Replies

wonderful work Mia

..

CLINTON RIPS GOP RECORD ON RACE

WASHINGTON (Dec. 19) - Former President Clinton says Republicans are hypocritical for berating Senate Republican leader Trent Lott about his insensitive comments on race.

``How can they jump on him when they're out there repressing, trying to run black voters away from the polls and running under the Confederate flag in Georgia and South Carolina?'' Clinton said Wednesday in New York. ``I mean, look at their whole record. He just embarrassed them by saying in Washington what they do on the backroads every day.''

Lott has been trying to atone for publicly wishing that former segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948. Lott said his home state of Mississippi voted for Thurmond ``and if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either.''

Lott has apologized, but many conservatives have called for him to give up his leadership post. President Bush's aides have said Lott doesn't have to resign, but the White House is not making the case for keeping him in place either.

``I think that the way the Republicans have treated Senator Lott is pretty hypocritical, since right now their policy is, in my view, inimical to everything this country stands for,'' Clinton said while attending an event for the European Travel Commission.

``They've tried to suppress black voting, they've ran on the Confederate flag in Georgia and South Carolina. And from top to bottom, the Republicans supported it. So I don't see what they're jumping on Trent Lott about.''

Republican National Committee Chairman Marc Racicot called Clinton's comments ``misleading'' and ``divisive rhetoric.''

``This is another tired example of Bill Clinton misrepresenting the facts and misleading the American people to gain political advantage,'' Racicot said.

12/18/02 20:42 EST

Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

clintonism and the theology of contempt

by Mia T

Let us hope that the rabbi's question was merely rhetorical. . . Let us hope that Rabbi Potasnik, and by extension, New York Jews, are not as credulous and obsequious and passive as they appear. . .

The simple answer to the rabbi's question is that the corrupt, self-serving, anti-Semitic, power-hungry harpy cannot be trusted.

Weren't we to never forget?

The Holocaust must remain, for Jew and gentile alike, a constant reminder that mass credulity and obsequiousness and passivity are necessary for the demagogue to prevail.

To remember that six million Jews died in the Holocaust is to understand that centuries of anti-Semitic attitudes made this horror possible. We must ask ourselves what role our society played through the centuries that in any way contributed to the atmosphere that made such a genocide even thinkable.

Which brings me to the clintons and clintonism. . .

Senator Patrick Moynihan proffered one of the more incisive operant definitions of clintonism -- "defining deviancy down."

Defining deviancy down, indeed.
clintonism has made personal and public perversions, personal and public predations, not merely thinkable, not merely acceptable, but de rigueur. (Watch us spin.}

clintonism is the theology of contempt. Not merely toward "F___ing Jew-bastards" or "lazy niggers" or "extra-chromosome right-wingers" but toward any of us whose ideas are different from those of the clintons, Gore, and their acolytes.

So the real question to be answered is this:
"What fair-minded, clear-thinking person would want to continue
with its theology of contempt?
What fair-minded, clear-thinking person would vote for ~~hillary~~ clinton or Al Gore?"

July 24, 2000
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page

More Outrage From Hillary

By Rachel Donadio, city editor of the Forward.
The phone was ringing when I got back to the office late on Monday, after covering Hillary Clinton's appearance at Ellis Island. Two calls, in close succession, from people with whom I had never before spoken. Both callers expressed their outrage at the allegations that Mrs. Clinton had used an anti-Semitic slur. The callers defended her on the basis of their acquaintance with her or their reading of her character. I actually asked the callers why they had called me and how they knew I was following this story for the Forward, and each gave answers that I remember chiefly for their vagueness.

It turns out that each was specifically asked to call me and a reporter for another Jewish newspaper by the Jewish liaison in Mrs. Clinton's campaign for the Senate. This came out when a memo from that official, Karen Adler, to Mrs. Clinton's Jewish Advisory Group was leaked to various news outlets in the state, including the Associated Press, which was the first to alert me. And it also turns out that the memo specifically asked Mrs. Clinton's advisory group to dissemble about whether they were connected to the campaign. "It is important that you do not say that you are calling because the campaign asked you to, but because you are outraged with what was said about her," Ms. Adler wrote.
Well, call me an old-fashioned sort, but this little episode touches on the issue that I believe, after covering Mrs. Clinton the past few months, is at the heart of the problems with her campaign. It's an issue that bedevils her relations with more than the Jewish community. It is at core a question of honesty and trust. I, as well as the Forward, am in the camp that doesn't really care what kind of things Mrs. Clinton says in private. Unlike many dailies, the Forward was skeptical and wary of the accusations of anti-Semitism, and wrote as much in this week's editorial and in my lead story.

I happened to have sat out the second Clinton administration in Italy, the last half working for the International Herald Tribune. When I came to the Forward in May, I didn't arrive with an ax to grind or with my senses dulled by years of American news coverage. I started covering the Clinton campaign and reporting what I found. And what I've found in the past two weeks is a campaign intent on silencing any coverage that isn't celebratory.
This sentiment was most evident in Ms. Adler's memo to the Jewish Advisory Group, as well as in an earlier memo that was leaked to the New York Post last week. That memo, also from Ms. Adler, complained about Mrs. Clinton's coverage in Jewish newspapers, including the Forward, and suggested that this was why the candidate was polling so poorly among Jewish voters. Blaming Jewish newspapers, as if they had covered Mrs. Clinton any more critically than the mainstream media and as if the media itself were responsible for her poor showing, does not inspire trust in Mrs. Clinton's campaign tactics. Nor does it inspire trust in Mrs. Clinton.
The sentiment I hear expressed more often than any other is that people don't trust the first lady. Hawks don't trust that she will be a vocal enough advocate for a strong Israel. They cite her calling for a Palestinian state in 1998, long before such a proposal ever hit the negotiating table. They don't trust her repudiation of that statement. They don't trust her statement on Jerusalem. They cite the unfortunate photo op in Ramallah last November when Mrs. Clinton embraced Suha Arafat just moments after the first lady of Palestine had accused Israel of using poison gas against Palestinians. They don't trust her explanation that she waited a day to condemn the remarks due to a translation error.

Yet the problem goes far beyond the Middle East. I doubt that suburban centrists, who make up a significant part of the one million Jewish voters in the state, are sitting at home with a map of the West Bank, hinging their votes for Mrs. Clinton on the kind of peace deal her husband helps negotiate. Yet it is these largely Democratic suburban centrists who are the thorn in Mrs. Clinton's side. They are Koch Jews from the outer boroughs, families, parents and senior citizens for whom the real issue isn't health care or gun control or even education, but rather trust.
Many still don't trust Mrs. Clinton's motives in running for Senate in a state she's never called home. Some Jewish women wonder why she didn't up and leave her philandering husband. What I sense is a growing swell of concern from Jewish voters, of all religious denominations and political allegiances, who are simply searching for candid answers from Mrs. Clinton. What is clear is that Jewish voters are certainly willing to give Mrs. Clinton a fair hearing, if only she would start talking on the level.

"It's difficult to correct what's already been done," Rabbi Joseph Potasnik from Congregation Mt. Sinai, a synagogue in liberal Brooklyn Heights, told me this week, speaking about the blunders that have marred the Clinton campaign from day one. "I think Hillary needs to have serious discussions with the Jewish community to convince those who might vote for her that she does have credibility and can be trusted," Mr. Potasnik said. "It's the credibility question. That's what needs to be discussed. How can we trust you? You tell us how we can."

Jewish Americans, like African-Americans, for the past 50 years or so have become the bedrock base of the Democratic coalition. And, just like the African-Americans, they have allowed themselves to be taken advantage of by the Democrat Party. The Jewish vote is taken for granted by Democrats running for office. The Jewish voters allow themselves to be monopolized by one party.
John LeBoutillier, Anti-Semitic Double Standard

The Fran Lebowitz Method of
Auto-Disenfranchisement:


Forty-nine-year-old writer Fran Lebowitz was perturbed about Hillary Clinton's all-but-certain Senate run. She had already made up her mind to vote for Mrs. Clinton but, she said, she was still unhappy. "I feel it's a personal plot," she said. "I feel like she personally sat down and said, 'How could I possibly get Fran Lebowitz to vote for me? I have to run against Giuliani.'"

Ms. Lebowitz wasn't finished. "I think she's a very poor role model for girls," she said. "I believe she's someone who decided at a young age that 'I want to be President, but I can't, because I'm a girl. So I'll marry the President.' I think that's so regressive." She paused for breath. "She's a poll-taker, she's a pulse-taker, she's not a leader. She doesn't really seem to have any ideas" And then she comes here and panders."

Meet the Smart New York Women Who Can't Stand Hillary Clinton,

The New York Observer, JANUARY 17, 2000

Writer Fran Lebowitz's witless justification -- her famous bons mots notwithstanding -- for voting for ~~hillary~~ clinton, someone she regards with utter contempt, reveals the insidious process by which classes of voters become auto-disenfranchised.
The "Liberal Professional Woman" could not do more to render herself powerless than to adopt Lebowitz's reflexive groupthink and vote for this horrific, corrupt phony. Blind allegiance of this sort has already auto-disenfranchised blacks and homosexuals --and, to some extent, Jews. (The Democratic Party knows it need not do anything. . .and the Republican Party knows there is nothing it can do. . .to obtain the loyalty of these groups.)
Groupthink, it should be understood, damages not only the group that practices it. Groupthink damages society as a whole. Indeed, it is precisely this sort of simplistic non-analysis that produced a lawless, rapist president, a lawless, co-rapist consort, a corrupted society, a confused, violent generation, an eviscerated national defense.


Don't lose

Your head

To gain a minute

You need your head

Your brains are in it.

--an old roadside ad, Pushme-Pullyou

Wow. I was thinking that you should get in contact with the Counter-Clinton Liebrary group that NewsMax has reported on. IMHO, they should set up an audio/visual and reading room for your work. I would bet it would be a huge draw once word got out....

A (sporadically-Camp-David): clinton Thanksgiving --1996

Turkey Prez a D.C. Gofer?
(Have you connected the dots yet, Helen?)
ARTICLE

Thou art arm'd that hath thy crook'd schemers straight.
Cudgel thy brains no more, the clinton plots are great.
Mia T, On Neutered and Neutering,
by Mia T and Edward Zehr (EZ)

"I did not have any involvement in the pardons that were granted or not granted," insisted Sen. KnowNothing, seeming to forget her presence at the New-Square/Oval-Office schmooze that secured pardons for the four Hasidic felons who set up a phony school in Brooklyn to swindle the government out of millions intended for the poor.

Mia T, Sen. KnowNothing Victim Clinton Effectively Pleads 5TH in Press Conference by Invoking Spousal Privilege

With President Clinton's encouragement, his half-brother, Roger, collected hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby on behalf of as many as 13 people seeking presidential pardons and other favors, a key congressional panel has found. <snip>


The probe concluded that the former president and his administration repeatedly failed to properly check the backgrounds of people seeking pardons and <snip> permitted a culture that provided easy opportunities for relatives and close associates of the president to make money on the side by lobbying for clemency and other presidential favors for convicted felons...[R]equests bypassed the normal Justice Department review system and instead went directly to the Oval Office <snip>.
Roger Clinton could not be reached for comment. Bill Clinton has denied that pardons were for sale.<snip>
Congressional investigators found that the president's brother-in-law Hugh Rodham... suggested that former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton was also behind the commutation.<snip>
In addition <snip> Rodham, despite his public statements to the contrary, has returned less than one-fourth of the $204,000 fee that he said he had given back to the Vignali family.

The committee also determined that President Clinton granted a pardon to fugitive financier Marc Rich only after his sponsor, former White House Counsel Jack Quinn, went around the Justice Department. Quinn apparently did so on the advice of then-Deputy Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr., who was hoping to be elevated to attorney general if Al Gore was elected president, the report found. <snip>
: Roger Clinton Said to Be Deeply Tied to Pardons; Politics: House reform panel says ex-president encouraged his brother.

the deposition of Sonya Stewart, which tells us that "the trade mission issues were "only the tip of the iceberg -- that the really big money went towards Presidential access." Mr. Grafeld indicated to me that he believes that Ms. Moss was asking for political contributions in exchange for seats on Commerce Department trade missions, likely at the direction of Hillary Rodham Clinton, but that documents showing this illegal activity had "left the building."
"a huge box" hauled back to Camp David by said corrupt president under subpoena.

the Gestalt--the synthesis of the evidence -- the absurd reason for the president's Thanksgiving-Day Camp David-DC-Camp David trip; the Ron-Brown-posthumous, Ron-Brown-related, Thanksgiving-Day corpse; the Sonya Stewart deposition informing us that evidence of illegal Commerce activity had "left the building;" and "a huge box" hauled back to Camp David by said corrupt president under subpoena.

Mia T, Helen Thomas Syndrome: THE SYMPTOMS

Thanks, Mia, for reminding us of the massive hypocrisy involved in the Democrat's complaints about Lott compared to their cover-up for the Clintons.

THE CLINTON LEGACY OF LYNCHING PING!

"Ron Brown killed by someone in clinton administration, perhaps clinton, himself."

...I'd like to focus the rest of the broadcast on the pioneering work which you have done with respect to Ron Brown, the Commerce Department, and his role in all of these scandals.
Let me get right to the heart of the matter. There are many people in America who believe that Ron Brown's death was all too convenient for Bill Clinton, that, had he lived, the testimony he would have been required to give, the focus of investigation on his activities would have brought down Bill Clinton. Many people think that the plane crash in which he perished was not an accident. What do you think?
LARRY KLAYMAN: Well, I think it wasn't an accident either, but, what is unfortunate is that you need an investigative agency like the Justice Department and the FBI to really look into it and find out what happened.
We knew that Ron Brown was a scandal waiting to happen. That's why, back in 1995 I brought a lawsuit in January on behalf of Judicial Watch because it seemed to me that, if you are going to look at the Clinton administration, the Commerce Department where Brown was Secretary, was the first place to look.
You had the all time leading Democrat fund-raiser. You had someone who had been accused of accepting the $600,000 bribe from the government of Vietnam to push trade relations &emdash; and that mysteriously ended just a day before we opened up trade relations (there was this grand jury in Miami). Someone who had represented, in his private practice, Baby Doc Duvalier, one of the worst dictators in American history (America being the whole region), who persecuted Brown's own people in effect &emdash; somebody who was just completely amoral. Brown was the kind of person who got himself involved in business deals profiting off of government service, or public service. So that's why we focused on him.
We were making headway, we brought a lawsuit. The judge, in fact, had allowed us to take discovery, we had noticed his deposition, and, ironically, he asked for a postponement because he had to go to Bosnia during that trip, no one was more disappointed (obviously I didn't want to see him die, from a humanitarian standpoint). We wanted to get the information out of him. He had a tremendous knowledge of what went on in that Clinton administration.
Now, moving forward, of course, months later, we came upon John Huang and that was the spark that rekindled this whole scandal. But since then, we've met with someone that he was in business with, and this was his latest Independent Counsel grand jury investigation at the time that he died.
That person's name: Nolanda Hill. She opened a company called First International. It was alleged that he received $500,000 of defaulted government loan money from that company under the table which he never reported on his disclosure forms when he became Secretary of Commerce, and perhaps not on his income tax returns.
Nolanda Hill is in a position to know what happened with Ron Brown, and we were fortunate enough to convince her to meet with us. She told me and she told our investigator, Andy Thibault, that she believes Ron Brown was killed &emdash; which is an incredible statement.
HOWARD PHILLIPS: Killed intentionally, not by accident.
LARRY KLAYMAN: Killed intentionally, by the Clinton administration. I asked her "how did you come to that conclusion?"
She said that two weeks before that plane went down, Ron Brown had gone to the White House and met with the President. Typically, he was walking around in bare feet; he sat down on his couch, put his feet up on the stool, and Brown said to him, that he was going to have to plea to some type of plea bargain to end that Independent Counsel investigation that concerned First International; that it was closing in on him, it was closing in on his son, Michael, who was alleged to have taken a bribe on his behalf from these lums? [hoodlums?] who ultimately have gotten into trouble.
And the reaction of Clinton was, with his hands crossed: that's nice, no comment, kind of like an organized Nolan figure, she took it.
And when the plane went down two weeks later, she received a call from the Secretary of the Army that said they were looking for the bodies in the water &emdash; and, of course, we know the official alibi is that the plane hit a mountain. And, from that, she kind of comes to the conclusion that there is something obviously very suspicious here. She says that Brown always had a difficult relationship with the White House; it was a marriage of convenience, and she thinks he was killed. And that is, perhaps, her motivation in coming forward and now talking to the authorities (she's talked not just to us, but to the Thompson committee, perhaps to Dan Burton's committee), she's trying to arrange for some type of immunity to testify. We hope and pray for her health, because she is in a position that she could tell the entire story. And, although she admits to wrongdoing, she says she now wants to set the record straight. So here is somebody, the closest person to Ron Brown (perhaps even closer than his wife) who believes that he was killed by someone in the Clinton administration, perhaps the President himself.
HOWARD PHILLIPS: And, of course, there were other people traveling with him who went down in the process of Mr. Brown's death in that plane crash.
LARRY KLAYMAN: Well, you know, ruthless people will do ruthless things. Some of those people actually had knowledge about Ron Brown's doings. For instance, this person, Chuck Meissner, who we heard about during the Thompson committee hearings, and who we've received a lot testimony about &emdash; Meissner was John Huang's boss. Meissner was the guy who, according to Jeffrey Garten [Undersecretary of Commerce for international trade during Clinton's first term], didn't heed instructions in keeping Huang just in certain areas. This is somebody who, conveniently, also went down in that plane crash, who might have a lot to say today.
HOWARD PHILLIPS: So it was like shooting fish in a barrel for those who found Mr. Brown's continued existence un...
LARRY KLAYMAN: That's a good way of putting it, Howard. You know, after Ron Brown died there was also someone else who turned up dead at the Commerce Department &emdash; a Miss Wise &emdash; this was somebody who worked in the same division as John Huang who perhaps knew that documents were being destroyed.
We had taken the deposition &emdash; that is when we get oral testimony as lawyers &emdash; of John Huang's secretary, and she was forced to admit at our deposition that Huang handed her cables from overseas (who knows where from &emdash; perhaps even Communist China) and told her to shred them on a daily basis.

ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT

Corruption in the Federal Government=Part 1

The public affairs television program of The Conservative Caucus

450 Maple Avenue, East * Vienna, Va 22180 * 703-938-9626

Guest: Larry Klayman, Esq.-Chairman and Founder, Judicial Watch

Friday, August 1, 1997 &emdash; First Broadcast

Find out more about Conservative Roundtable. Go to Part 2
Q ERTY6
Crime-family values
_{But they are space aliens}
THE CLINTON LEGACY OF LYNCHING
^BUMP!
It's not easy to play fair against Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, who, in the words of the authors, "operated like a crime family, expecting friends and aides to protect them even against their own best interests." What's amazing, of course, is that's exactly what Clinton friends and aides have always done, from Susan McDougal to Webster Hubbell to flocks of nameless White House special assistants. Even Jim McDougal died just in time to deprive the independent counsel of a key witness against Mrs. Clinton, thus derailing what the authors report to have been her likely indictment for perjury and obstruction related to the Whitewater investigation....
Reading the tumultuous events of the Lewinsky probe in a comprehensive narrative is unlike attempting to make sense of it in daily doses. Something different comes through the heavy accumulation of detail of, for example, the duplicity of the Justice Department, or the sharklike behavior of the White House. One begins to get a choking sense of the atmosphere of corruption and ruthlessness the Clintons inhabit -- and, worse, have forced the rest of us to inhabit. Taken in one piece, the habitual, even casual abuse of power on display begins to resemble conditions one normally associates with a state of totalitarianism, where such concepts as truth and justice are only paid lip service. In the end, then, it makes you wonder when there will be fresh air again.
Crime-family values
It was Robert Torricelli…right before his eyes
It was Robert Torricelli…who's quite small in size
He had poured much money into his campaign
But now what he was seeing's quite insane
It was Robert Torricelli…that worthless lump

(La-la-la-la-la)
It's Robert Torricelli…it's Robert Torricelli
It's Robert Torricelli…that worthless lump

doug from upland

THE GODFATHER -- Part XXXVIII

by Edward Zehr

______________________
Scene: Don Tor~r~-i-CHE-li's suite in the Senate Office Building.

[Enter Clinton]

Don Tor~r~-i-CHE-li: [pinching his cheek] Beely-boy, paisano, howa-
you-doin' uh?

Clinton: [kisses his ring] My respects, Don Torricelli.

Don Tor~r~-i-CHE-li: [speaking in a hoarse, high-pitched whisper]
You know-a da boys here -- "Dungheap" Harkin an' "Doofus" Dodd, da
lowa half-a da waitress samwich. [Head jerks in their direction].
Da uddah half couldn' make it ta-day.

Clinton: I keep tellin' him not to mix booze and coke.

"Doofus" Dodd: [muttering] No respect -- evah since dat aftanoon
at La Brasserie I don't get no respect.

"Dungheap" Harkin: What a pile-a dung! I tole ya ta keep ya paws
offa-da help till afta hou-was, ya big doofus.

[Don Tor~r~-i-CHE-li casts a stern look in their direction --
the two wiseguys pipe down].

Don Tor~r~-i-CHE-li: So, what bringa-you here to see you old
God-Fatha, huh? [playfully mussinng his hair] You in trouble over
la ragazza again? Huh? Uh? [leers knowingly]

Clinton: [looking worried] I'm worried, Godfather. They're talking
to Monica again. They've got six Jane Does warming up in the
bullpen. Six! Whatamigonnado, Godfather, whatamigonnado?

Don Tor~r~-i-CHE-li: [looking VERY annoyed] HEY! hey -- whats
alla dis whatamigonnado, whatamigonnado? Whatta you God-Fatha
teacha YOU, huh? You KNOW whachu gotta do. You senda wiseguy around
ta break bot-a dere legs. Ya remembah how we take care-a dat
mout'piece in Liddle-Rock -- da one wid' da tapes-a you at Gennifuh's
pad?

Clinton: B-but, but . . .

Don Tor~r~-i-CHE-li: But? BUT? Hey look, paisan' -- I know you gotta
position ta uphold. You gotta image ta considah. Dis is a matta
f'la famiglia. You tella you God-Fatha da problem -- we
fixa f'you, Okay?

Clinton: But you can't break all of their legs -- how would it
look?

Don Tor~r~-i-CHE-li: [looking grievously wronged] BEELY, Beely,
Beely -- what great wrong did I doa-ta you, dat you treat me wid
such disrespect? Now you gonna teacha me my bidniss -- huh?
[in a cold tone of voice] You remembah Vin-CHEN-zo, right?

Clinton: [looking scared] Yes, Godfather.

Don Tor~r~-i-CHE-li: He hada biga mout'. He gonna talka
bout da blood-a-drive, right?

Clinton: Yes, Godfather.

Don Tor~r~-i-CHE-li: We fixa f'you, okay? No blood-a-spatta, no
broken-a-teeth, no crime-a-scene photos, no x-a-ray. We provide-a
da drop-a gun. (No charge). We laya him out nice & neat -- very
professional, very discrete. You gotta complaint?

Clinton: No, Godfather.

Don Tor~r~-i-CHE-li: Good. You do-need-ta worry about no Jane Does.
I make-a-dem an offa dey cannot refuse, capish?

Clinton: Yes, Godfather.

Don Tor~r~-i-CHE-li: [pinching his ear] You-a goodboy, Beely.
Give-a my regards ta-da wife.

Clinton: [kisses his ring and withdraws].

[CUT]
The only way they can win is to convince people that we're space aliens.

--bill clinton

June 9, 1999

Peggy Noonan's excellent piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal is really the story of the death of democracy. At its core it is the description of the human double helix gone terribly awry, of a denatured protein grotesquely twisted, of two mutant, tangled strands of DNA, the basest imaginable of base pairs linked permanently, as firmly as guanine to cytosine, bill inexorably to hillary and conversely, doing what they do best, and doing it relentlessly.

Killing.
Killing insidiously.
Killing as they pose and pander and feel our pain.

My only complaint is with Peggy Noonan's title.
The Mad Boomer, doesn't begin to capture candidate clinton considered separately or even taken as the self-anointed "twofer," permanently conjoined at that cavity conspicuously empty except for ego, that place where brain and soul and guts and heart normally reside.

This is not to say that she -- that they -- are not both quite mad and of that self-indulgent, arrogantly, ignorantly solipsistic age sandwiched flatly between yesterday's innocence and tomorrow's insouciance. Rather, it is that their madness and their boomerism don't even begin to explain their noxious influence: The cloying, internally inconsistent clinton calculus. The unspoken clinton threats. They permeate the atmosphere like a coiling miasma, choking off all freedom.

Even in New York.
Especially in New York.
When she wrote "The New Colossus," Emma Lazarus hardly had in mind this pair of mutant, deadly, twisted aliens.

So forget Arkansas-Illinois carpetbaggery and standard issue muckraking. The clintons are aliens of quite another sort. They are extrinsic, not of this world. They are inhuman. They are dehumanizing.

You may recall that the first act of this story of two degenerates maintained by iterating idiots, farce of farce ad infinitum, was generated quite by accident by iterated AlGoreRhythm, who, it should be noted, is now himself the object of iterated calculation by said degenerates who want iteration 2004 all for themselves.

And thus the odd bit of bloody Gore in Act II: The ugly sight of a corrupt, bottom-heavy hillary self-impaled on the horns of a Treason-Dilemma- masquerading-as-a-Third-Term-Dilemma-masquerading-as-a-Senate-stampede, for example, or bill's recent unsolicited, underwhelming Times interview on the Gore candidacy.

Act I was called "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover." Ostensibly the tale of the wife of a bloodthirsty crime boss who finds romance with a bland bookseller between courses at her husband's restaurant, it was in fact the Thyestean and moveable -- yet unmoving -- feast of hillary clinton at her husband's sham restitution. (Note the reciprocity. The sham restitution in Act II is all hillary's.)

Food, color coding, sex, murder, torture and cannibalism were the exotic (if mostly horizontal) fare in this beautifully filmed but brutally uncompromising modern memoir which passed as ancient fable about nouveau riche rapacity.
Not for the faint at heart, Purple Hearts or queazy stomachs, this depiction of the gross debasement of America was heavily peppered with irony and dark humor throughout.

Although she baked no cookies, didn't do illicit land or cattle d eals and stood by no man, hillary clinton starred in the triple role of the Cook, the Thief and his Wife. Her lover was played at once vaporously and in workmanlike fashion by the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt, with Janet Reno, between her stints rendering intermittent injustice for the Husband, as the reliable stand-in. Sidney Blumenthal was the stand-in for the Cook and Craig Livingstone the stand-in for the Thief. The last-minute addition of Christopher Hitchens as the snitch was a stroke of absolute genius notwithstanding its cerebral accident, its predictable-if-perfect pitch and its facile alliteration.

Although Act I had no rating, the new clinton soccer-mom directive will require a photo ID for any viewer without independent proof of illegal alien DNC or DNA sequencing.

In Act II, rabid anti-clinton voters, roughly 33% of the U.S. populace according to as-yet-unpodded pollsters, become increasingly aware that they are disappearing in droves and being replaced by alien pod replicas which have their physical attributes but lack all anti-clinton affect.

If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.

INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS

Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.

The Democrats' Race to the Bottom
The Weekly Standard | 12/30/2002 | Stephen F. Hayes

There they go again. . .

DEMOCRATS GOT SMART about the Trent Lott controversy too late. A few days before Lott stepped down as majority leader, prominent Democratic politicians and pundits--Rep. John Lewis, Jesse Jackson, James Carville, Lanny Davis--began saying that Lott should remain. They all spoke of forgiveness and redemption and deplored the harsh world of Washington politics.

Even the most casual observer could see that Democrats wanted Lott to keep his official job, as Senate GOP leader, and his unofficial one, as the face of Republican racism. Even as top Democratic partisans were making nice with Lott, former President Bill Clinton was reinforcing the notion that Lott's offensive words were a gaffe that had exposed a Republican agenda "inimical to everything this country stands for."

"How do they think they got a majority in the South anyway?" Clinton asked on CNN. "I think what they are really upset about is that [Lott] made public their strategy." Clinton added: "He just embarrassed them by saying in Washington what they do on the back roads every day."

There you have it--a simple, two-tiered strategy: Keep Trent Lott in power, then portray the Republicans as the party of Trent Lott, neosegregationist. Into the bargain, Democrats would push Lott to abandon the colorblind policies favored by Republicans in Congress, by Republican voters, and by an overwhelming majority of Americans, according to most polls.

Indeed, on that score, Democrats succeeded with respect to Lott himself. Lott told Black Entertainment Television's Ed Gordon that he supports affirmative action "absolutely." What's more, he said, his efforts from now on would be "about actions more than words. As majority leader I can move an agenda that would have things that would be helpful to African Americans and minorities of all kinds and all Americans."

Plainly, Lott, had he retained his leadership job, would have taken his party along on a Repent with Trent tour, trying desperately--a statute here, a preference there--to win the approval of black political leaders. Naturally, any such attempt to fawn his way to favor would have failed. Lott was too valuable to the Democrats. You can hear them now: How can you, Candidate X, oppose affirmative action? Even Trent Lott, who wanted the segregationists to win in 1948, is for affirmative action.

No, the Democrats wanted Lott right where he was--in leadership. They wanted him because they need black voters and high turnouts, or their fragile interest-group coalition falls apart. For them, Republicans reasonable on race and attractive to blacks are a mortal danger.

Think back to the presidential election in 2000. George W. Bush ran as a new, inclusive, "compassionate conservative." He swore he would ban racial profiling. He denounced "the soft bigotry of low expectations." He backed some school choice proposals, strongly favored by most blacks with school-aged children. He was loath to mention racial preferences or affirmative action. His nominating convention was a multicultural wonderland.

Despite all of this, an outsider watching the final days of the Democrats' 2000 campaign could have concluded that George W. Bush was Jefferson Davis and that segregation, lynching, and voting rights were major issues.

At an appearance at a black church in Pittsburgh as part of a last-minute attempt to get black voters to the polls, Al Gore accused Bush of speaking in code on the campaign trail. "When my opponent, Governor Bush, says that he will appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court," Gore said, "I often think of the strictly constructionist meaning that was applied when the Constitution was written, how some people were considered three-fifths of a human being."

Later that weekend, Gore joined Louvan Harris, sister of the murdered James Byrd Jr., on stage in Philadelphia. He listened to her describe her brother's horrible killing by Texas racists. "They spray-painted him black, chained him to a truck, dragged him three miles. His head came off, his arms--dismembered his whole body," Harris said. Gore stood by silently as Harris continued, "We have a governor of Texas who doesn't think that's a hate crime. My question to him is, if that isn't hate, what is hate to George Bush? He had an opportunity to do something for our family. He did nothing."

The NAACP memorably turned that repulsive crime into an anti-Bush campaign ad, featuring grainy, black-and-white footage of a pickup truck, chains dragging from the back. Jesse Jackson was asked on CNN, "Is the NAACP going too far in suggesting that Governor Bush is someone who could support the murder of James Byrd?" He gave a direct answer: "No."

Get that? George W. Bush could support the murder of James Byrd.

"The threat is real," Jackson said of Bush that same weekend. "Clarence Thomas, backed by Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Orrin Hatch--they'll take us back to 1896 [when the Supreme Court upheld segregation]. We'll go back on organized labor. We'll go back on affirmative action. We'll go back on self-determination."

It's worth noting here that Jackson's disgusting remarks--Clarence Thomas would like to return to an America where segregation is legal?--elicited none of the media response that greeted Trent Lott's comments. Three reasons: One, Jackson isn't the Senate majority leader. Two, Jackson has a long history of outrageous pronouncements. Three, there is a media double standard on race. In Lott's case, most journalists showed up late to the controversy and then piled on. With Jackson, there was no outrage at all. Reporter Greg Bolt of the Eugene, Oregon, Register-Guard even gave Jackson's comments a sycophantic introduction: "The man known sometimes as the great unifier and the conscience of the nation hammered home the need to vote."

The Clinton administration, never content to leave politics to the political realm, sent Attorney General Janet Reno in front of the cameras to warn against voter intimidation. Five days before the election, Reno warned that federal law contains "special protections for the rights of minority voters and guarantees that they can vote free from acts that intimidate or harass them." She continued: "For example, actions of persons designed to interrupt or intimidate voters at polling places located in minority areas by questioning or challenging them, or by photographing or videotaping them, under the pretext that these are actions to uncover illegal voting may violate federal voting rights law and will not be tolerated."

Reno was essentially updating the words her boss had spoken in 1998, days before a record minority turnout helped Democrats pick up congressional seats against historical precedent. Clinton, speaking specifically to Republicans, had urged them to "stand up and put a stop" to their alleged intimidation of minorities. "For the last several elections there have been examples in various states of Republicans either actually or threatening to try to intimidate or try to invalidate the votes of African Americans in precincts that are overwhelmingly African-American--mostly places where they think it might change the outcome of the election." Despite several attempts by Republicans and at least one reporter to substantiate these charges, the Clinton administration could provide no evidence.

The attacks throughout the 2000 election cycle came despite the virtual absence of race as a policy issue. Shortly before the election, a think tank that focuses on race, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, polled black voters. Only 2percent polled said "race relations/ racism" was the top issue. Even President Clinton, who had spent much of the fall appealing to blacks on behalf of his party, allowed that the election was "not fundamentally about race."

Yet Democrats had a reason for race-baiting: "I think there's no question that the African-American community, no doubt about it, is the base of the Democratic party," Gore campaign chairman Bill Daley said on CNN just before the election. "So we're going to be working very hard to get that base out."

Gore's efforts to get the base excited were tireless. Shortly after Bush selected Dick Cheney as his running mate, a "Democratic strategist" told the New York Times about well-developed plans to go after Cheney for a 1986 vote he cast "against Nelson Mandela." The suggestion was that this was a vote for apartheid. The Democrats' opposition research was effective but dishonest. Cheney had voted against the resolution in question for complicated reasons, most having to do with the Communist leadership of Mandela's African National Congress. Cheney was hardly alone in casting the vote--145 Republicans and 31 Democrats had voted with him. Still, he was forced to explain the vote--one of thousands he'd cast--on numerous occasions during the campaign. Democrats had radio ads in the can. And a media frenzy seemed imminent, especially if Democrats could come up with the right person to make the accusation.

Who better than Bill Clinton? "Now, all the big publicity is about, in the last few days, an amazing vote cast by their vice-presidential nominee when he was in Congress against letting Nelson Mandela out of jail," Clinton said. "That takes your breath away."

But Clinton's effort failed, and the Democratic campaign had to be shelved. This had nothing to do with a sudden emergence of conscience. Rather, it was a product of poor planning. Clinton unveiled his attack on Cheney's vote in speeches at three fundraisers for Democrat Bill Nelson, now the junior senator from Florida. The problem was, Nelson had been in Congress with Cheney, and he had voted the same way. As a spokesman for Nelson explained at the time: "Bottom line is that Nelson strongly supported two components of the measure, and he considers Mandela one of the century's great leaders. He could not support the third, recognizing the ANC, because it was dominated by the Communist party. This vote should be looked at in context."

There were similar efforts to paint Republicans as racists throughout the country. Democrats were behind some of them. Their allies in the NAACP and the civil rights establishment were responsible for others. In a 2000 campaign that even Bill Clinton conceded had little to do with race, race was everywhere.

It would have been again in 2004 had the Democrats had Trent Lott to kick around. They don't, so it won't be as easy for Democrats to play the race card, but Lott's absence won't cause them to stop trying.

Thou art arm'd that hath thy crook'd schemers straight.

Cudgel thy brains no more, the clinton plots are great.

Mia T, On Neutered and Neutering,

by Mia T and Edward Zehr (EZ)

A LEGACY OF LYNCHING


evidence of consciousness of guilt
at Ron Brown's funeral

YOO-HOO Mrs. clinton:

THE CLINTON RAPES ARE

PRENUP/POST-RAPE SENATE SEAT

Hardball's Softball hillary clinton 'Interview'

Q ERTY9

BUSH: "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather."

Q ERTY6

utter failure

_{rodham-clinton} ^{reality-check}

Democrat Debacle of '02

Q ERTY8

BUMP!

Clinton Was Sued for Intimidating Black Voters in Arkansas
Newsmax.com ^ | December 22, 2002 | Carl Limbacher

In 1989 then-Gov. Bill Clinton was sued as one of three top Arkansas officials responsible for the intimidation of black voters in his state as part of a legal action brought under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, NewsMax.com has learned.

And a year earlier the U.S. Supreme court ruled that Clinton had wrongfully tried to overturn the election of a black state representative in favor of a white Democrat.

In the 1989 case, "the evidence at the trial was indeed overwhelming that the Voting Rights Act had been violated," reported the Arkansas Gazette on Dec. 6, 1989. (The paper later became the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.)

"Plaintiffs offered plenty of proof of monolithic voting along racial lines, intimidation of black voters and candidates, other official acts that made voting harder for blacks," the Gazette said.

A federal three judge federal panel ordered Clinton, then Arkansas Attorney General Steve Clark and then-Secretary of State William J. Mc Cuen to draw new boundaries to give maximum strength to black voters.

"Until last year," the Gazette complained at the time, "in more than a thousand legislative elections, the (Arkansas) delta region sent not one black to the legislature. Last year, the federal district court split a multimember district in Crittenden County that had submerged the large number of black voters in the county."

In a related 1988 case, Clinton had tried to replace duly elected African-American state representative with a white candidate, only to be stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The court, by an 8-0 vote, ruled against an appeal by Gov. Bill Clinton and other Arkansas officials that had challenged the election of Ben McGee as a state legislator," the Associated Press reported on Dec. 12, 1988. McGee is an African-American.

"The case began when blacks in Crittenden County filed a voting rights lawsuit attacking the county's at-large system for electing two House members. The suit contended that the system deprived black voters of a chance to elect a black to the House.

A special three-judge federal court had agreed earlier in the year that the system violated the federal Voting Rights Act.

The three-judge court threw out the results of a March 8 primary election in which the black candidate McGee, was defeated by James Stockley, the white candidate handpicked by Gov. Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

"That was tantamount to election on Nov. 8, since no Republican ran for the seat," the AP said.

Clinton and the other state officials had argued that the federal court improperly threw out the results of the first primary and ordered a new election.

The Supreme Court ruling came as the then-governor was fighting another court battle to preserve racial profiling in his state, a tool that Clinton later criticized while president as a "morally indefensible, deeply corrosive practice."

But a decade earlier he approved the profiling of Hispanics by Arkansas State Police as part of a drug interdiction program in 1988, the Washington Times revealed in 1999.

"The Arkansas plan gave state troopers the authority to stop and search vehicles based on a drug-courier profile of Hispanics, particularly those driving cars with Texas license plates," the Times said.

"A federal judge later ruled the program unconstitutional, the paper reported. "A lawsuit and a federal consent decree ended the practice - known as the 'criminal apprehension program' the next year."

Then Gov. Clinton, however, not only criticized the profiling ban, "at one point, (he) threatened to reinstate the program despite the court's ruling," the Times said.

"The state's position was to give away a . . . program that we're now trying to get back," Clinton announced at the time, saying the race-based stop and search program was more important than even airport security measures.

Three years later in 1991, Clinton actually did implement a modified version of the profiling program that prohibited the use of ethnic screening but allowed troopers to continue to stop cars on the highway at their discretion.

Hearing Clinton's condemnation of racial profiling in 1999, Roberto Garcia de Posada, executive director of the Hispanic Business Roundtable, complained that the then-president "had been a strong supporter of racial profiling against Hispanics in the past."

"He does not have the moral authority to lead a national campaign on this issue. If President Clinton truly meant what he said . . . he should apologize to all those Hispanics who suffered this 'morally indefensible' practice, which he publicly supported," de Posada said.

On Thursday and Friday both ex-President Clinton and his wife, Democratic Party presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, criticized Republicans for trying to suppress the black vote in states like Arkansas and Florida. But reporters declined to ask either Clinton about the well documented record of black voter disenfranchisement in Arkansas while they ran the state.

EXHUME & EXAMINE RON BROWN'S BODY NOW
BUMP!

At least in the case of Ron Brown, why aren't Americans aggressively pushing Congress and the Justice Department to get at the truth? James Dale Davidson has a theory:
"We're in the point of a hillbilly song, and the line was, 'We really don't want to know.' I really don't want to know. People sometimes shy away from unhappy truths."
Gary Lane
Dying to Tell: The Mysterious Deaths of Clinton Colleagues


It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope.
We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth,
and listen to the song of that siren
till she transforms us into beasts.
Is this the part of wise men,
engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?
Are we disposed to be the number of those
who, having eyes, see not,
and having ears, hear not,
the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?
For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost,
I am willing to know the whole truth;
to know the worst, and to provide for it.
Patrick Henry
In a dark time, the eye begins to see.
Theodore Roethke

"I will not go down alone." RON BROWN (DAYS BEFORE HIS DEATH) TO BILL CLINTON

evidence of consciousness of guilt
at Ron Brown's funeral
A LEGACY OF LYNCHING