The head of the National Organization of Women (NOW) Patricia
Ireland declared in September 1998 that she intends to continue
her support of Clinton because he defends so called “women’s”
issues. Democrats are fooling themselves. Clinton has just
sunk them and their issues with his lies.
For example, Democrats can kiss the “tobacco” issue good-bye.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, has often accused major
tobacco executives of lying under oath, conspiracy and
obstruction. Tobacco executives once testified before Congress
that they had no documents showing the addictive value of
tobacco and denied that they engage in any marketing efforts
aimed at children. The 1998 tobacco bill was to be President
Clinton’s legacy for the future.
Today, the tobacco bill is dead. It is the president who is now
charged with lying under oath, conspiracy and obstruction.
Clinton’s disastrous speech in January was a bald faced lie to
everyone on the planet. Even the Democrat anti-tobacco spin
using the “protect-the-children” theme is punctured by Clinton’s
own crude antics in the White House with Monica Lewinsky.
Ardent supporters of the Clinton administration are also up in
arms over privacy — that this is a “private” matter for Clinton
and his family. Yet, Clinton has NEVER supported privacy
rights. The proof of Bill Clinton’s stand on privacy comes
directly from his own hands via proposed legislation and
executive orders.
One spin is that Linda Tripp taping her own conversations with
Monica Lewinsky is somehow a violation of privacy. Forget about
Linda taping her own phone calls. What about an unknown “third”
party with unlimited access to all phones? That is exactly what
Clinton proposed in his 1996 anti-terrorist legislation. Bill
Clinton has long supported the return to “WATERGATE” wiretap
laws and “administrative” warrants. In 1996, Clinton proposed
that any FBI agent could write his own warrant and tap any
phone. No court order, no Reno sign off, no judicial review
required.
In fact, at one point the Clinton administration planned on
bugging every phone, fax or computer by law. Several highly
classified executive orders and top secret reports written for
Clinton obtained using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
detail how the Clinton administration wanted to “mandate (the)
government solution.” The solution was called CLIPPER; an NSA
developed chip designed to bug your phone, fax and computer.
It may shock America to find out Clinton lied in his January
1998 speech. Clinton officials have testified under oath before
Congress that they had “no plans” to mandate the Clipper chip.
Yet, much like the tobacco executives, their lies to Congress
were exposed when the written plans came to light.
Clinton officials also stated publicly in 1993 and 1994 that
CLIPPER had no secret back door that could allow unauthorized
access. Again, the real truth was forced from the Clinton
administration in written form. Department of Justice documentation
clearly stated that CLIPPER did indeed have an “exploitable
feature”.
Democrats claim to protect privacy. Democrats should recall
that it was two ardent Florida followers of Clinton who
illegally taped a cellular phone call that included Newt
Gingrich. They took that tape to Rep. Jim McDermott, D-WA, and he then
released it. Privacy is not reserved only for those you agree with.
The sword also falls against those who wield it. Sen.
Charles Robb, D-VA, forced two top aides to resign because they
illegally taped the phone calls of political rival Democrat
Douglas Wilder. In fact, documents obtained on the CLIPPER chip
show the Dept. of Justice took interest in the Wilder incident.
Many of the Wilder tapes centered on sexual relations between
African-American Governor Wilder who was then dating a very rich
white widow.
Yet, even Robb has his own “sex” problems with a
documented appearance at a Virginia massage parlor. The legal
and political problem of accounting for services rendered
re-appears in the liberal defense of the Washington bookstore
which refused to release records on sales relating to gifts
exchanged between Lewinsky and Clinton. It is common
practice for U.S. merchants to keep records for various reasons
— one of which is in response to an official law enforcement
warrant for records of a crime. The bookstore “invasion of
privacy” spin was no more valid than if a rental company had
refused to release records on trucks given to Timothy McVeigh.
In fact, it is Clinton’s own legislative proposals that are
intrusive and dangerous. Clinton attempted to destroy all
medical privacy rights with his “Health Care” reform project run
by co-President Hillary Clinton. The Clinton team effort would
have forced Americans to reveal much about their sex lives to
law enforcement and government officials.
The HRC medical reform project would have allowed government
officials and researchers unlimited access to all medical
records, including sexual orientation. Another part would have
allowed unlimited access to mental health information for
lawyers involved in any court process. This idea was even
opposed by the Fraternal Order of Police because mental health
officials, including police shrinks, would have been forced to
release patient information for civil cases. Of course, this
explains one reason why trial lawyers love Bill Clinton.
Sex has often resulted in extortion, and breaches of national
security. In the 1980s U.S. Marine guards at the Moscow U.S.
embassy were charged with being lured into a sex-for-secrets
scam by the KGB. The question of the Starr report not only
involves Clinton’s personal security but our national security.
Lewinsky was given a high paying job at the Pentagon,
including Top Secret with Codeword clearance. Ms. Lewinsky was
given access to secrets of extreme national security.
Monica talked to Linda Tripp over the phone about everything
going on between her and her lover in the White House. The
question of whether Tripp was the only one listening is
certainly open for debate. One leak to the wrong person could
have been fatal for Bill Clinton or valued as extortion material
by various enemies of the United States. Loose lips sink ships.
The argument that the Starr report is just about sex is blown to
pieces when the facts surrounding former Clinton official Henry
Cisneros are viewed. Cisneros was charged with lying to the FBI
about making extortion payments to his mistress. Cisneros was
charged and forced to resign in disgrace.
Democrats can also kiss any anti-porn or “decency” issue
good-bye. Tipper Gore once attacked Hollywood and certain
minority music groups with spreading obscene lyrics that called
for the abuse of women or children. The Republican controlled
Congress passed the Communications Decency Act, which would
have banned so called indecent material from publication on the
Internet. Of course, Clinton took credit for the CDA — as he
has done with the Republican led fiscal responsibility that has
brought so much wealth to America. Thus, with many flourishes,
Clinton signed the CDA into law.
Only a few months later the Supreme Court ruled the CDA illegal
and in violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free
speech. In September 1998, the “conservative” Republican
controlled Congress released the Starr Report on the Internet,
proving the Supreme Court was right.
Many right-wing conservatives, law enforcement and religious
groups supported the CDA. Many left-wing feminists, Democrats,
and women’s rights groups also backed the bill. Tipper Gore and
the other anti-smut patrols can eat a little crow. It is not
very likely that Tipper will have much future success trying to
“protect the children” from porno on the Internet because of the
Starr report. Nor will Bill Clinton.
Clinton, however, is a sincere hypocrite. Clinton pushed
so-called “anti-porn” legislation to protect the children of
American. At the same time Clinton also performed vile acts
that would have to be documented, videotaped and distributed
for all Americans, including our children, to see.
19th Century General Carl Von Clausewitz wrote in his book ON
WAR, “Let him give up his time, spare no sacrifice, fear no
temporal rank or power, and rise above all feelings of personal
vanity, of false shame, in order, according to the French code,
to speak the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.”
Free speech has its drawbacks. The truth is often obscene and
not very pretty. It takes courage to tell the truth. That is
why Starr had to write the exact truth — in graphic detail — to
prove his case against Clinton. Without the truth about
Clinton’s reckless and impulsive deeds in the White House there
never would have been a Monica Lewinsky or the Starr report.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS:
