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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DD™ who wrote (11852)	2/23/1999 8:13:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 13994

DD, I will be watching. I wonder how much "editing" NBC will do before broadcast? Darrell

To: DD™ who wrote (11852)	2/23/1999 11:09:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 13994

The Neal Boortz Show America's Rude Awakening! While I am on the air from 8:30 to Noon (Eastern) you can send me e-mail at wsboortz@yahoo.com! Tuesday - February 23, 1999 TODAY'S JUANITA BROADDRICK UPDATE Steve Dunleavy of The New York Post has a good question. What would you do if you were accused of a rape you did not commit? Would you just let a spokesman say it didn't happen and take no further action? Hardly. You would be in court in a heartbeat. You would accuse your accuser of slander, libel and any other charge you thought might stick. Your wife would be right in there fighting on your behalf. But Clinton? Nothing. Nothing from Hillary either. Come on, folks. Face it. The man did it. He raped her, and possibly others. Here's something else Dunleavy points out in his column --- something else you probably don't know. In Arkansas in 1989 Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. That year a man named Wayne Dumond was convicted in a highly controversial rape case in Arkansas. There was, according to Dunleavy, overwhelming evidence that Dumond was innocent. He was convicted solely on the testimony of the victim. Using that standard of evidence, Clinton should be on his way to jail. At any rate, the evidence of Dumond's innocence meant nothing to Bill Clinton. As Governor, Clinton refused to review the case and he let the 50-year sentence stand. Dumond is still in jail. Wait. There's more. Before Dumond went to jail he almost bled to death after two men in maskes casterated him. Who did Dumond rape? Her name was Ashley Stevens. She is related to Bill Clinton. Do you want more information? Try the book "Unequal Justice; Wayne Dumond, Bill Clinton, And The Politics Of Rape In Arkansas" by Guy Reel. You can Click Here to order the book on line! WHAT ARE THE UNIONS REALLY UP TO? This month a New York weekly called Investment News printed an article detailing a union strong-arm project. It seems that Unions are writing blue-steam letters to Wall Street investment houses warning them that they had better not (if they know what's good for them) support any plan to allow individual Americans to invest a portion of their own Social Security taxes. The unions are threatening to withdraw any union pension funds on deposit with these investment houses if they cross that line. Clearly, the unions want these investments in stocks to be made by the government and not by individuals. But why? I can't believe everybody is missing this. The reason that the labor unions want the federal government to make these investment decisions rather than individuals is because these unions know that they can exercise a healthy degree of control over federal actions but not so much over individuals. Look --- here is the way this will play out. Let's say that in 1999 the laws are passed to allow the federal government to invest a portion of Social Security taxes in the stock market. Following that, in 2000, the voters of this country return a Democratic majority to the House and the Senate and a Democrat to the White House. The unions will spend over $50,000,000 to try to make this happens. If they succeed, it will be money well spent ---- for them. As soon as the Democrats move into the leadership positions the union pressure will begin. Arms will be twisted. Campaign funds promised, and campaign funds denied. Gradually, by Executive Order, by regulation and by legislation, we'll see the edicts spew forth from the Beltway. The Democrats will – at the urging of the unions – see to it that only "union friendly" corporations are eligible to have their stock purchased with Social Security funds. Corporations, eager to have their stock in this pool, will cave to union demands for unionization, higher wages and other benefits. The winners – the unions. The losers – the American people. Just watch --- if the Democrats take over I'll soon have my chance for a big "I told you so." THE CONTINUING SEARCH FOR NEW DEMOCRATS There was so much to talk about yesterday that I had to let this one slide. One way to get more Democrats in elected office is to find more voters who will be likely to vote Democratic and get them to the polls. This plan was worked perfectly in California in the 1996 election. The Democratic Party succeeded in getting thousands of illegal aliens registered to vote in California. As a result some Republicans lost their job. You have heard by now that there is a movement afloat – powered by liberals and Democrats – to restore the right to vote to convicted felons. So --- how does this translate into more votes for Democrats? Easy …. The vast majority of these convicted felons who have lost their ability to vote are black. Thirteen percent of black men in America are ineligible to vote because of felony convictions. In Florida over 31percent of black men are ineligible to vote. It doesn't take a political scientist to know that if these men are led to the polls they are hardly going to vote Republican. If there is one truism in American politics, it is that black voters are safely housed on the Democratic plantation, and they aren't looking to leave. They WILL vote Democratic. So --- when the Democratic party sees millions of potential voters out there who can't vote, they will swing into action. Illegal aliens, convicted murders ---- it doesn't matter so long as they vote Democrat. After all, the Democrats are protecting a felon in the White House --- what's wrong with trying to get more felons to the polls? boortz.com