nunes at NORTHLINK.COM
Sun Jan 2 03:34:57 MST 2000
Speaking of sucking on the gov nipple how about this from the clinton
CONGRESS ACTION: July 20, 1997
RACIAL POLITICS: This week, the President's Advisory Board on Race held
its first meeting in the White House Conference Center. This is the
Clinton brainstorm, created to help the nation engage in "a candid
conversation on the state of race relations", which the president
announced on June 14. Monologue would be a more descriptive term than
conversation, because the term 'conversation' implies that more than one
point of view is presented, and that all sides will at least listen with
an open mind to perspectives with which they may not agree.
A brief overview of the Advisory Board:
JOHN HOPE FRANKLIN, Chairman, retired historian and educator, M.A. and
PhD. from Harvard University; who believes that everything is the fault
of whites: "The white side has been in control of virtually everything,
so they're the ones who need educating on what justice and equality
WILLIAM F. WINTER, the former Democratic Governor of Mississippi;
LINDA CHAVEZ-THOMPSON, an Executive Vice President with the AFL-CIO, a
self described Latina labor activist;
ANGELA E. OH, an attorney specializing in state and federal criminal
defense. Following the riots in Los Angeles, served as Special Counsel
to the Assembly Special Committee on the Los Angeles Crisis;
SUZAN D. JOHNSON COOK, Senior Pastor of the Bronx Christian Fellowship
Church, from 1993 to 1994, a White House Fellow working for the White
House Domestic Policy Council, served as a consultant to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development from 1994 to 1997;
ROBERT THOMAS, President and CEO of Nissan Motor Corporation;
THOMAS H. KEAN, the former Republican Governor of New Jersey;
CHRISTOPHER EDLEY, senior advisor and consultant, a Professor at Harvard
Law School since 1981 and co-director of the Harvard University Civil
Rights Project, also served as Special Counsel to President Clinton.
The Goals are formally described as follows:
1. To articulate the President's vision of racial reconciliation and a
just, unified America.
2. To help educate the nation about the facts surrounding the issue of
3. To promote a constructive dialogue, to confront and work through the
difficult and controversial issues surrounding race.
4. To recruit and encourage leadership at all levels to help bridge
5. To find, develop and implement solutions in critical areas such as
education, economic opportunity, housing, health care, crime and the
administration of justice -- for individuals, communities, corporations
and government at all levels.
Robert Thomas (Nissa CEO) and Thomas Kean (former Republican
Governor) are the tokens which Clinton expects to point to as
"conservatives" when he describes his Advisory Board as bipartisan; the
former simply because he is a corporate executive (which demonstrates
nothing), the latter because he is nominally a member of the Republican
party. Of course, getting elected governor of one of the more liberal
states in the nation guarantees that Kean's conservative vision is
decidedly moderate. As for Goal # 1, is there any doubt about the nature
of President Bill "mend-it-don't-end-it" Clinton's vision on race?
Nearly half of all blacks oppose affirmative action, yet Clinton wants
to retain it. A majority of Californians voted to end the racial spoils
system, yet Clinton wants to retain it. The Supreme Court has severly
restricted minority preferences in federal contracting and education,
yet the Clinton Justice and Education Departments continue to pressure
private employers and schools to violate those decisions. As opposed to
Bill Clinton's "vision of racial reconciliation", devoid of any
substance, consider Newt Gingrich's vision: "...treat individuals as
individuals." What a novel thought!
Despite the obvious political persuasions of the members of the
President's Advisory Board, can it be that each and every one of them is
so totally blinded by liberal dogma that they fail to see the obvious
lack of any real conservative voices on the Board? They certainly take
themselves very seriously, but do they actually expect anyone else in
the country to take them seriously, given the way the Board is presently
constituted? Grant the members of the Advisory Board the benefit of
doubt, consider that they may in fact all be honorable men and women. Do
they actually believe that conservative voices are simply unworthy of
contributing to their effort, or has it simply escaped their attention
that there is a gaping hole in the perspective represented on the
Advisory Board? There are a wealth of conservative voices in this
country eminently qualified to speak about race relations, make positive
contributions to the Advisory Board, and turn the liberal monologue into
a true dialogue: Ward Connerly, who authored and led the fight for the
California Civil Rights Initiative; Thomas Sowell, who has written many
masterful books on race relations and civil rights; Clarence Thomas,
Supreme Court Justice; J.C. Watts, a well respected member of Congress;
Alan Keyes, former presidential candidate; Walter Williams, a well
respected economist. And these names barely scratch the surface of the
conservatives who would have much useful input to contribute to any true
dialogue on race relations. Unless the Advisory Board demands that some
true conservatives be immediately asked to join their deliberations,
they will be complicit in maintaining the Clinton charade, and whatever
conclusions they arrive at will be rightly ignored as irrelevant
partisan posturing. Because Bill Clinton has done more than ask
conservatives to move to the back of the bus -- he has thrown
conservatives off the bus completely.
The approaching year 2000 census also has racial overtones. Many
government forms, including the census, have boxes in which the person
filling it out must indicate which racial category best describes them.
Due to the increasingly mixed nature of races and ethnic backgrounds in
this country, pressure is building to include a "multiracial" box which
people can check off, who don't fit neatly into any of the other boxes.
Census officials insist that the collection of such information is vital
for a variety of reasons (primarily calculating voting districts and
administering affirmative action programs) and that the multiracial box
will cloud such classification. Health officials insist that the
collection of such data is vital to track people and groups who are
susceptible to certain diseases. Calculating voting districts does not
require any racial determination. Although some people have pushed the
notion that the only way to attain true representation in Congress is to
be represented by someone of the same color, ethnic origin, or whatever
-- leading to gerrymandered voting districts created solely on the basis
of race, which have been struck down by the Supreme Court -- that type
of representation never has been either possible or desireable. "The
idea of an actual representation of all classes of the people by persons
of each class is altogether visionary. It is said to be necessary that
all classes of citizens should have some of their own number in the
representative body in order that their feelings and interests may be
the better understood and attended to. But we have seen that this will
never happen under any arrangement that leaves the votes of the people
free." -- Alexander Hamilton
The other reason put forth for such racial counting is the
administration of affirmative action programs: the government handing
out racial spoils. If we are to be a truly multiracial society, where a
person's race or ethnic background do not matter, in other words, a
truly color blind society, isn't it time to abandon the official
government attempt to stuff people into racial categories? Why not
consider the startling idea of abandoning check-off boxes entirely?
Finally on the race front are the campaign finance hearings, where
the bean counters struck again in the hiring of John Huang. That which
Senator Akaka called racial and ethnic harassment of Asians, turns out
to have been the result of Bill Clinton's attempt to "create a capable
and diverse administration that looks like America", according to
testimony from the former associate director of White House personnel,
Gary Christopherson. Of course, he insisted, Huang was totally
qualified. In fact, Huang was given an interrum security clearance prior
to the completion of his full field background investigation (a new
procedure with this administration), the completion of which was waived
because of the "critical need for his expertise...for Secretary Brown",
according to Paul Buskirk, Commerce Department's former Acting Security
Director. However, former Commerce undersecretary Jeffrey Garten said he
blocked Huang from having any role in China policy at Commerce because
Huang was "totally unqualified".
One of the problems with the hearings thus far is the lack of
drama, despite having the CIA agent who briefed Huang testify from
behind a screen. But the testimony of most witnesses is bogged down with
rambling questioning by Senators who are painfully unfamiliar with even
the basics of interrogating a witness, yet who insist on the ego
gratification of hogging center stage, and haven't the good grace to
turn their time over to committee counsel or one of the other Senators
with legal training who can conduct an effective examination. Chairman
Thompson, himself a former actor, should appreciate the benefits of
staging high drama, especially in this era of media superficiality and a
public conditioned to view life as a TV melodrama. So for Senator
Thompson, a suggestion involving all the witnesses who have fled the
country or who have had their lawyers express their reliance on the
Fifth Amendment. A claim of Fifth Amendment protection should not be
asserted behind the scenes by a lawyer in a letter to committee counsel.
Thompson should schedule one day for all these witnesses, subpoena all
who can be found, and set up empty chairs for those who cannot. Then
call them all, one by one, establish their links to the Clinton campaign
and administration, and to the DNC, then have each one of them sworn in
and sit there before the public and assert the Fifth Amendment. There
are nearly 50 such witnesses, and even a jaded public and block-headed
media could not avoid the damning appearance of a massive stonewall and
cover-up. Which is exactly what the administration and committee
democrats, aided by a complicit media, are perpetrating on the public.
Senator Glenn will object to this, but its time the republican majority
started acting like a majority, instead of running like scared rabbits
every time the administration unleashes its demagoguery, and every time
the democrats cry partisanship while themselves engaging in rabid
partisan defense of the White House, not a search for facts. Indeed,
anyone watching the hearings will be struck by the democrats' fear of
actually uncovering facts. Hypocrisy is at home among the democrats.
GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN: On a lighter note comes the recommendation from
Virginia's Secretary of Natural Resources. If the federal government is
serious about improving the environment, she said, it should close down
during the current heat wave and hazardous air pollution. "We believe
this circumstance requires that the federal government demonstrate its
commitment and leadership by closing for the day...". This wonderful
idea certainly requires a re-think of the whole global warming scam, in
conjunction with the EPA's new clean air rules (which were signed this
week), which will instantly put 280 counties in violation of the new
limits on ozone (nearly double the current number) and 150 counties in
violation of its soot standards (nearly triple the current number). If
the federal government shut down whenever the temperature climbs or the
air is dirty, then by all means bring the heat!
BEVDAV at worldnet.att.net
CONGRESS ACTION newsletter is available on the Internet:
To subscribe to c-news, send the message SUBSCRIBE C-NEWS, or the message
UNSUBSCRIBE C-NEWS to unsubscribe, to majordomo at world.std.com. Contact
owner-c-news at world.std.com if you have questions.
> From: Gary Freitag <gfreitag at GREATBATCH.COM>
> To: RUSHTALK at athena.csdco.com
> Subject: Re: Suppose,,,,,,,
> Date: Monday, July 21, 1997 4:32 AM
> >Another thought on Texas and secession.
> >I wish there were some way to put real teeth in the Tenth Amendment.
> >If that were the case, all those who wanted to suck on a government
> >nipple (to quote Sam Teel) could pack up and go to MASS or CA. I
> >think an America with 50 competing, sovereign states would be an
> >incredibly dynamic nation. Perhaps we need a Tenth Amendment party,
> >whose platform has only one plank, a strong 10th Amendment. A new
> >State's Rights Party.
> >Regards, PapaPaul
> I often argue that governments, like corporations, behave similarly.
> In the case of income taxes, the federal government has a monopoly, and
> as a result, is able to raise rates well above the free market level.
> States on the otherhand, must compete with each other or suffer the
> loss of its people and business. Imagine if a state attempted to raise
> the income tax rate to 33%.
> In other words, a little competition would be good for the gov.
> gfreitag at greatbatch.com
More information about the Rushtalk