Skip to comments.Conservatives Accuse Watchdog Group[CREW] of 'Christianophobia'
Posted on 10/06/2006 10:50:21 AM PDT by inpajamas
click here to read article
LOL...like herding cats??
The term used was Christianophobia. I don't think it is too hard to pronounce. Better than perhaps Christiangate.
As absurd as that may sound there is more truth to it than most would realize. see:
WND has an opinion poll on this. Personally, I think ALL visitors to ALL administrations should be public knowledge. This sword oughta cut both ways. Besides, Christians should have nothing to fear if it shows they visited the Whitehouse - on the other hand, those who visit any 'rat administration SHOULD fear exposure.
That's a good moniker but Christophobia would imply fear of Christ; whereas, Christianophobia implies fear of Christians.I would image the members of (S)CREW think they are afraid of neither.
Well I would argue that they arent so much afraid of me or any Christian in particular....but of the spiritual source of our belief and strength...which means that they fear Christ and what that that concept represents....as well they should be
(This CREW gang is a bunch of busy beavers isn't it?)
WE CAN'T LET THESE LEFTIST THUGS WIN!!!
They are on the losing side of this spiritual war, and they know it. Hence, their hatred and fear.
We should be aggressive. If we don't start being as passionate as they are they can win. That's what Edmund Burk said anyway.
1 Oral Arguments in Electronic Records Court Case -- On June 27, Judge Paul Friedman of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia heard oral arguments in the case of Public Citizens v. John Carlin, U.S. Archivist -- Case Number 1:96 CV02840. The American Library Association, the National Security Archive, the American Historical Association, the Organization of American Historians, as well as individual researchers are co-plaintiffs in this case. Michael Tankersley, accompanied by Alan Morrison, presented the case for the plaintiffs and Anne Weismann, accompanied by Jason Baron, presented the government's case. The suit challenges the Archivist's promulgation of a "General Records Schedule" authorizing all federal agencies, at their discretion, to destroy the only electronic version of Federal agency records stored on agency electronic mail and word processing systems provided the agency has printed a hard copy of the electronic record on paper of microform. The complaint states that the Archivist has "improperly ignored the unique value of electronic records" and "has abdicated his statutory responsibility to appraise the historical value of such electronic records."
The government rooted its defense in the argument of content versus form, stressing that while the electronic record is not being preserved the content is being preserved in paper form. Additionally, the government's position rested on the assertion that some agencies are not as technologically sophisticated as others and preservation of content in paper format is what is realistic and that saving all electronic mail would clog the system. Judge Friedman interrupted with frequent questions: Would it be all right to destroy all memorandum, regardless of format? How could a plaintiff file an FOIA for electronic material if it has been destroyed? Hasn't the Archivist given a blanket authorization to agencies? Most corporations have record keeping policies that specify specific time periods, and if not this is suspect, why not the same for the government? If the U.S. Archivist doesn't know what electronic records are being destroyed by agencies, is he fulfilling his role as gatekeeper on preservation of federal records? Why does the government have to have one government wide plan, why couldn't it have different plans for agencies that are more technologically advanced?...</snip>
------- NCC Washington Update 3:26, 6/30/97
CREW is also into the tobacco lawsuits- they want money.
Mr. Carlin was appointed Archivist by President William J. Clinton in 1995. He immediately began a comprehensive strategic planning effort that resulted in a 10-year plan to refocus the agency and bring it into the 21st century. -------- "John W. Carlin, Archivist of the United States ," January 13, 2005 , http://www.archives.gov/welcome/bio_carlin.html
To: cyncooper; Miss Marple; Howlin
I just phoned the National Archives because when I googled - John Carlin archives - the first hit was to the NARA website - where he is STILL THE ARCHIVIST! What is going on! I spoke to an actual employee who said that his last day will be sometime in March 2005 The Dems had a) an extra year to 'straighten up' some files from the Clinton days; and b) reasons to expect that if Kerry were to be elected, Carlin would stay. Why did the Bush admin not pursue getting rid of him? Weakness? Chess moves?
[* Unfortunately it's more likely because there is way too much Barbara Streisand going on and we're playing catch up, or Heinz Ketchup, as the case may be.]
To: maica; livius Pinging livius to your investigative work. Good job.
The Bush administration did take steps to remove him. In September 2003, after the first visit where Archives employees noticed missing documents after Berger left, the first step was taken.
On December 5, 2003 Alberto Gonzales requested Carlin's resignation.
Now, I figured he was granted the extra months he requested (July 2004 he wanted 4 more months which would have been last November and he obviously was granted a few extra months). I don't think we can conclude at this point he was culpable in the Berger matter so I'm not surprised or bothered that he's still there, and it looks like he'll be gone shortly.
410 posted on 01/13/2005 7:18:45 AM PST by cyncooper
Carlin is also tight with a figure named Thomas Blanton who was exec director for the National Security Archives.
When I first read your findings, I, too, thought Carlin tendered his resignation before the Berger business happened. That is not correct. The FBI was brought in in January 2004, BUT the DOJ was aware of what was going on almost immediately.
According to the following, Carlin's letter of resignation was dated December 19, 2003. Berger began visiting the Archives in July 2003 and the staff noticed documents missing in September and set up the sting in October (see my Berger timeline link at post #160).
I can't believe I had missed Carlin's resignation and the dems' intense questioning about it, but thank you so much for bringing that up. Here's the link to the article I just found and the excerpts:
On July 22, 2004, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held a confirmation hearing on the pending nomination of historian Allen Weinstein to become Archivist of the United States. Weinstein is the Bush administration's choice to succeed the present archivist, John Carlin.
Senator Lieberman asked whether Weinstein had any knowledge of Archivist John Carlin's December 19, 2003 letter indicating his intent to resign. (That letter was produced by the White House as evidence that Carlin had initiated the replacement search process.) Weinstein stated he had no such knowledge and then described the circumstances in which the White House approached him about the position.
Weinstein stated that on September 23, 2003 he was invited to meet with Ms. Dina Powell, Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Personnel about the possibility of a nomination as the next Archivist of the United States. In late November and early December he was then asked to fill out investigative and ethics forms that precede all presidential nominations. Weinstein stated that he was made aware that he would be the White House's nominee "in early January 2004." Under questioning, Weinstein also stated that he had several "generalized" conversations with White House Counsel Judge Alberto Gonzales and several others but that at no time were there any discussions about issues relating to archival records relating to the presidency.
Senator Levin then introduced a bombshell document into the hearing record -- a letter from current Archivist Carlin that was prepared in response to a number of questions posed to him by Levin regarding whether he [Carlin] approached the administration, or had the administration initially had approached him about resigning as Archivist.
(The National Coalition for History and several of its member organizations have repeatedly called on the committee to get to the bottom of the issue relating to the Carlin controversy.)
In Carlin's response (dated July 21-my note: July 21, 2004--) obtained by the history coalition, the Archivist stated: "In answer to the first question, the Administration initially approached me. On Friday, December 5, 2003, the Counsel to the President [Alberto Gonzales] called me and told me the Administration would like to appoint a new Archivist. I asked why and there was no reason given."
Carlin then stated in the letter that he wants to continue as Archivist at least four more months as "there are initiatives I would like to complete before concluding my service as Archivist"...specifically the campaign to raise $22 million to fund the Public Vaults permanent exhibit that will open in November 2004 and since "we are on the verge of awarding a contract for the design of the Electronic Records Archives...I would like to see that budget request through to fruition over the next four months."
Levin and Durbin expressed concern that, contrary to provisions of the Archives independence act, the White House was requesting Carlin's resignation without stating a reason required in the law. Following a cordial but doggedly persistent pursuit of his objective, Levin asked Chairman Collins that the committee send a letter to the White House to explain why Carlin was being asked to resign as these actions endanger "the independence of the Archivist's office." If the committee declined to do so, Levin would do so independently.
I do indeed think it is extremely likely that the Berger business is at issue here and the tone from Levin is very interesting. Very interesting.
223 posted on 01/12/2005 9:33:56 AM PST by cyncooper
Please take a look at these blast from the past posts starting at #54
It is this outfit that has twice tried to take out Rush Limbaugh with bogus charges. I suspect Montgomery is behind the Foley defamation, too. They have used the press to smear Rush too. Sensational press releases take the place of legsal charges often when the court of public opinion is used to circumvent the civil rights guarantees of the judiciary.
Note they tried to shop the story first to Tampa and Miami papers. . ABC was probably extorted into running a non-story, against the better news judgment of all pros by Clintonistas furious about Path to 911.
Montgomery is also active in trying to sue gun manufacturers when criminals use their guns to commit crimes, but his public personna is one of being a patron of the arts, especially the Armory Art Center.
Thanks for that info