-Caveat Lector- CONGRESS ACTION: August 29, 1999 ================= WE BELIEVE JANET RENO: It turns out that Attorney General Janet Reno was not accurate, publicly and during sworn congressional testimony, when she repeatedly denied that incendiary devices had been used by the FBI in the final assault on the religious devotees in Waco, Texas, six years ago. The denouement of Waco was the death of 86 people, including 24 children, most burned to death in the final assault. Reno initially justified the assault because she believed that child abuse was occurring. Her response to stop the abuse was to attack the area with armored vehicles and tear gas. She later admitted that she was wrong about the abuse excuse. Sorry about that. Now that the truth is starting to emerge about the siege and assault, Reno has pledged to get to the bottom of it all. We believe Janet Reno. That would be the same Janet Reno who ignored the advice of the Director of the FBI when he said that an Independent Counsel was needed to investigate campaign finance illegalities. The same Janet Reno who ignored the advice of her hand picked investigator, Charles La Bella, when La Bella said that an Independent Counsel was needed to investigate campaign finance illegalities. The same Janet Reno who ignored Congressional requests that she delay concluding sentencing agreements with those who pled guilty to campaign finance related violations, because the Congress needed to question those people as part of their own investigation of campaign finance illegalities. The same Janet Reno who refused to disclose information to Congress about her campaign fundraising investigations because they were still open cases. Janet Reno claims that her lack of cooperation with Congress was only because she was pursuing justice and didn’t want to impair ongoing cases. We believe Janet Reno. For six years, there were people who claimed, despite official denials, that the FBI or the ATF actually did use incendiary devices. Those people were called kooks, wackos, extremists, and conspiracy nuts. Now it turns out that they were right. Perhaps that’s not all they were right about. Let’s examine some of the other claims, which have also been dismissed as fantasies. Some people have claimed that, as fire engulfed the compound, government forces shot at those who were trying to get out of the burning buildings. The gunfire forced them back into the inferno, it was claimed, where they died. Some people have claimed, despite official denials, that government forces fired machine guns from circling helicopters at those trapped inside. Some have claimed, despite official denials, that American military forces were involved in the Waco assault, in violation of federal law. And Janet Reno has previously acknowledged seeking advice from the Delta Force prior to the final assault at Waco. According to a retired CIA officer quoted in the Dallas Morning News this week, American military Delta Force anti-terrorist commandos were indeed "present, up front and close", during the final tear gas assault. Pentagon officials have denied that they participated in the assault. Reno has pledged "I will not stop till I get to the bottom of this." We believe Janet Reno. Attorney General Reno claimed that she has been misled by the FBI for six years about the use of incendiary devices at Waco. She was repeatedly reassured, she says, that nothing of the sort was used. And now that the FBI has changed its account, Reno is "very, very troubled", "very, very frustrated", "very, very upset". She will not rest until she discovers the truth. That would be the same Janet Reno whose boss has been adjudicated by a judge to have employed "deceptions and falsehoods in an attempt to obstruct the judicial process". Certainly, we believe Janet Reno. It may turn out that the new revelations about Waco might in the end have some salutary effect. Members of the pro-Clinton mainstream media are realizing, many of them for the first time, how well and thoroughly they have been hoodwinked by this administration. Perhaps there are a few media big-shots who still retain a modicum of self respect, honor, and integrity, who will finally awake from their six year stupor and re-examine some of the other facile excuses offered by this administration to justify some of their other past abuses. Perhaps at least some members of the mainstream media will regain some of their traditional and much needed skepticism the next time some Clinton mouthpiece tries to explain away the next outrageous abuse of power. It may be that some in the mainstream media will try, many of them for the first time, to ferret out the truth about this administration rather than simply cheering from the sidelines and regurgitating whatever patently absurd lies are offered by Clinton spinners. If the media finally begins to call this administration to account for its multiple misdeeds, those 86 who died at Waco may not have died in vain. TERRORIST FRIENDS: Everyone is aware by now of Bill Clinton’s proposal to commute the prison sentences of 16 people convicted of various crimes in connection with a wave of terrorist bombings in the 1970s by a Puerto Rican independence group. Clinton has advanced his plan despite strong objections from a wide range of law enforcement officials (reported to be "outraged" and "stupefied"), from the FBI to U.S. Attorneys to the Bureau of Prisons. It has been reported by the New York Times – the left’s "paper of record" – that among those pushing for the release of those convicts are some left-wing extremist members of Congress: Jose Serrano, Nydia Velazquez, Charles Rangel, and Eliot Engel. The first two, it has also been reported, have also demanded that the commutation of sentences be unconditional, and should not even include the promise (as useless as that would probably be) to renounce violence. It has been suggested that the proposed commutation is designed to help Hillary win the votes of Puerto Rican voters in her upcoming (maybe) Senate race. That idea, while possible, suggests that Bill Clinton has suddenly developed a serious case of political foot-in-mouth disease (an affliction to which republicans alone are normally susceptible), which for an astute campaigner like him is not likely. For a release of convicted criminals to appeal to Puerto Rican voters, one would have to assume that most Puerto Rican voters either sympathize with criminals, which is an insult to the vast majority of law abiding citizens of Puerto Rican descent; or sympathize with the idea of Puerto Rican independence, a dubious proposition given recent votes in Puerto Rico which overwhelmingly rejected independence. There may in fact be more going on here than first meets the eye. There is in the United States an organization called the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), whose stated goal is the rejection of the capitalist system. They proudly proclaim themselves to be "the largest socialist organization in the United States" and they support "…popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism…[and] world federalism [i.e.: global government]…". Affiliated with the DSA is the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the membership of which includes 55 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, including the aforesaid Nydia Velazquez and Charles Rangel. It is clear that the goals of the DSA cannot be accomplished under our present Constitutional system. It is also clear that the release of violent criminals would certainly help to undermine the Rule of Law under that system, which is precisely why our law enforcement community is so uniformly angered by and opposed to the proposed commutations. The question to be asked then is not whether Bill Clinton is pandering for Hillary’s election. The question becomes, rather, whether he is intentionally cooperating with people whose goal is the undermining of our Constitutional system, or whether he is simply a dupe. And the answer to that question would entail an analysis of Bill Clinton’s fundamental commitment to, and respect for, our Constitution and our Rule of Law. GUN VIOLENCE: Well, now we have the definitive answer to school violence. According to an eminent psychologist from the Harvard Medical School, boys are shooting up schools because – they are not girls. "For some boys who are not allowed tears, they will cry with their fists or they will cry with bullets." That’s right. According to this Harvard psychologist, raising boys to be strong and silent is promoting the outbreak of mass school shootings, and he suggests that educators foster friendlier schools, provide more counseling, and don’t forget to hug. This after at least three decades of feminizing society, teaching boys that the strong and silent role model of the John Wayne variety should be abandoned in favor of the soft and emotive Alan Alda model. Perhaps the reality is precisely the reverse. After three decades of teaching boys not to control their emotions, teaching boys that the proper response to any setback is not to control, but to express their anger, teaching boys that it is good to wear their emotions on their sleeves, all culminating in the election of a leader who cries at the drop of a poll and emotes every time he sees a television camera, the feminists have created what they consider to be the "ideal" man. The feminists have created exactly the type of male they wanted, and, lo and behold, they don’t like what they have created. Alan Alda has turned into Frankenstein, and the feminists are perplexed. How can this be? Men and women are identical and interchangeable, aren’t they? A million years of genetic evolution can be swept aside by feminist social engineering, can’t it? Perhaps the psychologist will next explain to us all why, a generation ago when the strong and silent type was the idealized male role model (and guns were far more readily available, by the way), there were no school shooting rampages. Perhaps he will then explain why the shooting rampages have started only after three decades of feminist social engineering, only after three decades of gender confusion and "values clarification", only after three decades of leftist destruction of all the civilizing societal institutions which had been evolved over generations; only after the leftist assault on religion, morality, the family, and socializing organizations such as the Boy Scouts; only after the politically correct have declared fathers to be irrelevant nuisances in children’s lives; only after three decades of the left teaching society that there is nothing wrong with the wanton slaughter of a million and a half unborn babies every year. Thomas Sowell was more accurate than the good psychologist in his assessment of, shall we call it, the "root causes" of such school violence: the creation of "moral anarchy". "Since the 1960’s especially, we have systematically undermined personal responsibility. … Morality has been seen as just a bunch of arbitrary hassles imposed on us by the ‘power structure.’ Most people have no idea what an all-out war against morality has been conducted in our public schools from coast to coast over the past generation. ‘Values clarification’ programs under a variety of names encourage children to create their own personal rules of conduct, independent of the traditional morality taught to them by their families, churches, and other social institutions. …The high price of moral anarchy has yet to be recognized by those giddy with these dangerous experiments with children’s minds and with the future of American society." That Harvard psychologist, despite (or perhaps because of) his prestigious degrees, doesn’t know what he is talking about. Either that, or he himself has been so brainwashed by our feminized culture that he hasn’t the courage – another throwback to the strong and silent personality type – to see or accept personal responsibility for the monsters in our midst he has helped to create. Sorry, sir, your leftist pals have gotten precisely what they wanted. Have the courage to accept responsibility for the damage you and they have wrought, and stop whining. **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] 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
