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: Machaon who wrote (19813)	1/30/1999 12:14:00 AM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 20981

Clinton's Fascist vision for America By James Henry No. 104, 25- 31 January 1999 The New Australian - US Report - Telling it like it is The state of American education being what it is, the vast majority of people are totally incapable of recognising a fascist economic program, even when it is used to slap them in the face. This is because they have not been taught that fascism means state direction of the economy, cradle to grave 'social security', complete control of education, government intervention in every nook and cranny of the economy — and the belief that the individual belongs to the state. This was Clinton's State of the Union vision, which is why those chowder-heads that call themselves journalists loved it. People cannot grasp that fascism is socialism because they have not been taught to distinguish between form and substance. They do not realise that once the state controls everyone's property that property now belongs to the state because control is ownership, no matter who possesses the deeds. In this situation, might is right. Clinton's audacious plan to confiscate the earning of Americans so that politicians like himself and Hillary (the couple that helped empty the Madison Guaranty in Arkansas) can use them to gradually socialise the economy is a typical statist tactic and one to be expected from the Clintons. This is no exaggeration. Just reflect for a moment on his proposal to save social security by investing taxpayers' money in the stock market. By controlling a company's shares the state would come to own the company. It would not even have to control a majority of the shares. It would then dictate where the company would invest, in what it would invest and where it would invest. This is precisely how Mussolini and Hitler ran their economies. The term for this is central planning. But America is different, or so the likes of Dan Rather and Gerald Rivero would claim. But does anyone imagine for a moment that the likes of Bill and Hillary would hesitate to use that power? Does anyone think that the huge bureaucratic machinery it would give birth to would not us the power? Also business funding for free-market publications, organisations, foundations and think tanks would quickly dry up. Under his scheme investment would become a function of the state, just as it was in the late Soviet Union. Politicians and bureaucrats playing at being entrepreneurs with trillions of dollars. That such policies have always resulted in the destruction of liberty, economic collapses and mass poverty would not faze the Friends of Bill Club, particularly if they figured they would get slice of the action. One only has to think of what the Clintons did to Arkansas. No wonder Greenspan is still in a state of shock. That Clinton has only contempt for the mass of Americans was made clear by his arrogant statement that "We [I love the Royal We] could give [the surpluses] all back to you and hope you spend it right . . . But if you don't spend it right" Social Security are shortfalls are "just 14 years away." Let us dissect this statement. Clinton is literally telling Americans they are too dumb to know how to spend their own money. (I guess his poll results gave him that idea). Americans are losing nearly 50 per cent of their incomes to all levels of government, with Washington grabbing 21 per cent, the highest in the nation's history. And it's going to get worse. And what are the Clinton Democrats' solutions? Massive government intervention combined with massive increases in government spending. No wonder personal savings have collapsed. How dare this lying hypocrite tell the American people they are too dumb to save when his own profligate proposals would see trillions wasted on huge government programs designed to buy a Senate acquittal and shore up the support of the faithful. He claims Americans are irresponsible, yet his programs would consume not only every penny of the surplus but would increase federal spending by at least 20 percent, lead to another era of budget deficits, large-scale government borrowings and massive tax increases. Now politicians have a choice with surpluses: they can either spend them, which then results in more deficits unless spending is cut, or they can return the money to its rightful owners. Democrats have once again shown which kind they are. This is what Adam Smith had to say about Clinton's arrogant proposals: "It is the highest impertinence and presumption . . . in Kings and ministers to pretend to watch over the economy of private people . . . Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will." "The statesman, who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had the folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it." The New Australian labyrinth.net.au

To: Machaon who wrote (19813)	1/30/1999 12:16:00 AM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Moving toward a police state TUESDAY JANUARY 26 1999 Joseph Farah is editor of WorldNetDaily.com and executive director of the Western Journalism Center, an independent group of investigative reporters. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Executive orders ... national emergencies ... a domestic "commander-in-chief" ... the threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. .... An impeached president is leading America ever closer toward the reality of a police state, and there's been hardly a peep from the civil liberties establishment. In fact, those who dare address such issues are quickly denounced as paranoid "extremists." But let's look at the facts -- coldly, objectively and rationally. President Clinton has declared more "states of national emergency" than any of his predecessors. And he's done it in an era he boasts about as the freest, most peaceful and most prosperous time in recent American history. President Clinton has issued more executive orders than any of his predecessors. His top aides have even boasted of using them as a political strategy to go over the heads of the legislative branch of government. "Stroke of the pen, law of the land," boasted Paul Begala of the plan. "Pretty cool, huh?" Few of the executive orders have even been challenged by a Congress controlled by the opposition party. Few of them have even been read by a sleeping press establishment. And now President Clinton tells the nation that terrorism is such a threat to America that we need to consider establishing a "commander-in-chief for the defense of the continental United States." But don't worry about the civil liberties implications of any of this, the president tells us. "If there's a question, bring it to me," he says, like any good monarch would. Sure, that will solve the problem. Clinton himself will be the arbiter of whether his policies are an assault on our fundamental freedoms. Sounds fair, huh? Keep in mind, folks, that this is the same president who has: used FBI files to attack his political enemies; employed Internal Revenue Service audits to punish his critics; at the moment of his highest triumph, his re-election as president in 1996, warned he would attack his adversaries ruthlessly and cut them out of the body politick "like a cancer"; used at least one federal employee as a sex toy, using Marine officers to chauffeur her to the White House, then wielded all the power at his disposal to cover up the scandal through perjury and obstruction of justice; accepted illegal campaign contributions from powers hostile to the United States and then offered them previously forbidden high-technology transfers; used taxpayer resources to malign the character of anyone who offered a political challenge to his authority; abused his power to step on and over anyone who got in his way; I could go on and on. But you get the point. The kinds of powers under discussion would be unacceptable in the hands of the most ethical, honorable, virtuous leader, but in the hands of a man with no character, a man whose only motivation is the accumulation and preservation of his own authority, the mere discussion of such powers should be anathema to every American. Yet, I don't hear the outrage. I don't hear expressions of real concern. I don't hear anyone warning of impending tyranny. Let me, then, be the first. America is not slouching toward totalitarianism, it is rushing headlong toward it. It is disregarding more than 200 years of historical lessons, the prophetic cautions of the geniuses who invented this country. It is forgetting what made America great -- its Constitution, its acceptance of freedom and responsibility and its commitment to a morality etched in men's hearts from the beginning and defined in words beginning with the Ten Commandments. How can we then trust a man who treads on the Constitution, insults the Founding Fathers, limits freedom daily with new initiatives empowering government, encourages irrepsonsibility in others and breaks nearly every one of the Ten Commandments with no credible regrets or contritition? Tell me, America: Are you ready to let Bill Clinton completely redefine and rewrite the contract between the people and the government? Are you willing to permit him to be the judge and jury of that new covenant? Or, are you ready to trade in your liberty for a promise of security from a man who is himself a proven coward, rogue and ego-maniac? Or, are you ready to open your eyes and see what this man is trying to take from you, your children and grandchildren? worldnetdaily.com

To: Machaon who wrote (19813)	1/30/1999 12:10:00 PM
From: DD™	Respond to of 20981

Lets see, we now have the following who have alleged sexual assault, rape and unwanted sexual advances against your President, William Jefferson Klintoon.. 1) Paula Jones 2) Kathleen Willey 3) Juanita Broaddrick with Willey the subject of intimidation tactics by Klintoon henchmen.. #reply-7570008 The following have alleged illicit, adulterous sexual contact, among many others.. 4) Dolly Kyle Browning 5) Gennifer Flowers 6) Monica Lewinsky 7) Elizabeth Ward Gracen And who knows how many more will come forward in the next 2 years? How many more will it take? 5? 10? Will Klintoon have to be proved a murderer before your wise-up to the fact that this man is a menace, a cancer to this great nation? Top aid Vice Foster committed "sucide" because he was so distraught over the tanged mess he was involved in with the Klintoons. Good friend and felon Webster Hubbell in in jail for bilking clients on hundreds of thousands of dollars, just like fellow Rose Law firm member and First Lesbian, Hillary Rodham Klintoon. I could go on and on, but the sad thing is nothing these dangerous people could do you would change the minds of their apologists like you, not even murder!!! What a sad and pathetic indictment that is. You should be ashamed of yourself!! DD P.S. This is not all there is either. There will be more allegations coming from different women who have been assaulted by this barbarian.