 | ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 27 January 2001 | Vol. II No.13 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 27 January 2001 | Vol. II No.13 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
Judicial Watch Had Forwarded Letter to Committee Members Suggesting Legitimate
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government abuse and corruption, uncovered in recent weeks that Labor Secretary-designate Elaine Chao not only had asked Chinese agent John Huang for campaign contributions for former Senator Alfonse D'Amato, but that her husband, Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), had also received contributions from John Huang and his company, Lippo Group, which comprises mega-banking and other interests. In a deposition of November 6, 2000, one day before the Presidential election, John Huang revealed that the money which he donated to McConnell, D'Amato and others was illegally laundered from overseas bank accounts. When asked if he had donated more than $2,000 to McConnell during the 1990's, John Huang took the Fifth Amendment and was held in contempt by the Magistrate Judge. He could face significant jail time for this and 139 other contempt citations. Huang's 6th deposition session will continue in the next few weeks.
The renowned conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote a column about John Huang's revelations concerning Chao and McConnell on January 18, 2001. See www.JudicialWatch.org. Other articles written by investigative reporters in the last few weeks show that Elaine Chao and her family have "ties" to Communist Chinese President Jiang Zemin and that Ms. Chao had criticized the well-respected Cox Committee for uncovering breaches of national security by Wen Ho Lee and Communist China. Specifically, Ms. Chao called the Cox Committee report "racist." Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman had a meeting with Ms. Chao several years ago, in late 1996 after he deposed John Huang and asked her, in the presence of a colleague, whether she knew John Huang. Ms. Chao gave no indication that she did and sidestepped the question. Huang testified, under oath, that he met Chao at least four times. (Chao now cannot remember ever meeting Huang.)
"The first Labor Secretary-designate, Linda Chavez, was forced to withdraw her nomination based upon lack of candor and an incident of providing shelter to an immigrant. Ironically, the potential seriousness of Ms. Chao's apparent lack of candor concerning John Huang, as well as her involvement with him, raises questions far more serious than those raised against Ms. Chavez. Despite this, the Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Labor Committee refused to ask her any questions about Huang and his laundered contributions to her husband, D'Amato and other politicians," stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.
"The behavior of Democrats and Republicans is shameful and stems from a desire, as expressed by Bob Novak, not only to cover-up matters concerning Chinagate, but also to do a favor for their fellow-Senator Mitch McConnell. This conduct does not serve the interests of the American people," added Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
[Judicial Watch]
By Chuck Baldwin
"Labor Secretary-designate Elaine Chao breezed through a friendly confirmation hearing," said news reports this week. There was no Ashcroft-type controversy of this nominee, to say the least. But while the controversy surrounding John Ashcroft is merely due to his conservative, religious convictions, there were many pertinent questions that needed to be asked of Elaine Chao, but weren't.
This seems to be the accepted pattern in Washington these days: make much of nothing; make nothing of much. While a man of impeccable character and credentials is being put through the wringer, a woman of questionable record and association is given a free pass.
Why did Senators from both parties fail to question Chao about her association and friendship with the President of Communist China, Ziang Zemin? Why did they not inquire about her business dealings with Chinese sympathizers like the Riady family, John Huang and Maurice "Hank" Greenberg?
Why was there no curiosity about China's illegal campaign contributions to her husband, Mitch McConnell (R-KY)? Why did the Senators not want to know more about the private meetings Chao had with Zemin and Huang?
Why did they project apathy and unconcern about Chao's lobbying efforts to have a 16-year Heritage Foundation military analyst fired? His unacceptable conduct, it turns out, was helping to document evidence of Red China's espionage at U.S. defense labs for the Cox report.
Oh yes, Richard Fisher Jr. also warned that China's Central Military Commission's goal of modernizing the PLA was to project power out past the mainland's waters, noting that even the United States was targeted. If Chao has only the best interests of the U.S. in mind, why would that report offend her?
As a Cabinet member, Chao will have top-secret clearance and will be in close contact with national security officials. Yet, not a single Senator felt the need to question Chao about any of this. Why?
We have come to expect indifference toward truth and honesty from Democrats. After all, they are the ones that gave aid and comfort to a serial-rapist and perjurer. However, Chinagate has demonstrated that there aren't many Republicans wearing white hats these days either. Remember that it was the Republican Party that shut down David Schippers' investigation into Chinagate during Clinton's impeachment.
Why was Chao given a free pass? Because those skeletons you hear rattling around are rattling around in the closets of both parties. It gives one a real warm feeling, doesn't it?
[ http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com ]
Says No Charges or Prosecution of Homeowners Using Deadly Force
(Columbia, S.C.) Attorney General Charlie Condon today announced that he is declaring "open season" on home invaders. In a Memorandum to all Solicitors, Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, Condon directed that citizens acting to defend their homes will not be arrested, charged or prosecuted. Condon said the policy was necessary in the wake of a rash of recent home invasions in North Charleston and elsewhere throughout the State.
"As Chief Prosecutor of South Carolina, I am today declaring open season on home invaders. That season is year-round," Condon said. "Citizens protecting their homes who use force even deadly force will be fully safeguarded under the law of this State and subject to no arrest, charge or prosecution. In South Carolina, would-be intruders should now hear this: invade a home and invite a bullet."
Condon cited a "recent rash of home invasions by gang members and other criminals." He said gang activity is rising sharply in South Carolina. Condon also referenced a string of break-ins in North Charleston and an incident in Columbia recently where a victim managed to fight off home invaders with a sword. The Attorney General noted that in Richland County, deputies believe 4 men were responsible for 90 home invasions in the last year. Condon said that the new policy is also being instituted to warn criminals of what faces them as a result of home invasion and to let homeowners know their rights.
Condon said the case law in South Carolina "gives iron-clad protection to the citizen in safeguarding his or her home. Inside the citizen's home, there are no legal technicalities for the criminal to rely on." Force even deadly force may be used, ruled the Court, "if such degree of force be reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose of preventing a forcible entry against his will." Condon said the new "open season on home invaders" policy will assist law enforcement in protecting private property and homes against break-ins because "law enforcement officers cannot be everywhere at once." Said Condon, "home invaders will think twice, and even a third time, knowing the risk of their own death is waiting on the other side of the innocent homeowner's door."
"The home is the family's fortress of protection," Condon said. When at home, people rightfully feel they are standing on sacred ground. The citizen's home is the line in the sand where criminals dare not cross."
Let me fully disclose my feelings about America On Line. I do not like the company. I do not like their politics and I do not like their service.
When I had America On Line I frequently found it impossible to download big programs. They would take so long that the little dialog box would pop up and tell me when I wasn't looking that I had not been using the computer, and would I like to stay connected? By the time I looked at the screen again I was off line.
I concluded that America On Line would be better named America Off Line. So, I turned them off permanently.
Now I am urging you to do the same. Even if you like the quality of their service. By patronizing AOL you are aiding and abetting the enemy. Please let me explain.
Reports are frequently received at Gun Owners of America that AOL filters out pro-Second Amendment web sites.
Now, AOL has decided to escalate their war against our firearms freedoms. The Ogden, Utah office has fired three men pretty much because they are gun owners. Luke Hansen, Paul Carlson and Jason Melling were well aware of the anti-self defense prohibition on guns in the workplace at AOL where they worked. They respected this dangerous workplace requirement.
However, one day they were in the parking lot which is leased, but not owned by AOL. On their own time, they were seen transferring firearms from their trunks to Hansen's trunk for an expedition to the shooting range.
Because of that, they were fired. The three are in court, but more should be done to support these three freedom fighters.
Sarah Thompson, a medical doctor and director the Utah Gun Owners Alliance has called for a boycott of AOL. I agree.
I would urge that you do two things.
Contact the folks at KeepAndBearArms.com on the web and sign up for their internet access service. If all you want is e-mail, that is free. The KeepAndBearArms.com internet service is competitively priced with AOL and is for unlimited service.
Then, call to cancel your AOL service so that you can tell an AOL representative why they are losing your business. Be polite; but be firm. You could also call the AOL national representative in Northern Virginia who is covering this issue, Nicholas Graham, and tell him what you have done. His number is 1-703-265-1746.
You might ask him if his policy would have stopped the killing of the seven people in the Wakefield, MA dot com office.
This is a "two-fer," folks; you're helping a great group at KeepAndBearArms.com (where you ought to be checking every day for firearms related news, anyway) and no longer will you be enriching a rabidly anti-gun company.
[Larry Pratt - Executive Director, Gun Owners of America ]
The super-deluxe 747 that had been Air Force One only hours before the Clintons commandeered it for their flight home to Chappaqua, N.Y., was "stripped bare" by the time it landed, an Air Force steward told the Washington Times Thursday.
At the direction of President Bush, stewards saw to it that the Clintons' last flight would include all the amenities of presidential air travel. But after Bill, Hillary and Chelsea deplaned, reports the Times, porcelain china, silverware, salt and pepper shakers, blankets, pillow cases - anything bearing the presidential seal that wasn't nailed down - were missing.
News of the apparent first family looting of Air Force One comes on the heels of reports that Clinton-Gore aides literally trashed the White House hours before the Bushes moved in.
The damage, reports the New York Post, included "cut cables, phone lines and electric cords - plus a mess of rubbish" left in the Old Executive Office Building.
Obscene messages were left on White House answering machines, computer keyboards were destroyed, filing cabinets were glued shut and anti-Bush graffiti was scribbled in hallways, reported the Drudge Report.
For the time being, the Bushies are keeping their powder dry. "I don't think it was left in as appropriate a fashion as you might like," vice presidential aide Mary Matalin told the Post.
In his Thursday morning press briefing, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said the damage is being reviewed but declined to say whether an actual criminal investigation has begun.
[ NewsMax ]
Ranking Senate Judiciary Committee Democrat Patrick Leahy said Thursday that White House vandalism by departing Clinton aides doesn't warrant investigation, because the perpetrators were merely following the example set by the previous Bush administration.
"You know, the same issue came up when former President Bush left," Leahy told WKDR Burlington, Vt. radio host Mark Johnson.
"They found on some of the furniture in the White House, they had laminated [former] President Bush's photograph onto it when the Clinton people came in," said Leahy, adding that the new administration had to spend "a great deal of money" to undo the damage.
Leahy also charged that aides to the current president's father had "moved a number of things" and "changed a number of the computers around so that it would take them a long time to have them reconfigured."
"I thought it was wrong when the Bush people did it," said the Vermont senator. "I think it's wrong when the Clinton people did it."
Even if true, the apparently new charges of Bush White House vandalism, at least as described by Leahy, don't rise to the level of what allegedly transpired last Saturday, when telephone and computer cables were cut, desks were overturned, trash was dumped everywhere, and White House hallways weresprayed with obscene graffiti.
Still, Leahy said he hoped there would be no investigation into the Inauguration Day destruction.
"We didn't go investigating the Bush people for doing it and I just think that President George W. Bush is going to take the same position President Clinton did - where the Clinton people did not go after his father's aides for doing the things they did."
Leahy did criticize Saturday's White House vandalism as "somewhat tasteless."
[ NewsMax ]
A House committee asked the Justice Department yesterday to turn over documents concerning President Clinton's controversial pardon of fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich, whose ex-wife gave $1.3 million to the Democratic Party.
In a letter, Rep. Dan Burton, chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, questioned the propriety of the pardon - issued two hours before Mr. Clinton left office - saying there were concerns about its "motive, basis and timing."
"A presidential pardon cannot be revoked. However, individual cases arise from time to time that require the Congress to examine the circumstances that led the president to make his decision to grant a pardon," the Indiana Republican said.
"When a pardon appears questionable on the merits, the American people have a right to know why the president made his decision so that the constitutional power to grant pardons will not be abused in the future," he said.
The committee issued six requests for documents, asking that the Justice Department make the records available as soon as possible. The requests specifically seek "documents from the relevant federal agencies and certain persons involved" in the pardon.
Mr. Burton noted that until pardons for Mr. Rich and his business partner, Pincus Green, were issued, Mr. Rich was on the list of the Justice Department's six most wanted international fugitives.
"Since former President Clinton has not given an adequate explanation as to why Mr. Rich deserved a pardon, Congress has an obligation to find out if this pardon was appropriate," he said.
The committee, in requesting the documents, wants to know whether the president had an improper motive for the pardons; whether law enforcement authorities were consulted before the pardons were granted; and whether any regulations governing the lobbying of the president were violated.
Earlier this week, Mr. Rich's ex-wife, Denise, denied in a statement that the $1.3 million in campaign donations she gave to Democratic causes had anything to do with the pardon. She described the pardon as "entirely appropriate" and denied that her political fund-raising and charitable activities played any role.
Mrs. Rich's donations, beginning in 1992, included contributions to Mr. Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic National Committee and others, including the Senate campaigns of Hillary Rodham Clinton in New York, Charles S. Robb in Virginia and Barbara A. Mikulski in Maryland.
Former Clinton White House counsel Jack Quinn, who is Mr. Rich's attorney, personally lobbied the president for the pardon.
Mr. Clinton, speaking earlier this week to reporters in suburban Chappaqua, N.Y., where he now lives, said he "spent a lot of personal time . . . because it's an unusual case, but Quinn made a strong case, and I was convinced he was right on the merits."
Mr. Rich was indicted for evading $48 million in taxes and violating U.S. sanctions by trading with Iran while American hostages were held in that country. Now 66, he fled to Switzerland in 1983 after a federal grand jury indicted him on 65 counts of tax fraud, racketeering and tax-evasion charges. He had faced 325 years in jail.
Companies owned by Mr. Rich and Mr. Green pleaded guilty in 1984 to evading millions of dollars in taxes by concealing profits on oil trading. The case against the two men and Mr. Rich's Swiss metals and commodities trading firm, Marc Rich & Co., was at the time the largest tax-evasion case in U.S. history. The government said the two men conspired in April 1980 with the Iranian government to purchase more than 6 million barrels of oil, a violation of the trade embargo imposed by the United States.
Mr. Rich, although a fugitive, has remained a force in world-commodity trading. Fortune magazine said Mr. Rich had, since 1988, sold the U.S. Mint more than $25 million in copper, nickel and other metals to make coins. His firm, based in Zug, Switzerland, still trades in metals and grain, with about $6 billion in trading volume.
[ Washington Times ]
They stripped the White House, pardoned their lawbreaking campaign contributors and have generally proved anew that eight years at the tippy top in no way caused them to develop anything even remotely resembling a moral compass.
Yet everyone's shocked - and I don't understand why.
If by the time the rest of us grow up, we are who we are, why should we expect the Clintons suddenly to be other than what they have always been?
I won't use the label superior Northerners pejoratively use to describe Southern crackers. I won't call them "white trash." But if not that, then what?
The Clintons are more than mere garden-variety political opportunists. They're bigger-than-life, world-class users who give only when they get and who never give more than they've gotten.
The question is what to do about them, especially since they're now in our faces - and not just figuratively. The Clintons have moved to New York, the city of second chances. But reinvention implies a willingness to change, and the Clintons never will, since they can't for the life of them understand why their conduct is so abysmal.
Well, the Big Guy is gone. He can't be President again. We can swear to stop him if he runs for mayor, but I doubt he's seriously interested in using the city for anything more than the partying for which he is so justly renown.
Hillary's different. She's said to have a future - and we've already done our bit by electing her senator.
It's now time for each of us, in our own way and before whichever God we worship, to promise ourselves and our fellow citizens, "Never again."
This has to be the end of it. Even if the Son King fouls up so badly that Clinton nostalgia sweeps the land, we here on the front lines of the Clinton restoration have to swear that Hillary will never, ever become President. (It's tempting, I admit. It would get her out of New York. But we're Americans, too.)
On the continuum that includes Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, allocated trading, Paula, Monica and all the rest, I don't know how to rank the Clintons' last-minute shenanigans.
Most First Families view the gifts they get as the nation's property - and leave town without them.(Okay, the fawning Nancy Reagan was an exception, but she was an addict: Nancy never saw an outfit she didn't covet.)
But the Clintons - naturally - are in a league of their own. They walked off with close to $200,000 in furniture, china, flatware, TVs, sculpture and assorted other "necessities."
Yes, I know: Bill and Hil are (relatively) young baby boomers with two new houses to furnish - but couldn't they spend some of that big book advance money on something other than legal fees?
Yet all that heavy lifting is small-bore stuff. The pardons-for-sale racket (which is what it seems to have been) dwarfs everything.
Sure, pardoning Marc Rich is something any rogue would do, but it still seems over the top.
In defense of his pardons, Clinton said the people he set free had paid their price - but Rich never has.
The billionaire financier, on the lam for 17 years in Switzerland until Clinton's gift, was wanted by the FBI on 50 felony counts, including a $48 million tax-evasion charge and for trading with the enemy, Iran, during the hostage crisis.
Why is Rich free?
Could it be that Denise Rich, the songwriting B-list celebrity ex-wife who lied about urging a pardon for Marc had some extra juice in the White House because she gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party and to Hillary's Senate campaign?
Could there be any other reason?
And could there be any other reason than her own election for Hillary to have been somehow involved in Bill's commuting the sentences of four Hasidic felons from New Square, Rockland County? Hil's folks claim there was no quid pro quo, but New Square gave her 1,400 votes to Rick Lazio's 12. A coincidence? I don't think so.
As the probers dig, more will be known about Hil and the New Square Four - but we already know all we need to know about Hil and her husband. In English and Yiddish, from this point forward, words like "audacity," "corruption" and "chutzpah" can be defined simply: "See Bill and Hillary Clinton."
Once upon a time, long, long ago there was a Presidential Election that was too close to call.
Neither the Republican presidential candidate, nor the Democratic presidential candidate had enough votes to win the election.
Therefore, it was decided that there should be an ice fishing contest between the two candidates to determine the final winner. There was much talk about ballot recounting, court challenges, etc., but a week-long ice fishing competition seemed the fairest way to settle things. The candidate that catches the most fish at the end of the week wins.
After a lot of back and forth discussion, it was decided that the contest would take place on a remote and cold lake in Maine. There were to be no observers present since both men were to be sent out on this remote lake and return daily with their catch for counting and verification.
At the end of the first day, George W. Bush returned to the starting line and he had 10 fish. Soon, Al Gore returns and has zero fish.
Well, everyone assumes Al is just having another bad hair day or something and hopefully he will catch up the next day.
At the end of the 2nd day George W. comes in with 20 fish, and Al Gore comes in again with none. That evening, Bill Clinton gets together secretly with Al Gore and says; "Al, I think George W. is cheatin'.
I'm a gonna dress this good ole' Southern Boy, James Carville, up in a costume and send him out on the lake to act as a spy".
The next night (after George W. comes back with 50 fish and Al Gore with none), Bill gets Carville and Al Gore together and says to Carville: "Well, what about it boy, is George W. cheatin'?"
"He sure is, Bill, he's cuttin' holes in the ice!"
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.