 | ||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | theconservative@usa.net | Number 69 |
http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn | ||
| ||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | theconservative@usa.net | Number 69 |
http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn | ||
26 December 2000
(Washington, DC) In blockbuster testimony this week, former U.S. Attorney and now outside counsel for Northrop Grumman, Earl Silbert, was forced to reveal, based on pre-existing documentary evidence, that he had indeed told Clinton-Gore White House Counsel of the continuing e-mail cover-up. While the cover-up has been occurring for almost three years (from January 1998 to the present), it did not become public until February of this year. Specifically, in making notes about telephone conversations that he had with the Clinton-Gore White House Counsel, he wrote:
"All taken care of."
"No Committees yet raising issues"
While characteristically, Silbert did not remember what his notes meant (unfortunately, during the Clinton-Gore Administration, it was common for its high-priced lawyers to have bad memories), his notes revealed at a minimum that he had advised White House Counsel of the suppression of e-mail evidence and that "[all] was taken care of . . . because no [Congressional] Committees yet raising [the e-mail] issues." While Silbert's professed memory loss did not permit him to testify further on this, the reference to the "all taken care of" could refer to the threats made by Clinton-Gore officials to Northrop Grumman employees to keep "their mouths shut" about the suppressed e-mail or else they would wind up in prison.
"Mr. Silbert's memory, like the now deceased White House Counsel, Charles Ruff, was non-existent. However, his notes do not lie, and they strongly suggest that he advised the White House Counsel of both the continuing e-mail cover-up and the threat to the Northrop Grumman employees. This obviously compounds the Clinton-Gore obstruction of justice, for which this administration will likely pay a heavy price before the bar of justice," stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.
"As the Court has requested that legal briefings be completed in the next few weeks, a decision could be rendered before President and Mrs. Clinton and Vice President Al Gore leave office on January 20, 2001," added Klayman.
[ Judicial Watch ]
** Hunter? Shooter? Who Is Your Good Neighbor?
Gary Atkinson is a good neighbor, even though his nearest neighbor lives hundreds of feet away. He makes his home in rural Chapin, South Carolina on thirteen hilly, mostly wooded acres, along with his wife Lisa, sons Tom and Yates, two horses, three yard dogs, and "too many cats to count" as Gary puts it. "Somebody's got to take in the homeless animals" he explains. "If not, well.." His voice trails off. No need to describe the fate of stray animals in a sparsely populated area.
Gary's job in heavy equipment sales brought him from Illinois to South Carolina in 1985. He promptly fell in love with the area, and bought acreage 25 miles and a culture away from the state capitol in Columbia. Gary and Lisa bought a second, adjoining parcel in 1988, and began building their dream house in 1990. "We moved into the house in 1992" Gary says with a laugh, "but we never stopped building. A barn. Outbuildings. A pool. A pond. There's always something going on at our place". When the time came for Gary to change jobs, he stayed in South Carolina.
Gary admits his rural homestead isn't as rural as it once was. Fifteen families now live along his dead-end country road, and more are discovering this long-forgotten corner of Richland County every year. But it remains a close-knit community, where everybody knows everybody else. The kids play together, the adults are good friends, and the entire neighborhood gets together several times a year for a massive "block party".
But being a good neighbor involves more than holding block parties and swimming in each other's pools. It involves being there when people have a need. For example, Lisa prepares meals for shut-ins, and Gary uses his tractor and chain saw to help around the neighborhood. Sometimes he cuts grass for people who can't do it themselves. When Mike, their neighbor across the street, broke his back in a fall from a deer stand, Gary built special rails on Mike's front steps so that Mike could get in and out of his house. And when there was a loud explosion in the woods behind another neighbor's house, she immediately called Gary and asked him to investigate. Gary found a tree had fallen across a power line in a right-of-way, and started a fire. He fought the fire himself while others summoned help. By the time the trained firefighters arrived, Gary had brought the blaze under control. The firefighters' main job was to put out the still-burning utility pole. That's the kind of "good neighbor" Gary is.
For 34 years Gary bought his insurance from State Farm, a company that claims its a good neighbor. His father got him started with car insurance when Gary was 16. Gary later bought homeowners insurance from State Farm, and eventually added an umbrella policy to protect the assets he had accumulated. Gary was happy with State Farm. And State Farm should have been happy with Gary, because he has an excellent claims record. True, his car was broken into several years ago. Hurricane Hugo blew down a tree. And a pipe burst, causing damage in his basement. Not bad, for 34 years of State Farm coverage.
Gary's rosy relationship with State Farm came to a screeching halt a few months ago, when he casually mentioned to the local State Farm office that he had been shooting in a ravine back in the woods behind his house. The local agent, who he regarded as a friend, didn't like that, and questioned Gary closely. Shooting? With guns? He answered all of her questions, and even took her through the woods to the ravine so she could see the area for herself. She wasn't happy. Neither was the home office. State Farm promptly cancelled Gary's coverage for what the company called "the operation of the shooting range on your property".
Hunting and recreational shooting are a way of life in rural South Carolina, and in much of the rest of America. Gary has enjoyed these activities since he was seven years old, when his father started him with a .22 bolt action rifle. (It's a tradition Gary hopes to pass on to his own sons.) Still, Gary tried to appease State Farm by offering to limit his shooting. Would they ever let him shoot on his own property, or did the company insist on a total ban? "Maybe once in a Blue Moon" the agent told him. "What about hunters going through my woods?" Gary asked. "It's just too dangerous" she replied. Gary next offered to protect State Farm from any liability for his shooting. The ravine was on a parcel of land separate from the house, so what if they just insured the parcel with the house? No deal. Gary went out and bought a million dollar liability policy from an NRA-endorsed underwriter to cover his shooting activities. Would State Farm be willing to exclude all shooting activities from his homeowners policy? Still no deal.
So, what did State Farm want from him? Gary asked State Farm's agent to point out the fine print in his policy, or to show him something in writing, so that he could keep the company happy. She conceded there was no fine print, nothing in the policy, and nothing in writing anywhere. But the company regards shooting activities as a "factor of increased risk" she told him, and as reason for terminating his coverage. The company would never be happy. State Farm's agent also tried to stop Gary from shooting by claiming all of the other national insurance companies had similar "no shooting" rules, so Gary shouldn't bother to shop around. But Gary did shop around, and he quickly learned that many companies were more than happy to insure safe shooters.
Gary now has all the insurance coverage he wants, from companies that are happy to have his business, and at prices lower than he was paying State Farm.
Gary still shoots in the ravine behind his house. And he's still a good neighbor. But he's really, really disappointed with State Farm. "This never was about risk" Gary concludes. "Its about guns. State Farm just doesn't want me shooting. Ever."
ACTION - GrassRoots South Carolina, http://www.scfirearms.org urges all policy holders with State Farm to contact State Farm and voice complaints regarding their decision to cancel policies based on discrimination of lawful use of firearms when there is no statistics to show increased risk. Voice your protests and concerns directly to them or else find yourself facing increased guidelines in the future - like possible non-coverage of firearms owners. To contact State Farm call (309) 766-2311. Members of the media may call (309) 766-7550.
Further contact information is:
Mr. Edward Rust, President
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
One State Farm Plaza
Bloomington IL 61710-0001
309-766-7554
[ http://www.scfirearms.org ]
** Grant #P-CHI-00616
It is not enough that the taxpayers of the United States have been expected to foot the bill for pornography posing as "art" throughout the Clinton-Gore years; or to pay for grants to investigate the mating habits of insects, worms, and other nondescript worthless whatnots. It was revealed a week ago by a Housing and Urban Development staffer that HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, the son of former New York governor Mario Cuomo, authorized a grant (contract #P-CHI-00616)in the amount of $45,000.00 earlier this fall to study "...historic preservation in Siracusa, Italy."
Cuomo, like the rest of the Clinton-Gore Administration utopians, apparently believes that America is now part of the utopian's one world government and that American taxpayer dollars can be spent anywhere in the world, for any purpose--without any accountability for expenditures.
A Congressional aide, who is investigating the allegation leveled by the HUD staffer, said: "It looks like this is the Italian version of 'Roots.'"
Fortunately for the taxpayers of America who cannot afford the generosity of the Clinton-Gore Administration, the "most ethical administration in the history of America" is rapidly coming to an end.
[ Breaking News ]
Since the 1979 inception of the U.S. Department of Education, it's spending has grown astronomically. Excluding expenditures on loans such as higher education loans, the Department spent $14,612 million in 1980, one year after its inception. By 1989, the ED's budget had increased to $18,145 million and grew to $25,832 by 1992. Today, the Department of Ed's outlays continue to grow, reaching $32 billion in 1999 and an estimated $36 billion for the year 2000. The Departments yearly outlay is expected to reach over $47 billion by the year 2005.
With an annual budget now approaching $36 billion, the ED employs over 5,100 people (89.4% of whom were deemed nonessential during the November 1995 government shutdown). Furthermore, the education-spending rate since the Department's founding has risen three times as fast as non-defense discretionary programs (29.5% versus 7.9%).
Despite the fact that no positive correlation between spending and student performance has been found, Congress continues to fund the Department of Education, spending a total of $450,146,000,000 taxpayer dollars between 1980 and 1999.
TCN- Watch the Bush administration in this area. The solution GW attempted in Texas was the same one most politicians espouse, throw more money at it. As Clinton's numbers show, if money would bring positive results our kids would be the brightest in the world. They are not.
This department doesn't need more money. It needs abolished. Send the $36 billion back to the states, or even better make it a tax cut and leave it in the states to start with. Let the local governments, that are more accountable to the parents, raise the funding they need for schools. --TCN
An English teacher was explaining to his students the concept of gender association in the English language. He stated how hurricanes at one time were given feminine names and how ships and planes were usually referred to as "she." One of the students raised their hand and asked "What "gender" is a computer?" The teacher wasn't certain which it was, so he divided the class into two groups, males in one, females in the other, and asked them to decide if a computer should be masculine or feminine. Both groups were asked to give four reasons for their recommendation.
The group of women concluded that computers should be referred to in the masculine gender because:
The men, on the other hand, decided that computers should definitely be referred to in the feminine gender because:
The homepage and archives for The Conservative Newsletter are located on the WWW at http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn/
This newsletter is sent by subscription only. If you do not wish to be on the mailing list, please let us know and you will be removed immediately. To be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this newsletter with the word REMOVE in the body of your reply. You may also send your request to theconservative@usa.net .
Thank you.