From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #223 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Monday, March 22 1999 Volume 02 : Number 223 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Mar 99 20:51:18 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: SS keeping protesters away from Clinton (fwd) On Mar 18, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] What I want to know is why the Secret Service lets a certifiable lunatic like Sidney Blumenthal anywhere near the President. Kevin McGehee Fairbanks/North Pole, AK mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/ Ingredients: Empty space, protons, neutrons and electrons. Warning: May contain peanuts. - -----Original Message----- From: Stephen McGehee To: Recipient list suppressed Date: Thursday, March 18, 1999 12:17 PM Subject: SS keeping protesters away from Clinton Source: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/March1999/031899/protestors031899.htm White House uses "security threat" ploy to keep Clinton protesters at bay Citing "a threat to the President's safety," White House officials are using Secret Service agents to keep protesters out of sight of both Bill Clinton and news media. "The Secret Service has been instructed to remove any and all protesters from any immediate proximity to the President," a White House aide confirmed Wednesday. "The 'official' reason cited is the protesters pose a threat to the President. The real reason is to keep them away from the television cameras." The plan, devised by White House communications advisor Sidney J. Blumenthal, is aimed at the increasing number of protesters who have appeared at events since the impeachment process began against Clinton last year. "Mr. Blumenthal told the President the presence of such protesters could affect his job approval numbers," one White House source said. "It was his idea to concoct the 'security threat' issue so the Secret Service could be instructed to keep the protesters out of sight." At a Presidential appearance in Texarkana last week, protesters carrying placards that read "Impeach him Again" and "There's a Pervert in our Neighborhood" were herded away from the front of the hotel where Clinton was arriving. Secret Service agents moved the protesters to the rear of the building, away from both the public and media view. Blumenthal has reportedly referred to the protesters as "malcontents" and "crazies" and suggested it would be easy to convince the Secret Service that the presence of such protesters posed a security threat to Clinton. "He said that anybody who opposed Clinton must be a nut so it made sense to keep them away from the President," a White House source said Wednesday night. "He said it with a straight face." Some aides reportedly argued against the practice, saying the use of Secret Service in such a way could backfire on the President and give the appearance of a secret police. "What are they going to do," Blumenthal is reported to have sneered, "vote against him in the next election?" Neither the Secret Service nor the White House would comment on the report Wednesday, but other sources told Capitol Hill Blue that the practice would continue "until further notice." - --Doug Thompson - --------------------- Stephen McGehee Adjutant Software http://www.adjutant.com scm@adjutant.com [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 05:20:32 -0800 From: "Harry Barnett" Subject: More from South Africa This may not appear to have anything to do with the US Constitution and US politics, but compare the position of the "Ruling Party" in South Africa (the African National Congress, (Communist)) with the attitudes of the US "Ruling Party". For example, consider this in light of the posting yesterday with the subject "SS keeping protesters away from Clinton". There is not a nickel's worth of difference between them. 4. COMMUNICATORS' SUPPORT FOR RULING PARTY 'PERFECTLY PROPER': BUSINESS DAY, 19990318, P.5 - The cabinet was willing to meet opposition party leaders to discuss the claims that the government's communication and information services (GCIS) was serving as the propoganda arm of the ANC in the election campaign, Deputy President Thabo Mbeki said yesterday. Opposition parties said recently that they wanted to meet Mbeki to raise their concerns over a R4m advertising campaign launched by GCIS on the government's track record during its first term in office. If the GCIS was disseminating wrong or false information, the opposition should point this out to the government, Mbeki said. He defended the GCIS campaign quoting from a 1992 British Conservative Party government manual on the role of government communicators. The manual identified their role as explaining and providing "firm support" for policies, even those which are hotly contested. The manual said it was "perfectly proper" if communicators advanced the aims of the ruling party in such a role. It was a benefit derived from being in government. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 05:36:34 -0800 From: skip Subject: Re: More from South Africa Harry Barnett wrote: > > This may not appear to have anything to do with the US Constitution and US > politics, but compare the position of the "Ruling Party" in South Africa > (the African National Congress, (Communist)) with the attitudes of the US > "Ruling Party". For example, consider this in light of the posting > yesterday with the subject "SS keeping protesters away from Clinton". There > is not a nickel's worth of difference between them. > Not a nickel's worth. As Hitler surrounded himself with cultish henchmen who would do anything to preserve and enhance his power, and their own, so it is with any unscrupulous leader. That's the true meaning of "power corrupts - - -." We're not seeing anything in this administration that is new in the history books - it's just new in America. We may have totally amoral and unscrupulous presidents before, but never a man-child who was so addicted to power and perks that he wouldn't resign to avoid public ridicule. It's truly dangerous. The White House staff, like Hitler's, is a Clinton cult capable of just about anything, and the SS is, in fact, their secret police. The SS charter never conceived the notion of serving a totally dishonest and amoral administration, so they carry out whatever orders they're given by cultists like Blumenthal. I say again, dangerous. Pray that it doesn't get out of hand before Jan 21, 2001. We now know that congress lacks the courage to do what is necessary to protect the nation's interests. Skip - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 10:10:05 -0800 From: skip Subject: [Fwd: USAF Resignations in 1997] FYI, a personal e-mail forwarded to me by a former USN shipmate today. Originator unknown. The suppression of unfavorable news is an especially artful and frightening abuse of power, by both the government and the mainstream media. Adolph would be proud that his students have learned their lessons so well, and the media are so compliant. Regards, Skip > > Here is something I got from a friend today. It's very interesting > reading. > > I had a very interesting ride on a company (UAL) DC10 yesterday into > Chicago. The F/E was retired USAF BG - '61 USAFA (with his ring on), > Vietnam Thuds (shot down once) and one of the original Viper guys at > Hill AFB. > > He said that in 1997 24 Generals retired early (all on July 7th 1997) in > mass protest over the conditions in the military due to the Clinton > administration's policies. > > They had fought in vain to correct political correctness, ops tempo, > deployments everywhere, readiness pay, etc., so they ALL went to Sec > Cohen's office and resigned. Cohen and the Whitehouse told them that > they knew what they were up to and they would not let them get the > publicity they desired. > > The F/E said they were threatened with courts martial and their > non-disclosure statement (the form we all sign saying we won't discuss > classified stuff after we're out) was changed to include a requirement > that they not discuss their resignations or face punishment and loss of > retirement benefits. > > He also said that Cohen told them they would not be replaced and their > positions would be streamlined (duties spread out among other generals) > "So no one will know what you did. Thank you for helping us consolidate > general officer positions<-now get out." > > The F/E said he watched the AF times and said the retirements were > announced slowly, over several months, and only 4 or so of the positions > were refilled. This mass protest was led by LtGen Dale Thompson, USAF, > now retired in ABQ, NM. > > I never heard about this. Did you? What do you think? It's nice to know > people were out there fighting for us. Too bad this corrupt administration > won't let them be heard. If true, and I have no reason to doubt it, they > did a good job of covering it up. > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 16:12:26 -0600 (CST) From: Neil Dickey Subject: Re: [Fwd: USAF Resignations in 1997] skip forwarded: >FYI, a personal e-mail forwarded to me by a former USN shipmate today. >Originator unknown. > >> [ ... Snip, 24 generals retired early, forced to remain silent ... ] I have no information regarding the veracity of that report, though it is plausible. That, as I'm sure you know, doesn't mean it is true. A friend once suggested to me that a major problem with all conspiracy and similar theories is that they can neither be proven nor disproven. This has, on the face of it, all the earmarks of a conspiracy theory: 1) A B*A*D(tm) thing happened. 2) Those involved have (Select from the list below all that apply.) a) been killed to keep them silent. b) been beaten &/or tortured to convince them to keep quiet. c) had their children/wife/dog/mistress beaten &/or tortured to convince them to keep quiet. c) been threatened with (Insert the horror of your choice here.) if they don't remain quiet. d) all of the above. e) none of the above; it's much worse than that. f) every other one of the above. 3) Therefore, NO ONE will ever know the B*A*D(tm) thing happened. 4) (Prolonged shriek, fading to complete silence.) I'm making light of it here, though I hope you realize, Skip, that I'm not making fun of you. What you did is quite reasonable: You heard a disturbing story and are looking for confirmation. I suggest you get in touch with Col. Hackworth (U.S. Army, ret.), who writes more than one column on military affairs and who apparently has the confidence of a great many serving soldiers. These keep him very well informed on conditions in the armed services. His web page is located at: http://www.hackworth.com There is an e-mail form there you can use to contact him. If anyone would know whether the story is true or not, it would be Hack. The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 16:11:59 -0800 From: skip Subject: Re: [Fwd: USAF Resignations in 1997] Neil Dickey wrote: > > skip forwarded: > > >FYI, a personal e-mail forwarded to me by a former USN shipmate today. > >Originator unknown. > > > >> [ ... Snip, 24 generals retired early, forced to remain silent ... ] > > I have no information regarding the veracity of that report, though it > is plausible. That, as I'm sure you know, doesn't mean it is true. > A friend once suggested to me that a major problem with all conspiracy > and similar theories is that they can neither be proven nor disproven. > This has, on the face of it, all the earmarks of a conspiracy theory: Gracious me, Neil. It never occurred to me that there was any hint of conspiracy theory in this story. If it had, I wouldn't have forwarded it because I am absolutely, 100%, honest to goodness NOT a conspiracy phobe. My source was career military insiders, high ranking to boot. Take my word for it as a high ranking insider myself that conspiracy phobes don't make it to that level in the military. I forwarded the story FWIW regarding abuse of political power and the implication of media complicity - not much doubt about the latter since we've observed the blatant bias for decades. Skip - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 99 22:07:00 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! (fwd) Laughter, the best medicine after all.....:-) On Mar 20, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >From The Washington Times Weekend Edition (March 19-21, 1999), "Inside Politics" http://www.washtimes.com/politics/inside.html Copyright =A9 1999 News World Communications, Inc. SLAP SHOT Seems like the National Hockey League's Nashville Predators are having a bit of sport with the Lewinsky scandal. After a player was penalized in Tuesday's game, the Nashville arena's big screen TV showed a picture of President Clinton with an impersonator's voice saying: "Let me say once and for all I did not have physical contact with that player." The Nashville Tennessean newspaper reports that after "a moment of stunned silence, the arena erupted in laughter." The faux-Clinton vignette is one of three such clips being shown during the Predators' NHL games, and the idea seems to have been inspired by TV's Conan O'Brien, who has been putting words in the president's mouth for years. Kevin McGehee Fairbanks/North Pole, AK mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/ Ingredients: Empty space, protons, neutrons and electrons. Warning: May contain peanuts. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 99 22:07:43 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: McGehee's News & Comment: March 20, 1999 (fwd) On Mar 20, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] McGEHEE'S NEWS & COMMENT (c) 1999 KEVIN McGEHEE North Pole, Alaska mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/ Permission granted to anyone wishing to forward, redistribute, or broadcast this article WITH FULL ATTRIBUTION. ================================================================ NATIONAL DEFENSE IS NOT OPTIONAL By now -- especially in the wake of the all but unanimous Senate go-ahead to developing a ballistic missile defense -- only the most way-out, squishier than squishy, "All that is needed for good to triumph over evil is for good to give evil a hug" wackos are still living in the days when America's safety was to be guaranteed, not with a tangible defense strategy, but with touchy-feely "diplomacy." Don't get me wrong, there is a great deal to be said for diplomacy. It can head off wars that would result from actual misunderstanding, and it can enable nations friendly to one another to come to agreements that bring about a mutual advantage. But the history of the 20th Century is the history of disastrously failed diplomacy. Need I mention the Treaty of Versailles? The League of Nations? The Hitler-Chamberlain meeting in Munich, the one that put so much irony into the phrase, "Peace in our time"? The Dayton Accords that were supposed to bring an end once and for all to the fighting in the Balkans? When the other nation already understands us perfectly but still intends to engage in hostile activity, diplomacy can only work when it is backed up militarily. To argue otherwise is idiotic -- and that's putting it politely. Exclusively diplomatic approaches to the first Cold War led to deep Soviet infiltration of many of our nation's institutions, including the government. By 1980 America was the world's laughingstock. And when that year's presidential election was completed, the Diplomacy First (Last and Only) crowd was aghast. Supplement diplomacy with military initiatives? What was this guy trying to do, get us all killed? It was, in fact, the concept of a national missile defense -- intended to put an end to the cold-blooded nuclear planning policy of "Mutually Assured Destruction," or MAD -- that finally ended the first Cold War. The Soviets, rightly having more faith in American technological prowess than many Americans do even today, bankrupted their corrupt regime trying to find ways to overcome what President Reagan's critics in the media sneeringly labeled "Star Wars." Even today we're told that a ballistic missile defense would be easily defeated, yet a *superpower* that spent years trying to find a way to do so -- regarding the effort as necessary for its national survival -- failed and collapsed. The first duty of a nation's leadership is not to be liked by other governments, but to ensure that its own citizens have a stable, orderly (and in the case of America, FREE) environment in which to pursue their daily lives. The terror under which America and the world endured the first Cold War had the effect of making life less stable, less orderly, and in our case less free. Now the proliferation of nuclear arms in a world whose sole superpower is governed by William Jefferson Clinton, has placed the world on the brink of a second Cold War. We survived the first by luck and courage, not by diplomacy. Contrary to what Clinton may have believed when he was trying to avoid being drafted, national military defense is not optional even in the best of times. The Dow notwithstanding, these are hardly the best of times. The anti-military Care Bears can argue that we as a nation should have done more to prevent all this nuclear proliferation, and I would have to agree. For starters, we as a nation should have chosen Bush over Clinton back in '92. We should have kept a President who, for all his faults domestically and in foreign affairs at least understood the stakes. We should never have handed over the reins of the most successful national defense establishment in history to a man who has never had the stuff to take seriously that most serious of matters. But what is done can't be undone. There's no use crying over spilled plutonium. There is only the question of what we shall do given the present realities. We know from experience that diplomacy by itself, with nothing to back it up, is an invitation to disaster. - -30- March 20, 1999 ================================================================ **Visit the McGEHEE'S NEWS & COMMENT archives** http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/news&comment/ The views expressed herein are entirely those of the author(s), and do not reflect those of any person or group with whom the author(s) may be affiliated, unless explicitly labelled as doing so. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Mar 99 13:12:53 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: NRA'99: What Happened to the 1998 Member Initiated Bylaw Amendments? (fwd) On Mar 21, Dean Speir wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] [To any who do not wish to be included on this NRA Election '99 mailing list, requests for removal will be immediately and cheerfully honored. Sorry for the inconvenience.] +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ As the 1999 NRA Board of Directors campaign winds down, there is one issue which has yet to be addressed by NRA or any of the current Board, and that is what happened to the seven members-initiated NRA Bylaw Amendments which were to have been discussed and voted on at the last membership meeting in Philadelphia. Instead, Director Oliver North, seemingly stooging for "The Winning Team" triumvirate of out-going President Marion Hammer, Executive V.P. Wayne LaPierre and the Charlton Heston/Angus McQueen (Mercury Group) entry, stepped to an open microphone and moved that the meeting be closed. This was quickly followed by a second from former NRA President, Joe Foss, an NRA icon, and Ms. Hammer was quick to gavel the proceedings to an early close. Some of the movers of the ByLaw amendments like Joe Tartaro, one of the architects of the celebrated "Cincinnati Reforms" of 1977, were left at dead microphones. Those initiatives, five of which were actually on the ballot, were "referred to the Board for consideration" by outgoing President Hammer. The problem is, that under the laws of incorporation of the State of New York (where NRA is chartered), the Bylaws can ONLY BE AMENDED BY THE MEMBERSHIP, and not by the Board of Directors. There are other considerations at work as well, but that action alone and the "circular-filing" of legally presented amendments in contravention of NRA's own bylaws, are reason enough to suggest that something unwholesome is at work within NRA, something which does not trust its general membership to respond to anything which has not been spoon-fed to them by The Winning Team. This isn't a "dissident faction" (read "Knoxite") versus "The Winning Team" deal... Neal Knox and his merrie band of hard corps Second Amendment faithful had their shot and, for whatever reasons, blew it. They let NRA staff and at least one of NRA's vendors run rough-shod over the organization and ultimately lost control of matters. It's really about how the general membership is going to make themselves heard and their wishes known to the leadership of NRA, a leadership (and staff) which is running the Board of Directors rather than the other way around. A leadership (and staff) which is (and there's no other word for it) profligate with the money the membership is continually sending them in response to a steady barrage of insultingly witless fund solicitations disguised as "polls" and "membership surveys," and cries for "emergency financial help" wrapped in certified mailings! Look closely sometime at where that membership money is going! And not just the little stuff such as those dreadful solicitations and appeals, but some of the little known "big ticket items." Ask yourself why the NRA needs to expend enormous sums to prop up personality-oriented organizations such as Marion Hammer's USF, or Roy Innis' CORE, or LeRoy Pyle's LEAA. But you can't ask this of The Winning Team leadership, because your microphone will be cut off and others will be informed that you are a "malcontent" or a "rabble-rouser." And you can't ask this of the bulk of the current Board of Directors, since they either don't know, or they are too frightened for their continued political existence to answer honestly and openly. Those who don't absolutely toe The Winning Team line are not only not supported for re-election, they are actively campaigned against and listed in the "Do Not Vote For" column. Study that list of 14 names closely... sure, Sally Drews Brodbeck was one of the Knox faithful whose husband got into an ugly physical confrontation with one of Marion Hammer's "security guards" in Philadelphia last June, and Howard Fezell was the prime mover in the successful lawsuit a year ago which forced The Winning Team to obey its own bylaws... they are both naturals for the "Do Not Vote For" list. But what about people such as Bob Hodgdon and Glen Voorhees? What does one suppose that their transgressions were which landed them on The Winning Team's "enemies list." (And make no mistake, that extraordinary Do Not Vote For column is an "enemies list" in the disgraceful tradition of the Nixon administration's darker side.) The Fitzgerald v. NRA decision (available upon request) of 1974 was very clear that NRA cannot use "corporate instrumentalities" (read: "The American Rifleman" at the time, now also "The American Hunter" and "The American Guardian") to influence corporate elections: "The principles enunciated above make it clear that officers and directors cannot utilize corporate instrumentalities such as The American Rifleman to perpetuate themselves in office." [383 F.Supp. 162, United States District Court, D. New Jersey; Thomas FITZGERALD, a New Jersey Citizen, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, a New York corporation, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 772-73.] This is very much at the root of the sole Bylaw Amendment on this year's ballot... those who control the NRA publications control how the membership which bothers to vote, votes. The rest of the time leadership and staff are content to treat the membership like mushrooms: kept in the dark and fed the occasional shovelful of horse manure... except for the regularly schedule pleas for money. Passage of this year's Bylaw Amendment will make it even harder for anyone who has not curried favor with leadership and staff to make a meaningful run for the Board of Directors. And without strong, independent voices on the already over-sized BoD, we will continue to see an NRA which is out of the control of its members, and wholly in the grasp of self-interested leadership, staff and vendors on the NRA's teat. There should be one and only one agenda of the NRA, and that is preserving our Second Amendment rights and firearms heritage. And I don't see as how the Brady Law, the Assault Weapons portion of the Crime Bill, the Lautenberg Amendment or regional atrocities such as Prop. 17 in Pennsylvania (never mind the Utah/Olympic fiasco) can be anything but antithetical to those objectives. But that's what our recently constituted NRA has brought us. It's about "power"... damn the original objective... "we can deal with the gun rights stuff later, let's just stay on top in the NRA, and if we have to dirty up some soon-to-be-former friends and colleagues," [shrug] "ecccch." Well, that's not the NRA to which I signed on for Life. Please, study the bios and ballots carefully, and if there's things which seem strange to you, ask some tough questions about them, especially if you have access to any of those who are running for the BoD this year! Don't be content with the horse manure spoon-fed you by The Winning Team in the publications, fund solicitations and NRA-ILA fax alerts. The completed NRA 1999 Ballots must be received by 11 April in order to have them counted. Time is running out. - - Dean Speir, Life NRA +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ It's not a perfect world out there... it's why we _have_ guns! [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 15:41:59 -0800 From: skip Subject: [Fwd: Inhofe] > Office of U.S. Senator James M. Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) > U.S. SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE (R-OKLAHOMA) > > Senate Floor Statement > March 15, 1999 > > Mr. President, I want you to listen. I am going to tell you a story of > espionage, conspiracy, deception and cover-up-a story with life and > death implications for millions of Americans-a story about national > security and a President and an administration that deliberately chose > to put national security at risk, while telling the people everything > was fine. > > If it was written in a book, it wouldn't sell, because no one would > believe it. If it was fictionalized in a novel, few could conceive it. > But it is true. > > Now for the sake of my statement today, I am stating that the President > withheld information and covered up the Chinese theft of our technology. > But I'm realistic enough to know that a person with the history of > deception this president has will have provided himself with some cover > in case he gets caught. So I'm sure there is a paper trail that he can > allege. The way the President probably covered himself was to include > tidbits about this theft buried in briefings on 40 or 50 others items, > so the significance of it would not be noticed. But a paper trail would > be established. > > Anticipating that, I talked to the chairman of the House Intelligence > Committee, Rep. Porter Goss, and the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence > Committee at the time of the discovery of this information, Sen. Arlen > Specter. Neither chairman was notified of the W-88 nuclear warhead > technology theft. And these would have been the first to be notified. > There can be no doubt that President Clinton engaged in a cover up > scheme. > > Let me read three paragraphs from last week's op-ed article by Michael > Kelly in the Washington Post, entitled "Lies About China." > "In April 1996, Energy Department officials informed Samuel Berger, then > Clinton's deputy national security advisor, that Notra Trulock, the > department's chief of intelligence, had uncovered evidence that showed > China had learned how to miniaturize nuclear bombs, allowing for > smaller, more lethal warheads..." > > "The Times reports that the House Intelligence Committee asked Trulock > for a briefing in July 1998. Trulock asked for permission from Elizabeth > Moler, then acting energy secretary. According to Trulock, Moler told > him not to brief the committee because the information might be used > against Clinton's China policy..." "The White House's secret would have > remained secret had it not been for a select investigative committee > headed by Republican Christopher Cox..." > But even using the President's fictitious paper trail, the earliest > either chairman could have known about it would have been late spring of > 1997, years after the Clinton administration learned of it and, of > course, after the 1996 elections. > > I start, Mr. President, by listing a few things which we now know to be > true, factual, incontrovertible...and not classified. > > For years, the Clinton administration covered-up China's theft of top > secret U.S. nuclear weapons data. They never informed the Congress or > American people about what had happened or its significance to our > national security. > > Let me tell you what President Clinton did during this period time: > > -During this period of time, the President misled the American people on > numerous occasions about the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles > in the post cold war era. > > -During this period of time, President Clinton made statements on over > 130 separate occasions, such as the following: "For the first time since > the dawn of the nuclear age, there is not a single solitary nuclear > missile pointed at an American child tonight. Not one. Not a single > one." > > -During this period of time, he knew that China was targeting up to 18 > intercontinental ballistic missiles at American children. > > -During this period of time, President Clinton signed export control > waivers which allowed his top campaign fundraisers' aerospace company to > transfer sensitive U.S. missile guidance technology to China. > > -During this period of time, he shifted the prime satellite export > responsibility from the State Department to the Commerce Department, > making it easier for China and others to get sensitive military-related > U.S. technology . > > -During this period of time, President Clinton hosted over 100 White > House fundraisers as part of a larger aggressive scheme to raise > campaign contributions, many from illegal foreign sources, primarily > including sources in China. Among guests permitted to attend these White > House fundraisers were a convicted felon and a Chinese arms dealer. > > -During this period of time, John Huang, Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung, > James Riady and others with strong ties to China were deeply involved, > with the President's knowledge, in raising Chinese-tainted campaign cash > for the Clinton campaign. > > -During this period of time, John Huang, who had been given a security > clearance without a background check, was permitted to receive numerous > classified CIA briefings, both during and after his stay at the Commerce > Department. > > --And during this period of time, President Clinton was successfully > stopping the deployment of a national missile defense system, exposing > every American life to a missile attack, leaving us with no defense > against an intercontinental ballistic missile. > > Mr. President, China's theft of secret data on the so-called "W-88" > nuclear warhead may be one of the most serious breaches of national > security in our lifetimes.....More serious than Aldrich Ames. Perhaps > more serious than the Rosenbergs. > > The public needs to understand that this story is true. This is not > about partisanship. This is not about some ancient history of some long > gone Cold War. > > This is about the real world here and now. This is about national > security in its most important aspects. This is about protecting our > freedom and our existence as a nation. This is ultimately a matter which > concerns the life and death of every citizen. > > The W-88 is the most advanced nuclear warhead in the U.S. arsenal and is > carried on top of Trident SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles). > > ..snip... - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 07:35:13 -0500 From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Re: NRA'99: What Happened to the 1998 Member Initiated Bylaw Amendments? (fwd) At 01:12 PM 3/21/99 -0800, you wrote: >On Mar 21, Dean Speir wrote: > >[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > > [To any who do not wish to be included on this > NRA Election '99 mailing list, requests for > removal will be immediately and cheerfully > honored. Sorry for the inconvenience.] snipped excellent reasons for NOT supporting the current NRA leadership. The NRA "leadership" has, in my mind, sold out America and is joining those who rightly should be called insurrectionists. They are no better to me than HCI or any of the other anti-American socialist organizations who are stripping the very essence out of this country and flushing it down the drain. That's why I've ceased sending any money whatsoever to them, until they smell what it is they are shovelling and return to a semblance of support for that which made America great, the Right to keep and bear arms. No more mouthing their support, they MUST back it up with honest and sincere actions that to this point are sorely lacking. Anybody have this years list of "Do not vote for"'s?? Patron member Tom Cloyes - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 09:43:13 -0600 (CST) From: Neil Dickey Subject: Re: [Fwd: USAF Resignations in 1997] skip wrote in response to me: >> >FYI, a personal e-mail forwarded to me by a former USN shipmate today. >> >Originator unknown. >> > >> >> [ ... Snip, 24 generals retired early, forced to remain silent ... ] >> >> I have no information regarding the veracity of that report, though it >> is plausible. That, as I'm sure you know, doesn't mean it is true. >> A friend once suggested to me that a major problem with all conspiracy >> and similar theories is that they can neither be proven nor disproven. >> This has, on the face of it, all the earmarks of a conspiracy theory: > >Gracious me, Neil. It never occurred to me that there was any >hint of conspiracy theory in this story. If it had, I wouldn't >have forwarded it because I am absolutely, 100%, honest to goodness >NOT a conspiracy phobe. I'm not sure what you mean by your use of "phobe" in this context. The word means "to fear," and it appears from your employment of it that you "are not afraid of conspiracies" -- therefore perhaps a conspiracy aficianado. Did you perhaps mean to use the word "phile" (to love) instead? That would put your last line in agreement with what I read in the rest of the paragraph. >My source was career military insiders, high ranking to boot. >Take my word for it as a high ranking insider myself that >conspiracy phobes don't make it to that level in the military. That's not what you wrote originally. The relevant line remains in my quoted material above: "Originator unknown." The wording of your original post was such that it appeared to me you were passing on a story of unknown origin and were asking if anyone had independent knowledge of the circumstances and could confirm or debunk it. All of us have received information, or read stories on any of the various mailing lists we frequent, which were offered in good faith by people we knew and people we didn't know, and which later turned out to be false. My observation was, and still is, that the story has all the earmarks of a conspiracy theory. It doesn't matter who wrote it, or who passed it along; it only matters whether or not it turns out to be true or false, and we don't know the answer to that question yet. Most military people seem to be aware of the nature and extent of the rumor mill, sometimes called "latrineograph," which is a primary means of communication in the armed forces. The internet, for its part, is probably the largest and most effective medium for the dissemination of rumors and half-truths ever devised by man. Do some checking and see if this story holds up -- e.g., find out the names of some of these 24 generals who rode out of town on rails, or see if 24 generals did in fact retire over the indicated time span and what their "official" reasons for leaving were. >I forwarded the story FWIW regarding abuse of political power >and the implication of media complicity - not much doubt about >the latter since we've observed the blatant bias for decades. There's no disagreement here regarding the media and the abuse of power. I said originally that the story is plausible -- that, too, is in my quoted material above -- but that doesn't make it true. I still think it would be a good idea if you ran the thing past Col. Hackworth, as I originally suggested. What harm could it do to see what he thinks? He's been sounding the alarm for a long time now about how the most skilled and most principled military people are leaving the service in large numbers. The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #223 *************************