Re: [CTRL] Why some of us fear Clinton?
-Caveat Lector- On 24 Jul 99, , William quoted someone who said: Well, it is time someone explained the right's fear of Bill Clinton. For if any of us hate Bill Clinton -- and certainly we shouldn't hate anyone, as the Bible says -- it is fear, at bottom, that inspires us. This is not a proud acknowledgement, but an honest one. Some of us really do fear Clinton. We experience his term in office as a dangerous time, as a time in which American institutions are exposed to corruption and degradation. It is a time when freedom is imperiled at home and national security is weakened abroad. Left? Liberal? It should be apparent by now that Bill is merely the opening act for the main attraction which is coming to this nation-- An "entre acte" kind of thing or intermission or a distraction, designed to pave the way for George2. I can't imagine that anyone who could really be called "left" or "liberal" would have a ghost of a chance in these times when even dead center is considered radically, dangerously "left." First Reagan, then Bush, then Clinton, then Bush--and who is that little man behind the curtain making the calls and pushing the buttons? sno0wl DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot 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
Re: [CTRL] Why some of us fear Clinton?
-Caveat Lector- On Sat, 24 Jul 1999, Howard R. Davis III wrote: Mr. Davis writes: Why don't you understand why the "far right" is opposed to Clinton? Are you in favor of "the evil nataional security state"? If not, why are you surprized that others might be fearful of a president who has "sold out" to it? In answer your question: I've been in opposition to the national security state since the time of the Viet Nam War. It represents a threat to the civil liberties of all Americans. But from the outset, the Republican party and members of the Far Right wing have sponsored and supported its continued growth and development out of fear of communism. When the FBI and the CIA were systematically violating the rights of Americans at home, the far right wing of the Republican party remained silent. Why? Because the Republican party was not interested in protecting the civil liberties of progressives. They applauded the Federal government when it carried out a no-holds barred program of persecution of American citizens. Many civil rights workers and war protestors were thrown in jail or they lost their means of earning a livelihood were taken away from them through the Federal government's program of blackmail and intimidation. All of this well-documented, I don't think it needs any further comment. But where was the far right? Well, they were supporting these repressive measures. All of it was justified in the name of the war against communism. Corporate America, the largest contributor to the Republican party, saw the cold war as a golden opportunity to increase its profits by selling the American people on the need to create a national security state. By keeping the economy on a wartime footing, the security state has grown into the behemoth it is today. It hasn't been handouts to the poor that has bankrupted the system. The federal government exists as a tool, a servant of PRIVATE interests. And those interests represent less than one percent of the total population. It has been the liberal wing of the Democratic party that has defended the civil liberties of minorities and political dissenters over the years. In contrast, the far right of the Republican party has argued for the implementation of a police state in America, presumably, to fight communism and "crime." Please look at Colonel Oliver North's statements in support of martial law during the Reagan years. He might have been a "liberal" (however you want to define the term) years ago, but it's pretty obvious he has done nothing to challenge the corporate control of the American political apparatus. Mr. Davis wrote: The post to which you have made the above answer does not, in fact, accuse Clinton of being a "liberal". It accuses him of being a Marxist or a Communist. Its only mention of "liberals" was in questioning their support of him. Further, if (as has been suggested by many on this list) communism was created by the elite as a method of control, then why would they want him to "challenge the corporate control of the American political apparatus". That would get him killed like at least one Kennedy, if not more. William Tunstall responds: Perhaps Bill Clinton and Hilary were Marxists in your youth during the nineteen sixties. If you lived back in that period, you might have more of an understanding of WHY people were interested in revolution. I remember standing in the front yard of my house in Orange, California watching the smoke of Los Angeles rising into the sky during the LA riots. At that time, racism was embedded in the laws of the land, and many Americans were very doubtful that the nation would ever live up to the shining ideals encoded in its public documents. That's why some young people WERE attracted to a variety of different leftist creeds. Eventually, in response to enormous public pressure, the American system did have to accomodate people who had been shut out of the system. Americans of a variety of political persuasions did have the courage to stand up to the government during that period. Of course, there were others who gleefully persecuted them in a variety of different ways. If Bill and Hillary were Marxists in their early years, it wouldn't surprise me. But Bill has always been a political opportunist. Whatever sympathy he might have for the poor and marginalized has been tempered by political ambition. In order to rise to the top of the political establishment, you must serve the economic and political interests of the people the own this place. And when I refer to "owners," I don't mean the moms and dads who might own small businesses, farms or homes... I'm referring to the REAL owners. ...our korporate masters. If you will go back and look at what Clinton has done during the past few years, you will see that he has helped Wall Street increase its wealth; he has fought hard for NAFTA...he's supported the technology transfer to China...you must keep in mind
Re: [CTRL] Why some of us fear Clinton?
-Caveat Lector- Bill Clinton sold out to the evil national security state years ago I don't understand why the far right keeps ranting on about Clinton. He might have been a "liberal" (however you want to define the term) years ago, but it's pretty obvious he has done nothing to challenge the corporate control of the American political apparatus. The fact that he makes overtures to groups that the Republican party has demonized during the past thirty years is just a matter of vote-getting. On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Nicky Molloy wrote: -Caveat Lector- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_nyquist/19990722_xcjny_why_some_u.shtml Why some of us fear Clinton? By JR Nyquist © 1999 WorldNetDaily.com The Bible teaches us to love our enemies and to hate no one. This is a very noble way to live, though few of us attain such grace. Perhaps the reason so few of us can love our enemies has to do with the link between hate and fear. If someone makes us afraid, we eventually come to hate that person. And, however brave some of us are, fear sometimes gets the better of us. It has sometimes been remarked that the so-called "far right" is irrational in its hatred of Bill Clinton. Many liberal media types think the impeachment of President Clinton was a mean-spirited, hate-inspired attack on a poor sick guy who suffers from a sexual addiction. Some leftists are especially baffled, because they don't see anything special about Clinton that is particularly threatening or dangerous. Well, it is time someone explained the right's fear of Bill Clinton. For if any of us hate Bill Clinton -- and certainly we shouldn't hate anyone, as the Bible says -- it is fear, at bottom, that inspires us. This is not a proud acknowledgement, but an honest one. Some of us really do fear Clinton. We experience his term in office as a dangerous time, as a time in which American institutions are exposed to corruption and degradation. It is a time when freedom is imperiled at home and national security is weakened abroad. I can hear my friends on the left chuckling at all this. Such nonsense, they say to themselves. Such right wing paranoia. But wait. Stop. Let me explain, by way of comparison, where the so-called "extreme right" is coming from. What if you were Jewish. Imagine how you would feel if America elected a president who, as a college student, had worked for a Nazi front organization, then made a trip to Hitler's Berlin (about which he is not very forthcoming). Imagine, also, that he married someone with ties to numerous anti-Semitic organizations, someone who idolizes Mussolini and Franco. How would you feel? I first heard of Bill Clinton 16 years ago. Here is how it happened. I was getting a teaching credential, and one of my classes was on adolescent psychology. The professor in this course, who was a very admirable teacher, seemed to favor me. One day, after class, she invited me to a 7 p.m. meeting at the Science Lecture Hall. At the time I didn't know she was a Marxist, and I didn't know the meeting would be political. She said that if I cared about education in the state of California I would attend. Having the night off from work I decided on going, partly owing to curiosity. Well, I couldn't have been more surprised if it had been a coven of witches. Arriving early at the Science Lecture Hall, I found communist literature -- books and pamphlets -- stacked on tables in the lobby. A visiting professor was the speaker. He gave a rousing talk on overthrowing the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" in America. How would this be accomplished? By taking over the Democratic Party through its left wing. The speaker said it was possible to elect a stealth socialist president, who would effect a peaceful transition to socialism during the next great economic down-turn. Capitalism would be unmasked as a bankrupt system. The people would then support a new socialist system. All businesses would be nationalized by the government and run like the Post Office. This socialist president, said the speaker, could be elected in either 1988 or 1992. The only problem was that of timing. When would the next major economic downturn hit? Some days later I went to visit my professor at her office hours. We talked about the speaker and the book he had written. We talked about Marxism and the idea of changing the system. Then, suddenly, my professor said: "We have such high hopes for this young Arkansas governor, Bill Clinton." That was the first time I heard Bill Clinton's name. But it wasn't the first time I'd heard this idea of taking over the left wing of the Democratic Party and electing a stealth socialist president. I'd first heard that idea in 1981, when I was a senior at the University of California. The left wing activist, Derek Shearer, came to speak on the subject of "economic
Re: [CTRL] Why some of us fear Clinton?
-Caveat Lector- First, Thank you so much Nick for that article. It says it all to me. Second, William makes a statement which I feel is inconsistent with the article: He might have been a "liberal" (however you want to define the term) years ago, but it's pretty obvious he has done nothing to challenge the corporate control of the American political apparatus. If he is a one world socialist then he is part of a regime that has the corporations captive. Therefore he need not court them. Look at corporations now, they are frequently forced to use third world labor rates - socialistic employment to me - to compete because the markets are worldwide. If nationalism is gone, then corporations must go worldwide. Once they do that they are in the clutches of the one worlders. DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot 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
Re: [CTRL] Why some of us fear Clinton?
-Caveat Lector- -- From: William Hugh Tunstall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Clinton sold out to the evil national security state years ago I don't understand why the far right keeps ranting on about Clinton. Why don't you understand why the "far right" is opposed to Clinton? Are you in favor of "the evil nataional security state"? If not, why are you surprized that others might be fearful of a president who has "sold out" to it? He might have been a "liberal" (however you want to define the term) years ago, but it's pretty obvious he has done nothing to challenge the corporate control of the American political apparatus. The post to which you have made the above answer does not, in fact, accuse Clinton of being a "liberal". It accuses him of being a Marxist or a Communist. Its only mention of "liberals" was in questioning their support of him. Further, if (as has been suggested by many on this list) communism was created by the elite as a method of control, then why would they want him to "challenge the corporate control of the American political apparatus". That would get him killed like at least one Kennedy, if not more. The fact that he makes overtures to groups that the Republican party has demonized during the past thirty years is just a matter of vote-getting. On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Nicky Molloy wrote: -Caveat Lector- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_nyquist/19990722_xcjny_why_some_u.shtml Why some of us fear Clinton? By JR Nyquist © 1999 WorldNetDaily.com The Bible teaches us to love our enemies and to hate no one. This is a very noble way to live, though few of us attain such grace. Perhaps the reason so few of us can love our enemies has to do with the link between hate and fear. If someone makes us afraid, we eventually come to hate that person. And, however brave some of us are, fear sometimes gets the better of us. It has sometimes been remarked that the so-called "far right" is irrational in its hatred of Bill Clinton. Many liberal media types think the impeachment of President Clinton was a mean-spirited, hate-inspired attack on a poor sick guy who suffers from a sexual addiction. Some leftists are especially baffled, because they don't see anything special about Clinton that is particularly threatening or dangerous. Well, it is time someone explained the right's fear of Bill Clinton. For if any of us hate Bill Clinton -- and certainly we shouldn't hate anyone, as the Bible says -- it is fear, at bottom, that inspires us. This is not a proud acknowledgement, but an honest one. Some of us really do fear Clinton. We experience his term in office as a dangerous time, as a time in which American institutions are exposed to corruption and degradation. It is a time when freedom is imperiled at home and national security is weakened abroad. I can hear my friends on the left chuckling at all this. Such nonsense, they say to themselves. Such right wing paranoia. But wait. Stop. Let me explain, by way of comparison, where the so-called "extreme right" is coming from. What if you were Jewish. Imagine how you would feel if America elected a president who, as a college student, had worked for a Nazi front organization, then made a trip to Hitler's Berlin (about which he is not very forthcoming). Imagine, also, that he married someone with ties to numerous anti-Semitic organizations, someone who idolizes Mussolini and Franco. How would you feel? I first heard of Bill Clinton 16 years ago. Here is how it happened. I was getting a teaching credential, and one of my classes was on adolescent psychology. The professor in this course, who was a very admirable teacher, seemed to favor me. One day, after class, she invited me to a 7 p.m. meeting at the Science Lecture Hall. At the time I didn't know she was a Marxist, and I didn't know the meeting would be political. She said that if I cared about education in the state of California I would attend. Having the night off from work I decided on going, partly owing to curiosity. Well, I couldn't have been more surprised if it had been a coven of witches. Arriving early at the Science Lecture Hall, I found communist literature -- books and pamphlets -- stacked on tables in the lobby. A visiting professor was the speaker. He gave a rousing talk on overthrowing the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" in America. How would this be accomplished? By taking over the Democratic Party through its left wing. The speaker said it was possible to elect a stealth socialist president, who would effect a peaceful transition to socialism during the next great economic down-turn. Capitalism would be unmasked as a bankrupt system. The people would then support a new socialist system. All businesses would be nationalized by the government and run like the Post Office. This socialist president, said the
