 | ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 12 March 2001 | Vol. II #36 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 12 March 2001 | Vol. II #36 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
Appropriators in the Hill House of Commons, who already earn $145,100 per annum, are again considering giving themselves what amounts to a tax-free pay raise of $25,000. They are trying to sneak it through the House Administration Committee and bypass a floor vote. We'll keep you informed....
[ The Federalist ]
A 15-year-old freshman in a San Diego high school killed two students and wounded 13 Monday, after telling as many as 20 people over the weekend, including at least one adult, about his plans. Of course you already knew that because of the Leftmedias' "gun control" feeding frenzy. (For the record, California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation -- and some of the least restrictive moral codes.)
You most likely did not hear about the UC Santa Barbara student who, at 60mph, plowed his car into a group of classmates -- killing four of them as he shouted, "I'm the angel of death!" There was no national Leftmedia chorus for "car control."
For the chorus of Lefties chanting "gun control," it's a culture problem! "When America teaches our children right from wrong, and teaches values that respect life in our country, we'll be better off," said President Bush, when asked about the incident. Chuck Colson added, "Too many adults have abdicated their responsibility to teach kids values that respect life. In [government] schools, students are taught to 'construct' their own truths. And teachers are trained not to offer direction, lest they hamper a child's autonomy. The results of such thinking have been explosive."
[ The Federalist ]
"Given his promotion of the radical homosexual recruitment of our youth, Governor Cellucci is not a fitting representative of American values, nor of the values that the Bush administration claims to represent," – Alan Keyes, chairman of Declaration Foundation, and a former ambassador.
"Disquieting rumors persist that some of President Bush's advisers are eager to sign a campaign finance 'reform' bill, or at least to avoid vetoing one. Bush should beware of what Edmund Burke called 'the irresistible operation of feeble councils'." --George Will
"Given the Republican track record of trying to hold Bill Clinton accountable for his serial misdeeds but largely failing, it is best for President Bush to allow the properly designated authorities...to do their respective duties regarding Clinton's pardons." --Cal Thomas
"There is no doubt that Washington has benefited vastly from President Bush's first six weeks in office. The arrogance of power shown by former President Clinton has been a stark contrast to the decency and personable style of Mr. Bush and the team around him." –Washington Times
"Democrats are still scrambling to fill out their own tax plan. Why bother? Just leave Republicans sitting at the bargaining table by themselves and they'll eventually bring forth something so tepid and distorted it will please even Charlie Rangel." --Wall Street Journal
"A CBS News poll showing 88% of Americans who heard Bush's speech approved of his proposals, and 67% supported the Bush tax cut, has never aired on the CBS Evening News. Instead, White House correspondent John Roberts has reported information from other polls less favorable to Bush. This is not journalism. This is using the network television airwaves to oppose President Bush." --Brent Bozell, chairman of the Media Research Center.
"Two politicians are holding a debate when one suddenly shouts, 'You're lying.' The other responds, 'I know, but hear me out'." –GOP Rep. Anne Northup, dubbed the funniest woman on the Hill.
"Jane Fonda said she has overcome a quarter-century battle with bulimia. Good for her. Maybe now she can help the countless thousands of Vietnam veterans who still throw up at the mention of her name." --Alex Kaseberg
"A Palm Beach Post analysis of under-votes from the Nov. 7 presidential election shows why Al Gore pushed so hard to count all the dimpled ballots. Without including every mark next to a candidate's name -- every hanging chad, pinhole, ding and dimple -- Gore couldn't have found enough votes to win.." - The Palm Beach Post under the misleading headline. "Under-votes could have meant victory for Gore"
Bill That Is!
Just about the time America thought it had rid itself at least of two parts of the unholy trinity--Bill, Hillary, and Al Gore--very serious rumors are starting to surface, both in New York and in Arkansas, that the former President is assembling a new campaign team, believing he has found a legal way to do an end-run around the 22nd Amendment that will allow him to seek the presidency again in 2004.
Clinton, according to the "rumor," is anticipating that a long-sought amendment that will redefine the meaning of the 22nd Amendment (by clarifying that the "two terms" referred to in it was meant to mean "two consecutive terms") will be, or has been, introduced into the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2001 by a high-ranking Republican House leader.
The question remains whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court, which will ultimately be forced to rule on the legality of such a piece of legislation (if, indeed, the amendment referred to actually has been inserted in McCain-Feingold, or is about to be) since the Constitution does not provide the Congress with a license to "amend" Constitutional amendments legislatively--even though Congress has, since 1934, done so over a hundred times.
The task of talking to at least one of Clinton's former Arkansas allies (now one of Clinton's fiercest detractors) fell on former FEMA head Buddy Young. In a late night call over a week ago, Young dropped a bomb that Nichols was not expecting. Young informed Nichols that Bill Clinton was planning to run for the presidency again in 2004. When Nichols asked how Clinton planned to do that since he was prohibited from doing so by the 22nd Amendment, Young assured him that an amendment proffed by a leading Republican House leader was being added to McCain-Feingold that would allow Clinton to run.
Even though Young assured Nichols in his roughly 5-hour telephone call that "...Bill Clinton does not know I'm calling you..." it is obvious even to a novice political-watcher that no hireling of Bill Clinton was going to call one of Clinton's toughest detractors (the man who revealed Gennifer Flowers to the world, and the man who gave both Newsweek and Matt Drudge the story about Monica Lewinsky's blue, semen-stained dress) without Bill Clinton's foreknowledge...and consent.
The only question which remains unanswered if whether Young called Nichols because Clinton was afraid that Nichols could still damage him politically and wanted to defuse his former political operative by bringing him back into the fold...or, if for some reason unknown to Nichols, Clinton wanted his former cohert to broadcast the information Young shared with him in order to gauge public opinion with respect to an attempt on Clinton's part to do an end-run around the 22nd Amendment without expending any political capital.
But, as of this date, it appears that Bill Clinton may, indeed, be planning to attempt an end-run around the 22nd Amendment. At least, it seems that he is quietly assembling a team of experts in order to try.
[ Breaking News ]
Recent column:
"[Clinton] always had an easy, breezy relationship with wrongdoing, but the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul." --New York Times columnist and reformed Clintonista Bob Herbert
Just a few years ago:
"The Republicans will pay a huge price for their brazen, utterly partisan attempt to drag a President from the White House in defiance of the will of the people. ... One of the many strange events of the past couple of weeks was the way in which virtually all of the previously undecided Republicans, the so-called moderates, surrendered their independence and lined up like lackeys to follow the right wing's lead. ... The G.O.P. can no longer conceal that it is a party of extremists, of right-wing absolutists, a party out of step with the political and cultural orientation of most Americans." --Bob Herbert on Dec. 20, 1998, the day after the House impeached Bill Clinton.
Maybe those big-ticket speeches aren't pouring in the way Bill Clinton says they are. Yesterday the ex-prez could be found in Atlantic City, a community he told his audience he felt welcome in. Big surprise there. But check out who his adoring crowd was: the Asian American Hotel Owners Association. "The date was open on his calendar and they paid the bulk of his fee," said a testy Clinton associate. The bulk of his fee? "If Mr. Clinton feels the group is important enough and he thinks he has something to say to them we aren't always locked in to $125,000." What's next? Will speak for free lodging?
[ Washington Prowler ]
John DiIulio, head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, fended off criticism of his program before the National Association of Evangelicals Wednesday. "Compassionate conservatism warmly welcomes godly people back into the public square while respecting and upholding -- without fail – benevolent constitutional traditions," he said. That sounds OK (except for the part about "compassionate conservatism," which is redundant). He should have stopped there -- but there is no stopping a bureaucrat.
"I would call upon the NAE to get real -- and get affiliated church leaders to get real -- about helping the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, and others among the least of these," said DiIulio. "It's fine to fret about 'hijacked faith,' but to many brothers and sisters who are desperately ministering to...those who the rest of us in this prosperous society have left behind, such frets would persuade more and rankle less if they were backed by real human and financial help. 'Hijacked faith' can take many forms, few more harmful than the self-hijack that honors the poor in 'word or speech' alone, if that."
Memo to Mr. Dilulio: You have not been in Washington for a month, and already you are demonstrating precisely the divisive and destructive attitude that gave rise to our concern about the OFBC Initiative. In a remarkable fit of arrogance you have set about "preaching to the choir," implying that Christians ministries, which are not on your dole, "honor the poor in 'word or speech' alone, if that." Thank you for confirming our criticism with such eloquence.
Perhaps, as long as Congress continues to confiscate income and distribute it to unconstitutional social programs, religious organizations should be able to compete for those funds. But they do so at great peril to their mission, mandate, and moral standing – as demonstrated by your words.
[ The Federalist with a hearty AMEN from The Conservative Newsletter staff ]
NewsMax.com was the first to break the story about the growing rift within the administration that has pitted defense hardliners Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld against the axis of Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
Liberal New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman confirmed the division this past Friday.
Friedman wrote that Powell "represents the pragmatic, hard-nosed internationalists within the administration."
Friedman means to say that Powell is a dove, who does not want confrontation with international bad guys like Saddam Hussein.
Friedman applauded the fact that Powell announced last week he wanted to "to pick up where President Clinton and his administration left off" in making a deal with the North Koreans about its plans to develop ballistic missiles.
But the Bush White House nixed Powell's idea.
There is good reason why the Cheney-Rumsfeld team would like to see the North Korean deal scrubbed.
Previous Clinton deals with North Korea, including one related to preventing their development of nuclear weapons, were one-sided and without verification.
Republican critics of Powell believe he has gotten off to a good start as secretary of state - for the New York Times.
In less than two months on the job he has sought to weaken Western resolve against Saddam Hussein, endorsed a European military force that would weaken NATO, and now wants to make nice with North Korean madman Kim Jong-il.
[ NewsMax ]
TCN Comment: We published the fact that Powell and Rice were a UN supporting globalists when Bush first mentioned them as a possible cabinet nominees. It should come as no surprise that they act like it, or that it produces a clash in the administration.
What we find interesting is that the "rifts" now confound those who once applauded the diversity in the Bush cabinet.
Conservatism and liberalism do not mix. You can't mix a group of liberals and a group of conservatives and get a "centrist" cabinet. You just get a useless mess and confusion in policy.
If foreign policy is not consistent, it fails before it starts. Bush made a mistake in the appointment of Powell and needs to correct it, or at least yank his chain real hard to shut him up before foreign nations get the idea that his opinions on globalism are official US foreign policy.
The Pentagon bypassed a "buy America" law to meet the Army's rush demand for 3 million black berets and awarded contracts to firms manufacturing the headgear in communist China and other Third World countries.
The beret purchase has become a contentious topic inside the Army special operations forces.
Former Army Rangers, whose elite units exclusively wear the black beret, are lobbying members of Congress to overturn a decision by Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, last October to issue the black headgear to all soldiers.
The Rangers are hot because China, in the midst of a huge military buildup, is regarded by U.S. military planners as a potential adversary as it broadens its influence in the Pacific, and threatens Taiwan, an old American ally.
"I think it's embarrassing for our country for our soldiers to wear uniforms made in communist China," says a Senate defense aide. "We've got to help Gen. Shinseki find a way out of this."
Protests have grown so fierce that President Bush asked the Defense Department to reconsider. But it's not clear whether the Pentagon will. An Army spokesman says the department has not asked the Army to supply any information. Asked yesterday by a reporter about the commander in chief's review, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said: "I have not asked the Army to do anything particular about that."
Three ex-Rangers yesterday completed a 700-mile protest march from Fort Benning, Ga., the Rangers' headquarters, to Washington. They will hold a rally tomorrow at the Lincoln Memorial.
Gen. Shinseki says unearned berets for everyone represent the Army's transformation into a lighter, more agile force for the 21st century.
As it turns out, his urgent deadline to have every soldier in the Army wearing a black beret by June 14 spurred the Pentagon's Defense Logistics Agency to waive the so-called "Berry Amendment," a federal law that for years has required the Pentagon to buy clothing made in U.S. factories of 100 percent American components. The agency then awarded contracts totaling $23 million for 1.3 million black berets to seven companies, five of which are producing the headgear in low-wage Third World plants. The Army eventually plans to buy 3 million black berets.
The decision is not a happy one with American apparel makers, either. They say Gen. Shinseki's "arbitrary deadline" prevented them from tooling up to meet the Army's huge order. The four-star general wants each of the 474,000 soldiers wearing the black beret by June 14, the Army's 225th birthday.
"It's a disgrace," says Marc Lamer, a Philadelphia lawyer who represents a U.S. manufacturer. "This had to be done this way because this guy decided on a quick deadline."
Mr. Lamer, who represents a firm that protested the contract awards, says only one American manufacturer currently has the machines to make a one-piece wool beret, as the Army demanded. Such tooling is no longer in production and what is left is scattered around the world, he says.
But Mr. Lamer says that if the Army pursued a "normal type of procurement" with sufficient notice instead of one month, U.S. manufacturers would have had time to purchase the needed equipment and submit bids.
"Their justification for doing all this was the urgency, because they had to have berets arriving by April," he says. "There was no time for an American manufacturer. The deadline was simply the chief of staff of the Army deciding he wanted them when he wanted them."
A Defense Logistics Agency spokeswoman said yesterday, "In this case, since the total capacity of the only known domestic producer of a specified beret could not meet the required delivery, the waiver was granted to allow for foreign acquisition."
The spokeswoman confirmed that thousands of U.S. Army berets are being made in China as well as Romania, Sri Lanka and other countries.
An Army spokeswoman had no immediate comment yesterday.
Under the "Berry Amendment," virtually every piece of military clothing is made in America with American components.
Mr. Lamer's client is Michele Goodman, president of Atlas Headwear Inc. in Phoenix.
She originally protested the Pentagon's decision to bypass the Berry Amendment. But she withdrew the case because her firm makes a two-piece sewn beret, while the Army wants a one-piece beret.
Ms. Goodman says that, with more time, her company and other apparel makers could have persuaded the Army to accept a different type of beret.
"The machines they use now to make the one-piece are antiquated. They are no longer made," she says. "Eventually, the Army is going to have to go to something different. This was a very good option."
She says her beret would cost about $4.75. She says the ones made in China cost $7.
Steven Lamar, director of government relations for the American Apparel and Footwear Association, says the Pentagon rarely waives the Berry Amendment. Usually, it's done when no U.S. company makes the item.
"Our concern was they shouldn't be waiving the Berry Amendment to fill this item," he says. "The urgency for this item is arbitrary. It's not like, 'we all need berets because of this military action we're going to do.' "
The Army previously has purchased all its berets for airborne, Special Forces and Rangers from one manufacturer able to handle the relatively small orders.
[ THE WASHINGTON TIMES ]
In the wake of warnings from environmental analysts, there is further evidence that President Bush might not be as opposed to the Kyoto "global warming" treaty as previously believed.
The objective of the Kyoto Protocol is to commit the estimated 180 industrial nations, including the United States, to "specified, legally binding reductions in emissions of six greenhouse gasses," according to a March 6, 2000, Congressional Research Report.
Carbon dioxide, emitted when coal, oil and natural gas combust, is one of those identified greenhouse gases. But it is also the substance released into the air by humans when they breathe, so it is still not classified as a pollutant by U.S. environmental regulating agencies.
Unbeknownst to many who supported Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign was his support of regulations to limit the amount of carbon dioxide produced by utility companies.
The problem with Bush's view, according to Myron Ebell, Competitive Enterprise Institute's director of global warming and international environmental policy, is that it first requires the classification of carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Once that action has been taken, he continued, logic would dictate that all gas emission levels be regulated, including eventually those from cars and trucks.
** Concerns About EPA's Whitman
Ebell's concern is not new. Earlier, he pointed to former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman's appointment as head of the Environmental Protection Agency as one cause for alarm, given her previous actions on carbon dioxide regulation.
While governor, Whitman oversaw the implementation of a 1999 measure that called for companies to participate in a voluntary reduction program aimed at cutting the amount of carbon dioxide gasses released into the air.
Recently, Whitman announced at least three times during separate press interviews her intent to combat global warming, calling it "one of the greatest environmental challenges we face, if not the greatest," according to one March 3 report from Trieste, Italy.
"We are supportive of the goal of Kyoto. Nothing has changed," Whitman said. "What we are reviewing is the implementation strategy" for the promised emissions reductions former President Bill Clinton signed and approved in 1998.
** Clinton's Strange Pledge
Clinton pledged the U.S. would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels and would do so between 2008 and 2012 – long after he would be out of office. However, the Senate never ratified the agreement, and Bush could choose to reverse Clinton's decision and exclude the U.S. from the Kyoto treaty.
Whether Bush will do that, however, is an item of debate for analysts such as Ebell, who fear that the president will be influenced by Whitman's statements on the theory of global warming.
"Bush ran as opposed to [the Kyoto Protocol]," he said. "But now we're getting mixed signals, and it isn't clear."
"Global warming" is one of the most hotly debated environmental issues of our time. Just days ago a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor, recognized for his research on climate change, tried to debunk the "global warming" argument during a news conference in Washington.
** Scientists Do Not Agree
"The whole notion of a scientific consensus has been contrived to disguise the genuine disagreement among scientists on a number of different issues," said Richard S. Lindzen. "Major media outlets announced, incorrectly, as early as 1998 that the issue of global warming was scientifically settled.
"To think that hundreds of scientists could be in full agreement ... is ridiculous," he continued.
Lindzen said the scientific work of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – a common reference source for those who cite statistics indicating the existence of "global warming" – was "clearly more a matter of politics than science" and, according to Lindzen, a compilation of manipulated and misrepresented findings.
[ NewsMax ]
Kentucky state Sen. Joey Pendleton did a little drinking at a legislative reception last month, which would not be considered news except that one of the sponsors was Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and later that night Mr. Pendleton was charged with drunken driving.
Sara McKinney, president of the Louisville chapter of MADD told the Louisville Courier-Journal that the Feb. 8 reception was "a responsible event" and noted that Mr. Pendleton's arrest came more than three hours after the event ended.
"Joey Pendleton is a grown man who has a role of leadership. Mr. Pendleton needs to be responsible," she said.
Mr. Pendleton, who does not deny drinking at the reception, was found to have a blood alcohol level of .20, more than twice the legal limit of .08. Last week, he pleaded innocent to driving while intoxicated.
[ Greg Pierce, Inside Politics ]
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.