 | ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 30 December 2001 | Vol. II #3 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 30 December 2001 | Vol. II #3 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
One of the few remaining conservatives in the state's legislature, Rep. Fred Maslack, has proposed a bill to register individuals who do NOT own a gun, and require them to pay a $500 registration fee. Maslack says that his bill is consistent with Vermont's Constitution, which stipulates that those who don't own a gun "shall be required to pay such equivalent" for the protection from tyranny they enjoy at the expense of those who do own guns.
The bill would require adults who choose not to own a firearm to register their name, address, Social Security number, and driver's license number with state officials. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is unprepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.
TCN Comment: Finally someone has it right! It is clear that the founding fathers of Vermont understood that armed people were a protection from tyranny, and that those who wouldn't protect themselves would require government protection. They also thought that it would be right for those who would not protect themselves to bear the financial burden for their protection. Shouldn't unarmed citizens pay a higher property tax than those who require more police protection?
Anybody taking odds on the bill's chances of passing?
"We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst." --C.S. Lewis
"We are running out of tests that we can afford to fail. Gun registration may be the last one. If we let them do this to us, we deserve what we get." --Michael Peirce
"[Clinton] degraded virtually everything he touched: the White House, the Oval Office, the staff, the cabinet, the country, the legal process.... He is a symbol of decadence." --William Bennett
"Like psychoanalysis, constitutional jurisprudence has become a game without rules. By defying the plain meaning of words, ignoring context and history, and using a little ingenuity, you can make the constitution mean anything you like." --Joseph Sobran
"It's not that we haven't seen this before when Republicans have won the White House. Candidates for the losing Democrat side -- in this case Gore/Lieberman, but in previous elections, Mondale/Ferraro and Dukakis/Bentsen -- say that the winning Republicans should abandon the issues on which they ran and adopt the positions of the people they defeated. ... Did Democrats ever follow their own advice when they controlled the White House and Congress? .. When Democrats win the White House and/or control of Congress there is no talk of bipartisanship, inclusion, or power-sharing. Democrats understand that power is something to be used, not negotiated away. ... If Democrats win back one or both houses of Congress in 2002 -- a distinct possibility -- and the White House in 2004, Republicans can look forward to the back-handed treatment they used to receive from Democrats when Democrats ran the show." -Cal Thomas
"If memory serves, it was only five short years ago that a similar $4.5 million book deal by Newt Gingrich set off a paroxysm of moralizing from Democrats and the Clinton crowd, with charges of a political payoff to Mr. Gingrich from HarperCollins owner Rupert Murdoch, culminating in an investigation by the House Ethics Committee. Boy, have standards changed over the past eight years. 'The White House claims the deal raises serious ethical questions,' reported CBS then. 'This is the first guy who tried to cash in before he was sworn in,' yelped James Carville. Said Dee Dee Myers from the majesty of the Clinton White House: 'I think that it raises some very important questions. I think it needs to be looked at.' ... So here we
are five years later, and the bonfire this time is a little Hillary vigil candle by some watchdog group."
[ Wall Street Journal ]
Re: Judicial Watch Legal Response To Smear Campaign Against Cabinet Designates John Ashcroft, Linda Chavez, and Other Conservatives
Dear Friend and Supporter:
Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and fights government corruption and abuse, and which has uncovered numerous Clinton-Gore scandals in the last eight years, including its prosecution of the misuse of FBI files by Hillary Rodham Clinton and others, has witnessed threats in the last few days by the ultra-left intended to destroy respected conservative leaders. The ultra-left, comprised of revolutionaries such as Jesse Jackson, and leaders of pro-abortion, feminist, homosexual, and labor union "rights" groups, have vowed to destroy the reputations of Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft, Labor Secretary-designate Linda Chavez, Energy Secretary-designate Spencer Abraham and others.
Given our experience in the FBI Filegate case - where ultra-leftists associated with the Clinton-Gore Administration, including Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves, used confidential government files to destroy their adversaries - Judicial Watch is concerned that similar misconduct will occur to destroy Ashcroft, Chavez, and other conservative cabinet appointees. Accordingly, Judicial Watch will investigate the activities of the ultra-left and, where appropriate, bring legal actions to prevent harm to these conservative leaders.
This is a project which Judicial Watch had not budgeted for in 2001, as is true of its ongoing Florida election fraud investigation. For this reason, we ask for your immediate emergency support to help prevent conservatives and others from being destroyed by the smear campaign of ultra-leftist revolutionaries, as well as our other cases.
Judicial Watch is fiercely non-partisan, but it will not countenance illegal methods to smear and destroy conservatives with techniques reminiscent of Karl Marx. It therefore will help those who, during the nomination process, are branded as racists by Jesse Jackson and other ultra leftist revolutionaries. This is not Russia in 1917. These latter-day 'Bolsheviks' must be stopped.
Thank you for your immediate help. Send your tax deductible contribution to: Judicial Watch, Inc., P.O. Box 44444. Washington, DC 20026 - Telephone: (888) JW-ETHIC or www.JudicialWatch.org.
If President-elect George Bush thinks Democrats will welcome a presidential pardon for Bill Clinton, he better think again.
Not only won't the gesture be the bipartisan olive branch some Republicans are hoping for, a leading Democratic player in the impeachment drama two years ago says it will be "the political equivalent of nuclear war."
Julian Epstein, Democratic counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during Clinton's impeachment, delivered the "nuclear war" threat last week on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes." While debating the pardon issue with former congressmen and NewsMax.com columnists John LeBoutillier and Dan Frisa, Epstein explained why a Bush pardon would make Democrat blood boil.
"I think it would be trying to be too cute by half if a President Bush were to do that, for the following reason. It gives the impression that President Bush is trying to be magnanimous, when in fact what he's trying to do is give and put yet another scarlet letter on the chest of President Clinton."
Epstein then warned that a pardon would mean political nuclear war -- and even repeated the threat moments later.
"Let me repeat this again so the Bush folks hear it -- that is a clear and unambiguous signal to Democrats that there is -- it is the political equivalent of nuclear war."
The Clinton impeachment defender argued instead that Bush should do everything he can to prevent Independent Counsel Robert Ray from indicting Clinton in the first place.
"I think the question, again, is going to be whether George Bush wants to do the honorable thing," said Epstein, "which is ask the Justice Department to take the case back and drop it."
Of course, if Bush does that, it would mean the political equivalent of nuclear war with his conservative base.
The nation's most influential business daily became the first newspaper in the country on Friday to call for the indictment of the president of the United States, in a stinging editorial that argued he had given prosecutors no other choice.
"[President Clinton] is manifestly guilty of perjury in his Paula Jones testimony, but even today clings to the 'what the meaning of the word is, is' defense," said the Wall Street Journal about the president's effort to cover up the scandal that ultimately led to his impeachment.
Citing Clinton's claim in December's Esquire magazine that his congressional impeachers owe both him and the nation an apology, the Journal outlined independent counsel Robert Ray's dilemma:
"If [Ray] decides to give the president a pass in terms of a larger public interest, the president will surely claim his preposterous defense was vindicated, that he was the victim. ... History's burden on Mr. Ray is that a decision not to indict serves the Clinton revisionism."
The paper also revisited the pronouncements of several leading Senate Democrats two years ago, who argued that Clinton should not be removed from office because he could be prosecuted after his term expired.
"His conduct should not be excused, nor will it. The president can be criminally prosecuted, especially once he leaves office," proclaimed Wisconsin's Herb Kohl.
"As the Constitution clearly says, [Clinton] remains subject to the laws of the land, just like any other citizen of the United States," echoed California's Barbara Boxer.
"Whether any of his conduct constitutes a criminal offense such as perjury and obstruction of justice is not for me to decide," announced conscience of the Senate Joe Lieberman. "That, appropriately, should and must be left to the criminal justice system, which will uphold the rule of law in President Clinton's case as it would for any other American."
The Journal might have also noted that in the absence of any indictment, Clinton and his wife are likely to sue for restitution of an estimated $10 million in legal fees - most of which were incurred because of the investigation by the Office of Independent Counsel.
Such a claim would be legally valid under the now defunct independent counsel statute that currently governs Robert Ray's probe.
For Ray to facilitate such a reward when laws have clearly been violated would turn the OIC's entire investigation into a national joke.
And if the Clintons collect, what happens to the $8 million in legal defense fund donations they've raised over the last seven years?
Don't bet on any refunds without further court action.
Ohio Democratic congressman James Traficant called for the indictment of President Clinton on Friday during a telephone interview with WABC radio in New York.
"I think he perjured himself and, yes, they could indict him for perjury," Traficant told WABC's Sean Hannity. "Whether they have the courage to do it, I don't know. But they should."
Traficant, who voted against Clinton's impeachment in 1998, becomes the first congressman - and the first elected Democrat - to call for Clinton to be criminally prosecuted for his attempted cover-up in the Paula Jones-Monica Lewinsky case.
Initially, the Ohio Democrat, who has said that his own indictment by the Clinton Justice Department is imminent, seemed reluctant to recommend that the president be charged. But when Hannity pressed the issue, Traficant's response was unequivocal.
HANNITY: Should Bill Clinton be indicted when he leaves office?
TRAFICANT: I think when he now leaves office, they should look at the matter of perjury. I don't think that it amounted to an impeachment because I think he was more of a threat to chastity than anything else at that point.
HANNITY: But you know, you know, well, look ...
TRAFICANT: But now, I think that perjury should be considered and a grand jury should hear the Clinton case.
HANNITY: But you know why he was held in contempt. I don't need to - you know as much about this case as anybody. Do you think, based on your knowledge of the law and your knowledge of what he did and the lies he told under oath, should he be indicted?
TRAFICANT: I think he perjured himself and, yes, they could indict him for perjury. Whether they have the courage to do it, I don't know. But they should.
Let me say this. Even though I think what he did was perjury, there would have still been a hell of a court case to prove that perjury. But the bottom line on that whole impeachment process was, the founders did not want issues that dealt with a sex triangle - even though there were other overriding issues, Sean - to, in fact, allow a political opposition to try and bring down a president and a presidency.
So I really do believe, you know - if it's on the dress, he must confess. He did confess. There is perjury. And now go and take him into court.
By Oliver North
WASHINGTON -- On New Year's Eve, while most Americans were at home or with friends celebrating the advent of a new year, William Jefferson Clinton, with but 21 days left in office, picked up a phone at the Camp David presidential retreat and launched yet another effort to grant himself a legacy. The call prompted David J. Scheffer, "U.S. ambassador-at-large for war-crimes issues," to race from Washington to UN headquarters in New York City to meet a midnight deadline for making the United States a signatory to the 1998 Treaty of Rome and the creation of an International Criminal Court (ICC). With that one phone call, our soon-to-be former head of state gained for himself effusive accolades from the blame-America-first crowd -- and committed the ultimate assault on U.S. sovereignty.
In directing that the United States become one of the last of 138 nations to sign this ill-advised document, Clinton formally obligated us to "uphold the principles and purposes" of the ICC. By so doing, he has endangered the liberty of every American civilian, military or public official, including his successors as president. Most in the so-called mainstream media barely noticed.
But Senator Jesse Helms (Rep-N.C.) did. The chairman of the Senate Committee for Foreign Relations, and an outspoken critic of the United Nations, promptly released a statement declaring that one of his highest priorities in the 107th Congress will be "to protect America's fighting men and women from this international kangaroo court."
The White House, of course, spins it all differently, claiming in a statement that "signature will enhance our ability to further protect U.S. officials from unfounded charges." But, as Senator Helms and other critics point out, that simply isn't true. Neither is the false assurance in the presidential release that "court jurisdictions (sic) over U.S. personnel should come only with U.S. ratification of the treaty." Either Bill Clinton is lying (could that be?), or he hasn't bothered to wade through the fine print of the five-inch thick, 128-article text of the treaty.
The ICC document creates an international star chamber under the auspices of the UN that claims criminal jurisdiction over every person in the world, regardless of whether their nation has ratified the treaty. What this might mean to those of us who have placed their trust in the provisions of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth or Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution will be up to the interpretation of 18 judges -- only one of whom may or may not be an American.
Under the treaty, a U.S. soldier serving in Bosnia could be apprehended by local authorities for an offense, real or imagined, turned over to the ICC and flown to the Hague where he could rot for months, or await trial -- without the benefit of what we consider due process. No speedy trial; no confronting accusers; no protection from double jeopardy; not even the unanimous verdict of a jury is required for conviction. The ICC metes out justice by majority vote of the foreign judges presiding at trail. Articles 15, 42, 53, 54, 86 and 87 of the treaty grant the ICC prosecutor global authority to bring charges anywhere, against anyone. The prosecutor can collect secret evidence that's never revealed to the defendant -- only to the jurists hearing his or her case.
And it's not only "citizen soldiers" who are subject to the whimsy of this system. Article 27 of the treaty grants the ICC jurisdiction over "Heads of Nations, Legislators, Parliamentarians and Other Officials." Military officers don't even have to know that a crime has been committed by the most junior members of their units in order to be investigated and tried. Article 28 demands the prosecution of commanders who "should have known" that their subordinates "were committing or about to commit" crimes.
This sounds fair to those who want to try Slobodan Milosevic, his military commanders, and secret police thugs for decades of brutality in the Balkans. It seems good for the perpetrators of mass genocide in Rwanda, Sierra Leone or East Timor. But what about when it's our president, our Congress, our Secretary of Defense, our CIA director, or our senior military commanders? You don't have to be a xenophobe to ask if this really is about justice -- or is it about suborning American sovereignty?
Given these terrible liabilities, why did Bill Clinton wait until late on New Year's Eve to make us signatories to this horrific treaty? Proponents of the ICC say that it's to protect "human rights." But conspiracy buffs say that our soon-to-be-unemployed-and-disbarred head of state is seeking a pad in New York City, and claim this is all part of his plot to become secretary-general of the U.N. Others observe that it's Bill Clinton's final revenge on the military he loathes. Whatever it is, it's proof that we should be very wary of what lame ducks do in the dark of night. [http://www.conservativehq.com/chq/displayarticle?articleId=6924 ]
For years, the admiralty and maritime scholars have reviewed every statistic regarding the late great ship. The simple facts were that the ship sailed with 2,224 men, women and children aboard. Of that number, 1,503 perished while only 711 survived.
One of the last great mysteries was the previously unexplained fact that, of the 711 survivors, 704 were registered Republicans. It has been only a theory for years, but recent events in Florida confirm earlier suspicions: all Republicans aboard the Titanic were able to follow the arrows to the life rafts.
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 tcn@wilderness-cry.net .
Thank you.