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: lazarre who wrote (17148)	7/21/1998 9:35:00 AM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 20981

$40 million is a lot of money. Sometimes it's worth spending. Usually it's not: Rep. Cliff Stearns, Florida Republican, took to the House floor last week to talk about the more than 1,000 people who accompanied President Clinton to China and the $40 million the trip cost. The retinue "included six members of Congress, five Cabinet officials who each brought almost 40 staff members, a chief of staff, a deputy chief of staff, a national security adviser, a deputy national security adviser, a press secretary, a deputy press secretary, five stenographers, two White House television crews, a valet for the president and a hairdresser for Mrs. Clinton, the president's private secretary and the White House staff secretary, speechwriters and re-writers, doctors and lawyers, snipers, commandoes, bomb-sniffing dogs, and, of course, 375 reporters and photographers." The congressman added: "Vice President Gore must have felt like the kid in 'Home Alone.' They spent more in 10 days than Judge Starr spent in three years."

To: lazarre who wrote (17148)	7/21/1998 2:28:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 20981

NEALZ NUZE The Neal Boortz Show -- News Talk 750 WSB -- Atlanta While I am on the air from 8:30 to Noon (EDT) you can send me e-mail at wsboortz@yahoo.com! Tuesday, July 21, 1998. TWA FLIGHT 800 We talked about this just a bit yesterday. There are a lot of people who are suspicious of the official story, and just as many people who defend the official story vigorously. Well, the mystery of TWA 800 deepened yesterday with a briefing conducted in Washington. Bill Davidson is a retired U.S. Navy Commander and a trained aircraft accident investigator. Davidson spent 15 months conducting his own investigation into the causes behind the crash of TWA 800, and his conclusions differ greatly from the official story put forth by the National Transportation Safety Board. When Davidson opened his briefing yesterday he said "Somebody came into our waters and shot down - for the first time ever - a flag carrier of the United States." According to a story by Steve Allen in WorldNetDaily, Donaldson said that TWA 800 "was intentionally destroyed by a powerful, proximity fused, airbursting, anti-aircraft weapon launched from a position approximately one nautical mile off shore and three nautical miles east of Moriches Inlet, Long Island, New York." Donaldson says that seconds later a second missile was fired from a position closer to the TWA 747. Government officials are, of course, discounting Donaldson's account. Of interest to me are the people who were at that briefing in support of Donaldson and his account. One such person was Admiral Thomas Moorer, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Moorer expressed his belief that an act of terrorism was involved in the downing of Flight 800. One eye-opener in the WorldNetDaily story is the comment of Vernon Grose. Grose is a physicist and was a member of the NTSB. He was interviewed extensively by CNN and other media outlets - nearly 170 interviews - about Flight 800. Grose says "I've spent two years defending the NTSB, only to find out that the facts don't seem to line up with the official story." Grose says he feels "betrayed" by the NTSB. O.K., so what could possibly be going on. If Flight 800 was shot down by terrorists, why would our government try to cover that up? Several reasons. First, if the people of this country got wind of the fact that terrorists had used missiles to shoot down an American airliner, you wouldn't be able to give away transatlantic tickets. Can you imagine getting on a flight to Paris with a fear that you were going to be shot out of the sky by terrorists? The economic impact on the airlines and on tourism would be catastrophic. There would be no realistic way to quell the panic in the flying public. Second, it would be a public relations nightmare for the government. The news that terrorists had managed to fire a missile from the territorial waters of the U.S. off the coast of our most populous city could be enough to cripple, or bring down an administration already in trouble. There are also considerations to be given to how the administration would deal with the immediate public outcry and demands for vengeance. Some callers yesterday brought up some interesting arguments against the possibility of a terrorist attack. Why, for instance, wouldn't the terrorist organization have immediately claimed credit? Well, who's to say they didn't? Are we privy to all communications from such organizations to our government? Folks, I don't know what happened to Flight 800. Fuel tank explosion, terrorist missile, I don't know. What I do know is that our government's story can't be trusted. Not because the story itself is suspicious, but because the government that issued the story can't be believed. This is a government headed by an administration known for it's inability to be honest with the people of this country. There can be no doubt that it would lie to us about Flight 800 if its political interests were served by doing so. Click here to read the entire WorldNetDaily story about TWA Flight 800 boortz.com

To: lazarre who wrote (17148)	7/21/1998 9:48:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 20981

Specter contemplates Reno suit Philadelphia Inquirer July 21, 1998 Specter urges special fund-raising probe Reno had refused to name a prosecutor on Democratic practices. By Chris Mondics INQUIRER WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Amid growing frustration on Capitol Hill over Attorney General Janet Reno's refusal to appoint a special prosecutor to probe Democratic fund-raising practices in the 1996 election, Sen. Arlen Specter is pressing his Republican colleagues to ask the courts to take the case out of her hands. Within the ranks of the GOP Senate majority, Pennsylvania's Specter has been circulating a draft of a lawsuit that accuses Reno of ignoring a wide body of evidence that President Clinton and key advisers violated federal election law -- and asks that the courts appoint an independent counsel. Specter's lawsuit says there is evidence that the President and his staff violated the law through the improper raising and spending of so-called soft money. The suit also contends that Reno ignored evidence gathered by her own department of an illegal Chinese scheme to influence the 1996 election that allegedly touched on the White House. "I hope to get federal district court to order Reno to appoint independent counsel," Specter said yesterday. "I think the conclusions [ of the lawsuit ] are very, very strong." To build support for such action, Specter has been conferring privately with Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (R., Utah), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Fred Thompson (R., Tenn.), who ran last year's hearings on campaign finance abuses. Earlier efforts by Specter to persuade colleagues to proceed with such a lawsuit failed to generate much enthusiasm, in large measure because there was still hope among some Republican senators that Reno would make an appointment. But the disclosure last week that Reno had decided against the appointment, even after FBI Director Louis J. Freeh had advised her in a memo that she faced a potential conflict of interest, has focused renewed attention on Specter's proposal. That disclosure came during a Judiciary Committee hearing during which Thompson stated that he had been briefed on the memo by a senior official of the Justice Department. Democratic Party officials have argued that there was nothing inherently improper about their use of "soft money" and that Republicans did the same. They say that the illegal and improper campaign contributions cited in Specter's lawsuit accounted for only a small portion of overall fund-raising by Democrats, and that fund-raising practices have since been tightened. Specter's lawsuit would be based in part on the law that allows the appointment of independent counsel. That law gives the majority party members of the Judiciary Committee -- as a group -- standing to request (though not order) that the federal courts appoint a special prosecutor. No member of Congress has ever utilized that section of the independent counsel law. And while federal district courts in two instances have ruled in favor of individual citizens seeking the appointment of a special prosecutor, those decisions were overturned on appeal. The draft lawsuit reprises some of the disclosures of the Senate campaign finance hearings last year, using them to support Specter's contention that the Justice Department cannot be expected to conduct a vigorous investigation of the fund-raising activities of the President and Vice President. As evidence that the President violated federal election law, the lawsuit cites statements by former presidential adviser Dick Morris that Clinton regularly sat in on strategy meetings focusing on the content of Democratic Party advertising campaigns, often rewriting scripts. The proposed lawsuit contends that the President violated the law because the advertisements, which in several instances urged the reelection of the President, were paid for with the "soft money." Under federal election law, such largely unregulated funds, which can be raised in unlimited amounts, can be used only for so-called party-building purposes such as voter outreach. They may not be used to directly benefit a candidate for federal office. The lawsuit cites a videotape of a meeting at the White House between the President and several Democratic Party contributors in which the President seems to credit the use of unregulated soft money for reviving his political fortunes. "That's not a smoking gun; that's a firing gun," Specter said. "You can see the bullet." The lawsuit also cites the case of John Huang, the former executive of the Lippo Group, an Asian financial services and manufacturing conglomerate. Huang, a longtime Clinton acquaintance, was appointed deputy finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee in December 1995, apparently at the urging of the President. Huang went on to raise $3.4 million for the DNC, nearly half of which was returned because it came from illegal foreign sources or was of suspect origins. Overall, the lawsuit says, the President and his allies engaged in a wide-ranging conspiracy to evade campaign finance laws. "There is specific and credible evidence that the President and Vice President participated in this conspiracy by trading access to the President, Vice President and other executive branch officials for political contributions," the draft says. freerepublic.com

To: lazarre who wrote (17148)	7/22/1998 10:55:00 AM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 20981

NEALZ NUZE The Neal Boortz Show -- News Talk 750 WSB -- Atlanta While I am on the air from 8:30 to Noon (EDT) you can send me e-mail at wsboortz@yahoo.com! Wednesday, July 22, 1998. A SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON BETWEEN CLINTON AND REAGAN ON FEDERALISM As you know, Clinton's Executive Order 13083 is one of the grandest power grabs in the history of the Presidency. You might not be aware that 13083 replaced and rescinded another Executive Order on Federalism signed by Ronald Reagan. WorldNetDaily has afforded you a unique opportunity to compare the two EOs side-by-side. Here you can compare the dedication that Reagan had to the Constitution of the United States of America to the disdain that Clinton has for that document. Click here to read the comparison. CLINTON SLAMS DOOR TO BETTER EDUCATION As expected, Clinton has vetoed Georgia Senator Paul Coverdell's bill to allow parents to set up tax-free savings accounts for their children's education. Clinton did this at the insistence of the teacher's unions. These unions don't like anything that makes it one bit easier for parents to get their children out of the failed government schools and into private schools. A hallmark of all government employee unions --- and make no mistake, the teacher's unions are government employee unions -- is their opposition to any privatization of government services. These people vote, and they work for political campaigns. They just got their payback from Bill Clinton. Evidently Clinton believes that only rich people, and Presidents, should be allowed to send their children to private schools. GET READY FOR WHITE HOUSE EXODUS Hints in Washington that several key White House staffers, including possibly Mike McCurry and that noxious Rahm Emanuel, will be bailing out of the Clinton Administration as soon as the November elections are over. You really can't blame them. Clinton will be a true lame duck after November, with a pant-load of legal problems. Time to get the hell out of there and find a dignified job somewhere. CLOSE THE ZOO? FAT CHANCE. Don't know if you knew this, but the folks who want to build the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock had to come up with a unique way to finance the project. They floated a bond issue. But, they needed to pledge something of value to guarantee the bonds. They decided on a government-owned fitness center, a golf course and the Little Rock Zoo. One problem, though. The USDA was on the verge of shutting down the Zoo because of mistreatment of animals. Well, according to The Washington Times, the USDA arrived for their inspection of the Zoo recently on the same day that Clinton happened to be visiting Little Rock. The Zoo had flunked two previous USDA inspections. Do you think they flunked this one? Come on, THINK! The very survival of the Clinton library may have been at stake! Of course they passed! boortz.com