of the people. But the real fault >lies with the greed of the people, because that is what the con-man took >advantage of. If the people didn't have a something-for-nothing >attitude, the con would fail. The people of this nation have the same >something-for-nothing attitude, plus, due to a dysfunctional educational >system, a monumental ignorance of our heritage of freedom and the >fundamentals of a limited Constitutional republic. Both are the result >of 40 years of liberalism's sympathy for socialism. Bill Clinton merely >took advantage of our national moral, ethical, and intellectual decay. >That is his legacy. > >LIBERALSPEAK: In his novel "1984" author George Orwell invented what he >called "Newspeak", which he defined as: "the official language [which] >had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English >Socialism. The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of >expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees >of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. To give a >single example, the word 'free' still existed in Newspeak, but it could >only be used in such statements as 'This dog is free from lice.' or >'This field is free from weeds.' It could not be used in its old sense >of 'politically free' or 'intellectually free', since political and >intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were >therefore of necessity nameless." > > Modern American liberals have perfectly adapted their own version >of Newspeak, called Liberalspeak. It, too, has its own words with >distinct ideological meanings, for example: an "extremist" is anyone who >disagrees with a liberal; "diversity" means racial discrimination; >"multiculturalism" means that America is responsible for all the world's >ills and is inferior to all other cultures; and "choice" means the right >to kill your unborn child, but does not include the right to decide >where your child will attend school if he or she survives "choice". > > But modern American liberals have taken Liberalspeak one step >further beyond Newspeak, translating thought control into action which >breeds additional thought control necessitating further action, in an >ever widening spiral of expanding government and shrinking freedom. Thus >they have established a system of taxation and regulation which steals >more than half the earnings of working citizens, then they lament the >fact that those citizens no longer have enough money left to afford >quality child care, whereupon they propose to establish a government >'cure' which will take even more money from productive citizens. Thus >they impose massive regulation and mandates over the health care system, >thereby raising the cost of health care, then lament that people cannot >afford quality health care, whereupon they propose to establish a >government 'cure' which will take even more money from productive >citizens, and further limit freedom in the bargain. Thus they pervert >the criminal justice system into a playground in which criminals are >coddled and rewarded for their depredations, then lament that people >take self protection into their own hands, whereupon they propose new >laws which punish the law abiding citizens and steal their freedom, and >often their lives, as a consequence. > > As Orwell defined it, Newspeak existed to serve the regime of >Ingsoc, or English Socialism. And as anyone familiar with his book >knows, the Ingsoc regime was the ultimate expression of totalitarian >tyranny. Liberalspeak exists to serve Amsoc, or American Socialism. >Amsoc has not yet reached the totalitarian perfection visualized for >Ingsoc but, as any student of history knows, and as F. A. Hayek so >cogently demonstrated in his "The Road to Serfdom", socialism, whether >it be the mythical Ingsoc variety or the all too real Amsoc variety, has >but one possible end result: totalitarianism. > > "The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the >values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the >same as those which they...have always held, but which were not properly >understood or recognized before. And the most efficient technique to >this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of >totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the >superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual >climate as the complete perversion of language, the change of meaning of >the words by which the ideals of the new regimes are expressed." -- F. >A. Hayek > >CNN PRESENTS: OUR CHANGING CLIMATE, THE GREAT NON-DEBATE: > > On one side of the "debate": We're all going to die tomorrow, >unless we reduce our standard of living back to the Middle Ages >IMMEDIATELY. On the other side of the "debate": We're all going to die >the day after tomorrow, unless we reduce our standard of living back to >the Middle Ages IMMEDIATELY. > > On December 1, in honor of the opening of the Scam in Kyoto, CNN >presented what could have been a paid political commercial from the Gore >2000 campaign, which they billed as "The Great Debate" to present the >"facts" about global warming. Mixed in with the full hour of apocalyptic >scenarios -- floods, drought, storms, famine, fever, malaria, disease -- >which "perhaps" "might" "could" "may" destroy the earth, CNN actually >did present some scientific opinion which debunked the global warming >myth. If you happened to blink, you would have missed it. Never let it >be said that CNN ever let mere facts interfere with the farce which it >tried to pass off as serious journalism. > > Forget all the scientific debates. Forget the data. Forget all the >reputable scientists who believe that the entire global warming hysteria >is a mere sham. Forget who makes what claims to which 'scientific >truth'. Just rely on simple logic: > If man-made carbon dioxide presents such a threat to the wellbeing >of humanity, then why are those underdeveloped nations which are >becoming the world's biggest producers of carbon dioxide, particularly >China, India, and Mexico, not restricted by the proposed treaty? > If man-made carbon dioxide presents such a threat to the wellbeing >of humanity, then why do the global warming hysterics still oppose >switching our electrical generating plants to the cleanest power source >known, nuclear reactors? > > We are witnessing the single biggest scam being perpetrated on >mankind in recorded history. Facts don't matter. Logic doesn't matter. >Rational thought has simply disappeared under the pressure of a decade >of lies and a massive disinformation campaign, the likes of which has >never been seen before. Bill Clinton and Al Gore are in the process of >demonstrating the truth of the famous observation of P.T. Barnum, that >there is a sucker born every minute. And like a bunch of idiot lemmings, >the majority of the world's people can't wait to rush headlong off a >cliff to their own destruction. Ignorance is bliss, until the bill comes >due. > > >FOR MORE INFORMATION... >======================= > >Congressional Reports search: >http://lcweb.loc.gov/global/legislative/housecomm.html#hcommrpt >Travel Office Report (House Rpt.# 104-849): >ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/cp104/hr849.txt >FBI Files Report (House Rpt. 104-862): >ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/cp104/hr862.txt >Waco Report (House Rpt. 104-749): >ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/cp104/hr749.txt > >Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Climate Change Treaty): >Room: 450 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 >Phone: (202) 224-4651; Fax: (202) 224-0836 >Republicans: >Jesse Helms (NC); Richard Lugar (IN); Paul Coverdell (GA); Chuck Hagel >(NE); Gordon Smith (OR); Craig Thomas (WY); John Ashcroft (MO); Rod >Grams (MN); Bill Frist (TN); and Sam Brownback (KS). >Democrats: >Joseph Biden (DE); Paul Sarbanes (MD); Christopher Dodd (CT); John Kerry >(MA); Charles Robb (VA); Russ Feingold (WI); Dianne Feinstein (CA); and >Paul Wellstone (MN). > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Kim Weissman >BEVDAV@worldnet.att.net >CONGRESS ACTION newsletter is available on the Internet: >http://www.aimnet.com/~jbv/congress_action.html > >------- >To subscribe to c-news, send the message SUBSCRIBE C-NEWS, or the message >UNSUBSCRIBE C-NEWS to unsubscribe, to majordomo@world.std.com. Contact >owner-c-news@world.std.com if you have questions. > > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail