-Caveat Lector-
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/
<A HREF="http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/">Phyllis Schlafly Report Index</A>
Clinton's Post-Impeachment Push for Power
How Clinton Is Using Kosovo
Bill Clinton is riding high since his "not guilty" verdict and, unfortunately,
the Republican Congress is letting him get away with his foreign and domestic
grabs for power. Kosovo is much more important to Americans than just pictures
on the evening television news about a faraway conflict.
First, it's a "wag the dog" public relations ploy to involve us in a war in
order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were
addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the
"life is truer than fiction" movie Wag the Dog. The very day after his
acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to "move on" from the subject of impeachment
by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil
war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for
independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-
American command.
Clinton overrode major concerns of senior Pentagon officials that the
Administration has no clear-cut military goals and that the fighting will get
bloodier as the weather improves. They believe this will seriously overburden
U.S. ground forces already committed to other missions in the Persian Gulf,
Bosnia, and Korea.
The claim that our expedition into Kosovo is to guard a "peace settlement" is
another Clinton lie because there is no peace to keep, there is no hope that
our involvement can eliminate the causes of the conflict, and there are even
questions about who is at fault in the civil war. Clinton's Kosovo war will,
like Bosnia (where we still have 6,900 U.S. troops), become a permanent, no-
exit, costly U.S. project, and it could even degenerate into a Somalia-type
fiasco. Clinton's statements about Kosovo are no more to be trusted than
anything else he says.
Second, by putting U.S. troops in Kosovo, Clinton is provoking terrorist
attacks by Islamic radicals connected to Saudi renegade Osama bin Laden, who
has declared a worldwide war on Americans. Fanatics bent on jihad against the
"Great Satan" United States could hardly ask for a more tempting target than
Americans deployed close to terrorist bases in northern Albania.
Even more dangerous, entering the Kosovo war may provoke terrorist retaliation
within the United States. It's not only our U.S. troops who will be put in
mortal danger. Bin Laden has stated unequivocally that all Americans,
including "those who pay taxes," are targets. At a recent Senate hearing, CIA
Director George Tenet warned against the danger of a stepped-up terrorist
campaign, saying, "There is not the slightest doubt that Osama bin Laden, his
worldwide allies, and his sympathizers are planning further attacks against
us."
Clinton's reckless meddling in Kosovo, Bosnia, Macedonia, Sudan, and Iraq
exposes Americans to retaliation from terrorists regardless of whether he
achieves any phony "peace" or actually sends in troops.
Clinton predicted on January 22 that it is "highly likely" that a terrorist
group will attack on American soil within the next few years. He is using this
risk as the excuse to create a Domestic Terrorism Team headed by a military
"commander in chief," with a $2.8 billion budget. We should not underestimate
the deceit and deviousness of Clinton's plans to use aggressive presidential
actions to wipe out public memory of his impeachment trial.
Clinton has already issued a Presidential Decision Directive to authorize
military intervention against terrorism on our own soil. Secretary of Defense
William Cohen said in an Army Times interview that "Terrorism is escalating to
the point that Americans soon may have to choose between civil liberties and
more intrusive means of protection."
Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre has been floating the idea of
designating a unit of U.S. troops as a Homelands Defense Command to take
charge in case of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Hamre argues that the
military's role should be formalized under a four-star general, and he has
even speculated about creating a bi-national command with Canada called the
"Atlantic Command."
The far-reaching nature of the plans being discussed within the Clinton
Administration is indicated in the Autumn 1997 Parameters, the scholarly
publication of the Army War College. The article predicts that "the growing
prospect of terrorism in our own country . . . will almost inevitably trigger
an intervention by the military." The article casually adds, "legal niceties
or strict construction of prohibited conduct will be a minor concern."
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 is supposed to protect us against a President
using the Army to enforce the law against civilians. The spectacle of the
military patrolling the streets of U.S. cities is something that should happen
only in totalitarian countries and in movies like The Siege.
Later laws, however, have carved out a number of exceptions. The 1984 Stafford
Disaster Relief Act authorizes the President, after proclaiming a state of
emergency, to send active-duty soldiers to respond to a crisis and serve under
the direction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). On June 3,
1994, Clinton issued Executive Order 12919 entitled National Defense
Industrial Resources Preparedness. It invests FEMA with plenary and
dictatorial authority over communications, energy, food, transportation,
health, housing, and other resources.
Our recent experiences with law enforcement by the U.S. military show the
dangers. When U.S. Army tanks stormed the Branch Davidian compound in Waco in
1993, scores of innocent people were killed, and when the Marines patrolled
the Texas border in 1997, an 18-year-old goat herder was shot and killed.
Third, Kosovo provides a wonderful excuse to demand more spending for the
military and to con the Republican Congress into approving billions of new tax
dollars for what is called "defense" spending but, under Clinton, is really
war spending. The Kosovo expedition will be expensive like Bosnia, which has
already cost the United States $8 billion, and current costs are running at
another $2 billion a year.
Instead of giving the American people the tax cuts we deserve, Congress will
piously claim they are increasing "defense" spending --- but the money won't
go for defense or for the anti-missile system we need to protect our people
against the 13 Communist Chinese intercontinental ballistic missiles whose
accuracy was enhanced by Clinton's treacherous China policy. The "defense"
spending will go for wars in Kosovo and Bosnia and any place else Clinton
sends U.S. troops.
Fourth, Clinton's Kosovo foray will take America another large step into what
he called the "web of institutions and arrangements" for the "new global era."
Clinton and his chief foreign policy gurus, Strobe ("global nation") Talbott
and Madeleine ("why have a military if we can't use it") Albright are
determined to use American troops as global policemen and global social
workers all over the world.
As far back as Clinton's issuance of Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD
25) in 1994, Clinton has been asserting his power to assign U.S. troops to
serve under foreign command. The Washington Post reported on January 30 that
"senior Pentagon officials [Clinton's appointees, of course] for the first
time said they would be willing to place U.S. troops under foreign command" in
Kosovo.
Where is the outrage from Republican leaders? The 1996 Republican Platform
promised that "Republicans will not subordinate United States sovereignty to
any international authority. We oppose the commitment of American troops to
U.N. 'peacekeeping' operations under foreign commanders."
Even the overpublicized 1994 "Contract With America" promised that "We would
prohibit the Defense Department from taking part in military operations that
place U.S. troops under foreign command." So, where are the words of protest
we have a right to expect from the many Members of Congress who signed that
Contract? Except from a few patriots such as Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) and Rep.
Ron Paul (R-TX), we hear a deafening silence.
Unfortunately, some establishment Republicans are compromised because they are
making money from foreign governments through lobbying or speechmaking or
financial deals. They are giving Clinton a veneer of "bipartisanship" for his
expensive interventionist escapades.
Fifth, the Kosovo escapade is another Clinton test of Congress and the
American people to see if they will let him get by with such a patently
dictatorial, unconstitutional action. Events in Kosovo are absolutely no
threat to U.S. national security. The Clinton Administration pretends to fear
that the Kosovo conflict could spread if we don't intervene. When asked on the
Lehrer NewsHour on February 23 where he was afraid it would spread to,
Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger said Albania and Bosnia --
which, of course, are just as remote as Kosovo. It is far more likely that
U.S. intervention will cause any spread in the conflict, not prevent it.
Not only is there nothing in the U.S. Constitution to justify U.S.
intervention in Kosovo, there is also nothing in the NATO Charter to justify
it. NATO action in Kosovo is a radical departure from anything NATO has done
in the past or has ever been authorized to do. Kosovo is outside of NATO's own
territorial domain, and by its threats of air strikes and ground troops, NATO
is breaching the territory of a sovereign nation.
Clinton's intervention in Kosovo validates the position of Senator John
Ashcroft (R-MO) and others who opposed the ratification of the NATO Expansion
Treaty last year. That treaty purported to be merely a promise to go to war to
defend the borders of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, but it was
actually a mechanism to entrap the United States into sending our service
personnel, under foreign commanders, to answer 911 calls to break up domestic
brawls in any foreign country. Clinton is threatening to bomb the Serbs, not
because they have invaded another country, but because they refuse to accept a
U.S.-crafted agreement enforced by NATO troops.
Every now and then, some Americans voice the hope that, if these conflicts are
a bother to Europe, European countries should take over the task of dealing
with them. But Europeans, who are busy trying to make the euro replace the
dollar as the world's premier currency, continue to expect American
mercenaries to do our duty as their policemen.
Clinton's intervention in Kosovo cannot possibly solve the problem there any
more than our years in Bosnia have solved that problem. Americans simply are
not capable of erasing ethnic enmities that have festered for centuries. The
Serbs consider Kosovo part of their country because it is the cradle of their
culture and Orthodox Christian religion. The ethnic Albanians, who are mostly
Muslims, want independence from Serb control, institutions and language.
If Republicans allow Clinton to go ahead with his unconstitutional, costly,
foolish and dangerous expedition to Kosovo, where we have no national security
interest, they are forfeiting any claim to lead America. This issue should be
a litmus test for all candidates for President. The big issue that will divide
them is, Do they stand for American national security interests, or do they
stand with Clinton in his foolish interventionist policies?
Presidential candidates would do well to listen to the advice of President
John Quincy Adams, who as Secretary of State in 1821 rejected the request for
U.S. intervention in support of Greek independence. America, said Adams, "is
the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion
and vindicator only of her own."
<Picture>
Clinton's Grab for our Bank Accounts
Meanwhile, Bill Clinton's plan to use the Federal Government to encroach on
our personal liberties and monitor our private actions has been steadily
advancing on the home front. On December 7, 1998, the once-friendly Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposed a revolutionary regulation
called "Know Your Customer" (KYC). This is Clinton's stealth plan to monitor
every American's personal bank account.
Here is how Know Your Customer is projected to function. All banks will be
required to determine each customer's sources of funds; determine each
customer's normal and expected bank transactions; computerize a financial
profile on every customer's deposits and withdrawals; and report transactions
"inconsistent" with the expected pattern to the federal gestapo.
KYC will require every bank to maintain a computer record of the amounts you
normally deposit each month and the sources of the money (e.g., your weekly
paycheck, your Social Security, your stock dividends) and the amounts you
normally withdraw each month (e.g., rent or mortgage, automobile payment,
food, utilities, credit card payment, cash for pocket money).
If you deviate significantly from this pattern (such as by earning some extra
money or buying or selling a car), the KYC snoops in your local bank will
forward your "suspicious" transactions to a huge database in Detroit called
the Suspicious Activity Reporting System, which is administered by FinCEN
(Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) and shared with a dozen other
government agencies.
The Clinton Administration's stealth plan to monitor everyone's personal bank
account, fortunately, has hit a bump in the road. As of this writing, the
number of public comments received by the FDIC stands at 110,000 against the
controversial Know Your Customer regulation and only 18 in favor. The KYC
regulation was simultaneously announced by the Federal Reserve System, the
Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Comptroller of the Currency as well as
the FDIC (which proves that KYC was a well-orchestrated Clinton Administration
plan), but those other agencies have not revealed how many negative comments
they have received.
About 93% of the critical comments received by the FDIC came from individuals,
not banks. The large number from individuals proves the new power of the
Internet (including Eagle Forum's website and e-mail) to alert the grassroots
to Clinton's privacy-invading maneuvers. Some bankers have spoken out against
KYC. John Stafford, a spokesman for the California Bankers Association,
charged that KYC is both intrusive and cumbersome and really means "Invade
your customers' privacy." John Ehrensperger of Atlanta's Sun Trust Bank
commented, "It turns us into surveillance agents for the government."
The small number of complaints from bankers reflects the fact that the
American Bankers Association originally endorsed KYC and may have helped to
draft it. The biggest banks are happy to use a federal regulation as "cover"
for computerizing nosy details about their customers because that information
is so valuable for marketing purposes. Under current federal law, a bank may
sell or transfer any information it acquires about its customers to a third
party, such as a direct marketer or another financial institution, without
notifying the customer. Your bank can disclose your account balances,
certificate of deposit maturity dates and balances, and information about
checks written or deposited into your account.
Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) has introduced S.187, the Financial Information
Privacy Act, to require banks to tell their customers what data it sells or
shares, to whom and for what purposes, and to give its customers the right to
"opt out." That's good as far as it goes, but we also need legislation to stop
the banks from giving such information to the government.
Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) has introduced the American Financial Institutions
Privacy Act to block implementation of the Know Your Customer regulations.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced the Financial Privacy Protection Package
to do likewise, and to sunset the Bank Secrecy Act that has encouraged such
overreaching regulations, and to allow Americans to see their own FinCEN files
(similar to laws that allow us to see our own FBI and credit bureau files).
Where is this leading us? The stakes for Americans are clearly defined in a
timely new book called The End of Money and the Struggle for Financial Privacy
by Richard W. Rahn, Ph.D., nationally known economist and now a senior fellow
with the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. Describing how the new
technologies are making rapid and dramatic changes in our lifestyle, he poses
the question of whether this will bring us more freedom or less. The answer
depends on whether or not we permit Big Government to conspire with Big
Business to monitor not only all our financial transactions, but also our
ordinary daily activities. The Big Government advocates are trying to claim
that individual control over technological innovation is "suspect" and a
threat to law enforcement.
The major excuse for Clinton's assault on our financial privacy is "money
laundering," most of which comes from the illegal drug trade. But attempts to
stop drug use by chasing money launderers have been a costly and spectacular
failure; they catch only a few small dealers rather than drug kingpins, and
they are a gross invasion of the privacy of law-abiding Americans. In fact,
the government averages less than 100 money laundering convictions per year,
few of which even involve drug kingpins.
The threat of terrorism is another Clinton excuse for anti-privacy
regulations, but there is no evidence that any significant terrorist was ever
deterred by the money-laundering cops. The billions of dollars wasted in
pursuing money laundering has merely increased the power of the politicians to
monitor our lives and increased the number of busybody bureaucrats with a
vested interest in retaining useless jobs.
Hitler and Stalin gave us the model of how tyranny takes over and maintains
itself. Pass so many laws that everyone is a potential criminal, and then law
enforcement can be arbitrary, selective, and very political. That's why the
Clinton Administration has pushed the creation of hundreds of new federal
crimes by legislation and thousands more by federal regulations. Any act of
dishonesty in which a mailed item, a telephone call, or a bank deposit plays a
role is now a federal crime.
We don't trust the Clinton Administration to have the kind of information
about our personal lives that the KYC regulation would provide. Even if the
FDIC says that it is withdrawing KYC in the face of a mountain of adverse
public comment, that's not good enough because the Clinton Regulators will
connive to achieve the same goal incrementally. Congress should pass a law
specifically prohibiting Know Your Customer.
<Picture>
Power Grab through Executive Order
Bill Clinton has unleashed a blizzard of Executive Orders to grab new powers
for the executive branch, make broad public policy changes, and even
restructure our governmental system. Executive Orders have a proper place in
federal rulemaking and in implementing the routine business of the executive
departments. But Clinton has discovered that Presidential Executive Orders
function in a Never Never Land of almost unlimited power, and he is pressing
the envelope to move his agenda, both domestic and foreign.
Clinton advanced three of his favorite goals when he issued Executive Order
(EO) 13107 on December 10. He increased executive branch authority, he moved
America closer into the "web" of treaties, which he promised in his address to
the United Nations on September 22, 1997, and he rewarded the feminists who
are stood by him in his impeachment trial.
EO 13107, entitled Implementation of Human Rights Treaties, sets up an
Interagency Working Group, with representatives from major federal
departments, to implement our alleged "obligations" under the many United
Nations treaties on human rights "to which the United States is now or may
become a party in the future."
Clinton's impudence in presuming to implement treaties that the Senate has
refused to ratify is characteristic. Congress had to pass legislation last
year to forbid him from using funds to implement the Global Warming Treaty,
which the Senate won't ratify.
Bill Clinton has almost two more years as President. Congress and the American
people must call a halt to his unprecedented and unconstitutional grab for new
executive-branch powers through phony "peacekeeping" expeditions, using the
Army for domestic law enforcement, monitoring our bank accounts and cell phone
whereabouts, building databases of our medical records, and issuing power-
grabbing Executive Orders. Our freedom and independence are at stake.
You can now renew your subscription, and order Eagle Forum materials online:
http:/www.eagleforum.org/order
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
