-Caveat Lector- WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War! CONGRESS ACTION: January 21, 2001 ================= TAXPAYER FUNDED ATTACKS: According to the New York Times, "a broad coalition of liberal public policy organizations" (the London Times counted "more than 200 groups") are engaged in scurrilous attacks on the character of John Ashcroft. Being liberals, they of course deem themselves so much smarter than you, and so deem themselves entitled to use your money -- confiscated from you as taxes by the federal government -- however they see fit, regardless of what you, the taxpayer (who, even though you are so stupid, managed to create the wealth that they, despite all their brilliance, couldn't manage to create by themselves) thinks is appropriate. The following quotes are from just a few of the groups in the anti-Ashcroft jihad. Following the quotes are the total tax dollars received by each group in just the past 4 years, according to a study done by the Capital Research Center of data from the Federal Assistance Awards Data System (FAADS) of the U.S. Census Bureau. Feminist Majority: "His utter lack of understanding of freedom of political speech and the right to take political action to achieve social justice exemplifies a track record where his right-wing ideology prevails over his legal judgment." Taxpayer money received in the last 4 years: $115,440. NAACP: "It is outrageously disingenuous for President-elect George Bush to say he intends to reach out to all Americans and then nominate Ashcroft, a man who has an anti-civil rights record, to hold the nation's highest law enforcement position." Taxpayer money received in the last 4 years: $1,153,928. National Organization for Women (NOW): "Both Ashcroft and Thompson would turn over tax money -- including public education funds -- to religious institutions' programs, without adequate protection against proselytizing and discrimination. . The majority of voters in this country, especially women voters, reject the agenda of religious and political extremists. " Taxpayer money received in the last 4 years: $1,168,252. Physicians for Social Responsibility: Ashcroft's ".slavish devotion to the National Rifle Association - including personally recording ads for the NRA endorsing a doomed law that would have granted child molesters and stalkers the right to carry concealed weapons - is what particularly concerns Physicians for Social Responsibility.. Ashcroft's commitment to ensuring freedom for weapons was a major factor in his departure from the Senate and underscores the growing tide of opinion against the NRA." Taxpayer money received in the last 4 years: $15,000. Planned Parenthood: ".reject the nomination of anti-choice extremist former Senator John Ashcroft. . As attorney general, Ashcroft would rob us and our children and grandchildren of Americans' most fundamental right to privacy.". Taxpayer money received in the last 4 years: $57,214,090. Sierra Club: "Ashcroft has an exceedingly poor environmental voting record and is openly hostile to most environmental laws. . Ashcroft also opposes campaign finance reform. . Former Senator John Ashcroft has an extreme anti-environmental record, and as Attorney General could allow utilities, big oil and others to ignore environmental laws. He is a partisan, divisive choice for a job that should be neither, and should not be confirmed." Taxpayer money received in the last 4 years: $12,171. Aren't you glad that you are paying taxes for this? Taxes which, let us not forget, have generated budget surpluses into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Surpluses which, according to left-wing extremist groups and politicians, the government simply cannot afford to give back to you in the form of tax cuts, because they need every last dollar of it -- to help fund the scurrilous character assassination of conservatives. And as the quote from NARAL makes clear, they're going to spend "whatever it takes" -- of your money -- to pursue those attacks. Nobody seeks to in any way stifle the First Amendment free speech rights of those extremist groups. Not like they are trying to stifle John Ashcroft's First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion. But it would be nice (even though entirely out of character, if such a word may be used in connection with those groups) if those groups had the common decency, and a modicum of respect for taxpayers, to use their own money and money contributed to them voluntarily by their members, rather than using the forced extractions of money from taxpayers who may not agree with their extremist ideology. But, it is countered, nobody is seeking to deny Ashcroft his right to the free exercise of his religion, just to deny him federal resources to do so. Aren't conservatives advocating exactly that, trying to give Ashcroft federal resources to advance his religious beliefs, while denying federal resources to those left-wing groups to advance their beliefs? The difference is that there is absolutely no evidence that Ashcroft will use federal resources to impose his beliefs on others; while there is absolute proof (such as the current campaign of vilification against Ashcroft) that those left-wing organizations in fact are using federal resources to impose their ideology on others. "...to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical...". -- Thomas Jefferson HYPOCRISY: There is no greater insult to human intellect and integrity than hypocrisy. Hypocrites will say one thing and do another, and will take contradictory positions on similar issues at different times, all the while hoping and believing that observers are too stupid to tell the difference or note the contradictions. Any dictionary defining the word "hypocrisy" should have photographs of the current extremist democrats in Congress as exemplars of the concept. First in line would be Chappaquidick Ted Kennedy, the self-proclaimed champion of women's rights in the Ashcroft inquisition, who despite his present posturing, couldn't find time to give even passing notice to all the women lying in the ditches alongside the road in the wake of Bill Clinton's passing. Wonder if Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Linda Tripp, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Dolly Kyle Browning, Sally Perdue, Elizabeth Ward Gracen -- or Mary Jo Kopechne -- find it the least bit amusing to find Ted Kennedy posing as a defender of women's rights. Kennedy, in his portion of the inquisition, even exceeded, if that is possible, his demagoguery of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork, by insinuating that Ashcroft committed "treason" for saying the following, ".the Second Amendment, like the First, an important individual liberty that in turn promotes good government. A citizenry armed with the right both to possess firearms and to speak freely is less likely to fall victim to a tyrannical central government than a citizenry that is disarmed from criticizing government or defending themselves." By Kennedy's analysis, we must then conclude that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, and Samuel Adams were also traitors, because they all (along with many others in the founding generation) said essentially the same thing. And those men were not, as Kennedy implied, referring solely and exclusively to the British monarchy; they were talking about government in general -- any government. Seems that, for all the insults that he hurled against Ashcroft, Kennedy could take a lesson in history and the founding of this republic from John Ashcroft. Ashcroft understands, as Kennedy with his bias toward big-government tyranny does not, that, as Thomas Jefferson put it, "The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield." Rather than demonstrating Ashcroft's "treason", as he ludicrously charged, all that Kennedy demonstrated was his own monumental ignorance. Then there are the rest of the committee democrats, the (in Wesley Pruden's wonderful phrase) "motley gang of slime-slingers", who pretended to be so very "concerned" that John Ashcroft as Attorney General might not enforce the law. That would be the same crowd that was missing in action when a federal judge found the President of the United States to have given ".false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process." They were not at all concerned about enforcing the law when that judge said "the President's contumacious conduct in this case, coming as it did from a member of the bar and the chief law enforcement officer of this Nation [emphasis added], was without justification and undermined the integrity of the judicial system..."; and was guilty of ".deceptions and falsehoods in an attempt to obstruct the judicial process...". Not at all concerned about enforcing the law when Bill Clinton's Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the Education Department ordered the Texas State University system to re-institute race-based college admissions, in open defiance of the United States Supreme Court. Not at all concerned about enforcing the law when Janet Reno ignored the strong recommendations of both the Director of the FBI and her own specially selected head of the Justice Department's Campaign Finance Task Force, and refused to appoint an Independent Counsel to investigate Clinton-Gore fundraising practices. Not at all concerned about enforcing the law when the Clinton administration refused, for eight years, to enforce the Supreme Court's Beck decision limiting union use of mandatory dues for political purposes. Following Ashcroft's testimony, Judge Ronnie White (whose defeat for federal judge gave rise to the racism charge against Ashcroft) testified as the sole member of the witness panel. Committee Chairman Leahy refused to permit the simultaneous appearance of a single witness requested by the republicans, an unprecedented denial according to Senator Jon Kyl, and a clear demonstration of the democrat definition of bipartisanship and fairness. Many of the democrats welcomed Judge White with the comment that they have never seen such an unfair confirmation hearing as that conducted for Judge White. According to Kennedy, it was "the ugliest thing that's happened to any nominee in all my years in the United States Senate." Apparently none of those democrats ever heard of Justice Clarence Thomas or Judge Robert Bork. Then there was Senator Schumer's incredible claim that the failure to confirm White was a "double standard" that showed "insensitivity to our long and tortured history of racial relations". Apparently Schumer thought that Ashcroft should have voted to confirm Judge White simply because he is black. Which means that Schumer saw Judge White not as a nominee who was to be confirmed or rejected on his own merits as an individual, but rather saw him solely as a token black who needed to be elevated to the Federal District Court to demonstrate sensitivity to a history of racial relations. Racial tokenism, Senator Schumer? And while you're considering "double standards", Senator, compare your current shameless performance with the love-fest confirmation hearings of Janet Reno. Nor are those organizations mentioned above exempt from the "honor" roll of hypocrites. Take, for example, the comment by the National Organization for Women, whining about turning over "tax money.without adequate protection against proselytizing.". While using over a million dollars of tax money -- YOUR money -- to do precisely that, "proselytizing" for their own left-wing extremism. FOR MORE INFORMATION. ======================== Capital Research Center: http://www.capitalresearch.org/ Your tax dollars for the attack: http://www.capitalresearch.org/anti-ashcroft.govt$$.pdf Census Bureau; Federal Assistance Awards Data System (FAADS): http://www.census.gov/govs/www/faads.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mr. Kim Weissman [EMAIL PROTECTED] *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 ] Want to be on our lists? Write at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a menu of our lists! <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions 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, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== 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
