Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (16989)	7/17/1998 10:28:00 PM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

NEALZ NUZE The Neal Boortz Show -- News Talk 750 WSB -- Atlanta Friday, July 17, 1998. SO . WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT PERJURY HERE Ours is a government of law. The law is the cornerstone of American government and the basis upon which our liberty is preserved and protected. Without that law you have no liberty. You have no right to your life. You have no right to keep any property you manage to accumulate. Our system dictates that each and every one of us is to abide by the law. Not just the poor, but the poor and the rich. Not just the voters, but the voters and the people they elect. All of us, no exceptions. There are some pillars upon which our law rests. These pillars support our rule of law. They hold it firm and protect it from crumbling into dust. These are operative principles without which the rule of law would be absolutely impossible. Two of the pillars upon which our rule of law rests are the requirements that you tell the truth when you have sworn an oath to do so, and that you do not attempt to coerce another into not telling the truth. Justice cannot be present in a court of law if the truth is absent. Honest people seek justice. The dishonest flee from it. The Justice Department recognizes the importance of the truth in legal proceedings. Lying under oath in a federal matter is considered to be a grave crime indeed. It calls for a mandatory prison sentence of from 12 to 18 months. It doesn't matter whether the lie was uttered in a civil or a criminal matter, the punishment is the same. Try to keep this in mind when you hear the network nit-wits telling you that it is no real big deal if Clinton lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Know that one of the very pillars of our system of law -- our government of law --- is under attack. BIG DAY FOR CLINTON AND STARR TODAY Score another one for Kenneth Starr. Yesterday the full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that there is no special privilege that can be used to prevent Secret Service Agents to testify before Kenneth Starr's grand jury. So, another Clinton stonewall attempt crumbles. I believe the score is not Kenneth Starr 13, Clinton 1. Clinton's sole win is on the issue of whether or not Vincent Foster's attorney-client privilege survived his death. The Clinton Administration is making a last-ditch effort to get Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist to block the subpoenas of Clinton's Secret Service agents. Not a chance. Aren't some of you wondering just what it is that Clinton is so afraid these agents are going to say? Are the rumors true? Was Clinton using Secret Service agents to procure women? The evidence is strong that he used Arkansas State Troopers that way. Why not the Secret Service? Sooner or later Clinton will run out of ways to obstruct Starr's investigation. If you want to read some fiery language from Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Click here. UNDERSTANDING ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE There were news reports yesterday that Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr wanted to question Secret Service Agent Larry Cockell about any conversations he may have heard during a limo ride with Clinton and Clinton's attorney, Robert Bennett. Clinton apologists are claiming that this is an attempt to breach Clinton's attorney-client privilege. The White House is wrong. It would not be a breach of attorney-client privilege to compel Cockell to testify as to what he overheard of a conversation between Clinton and his attorney. Here's why. Any conversation that a client has, in private, with his attorney is generally privileged. However, if a third party is present during that conversation the privilege is lost. Cockell was a third party. If he was present and overheard conversation between Clinton and Bennett, that conversation is not protected as to Cockell. Just what was said in that limo? Is this why Clinton and his cronies are working so hard to keep his Secret Service guards from testifying? THE READINESS OF OUR ARMED FORCES Last night ABC news carried a disturbing story about the lack of readiness of the Air Force. It seems that we are having quite a bit of trouble keeping jet fighters in the air. There is also a problem in keeping qualified pilots, aircraft mechanics and computer experts. The blame was placed on problems caused by the world-wide deployment of the Air Force on various peace-keeping missions. At no time did ABC mention the huge budget cuts that the military has suffered under the Draft-Dodger-in-Chief. Try this -- can you identify whose standing army this is? - 709,000 regular service soldiers; - 293,000 reserve troops; - Eight standing army divisions; - 20 air force and navy air wings with 2,000 combat aircraft; - 232 strategic bombers; - 13 strategic ballistic missile submarines with 3,114 nuclear warheads on 232 missiles; - 500 ICBMs with 1,950 warheads; - Four aircraft carriers, and; - 121 surface combat ships and submarines, plus all the support bases, shipyards and logistical assets needed to sustain such a naval force. Is this country Russia? No, Red China ? Nope. Great Britain ? Hardly ! Give Up? These are the American military forces that have disappeared since the 1992 elections." Why wasn't that included in the ABC report? JUST BOOK THE PRESIDENT ON AIRTRAN News now that the codes for electronic countermeasures used to protect U.S. military aircraft, and that would include Air Force One, have disappeared. Remember Loral Space & Communications, Ltd.? Yup, that's one of the companies that apparently helped Red China improve its capacity to launch nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles into the heartland of the US. Well, that's the company that seems to have lost these security codes. It's a long story. Click here for the details from Insight Magazine. EVEN MORE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? [From The Washington Times. Click here for the full story] Rep. Gerald Solomon is the Chairman of the House Rules Committee. Yesterday Solomon wrote a letter to Kenneth Starr in which he outlined another possible area in which Bill Clinton and his political team may have conspired to obstruct justice. Solomon says that the actions of the Clinton team may even amount to "intimidation of a federal witness." Here's how this came about. Shortly after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke New Yorker magazine published a story alleging that Linda Tripp had falsified information about her past arrest record on her application for a White Job. There was, naturally, a great deal of curiosity as to just how that information came to be in the hands of the New Yorker reporter. The conventional wisdom was that the information had been released to the reporter by the Pentagon (where Tripp was then working) on specific instructions from the White House. This, in case you don't already know, is a violation of federal law. Solomon wanted to investigate whether or not this Tripp leak violated Federal Law. He wrote a letter to Clinton asking whether or not anyone in the White House had pulled Tripp's file after the scandal broke. Solomon asked for a rapid response to his inquiry. Clinton never responded. Months later Terry W. Good, the director of White House records management testified under oath that as soon as the Lewinsky scandal broke the White House counsel's office told him to "pull anything and everything that we might have in our files relating to Linda Tripp." So .. Solomon asks Clinton in a formal letter if anyone at the White House pulled Linda Tripp's file after the Lewinsky matter hit the news. Clinton refuses to respond. Later, a White House employee admits under oath that they did just that. Question: Do you now have a clearer understanding of just why the Clinton White House gathered 900 confidential files on Republicans? THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO GET THEIR HANDS ON YOUR PENSION PLAN Do you remember the 1996 Senatorial race in Georgia, the one between Democrat Max Cleland and Republican Guy Millner? I almost went ballistic when Cleland charged in one of his advertisements that the Republicans wanted to "raid your pension plans." I pointed out on the air that it was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who had grand plans to get their hands on private pensions. Unfortunately, Cleland won on the strength of this and other lies. Don't let your guard down. The Democrats are still at it. They are just waiting to get the control of the congress back. When they do, your pension plan is in grave danger. The Democratic attack on your pension will be on two fronts. First, we'll have Economically Target Investments (ETIs). This is a plan whereby the government "suggest" that pension fund managers invest some of their pension funds in certain politically correct pet projects. This would include such things as mortgage loans to politically protected groups, loans to minority business enterprises, investments in low-income housing, etc. Studies have shown that these investments usually yield 1.5 to 2 points less than non-ETI investments. This can reduce the value of the average pension plan by 25 percent. ETIs are a very popular idea with politicians. They get to take credit for money that pours into various social vote-getting schemes without raising taxes. The second attack will be a "one-time" tax of 15% on the outstanding value of all pension plans. This is an idea that is very popular with Jesse (The "Sloganmaster") Jackson, and Clinton's assistant treasury secretary Alicia Munnell. Their spin is that the good economy has caused abnormal growth in these pension plans, and that it is necessary for the government to levy a one-time tax in the amount of 15% in order to provide some benefits to the "less fortunate." Steve Allen has a great article on this issue in WorldNetDaily. Click here to read. By the way, just what was the Republican proposal that Cleland said constituted a "raid" on your pensions? The law says that a pension plan has to have assets equal to 125% of the amount it would take to fully fund all outstanding pensions. Due to economic growth some pension plans had assets far above that level. The Republican plan was to allow the companies to borrow the excess pension funds . those in excess of the 125% requirement . and use the money for business expansion. That's a raid? There's a congressional election coming up. If the Democrats get control, grab your pension and run! boortz.com

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (16989)	7/17/1998 10:37:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 20981

NEALZ NUZE The Neal Boortz Show -- News Talk 750 WSB -- Atlanta Thursday, July 16, 1998. SPEECH NEXT WEEK BEFORE GEORGIA PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION Next Wednesday I will be making a lunch-time speech to the Georgia Public Policy Foundation at the Georgia Freight Depot. Click here for information on the foundation, and you can call 770-455-7600 to make reservations to be there for the speech! NAACP I haven't been following the NAACP convention in Atlanta all that closely, so I surely have missed some important moments. It seems to me, though, that the general focus of the entire meeting has been to explore ways to use the power of government to gain specific advantages and preferences for blacks. There has been little, if any, homage paid to the concept of "equal treatment under the law." This is the great betrayal of the civil rights movement. In the 1960s and '70's the call was, indeed, for equal treatment. This was a noble cause that any right-thinking American would get behind. As equality before the law became an accomplishment instead of a goal these civil rights "leaders" faced a dilemma. They needed something else to keep their movement, and their personal power and prestige, strong. It's sad to see a organization once dedicated to equality now working for preference, privilege and in favor of the same racial discrimination they once condemned. boortz.com

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (16989)	7/17/1998 11:11:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 20981

Turnover in Clinton's Secret Service detail 'highest that anyone can remember' Capitol Hill Blue July 17, 1998 Doug Thompson More agents assigned to protect President Bill Clinton have asked to be reassigned than in any Presidential detail in recent memory, Capitol Hill Blue has learned. Although agents who seek reassignment are not required to give specific reasons, several agents openly expressed their dislike of the President and his behavior, sources close to the President's protective detail have confirmed. "It's never been necessary to like the man an agent is sworn to protect," says one ex-agent, who asked not to be identified. "But when you despise the man, it's harder to do your job." Since Clinton became President in 1993, at least four "heads of detail" have sought reassignment and the Secret Service detail as a whole "has turned over several times," a previously unheard of situation in a job that is usually sought-after as the pinnacle of the profession. President Ronald Reagan, the last man to serve two terms in office, had just two "heads of detail" in eight years. George Bush had one. Jimmy Carter, considered difficult by Secret Service agents, had two. "You work hard to get assigned to Presidential protection and then find you can't stomach the job because you can't stomach the man," the ex-agent says. "Protecting someone like Bill Clinton is not why I joined the Secret Service." Several current and ex-agents interviewed by Capitol Hill Blue say the problems began during Clinton's campaign for President when the Arkansas governor had trouble learning that Secret Service agents were more serious than the "good old boys" from the Arkansas State Police. "He was used to swapping dirty jokes and using Arkansas State Troopers as her personal servants," another ex-agent says. "He learned real quick that Secret Service agents don't play those games." The Secret Service, the ex-agent says, are more professional and don't swap jokes with the man they are charged with protecting. Yet Clinton, confident that anything said in front of Secret Service agents would never be repeated, continued to make sexist remarks about women he encountered and made crude, sexist remarks in front of both male and female agents. "I'm sorry, but the President is one of the crudest men I have ever encountered in government service," says one female agent. "He has no respect for women." Among the comments Clinton made in presence of Secret Service agents: Frequent speculation on the oral sex skills of women the President saw or met in receiving lines; References to the size of a woman's breasts, legs or figure; Sexual jokes. After the Monica Lewinsky story broke, however, Clinton toned down his rhetoric and behavior in front of his Secret Service agents, but those who guarded the President say enough of them saw and heard things which could be damaging to Clinton. "It depends on who Ken Starr calls," says one ex-agent. "The people who are on the job today are not necessarily the ones who know the most." Larry Cockell, Clinton's current lead agent, was reassigned Thursday because he may soon have to testify before Ken Starr's grand jury. Cockell was with Clinton when the President testified in the Paula Jones desposition in January. Calls to the White House and Secret Service offices were not returned Thursday. Secret Service personnel records and assignment rosters are not public record. freerepublic.com

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (16989)	7/17/1998 11:18:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 20981

Jewish World Review / July 16, 1998 / 22 Tamuz, 5758 Thomas Sowell Do 'minorities' really have it that bad? WHEN I FIRST SAT DOWN to begin preparing an international study of racial and cultural differences back in April 1982, in a London hotel room, there was no way I could have imagined that the final volume in that study -- my recently published Conquests and Cultures: -- would come out in the midst of a "national dialogue on race," based on assumptions wholly contradicted by everything I had found in countries around the world. The social dogma that is still being endlessly repeated is that disparities in incomes, occupations and other kinds of success are all due to "stereotypes" that lead to discrimination against minorities. Yet some minorities are doing better than the majority that has been doing the discriminating. Certainly that is true of Japanese Americans and it has been true of other minorities in other countries around the world. Jews, for example, have prospered in countries seething with anti-Semitism. The Chinese have never had equal rights in Indonesia or Malaysia, but they have had higher incomes than the Indonesians or the Malays. Much the same story could be told of the Lebanese in West Africa, Indians and Pakistanis in East Africa, Greeks in the Ottoman Empire, Germans in czarist Russia -- and on and on around the world. None of this would be possible if discrimination were the be-all and end-all explanation of intergroup differences in incomes, occupations or other measures of success. Groups differ in their skills and cultures and always have. More fundamentally, there was never any reason to expect them to be the same, in the first place. How could Eskimos have acquired the knowledge, skills, and experience to grow pineapples or other tropical crops? How could the peoples of the Himalayas have learned to navigate on the high seas? Geography alone is enough to prevent all groups, nations or civilizations from having the same skills. The British created the industrial revolution, but there was no way that the peoples of the Balkans could have done so, since the Balkans lack both the raw materials needed and any economically feasible way of transporting those materials there. Man may discriminate but nature discriminates on a scale that dwarfs what human beings can do. Too many people take "nature" to mean genes but geography is also nature and it is by no means egalitarian. For most of history in most of the world, people living in cities have been more advanced than people of the same race living in the hinterlands or up in the mountains. But cities do not arise at random in all geographic settings. Most cities arise on navigable waterways, which have been as plentiful in Western Europe as they have been scarce in sub-Saharan Africa, leaving Western Europe one of the most urbanized regions of the world and tropical Africa the least. Add to geographic differences the differences in demography, history and other factors -- and the conclusion becomes virtually inescapable that there was no reason to have expected equality of inputs or outcomes in the first place. Is discrimination one of these other factors? Of course. But can we automatically make discrimination the reason for all intergroup differences? Not if we are serious, as distinguished from being political. The most that we can hope for is equality of opportunity. But when different individuals and groups do not even want the same things, how can they be expected to achieve the same things? Focussing on discrimination is fine if you are more interested in smiting the wicked than in advancing the less fortunate. Laying a guilt trip on people who are more successful is fine if your goal is to score political points and maybe get a few crumbs from their table. But don't expect to advance a whole race that way. We have to understand the past if we are serious about preparing for the future. You can re-run all the pictures you want of marches on Selma or firehoses and police dogs in Birmingham in the 1960s. But the cold, hard fact is that blacks were rising economically more rapidly in the 1940s and 1950s than after the civil rights revolution of the 1960s. The civil rights revolution was right and overdue but let us not confuse a moral necessity with an economic cause. We have to fight today's problems, not yesterday's, if we want a better tomorrow. jewishworldreview.com

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (16989)	7/18/1998 1:15:00 AM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 20981

Dipy, This is only a couple of lines from Neal Boortz essay on EO 13083. I suggest you click on the web site and read the rest of it. (Personally, I would guess that you have never heard of EO 13083.) So, That Brings Us to Executive Order No. 13083 Neal Boortz Two words. Power Grab. No, make that three words. Obscene power grab. To understand Executive Order No. 13083, you need to understand something about the man who signed it, and you need to understand the type of relationship that the writers of our Constitution intended between the States and the federal government. Bill Clinton is absolutely and completely in love with power. That means he is completely in love with government. Government is, after all, the be-all and end-all when it comes to power. Government the only entity in our society that can use force to achieve its goals. This type of power makes Clinton just tremble with excitement. boortz.com