Time: Fri Dec 12 17:14:25 1997
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: CONGRESS ACTION: December 7, 1997 (fwd)
Bcc: sls

>CONGRESS ACTION:            December 7, 1997
>THE CLINTON LEGACY: "...we live in a Nation of laws and no power sits
>above those laws." That reminder was contained in the official
>congressional report on the standoff, and deaths, of the Branch
>Davidians at Waco, Texas.
>     When this nation was founded, it was decided that there would be no
>royalty in this country, which meant in practical terms that nobody, not
>even the highest government officials, were above the law. What we have
>seen over the last five years is that a disturbing number of people in
>this country no longer value the Rule of Law, and seem to be unconcerned
>when high government officials place themselves above the law, and then
>try to justify their lawbreaking as necessary in pursuit of some
>"greater good". Which simply translates into keeping themselves in
>office. Consider the following official conclusions directly from the
>congressional findings in several investigations over recent years:
>Travel Office:
>   "...White House officials unleashing the full powers of the Federal
>Government against the seven former workers. ...These actions constitute
>a gross abuse of the rights of seven American citizens and their
>   "...an enormous and elaborate cover-up operation, housed in the White
>House Counsel's Office..."
>   "...it [the White House] obstructed and frustrated all
>investigations...it made frivolous claims of executive privilege; it
>abused its powers to smear innocent citizens..."
>   "Never before has a President and his staff done so much to cover up
>improper actions and hinder the public's right to learn the truth."
>   "...implicated the President in a cover-up that was base and broad."
>   "President Clinton and high ranking members of his administration,
>including four successive White House Counsels, engaged in unprecedented
>abuses of executive power and executive privilege."
>   "The White House stonewalled all investigations into the White House
>Travel Office firings and related matters..."
>FBI Files:
>   "...White House improperly requested hundreds of confidential FBI
>background files seemingly without any justification. This was a
>violation of the constitutional rights and private lives of many
>upstanding citizens."
>   "FBI Louis Freeh stated that the White House's actions constituted,
>'egregious violations of privacy.' "
>   "Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen and Deputy Secretary Roger Altman
>acted highly irresponsibly and were derelict in their duties."
>   "ATF's investigation...was grossly incompetent."
>   "...the affidavit filed in support of the warrants contained an
>incredible number of false statements."
>     "If the false statement in the affidavits...were made with
>knowledge of their falsity, criminal charges should be brought..."
>     If any private citizen was the subject of federal investigations
>which rendered those findings, they would be indicted and prosecuted,
>and probably go to prison. Which high-level members of the Clinton
>administration have been indicted for those activities? Which ones have
>been prosecuted? Which high-level members of this administration are in
>jail for those activities? And those are just three of the scandals
>we're familiar with. What about campaign fundraising? Whitewater? Ruby
>Ridge? Hillary's secret health care task force? And the list goes on and
>on. At the highest levels of this administration, the Rule of Law has
>broken down, the laws seem no longer to apply. Government officials who
>place themselves above the law should concern every citizen who values
>freedom. The worst part of it all is that nobody cares. For all the
>anger directed by so many people at Bill Clinton, he is not the problem.
>He, and those like him, are just symptoms of the deeper problem. If a
>con-man drifts into town and manages to hoodwink the populace, we may
>blame the con-man for taking advantage of the people. But the real fault
>lies with the greed of the people, because that is what the con-man took
>advantage of. If the people didn't have a something-for-nothing
>attitude, the con would fail. The people of this nation have the same
>something-for-nothing attitude, plus, due to a dysfunctional educational
>system, a monumental ignorance of our heritage of freedom and the
>fundamentals of a limited Constitutional republic. Both are the result
>of 40 years of liberalism's sympathy for socialism. Bill Clinton merely
>took advantage of our national moral, ethical, and intellectual decay.
>That is his legacy.
>LIBERALSPEAK: In his novel "1984" author George Orwell invented what he
>called "Newspeak", which he defined as: "the official language [which]
>had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English
>Socialism. The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of
>expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees
>of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. To give a
>single example, the word 'free' still existed in Newspeak, but it could
>only be used in such statements as 'This dog is free from lice.' or
>'This field is free from weeds.' It could not be used in its old sense
>of 'politically free' or 'intellectually free', since political and
>intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were
>therefore of necessity nameless."
>     Modern American liberals have perfectly adapted their own version
>of Newspeak, called Liberalspeak. It, too, has its own words with
>distinct ideological meanings, for example: an "extremist" is anyone who
>disagrees with a liberal; "diversity" means racial discrimination;
>"multiculturalism" means that America is responsible for all the world's
>ills and is inferior to all other cultures; and "choice" means the right
>to kill your unborn child, but does not include the right to decide
>where your child will attend school if he or she survives "choice".
>     But modern American liberals have taken Liberalspeak one step
>further beyond Newspeak, translating thought control into action which
>breeds additional thought control necessitating further action, in an
>ever widening spiral of expanding government and shrinking freedom. Thus
>they have established a system of taxation and regulation which steals
>more than half the earnings of working citizens, then they lament the
>fact that those citizens no longer have enough money left to afford
>quality child care, whereupon they propose to establish a government
>'cure' which will take even more money from productive citizens. Thus
>they impose massive regulation and mandates over the health care system,
>thereby raising the cost of health care, then lament that people cannot
>afford quality health care, whereupon they propose to establish a
>government 'cure' which will take even more money from productive
>citizens, and further limit freedom in the bargain. Thus they pervert
>the criminal justice system into a playground in which criminals are
>coddled and rewarded for their depredations, then lament that people
>take self protection into their own hands, whereupon they propose new
>laws which punish the law abiding citizens and steal their freedom, and
>often their lives, as a consequence.
>     As Orwell defined it, Newspeak existed to serve the regime of
>Ingsoc, or English Socialism. And as anyone familiar with his book
>knows, the Ingsoc regime was the ultimate expression of totalitarian
>tyranny. Liberalspeak exists to serve Amsoc, or American Socialism.
>Amsoc has not yet reached the totalitarian perfection visualized for
>Ingsoc but, as any student of history knows, and as F. A. Hayek so
>cogently demonstrated in his "The Road to Serfdom", socialism, whether
>it be the mythical Ingsoc variety or the all too real Amsoc variety, has
>but one possible end result: totalitarianism.
>     "The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the
>values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the
>same as those which they...have always held, but which were not properly
>understood or recognized before. And the most efficient technique to
>this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of
>totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the
>superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual
>climate as the complete perversion of language, the change of meaning of
>the words by which the ideals of the new regimes are expressed." -- F.
>A. Hayek
>     On one side of the "debate": We're all going to die tomorrow,
>unless we reduce our standard of living back to the Middle Ages
>IMMEDIATELY. On the other side of the "debate": We're all going to die
>the day after tomorrow, unless we reduce our standard of living back to
>the Middle Ages IMMEDIATELY.
>     On December 1, in honor of the opening of the Scam in Kyoto, CNN
>presented what could have been a paid political commercial from the Gore
>2000 campaign, which they billed as "The Great Debate" to present the
>"facts" about global warming. Mixed in with the full hour of apocalyptic
>scenarios -- floods, drought, storms, famine, fever, malaria, disease --
>which "perhaps" "might" "could" "may" destroy the earth, CNN actually
>did present some scientific opinion which debunked the global warming
>myth. If you happened to blink, you would have missed it. Never let it
>be said that CNN ever let mere facts interfere with the farce which it
>tried to pass off as serious journalism.
>     Forget all the scientific debates. Forget the data. Forget all the
>reputable scientists who believe that the entire global warming hysteria
>is a mere sham. Forget who makes what claims to which 'scientific
>truth'. Just rely on simple logic:
>     If man-made carbon dioxide presents such a threat to the wellbeing
>of humanity, then why are those underdeveloped nations which are
>becoming the world's biggest producers of carbon dioxide, particularly
>China, India, and Mexico, not restricted by the proposed treaty?
>     If man-made carbon dioxide presents such a threat to the wellbeing
>of humanity, then why do the global warming hysterics still oppose
>switching our electrical generating plants to the cleanest power source
>known, nuclear reactors?
>     We are witnessing the single biggest scam being perpetrated on
>mankind in recorded history. Facts don't matter. Logic doesn't matter.
>Rational thought has simply disappeared under the pressure of a decade
>of lies and a massive disinformation campaign, the likes of which has
>never been seen before. Bill Clinton and Al Gore are in the process of
>demonstrating the truth of the famous observation of P.T. Barnum, that
>there is a sucker born every minute. And like a bunch of idiot lemmings,
>the majority of the world's people can't wait to rush headlong off a
>cliff to their own destruction. Ignorance is bliss, until the bill comes
>Congressional Reports search:
>Travel Office Report (House Rpt.# 104-849):
>FBI Files Report (House Rpt. 104-862):
>Waco Report (House Rpt. 104-749):
>Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Climate Change Treaty):
>Room: 450 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510
>Phone: (202) 224-4651; Fax: (202) 224-0836
>Jesse Helms (NC); Richard Lugar (IN); Paul Coverdell (GA); Chuck Hagel
>(NE); Gordon Smith (OR); Craig Thomas (WY); John Ashcroft (MO); Rod
>Grams (MN); Bill Frist (TN); and Sam Brownback (KS).
>Joseph Biden (DE); Paul Sarbanes (MD); Christopher Dodd (CT); John Kerry
>(MA); Charles Robb (VA); Russ Feingold (WI); Dianne Feinstein (CA); and
>Paul Wellstone (MN).
>Kim Weissman
>CONGRESS ACTION newsletter is available on the Internet:
>To subscribe to c-news, send the message SUBSCRIBE C-NEWS, or the message
>UNSUBSCRIBE C-NEWS to unsubscribe, to majordomo@world.std.com. Contact
>owner-c-news@world.std.com if you have questions.

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail