You like that huh. Here have some more, You are a pathetic waste of pond scum. Without about as much integrity as Bill Klinton.
This is Clinton's recession, caused by corruption. But it is Bush's genius that is kicking ass in Afghan.
Clinton the fascist.
PERSPECTIVES ON ENRON-ESCALANTE
IT IS MOST CORRECTLY DEFINED AS FASCISM!
By: Ted Lang
It is nothing less than astonishing and totally unbelievable to witness the perception of Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, appearing on NBC’s McLaughlin Group this past Sunday, January 20th, conversing in a manner evidencing his nonchalant approval of government intervention and partnership in private sector corporate, capitalist affairs, now so in focus relative to Enron. His acceptance of government-sponsored and backed loans to ensure corporate endeavors, in my judgment, betrays free-market conservatism so vital to the great individual freedoms slowly eroding away due to our government’s heavy handed overregulation of virtually all matters, public and private!
The perspectives on the Enron affair are these: First, the media will barnaclize themselves on this issue and do whatever it takes to connect President Bush to wrong-doing in this matter, even if none can be found; second, if nothing can be found to immerse Bush in this mess, a long extended media coverage will serve to imply wrong-doing on the part of Bush so that Democrats will be provided referral ammunition in the November elections; and finally, this serves to promote the evils of capitalism for the Marxist leaning media!
The error of Big Brother government in this matter is typified by the underlying motives of anti-socialist capitalism, profits to be enjoyed by the few, at the expense of the many. This typifies what the media and the Left are trying to propagandize as to what is wrong with capitalism. But more realistically, this is not capitalism; it’s an advanced form of socialism, most correctly defined as fascism!
As has previously been pointed out in this column, Enron CEO Ken Lay purchased favoritism by donating heavily to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and to Clinton and Gore. Virtually every panel member on every talk show obviously consents with government involvement and heavy participation in aiding and guiding large private sector corporations.
Why is this so accepted? Why is this so all right? This is not anything like government contracting for private sector goods and services required by government to conduct its operations for the general welfare of the people who empower government. It’s not the same as when our government acquires computers from IBM, or aircraft from Boeing, or submarines from Electric Boat Division! This is not merely hashing out contractual specifications, requirements, terms and conditions!
David Brooks, senior editor at the Weekly Standard, wrote an article which originally appeared in the magazine and was reprinted on January 20, 2002 in the Newark Star-Ledger, entitled "Enron: Having a party. Any party will do." The title alone says it: There is no one party involved here; yet the Leftmedia wants to pin it all on Bush!
Brooks begins: "On July 5, 1995, Enron Corp. donated $100,000 to the [DNC]. Six days later, Enron executives were on a trade mission with Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor to Bosnia and Croatia. With Kantor’s support, Enron signed a $100 million contract to build a 150-megawatt power plant. Enron, then a growing giant in energy trading, practically had a reserved seat on Clinton administration trade junkets. Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, who egregiously linked political donations to government assistance, accompanied Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay on a mission to India." It was the contractual default by India, which became the tree limb that broke the back of Enron’s P&L statement in the third quarter.
Remember the Palmisano [Enron] memo resulting when Lay, Clinton and Gore all pow-wowed on this from the outset: "…would do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States." And, this would be "…good for Enron stock!!" The previous quotes were taken again from a January 16th Washington Times piece by Jerry Seper.
Brooks goes on: "After Lay’s trip to India with Brown, Enron received nearly $400 million in U.S. government assistance so that it could build a power plant south of Bombay [Emphasis added]. According to reports in the Houston Chronicle at the time, the Export-Import Bank kicked in $298 million, while another federal agency, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, put up $ 100 million."
Another "federal agency?" Do you remember being asked if you wanted to invest in Enron? Did anyone from the federal government offer potential future dividends or bond interest from these Clintonian "investments?"
This is precisely the type of government meddling qualifying as control, combined with the overt intent to write legislation to tailor the market place to fit Enron’s needs. This is "Republican?"
etherzone.com |
