|
-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Weissman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; <Undisclosed-Recipient:;> Date: Saturday, January 13, 2001 5:23 PM Subject: CONGRESS ACTION: January 14, 2001 CONGRESS ACTION: January 14, 2001 ================= VAST LEFT-WING CONSPIRACY: The pretensions of the extremist left (which now includes virtually the entire Democrat Party) to diversity and compassion are proven to be nothing but obscene jokes. By giving shelter to an abused woman who was an illegal alien, Linda Chavez actually practiced the compassion that the left preaches, and was demonized by "compassionate" leftists for doing so. Sanctimonious leftists believe that compassion is the business of government alone (using other people's money, of course). The socialist left has turned its venom on Interior nominee Gale Norton, for the unforgivable sin of understanding the importance of private property rights to the preservation of freedom. The Founders of this nation also understood that importance, along with every other non-Marxist economist and political thinker throughout history, and the Founders protected private property rights in our Bill of Rights. But anyone who defends private property rights, and thereby the Constitution and freedom, is on the fringe and outside the mainstream, according to the socialist left, and is to be demonized and destroyed. Does there remain any doubt that the radical environmental movement is the home of unreformed socialists disillusioned by the collapse of their fallen icon, the Soviet Union? Then there is John Ashcroft, attacked by the left as a racist for having voted against a black Clinton judicial nominee. To left-wing extremists, there is not a single solitary reason to ever vote against a judge who is black -- except racism. Which therefore makes every Senate democrat who voted against Clarence Thomas a racist. But the democrats are the ones who demanded confirmation based solely on skin color, so who are the real bigots? Ashcroft's record of honorable public service puts the lie to the racism charge, and his enemies know it. The real reason he has incurred the wrath of that unprecedented coalition of left-wing extremist groups is that he is devoutly religious and moral. Religious tests for public office were ended in this nation centuries ago -- but not in the totalitarian and hate-filled world of the left, where one must act, think, and believe in lock-step with the amoral religious left, or one is vilified. The left also impugns Ashcroft's honor by claiming that he might not enforce the laws. Because they are without honor, and circumventing the law is standard practice with them, many leftists assume that everyone is as corrupt as they are. What they really fear, however, is that Ashcroft in fact will enforce the laws, evenhandedly and vigorously. These hysterical assaults not only prove, again, the truly dishonorable character of the left; they prove the folly of Trent Lott's attempt to buy peace by sharing Senate power with democrats, whose only goal is to destroy conservatives. Appeasement by pre-emptive surrender only emboldens your enemies.INDICT CLINTON?: The punditry is swirling with speculation about whether Bill Clinton will be indicted when he leaves office. Clinton's impeachment defenders certainly invited such an indictment, claiming that the legal system alone was the proper venue to punish Clinton's official wrongdoing, and then only after he leaves office. Of course they weren't really serious. They just said that during impeachment because, at the time, it allowed them to assume a phony moralistic stance while defending the indefensible.Hypocrisy and unceasing defense of Bill Clinton can be expected from democrats and other leftists, but pragmatic republicans have also joined the "pardon Bill" camp. They all mouth the appropriate abstract principles -- no man is above the law, we are a nation of laws and not men -- but then jettisons those principles and suggests that it is time, in the immortal phrase of the Clintonoids, to "just move on". Senator Orrin Hatch -- "It's time to let President Clinton fade into whatever he's going to fade into, and I just don't see keeping it alive any longer." Sorry, Senator Hatch, Bill Clinton isn't fading away to anywhere; on the contrary, he is engaged in a vigorous effort to rewrite history to "prove" that he never did anything wrong and that republicans should apologize to him for impeachment; all the while questioning Bush's legitimacy and issuing a blizzard of executive decrees designed to undermine the Bush administration. Congressman Henry Hyde, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee during impeachment -- "The president has had his trial, and it is over…", and to "…follow up with an indictment and put the president on trial would diminish the institution of the presidency and the nation in the eyes of the world." Sorry, Congressman Hyde, there never was a trial, as you well know, and it was Clinton who diminished the institution of the presidency and the nation. Former President Bush -- "He's been through a lot. The country's been through a lot. Let's heal and forget." Sorry, President Bush, but Bill Clinton is not about to let anyone "heal" or forget. The obstructionism and debased politics of personal destruction that he perfected are still corrupting our nation, and indeed spreading through our political system like a cancer. This week Linda Chavez succumbed, politically speaking, to that particular disease. If the destructive tactics of using the power of office for official misconduct are unchallenged, they will establish a pattern for the future. With all due regard for the worthies on the right, and proper disregard for the opportunists on the left, just moving on and forgetting about official misconduct by the Chief Executive is precisely the wrong course to pursue. Few suggest prosecution for personal conduct -- what any person, private citizen or president, does in their private lives, that hurts no one, is nobody's business, and is certainly not the concern of the federal government. But the official conduct of the nation's elected leader sets the moral tone for the government that he heads. As an elected leader, he has been given great power and a sacred public trust. The elected leader of our republic -- significantly referred to by the Founders as the Chief Magistrate, with all of the legal and judicial implications that term "magistrate" carries -- has the Constitutional duty to "…take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…". If the Chief Magistrate breaks the law or abuses the power of his office, he not only disrespects the Law, he disrespects the people who gave him his public trust, and he shows contempt for the Constitution. Some suggest that the President of the United States should not be held to the same standard of conduct as private citizens. They are correct. Because of his great power, his public duty, and his public trust, the Chief Magistrate should always be held to a higher standard of conduct than private citizens. Official misconduct by any Chief Magistrate should be punished more severely than comparable misconduct by a private citizen. Not as a matter of retribution, but to restore the proper boundaries of the office of the Presidency. "BURN THE RICH": For years the media and left-wing politicians have had great fun attacking "the rich" with their socialist class warfare rhetoric. Vice President Gore has condemned what he calls "urban sprawl", which is nothing more than people who achieve sufficient financial success moving out of crowded or crime-ridden inner cities to the suburbs to make a better life for their families. This irresponsible left-wing rhetoric is coming home to roost.When the federal building in Oklahoma City was bombed, politicians and the media assigned blame to everyone who ever spoke about applying Constitutional limits to an out-of-control federal government. By that logic, are those left-wing media and political agitators ready to accept responsibility for the cadres of environmental extremists who use terrorism to make their point? This week the New York Times reported the destruction by arson of what the Times called an "upscale subdivision", on Long Island. The Times non-judgmentally reported the terrorists' portrayal of the attack as "nonviolent" arson (surely a novel description of a crime that puts firefighters' lives at risk). Scrawled in spray paint on an unburned house in the gutted development were the slogans "Stop Urban Sprawl" and "Burn the Rich". Any media or political leftists willing to admit that their own extremist rhetoric has gone too far? COLDEST EVER: NOAA scientists announced today that the U.S. national temperature…was the hottest such period on record. The scientists worked with data from the worlds largest statistical weather database at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.If the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ever issued such a report, does anyone doubt that it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the nation? That breathless media talking air-heads, warning about imminent doom from global warming, would have led off every nightly news broadcast with the report? That Al Gore would have been ubiquitous on every TV talk show, spouting environmental gloom and doom? NOAA did not issue such a statement. What NOAA did say, however, in a report dated January 5, 2001, was the following: "NOAA scientists announced today that the U.S. national temperature during the November through December two-month period was the coldest such period on record. The scientists worked with data from the worlds largest statistical weather database at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C." (emphasis added). Did anyone see the media air-heads warning about a coming ice age? The front-page newspaper headlines? Al Gore claiming that record cold is a sure sign of global warming? You missed those reports? Understandable, because they never happened. NOAA's report has vanished down the media's black hole of political correctness. It would never do to talk about record cold when opportunistic politicians and an irresponsible media are trying to expand government power by stoking public hysteria about global warming. But have no fear -- politicians and government paid scientific mouthpieces are a resourceful lot. There is already a book warning of the "imminent ice age and how we can stop it". The solution? Drastically cut our usage of fossil fuels. Accomplished, of course, by new federal mandates and increased energy taxes. Sound familiar? Those are precisely the same solutions demanded to prevent global warming. See how prescient Al Gore is -- he already touts the Kyoto Treaty on Climate Change to achieve precisely that. Warming, cooling, no matter, the environmentalists have a catch-all solution -- bigger government, more taxes, and less freedom. The extremists who push that ideology have succeeded in turning California into an economic basket case, with energy shortages and rolling blackouts (no, it wasn't deregulation, as the culprits and the ignorant media claim, because deregulation never happened; it was central planning by arrogant government bureaucrats who tried to ignore the laws of supply and demand in order to please extremist environmentalists and whining consumers). And what they did to California, they want to do to the rest of the country. Actually, environmentalists would be happy with another ice age. Said one radical, "I see no possible solution to our ruination of the Earth except for a drastic reduction of the human population." Human misery and death by the millions, that's the ticket! The environment is a religion with these extremists. If you doubt that, look up the philosophy of "Deep Ecology". GUN BAN NEWS YOU WON'T HEAR: Gun control nuts are always lecturing us about how we should adopt "sensible solutions" such as the total ban on handguns enacted in Great Britain in 1997. But an examination of the effect of those gun bans in the 1999-2000 session of the British House of Commons concluded the following -- "That the low level of armed crime in the UK must be due to the rigour of our gun licensing system is a misconception. …to those who are not [predisposed to stay within the law], the present licensing system is an irrelevance." And from the London Times just this week -- "Handgun crime in England and Wales reached its highest level for seven years in 1999-2000, in spite of the ban on private ownership of weapons…. A ban on all private ownership of handguns became law in November, 1997, but handgun offenses have risen each year since." Of course -- law abiding victims have been disarmed, while criminals will always be able to get all the guns they want. Is there any chance that the gun control nuts will start paying attention to reality, rather than trying to legislate their dangerous fantasies?
FOR MORE INFORMATION… ======================== Invitation to indictment by democrats: http://www.velasquez.com/congress_action/ca08202000.html National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) report: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s557.htmReason Foundation analysis of California electricity shortages: http://reason.com/ml/ml010401.htmlUnited Kingdom Home Office (Research Development Statistics): http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htmSelect Committee on Home Affairs ; Memorandum by the Office of Legislative Affairs, "Controls Over Firearms": http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap69.htmLondon Times website: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/?1191106CONGRESS ACTION Newsletter can be found with most web
searchers,
and is available at: http://www.velasquez.com/congress_action/ |
