Posted on 10/26/2002 10:12:21 AM PDT by forest
Everyone seems to have their favorite conspiracies nowadays and we must get "alerted" to four or five new ones a week. So, herein, we shall not be starting yet another.
Still, there is a rather significant point that must be made before the general election next month. Because, there really is a well entrenched organization afoot that is unabashedly reorganizing life in the United States as we know it. This group is not secret. In fact, they hold semipublic meetings in our nation's Capitol and everyone in the Washington press corps know about them.
Fifty years ago, most members of Congress would have quickly labeled the goals and activities of groups like these as "un-American activities." Today, almost all the members of the groups in question are members of the Democratic Party, as well as members of Congress.
So, while this cannot actually be labeled as a secret conspiracy, there really is a workable plan afoot that could put the leadership of most of the important committees in Congress in the hands of people with decidedly un-American intentions.
This study was begun to determine what the House would look like if the Democrats won back control next month. Dick Gephardt would be Speaker, of course. But, that's only the beginning of the problem. Most work is done in the various committees and whoever runs the committees wields much of the power. So, as we do every couple years, we looked to see who the ranking Democrats are on a few important committees and subcommittees. Let's see what will happen this time around if the Democrats win back Congress next month.
The Appropriation Committee has two subcommittees of interest for this study. If the Democrats take the House, the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies will be chaired by Marcy Kaptur** (D-Ohio).
Kaptur** received the double asterisk after her name because she is a long-term, active member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus(1). The Progressive Caucus is a socialist organization aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America and the Socialist International(2) network. The Progressive Caucus "platform" (of sorts) can be found on their Progressive Challenge website.(3)
Now that we have noted the use of the double asterisk as a shorthand gimmick, let's return to examining the disgusting situation we could find ourselves in if the Democratic Party is allowed to win back Congress.
The Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs could be chaired by Nancy Pelosi** (D-CA). Except, Pelosi** was recently elected by other far left Democratic-socialists to become House Democratic Whip, which means she would be first in line as majority leader if the Democratic Party controlled the House and Gephardt becomes Speaker.
More alarming yet, Pelosi** is currently the ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence -- which exercises oversight of all U.S. government intelligence activities. That means, there is a good chance a card carrying socialist could actually become chairman of Intelligence.
Chairmanship of the House Banking and Financial Services Committee would go to either John J. LaFalce (D-NY) or Bernard Sanders** (S-VT). At the subcommittee level, Barney Frank** (D-MA) would chair Housing and Community Opportunity and/or the Committee on Financial Services. Maxine Waters** (D-CA) would chair the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy and Bernard Sanders** (S-VT) could chair the General Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.
Under the House Commerce Committee, Henry A. Waxman** (D-CA) is in line to chair either the Subcommittee on Health and Environment or the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
Worse, Waxman** (D-CA) would probably take over the powerful House Government Reform Committee. The Committee on Government Reform is the main investigative committee in the U.S. House of Representatives. It has jurisdiction to investigate any federal program and any matter with federal policy implications. As Ranking Member, Waxman** already sits on all of the Government Reform Committee's subcommittees and often disrupts as much as possible.
It appears that John F. Tierney** (D-MA), would get the chairmanship of the Committee on Government Reform's Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs -- which deals with matters relating to the nation's economic growth, competitiveness, natural resources and regulatory reform and paperwork reduction measures.
As ranking member on the Government Reform subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations, Jan Schakowsky** (D-ILL) would chair the committee that supervises agency budgets.
The powerful House Ways and Means Committee would be chaired by Charles B. Rangel (D-NY). The subcommittee on Oversight would be chaired by William J. Coyne, (D-PA) and Pete Stark** (D-CA) would get Health -- whose scope includes taxes, Medicare, Social Security, trade and public assistance.
The Postal Services subcommittee would be chaired by Chaka Fattah** (D-PA).
Lynn Woolsey** (D-CA) is ranking minority member on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, so would probably chair that. However, Woolsey** is also ranking minority member on the House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and so could choose to chair that committee instead.
Anything could happen on the House Judiciary Committee because John Conyers** (D-MI) (of reparations fame) would be chairman. Or, Conyers** could again become Chairman of the House Committee on Government Operations.
The House Committee on Resources would be another major problem for the American people because George Miller** (D-CA) could become chairman. Miller, we might add, wants to hand over more than half of our nation's public lands to UN and UNESCO control through the biosphere reserve program, so we see great mischief there. Or, Miller** could become Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Peter DeFazio** (D-OR) would chair the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee which has jurisdiction over the Army Corps of Engineers and Clean Water Act programs.
Jim McGovern** (D-MA) is the third-ranking Democrat on the powerful House Rules Committee and there is an outside possibility he could become chairman of that.
Tom Lantos** (D-CA) would become chairman of the International Relations Committee, which has jurisdiction over all aspects of United States foreign policy, including political relations, security policies, participation in international organizations, human rights, and trade development.
Major R. Owens** (D-NY) would chair the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Jerrold Nadler** (D-NY) would chair either the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee or the House Resources Committee and either Nadler** or Mel Watt** (D-NC) could get the chairmanship of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
The House Veterans Committee would be chaired by Lane Evans** (D- IL). For the subcommittees, Luis V. Gutierrez** (D-IL) would get Health, Bob Filner** (D-CA) could get Benefits and Corrine Brown** (D-FL) Oversight and Investigations.
The House Armed Services Committee's Military Personnel Subcommittee would go to Neil Abercrombie** (D-HI).
John Olver** (D-MA) is Ranking Member (top Democrat) on the Military Construction Subcommittee of Appropriations, so would chair that. As the senior Democrat on the of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Health, Bob Filner** (D-CA) could take that chairmanship.
Donald M. Payne** (D-NJ) is Ranking Member of the International Relations Committee's Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and Subcommittee on Africa, so would get that chairmanship.
José E. Serrano**, the Democrat Delegate from Puerto Rico, is the ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary and would get that chairmanship. Also from Puerto Rico is the Democratic Delegate Carlos Romero-Barceló. He would chair the National Parks & Public Lands Subcommittee. Eni Faleomavaega**, the Delegate from American Samoa, would chair the Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife & Oceans Subcommittee. Robert Underwood, the Delegate from Guam, would chair the Committee on Resources' Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Yes. You read that correctly. People none of us elected to anything would chair committees controlling our commercial law and much of the public lands and conservation in the continental United States -- even though they are not from here. They cannot vote for a bill on the floor of the House, but they can in committee. They can introduce bills, too. Moving on, we find that the House Small Business Committee would be chaired by Nydia Velazquez** (D-NY) and the Government Programs and Oversight Subcommittee by Danny Davis** (D-IL).
So, there you have it. At least thirty important committees in the House will be chaired by card carrying, go to meetin' socialists if the Democrats win. They will have many of the financial committees, some of the military affairs committees and control most of the environmental issues. Their common bond is socialism, which they admit to publicly by membership in the Progressive Caucus.
On the Senate side, Senator Paul Wellstone** (D-Min.) is (was, anyway) Chairman of the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs -- and a card-carrying member of the Progressive Caucus.
Scratch the surface of the Democratic Party leadership and there are the same five who have been there for years: The Clintons and McAuliffe, of course. But, along with the Clintons, their friends Joe Lieberman and Al From are also card-carrying proponents of "Third Way" socialism in the United States -- just like their European political cohorts like Gerhard Shroeder and Tony Blair, who are Vice Presidents of Socialist International.
The immediate problem started with Lieberman's Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)(4). The DLC was founded in 1985. The past chairs include Bill Clinton and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt. Then, the chairmanship went back to Joe Lieberman, with Al From as the ever-present Chief Executive Officer. Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) is identified as the current chairman, but it is really Lieberman and From calling all the shots there.
The DLC "think tank" is the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)(5), which admits to being a "Third Way" socialist organization: "The Progressive Policy Institute is a catalyst for political change. Its mission is to modernize progressive politics and government for the Information Age. Leaving behind the stale left-right debates of the industrial era, PPI is a prolific source of 'Third Way' thinking that is shaping the emerging politics of the 21st century."
An offshoot of the DLC and PPI is The New Democrat Network(NDN)(6). The NDN was founded in 1996 by Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the DLC. The NDN "acts as a political venture capital fund to create a new generation of elected officials eager to lead the U.S. and the world into the 21st century and the Internet Age. NDN is committed to electing political leaders who are capable of realizing the great promise of the new century while ensuring that no one is left behind."
NDN has about 65 members in the House and 16 in the senate. Generally speaking, the function of the NDN is to act as the DLC's political action committee and launder soft money to favored Congressional campaign committees.
There is no need to look too hard in the Senate to find un-American activities. Start with the impeachment fiasco and work out. Not one Democratic Senator bothered to even look at the evidence against Clinton. Not even one! Which means, not one Democratic Senator belongs in any position of honor ever again.
We must note, too, that no Democratic Senator came forward to decry their Party's outright violation of our election process. Senator Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) won his New Jersey primary election and the right to place his name on the general election ballot, which he did. When the Democratic Party leadership realized that Torricelli would not win the general election, they violated the will of the voters by coercing him into quitting and stuck 78-year-old socialist Frank Lautenberg in his place.
ome might still remember Lautenberg's first campaign, in 1982. Therein, he ran against 72-year-old Millicent Fenwick. As part of Lautenberg's campaign, he made an issue of age, insinuating she no longer had the capacity to be a senator. She did then. He doesn't today.
But, at least he is alive. In the last few elections the Democratic Party has actually thought it proper to run dead candidates. That fits well with their program, though. They have had dead voters submitting ballots for at least three decades.
Of course, the Democratic Party also fields special teams to visit institutions and collect ballots from Alzheimer’s patients, mental patients and even nursing home patients in comas. So, voting for those who are already dead is just follow-up constituent service for Democrats.
Just last week, in Madison, Wisconsin, prosecutors said that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jim Doyle's campaign traded food and money to secure votes at a bingo party. Oklahoma, Arkansas, South Dakota, and Nevada were also in the news for voter fraud. In Michigan, Detroit still has not completed counting all the ballots from the primary election that ended many weeks ago and probably never will.
The AFL-CIO is no longer running TV ads aimed at influencing House and Senate races around the country. Instead, they will join with other unions and contribute millions of dollars in "walking around money" for Democratic Party activists. They call it their "get out the vote" drive. In fact, that "drive" has a lot more to do with creating votes than getting people to the correct polling place.
In the last election cycle, Democrats received $46.3 million in soft money from organized labor. Just twelve unions collectively contributed more than $17 million in soft money to Democratic state committees.
Why do Democrats support the failed government school system? They are paid for that support. The National Education Association contributed at least $21 million in the last election -- 95 percent of it to Democrats.
The Association of Trial Lawyers of America gave $19 million to Democrats. And Hollywood entertainment executive Haim Saban, gave at least $11 million to the Democrats -- including a $1 million donation to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees alone contributed at least $30.6 million since the 1989-90 election cycle and over 90% of it went to Democrats. Which means, government employees were bribing their bosses for better pay and benefits.
Most of these groups are very far-left, politically, and/or outwardly socialist groups. All of these groups want something for their money, of course. The Democrats deliver. Therefore, Democratic Party politicians receive plenty of money.
The problem of the Democratic Party is not receiving contributions, it is receiving legal contributions that may be directly used for political campaigns. That is not the type of funding their major contributors favor giving. Therefore, the Democratic Party is often overwhelmed with more so called "soft money" than they can spend legally. Hence, it is common to see them illegally buying votes with money, or whatever other commodity it takes.
Foreign money also comes into play here. Clinton, Gore and Chris Dodd were caught taking cash from communist Chinese, but that is but the tip of that iceberg. Israel launders about a hundred-million dollars into every election cycle. Japan, Inc. isn't far behind Israel. Mexico is getting into the act, as are a variety of South American countries. Most of that money is funneled through lobbyists and Washington law firms to Democrats who will vote correctly.
That is quite illegal, of course. For instance, 2 USC 441e states that it is unlawful for a foreign national to contribute to any political campaign. Yet, the Democratic National Committee knowingly and actively solicits funds from foreign nationals. The DNC also solicits funds from law firms and lobbyists they know to be little more than cut-outs for foreign corporations and governments.
Another law, 18 USC 600, states that, "Whoever promises any contact or other benefit as a consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity may be fined, imprisoned, or both." No one on Capitol Hill pays any attention to that law. There are never any arrests, either. If lobbyists could not promise their clients contacts on Capitol Hill, they would not have much money to contribute to political campaigns.
Also, 18 USC 1956 states that: "Whoever illegally obtains campaign contributions, or knowingly accepts campaign contributions that are laundered in an attempt to conceal the nature, source, ownership or control of the funds, may be fined, imprisoned, or both." Yet, everyone on Capitol Hill knows exactly which lobbyists and Washington legal firms are laundering campaign donation money from clients who cannot legally contribute themselves. They accept the money, anyway.
All of the above applies to the Democrats on Capitol Hill. Unfortunately, some also applies to Republicans -- especially the so called Rockefeller Republicans (often called RINO's -- Republicans In Name Only) who really do not belong in the Republican Party.
But, the point is, Democrats on Capitol Hill tend to be out-and-out socialists. Many are also lawbreakers. All work against the original intent of the authors of our Constitution. Therefore, they consciously and intentionally violate their oath of office and should never be allowed to hold a position in any level of government.
As President Ronald Reagan wisely cautioned: "Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom, and then lost it, have never known it again."
By instilling socialism in the United States, the Democrats intend to usurp our freedom. As an instant correction by peaceful means, we should all vote straight Republican next month. Then, we can cull out the bad Republicans in the next primary election.
1. <http://bernie.house.gov/pc>
2. <http://www.dsausa.org/si/si.html>
3. <http://www.ips-dc.org/netprogress/>
4. <http://www.ndol.org>
5. <http://www.ppionline.org/index.cfm>
The Libertarians believe the government should acknolwedge people's rights of self-defense. The Democrats think those who would seek to be able to defend themselves should be thrown in jail.
The Democrats believe students should be required to attend school lectures about the wonders of 'sexual diversity' and other such nonsense. The Libertarians believe parents should be allowed to control their children's education.
Libertarians believe people should be allowed to keep the money they earn. Democrats believe people should be allowed to keep what other people earn.
Those seem like some pretty big differences to me.
After yet another amnesty, today's illegals will be tomorrow's socialists, pulling the vote lever for the Dems.
Voting Republican and 'working within the system' doesn't get anything done. Some are even pouring gasoline on the fire and voting Democrat just to speed things along.
WHAT ??!??!? ... Help me out here. how are people who are not Congressmen allowed to wield such power in a committee?
The Socialist Democrats were the ones who stopped this, though. Fact is, the politicians will follow the votes. But the GOP Congress of 1994-1996 was quite bold in slowing and stopping programs. They were effective enought they forced Clinton to go from trying to be LBJ Jr to saying 'the era of big government is over'.
Conservative REPUBLICANS did that. Libertarians are about 218 seats away from having any impact.
We have a chance for a conservative/libertarian/moderate center-right COALITION to reduce Government and move in the right direction (eg Bush *is* proposing flexibility in Soc Sec program, he *is* proposing making tax cuts permanent etc., these are issues for 2003 and 2004, if Dems own either House of Congress, its DOA). Or we can splinter and let the left/Socialists run the show.
Frankly far too many Libertarians and Conservatives lack the imagination of the leftists. The Leftists understand that there are MANY avenues to gaining and exercising power - the vote IS JUST ONE OF THEM. NARAL, NOW, ACLU - you dont see them getting upset over Democrats that only 80% follow their path. why? because the leftist special interests have many other means - intimidiation, agitprop, press releases, marches, media PR, the campus, etc. - to advance their agenda and their ideas.
Deep down this is about winning the hearts and minds of the citizenry. Nothing more nothing less. A pro-freedom voting public will do the right thing, a complacent socialist voting public will vote for the socialists.
Libertarians should quit focussing so much energy on the pointless pursuit of minor losing candidates who only split the pro-freedom vote, since most pro-freedom votes are Republican votes. USE FOCUSSED POLITICAL ACTION AND DIRECT LOBBYING TO ACHIEVE YOUR END. In other words: 1. Vote Republican, 2. Get organizaed as a bloc and TELL THE REPUBLICAN WAHT TO DO. If you vote for him/her, you *own* him or her. Really Libertarians need to cultivate WINNING ADVOCATS FOR FREEDOM. IMHO, the RLC is doing 10 times more good than the LP since they use this far more successful strategy.
The LP has been here since 1973 and has had 3 decades of irrelevency to show for it. As long as you vote for people WHO DONT WIN, YOU HAVE NO VOICE IN THE HALLS OF POWER.
So of course the smart thing is to use the many other means, like freeper-style activism and ideological warfare to oppose the Democrats and Socialists who are the real enemies of freedom in our country today.
Remember Bush went from 54% of the vote in 1988 to 37% in 1992, despite having won a great Gulf War victory and despite the fact that 1992 economy was in recovery mode, this 3rd party effect created a harping on economy, making things sound worse than they were. Folks like Perot kept the election on the "issues" which was actually a way to create a smokescreen to hide Clinton's manifest character and honesty flaws, while creating a 'blame game' against Bush, made it easier for Clinton to sell his "its the economy stupid" message. Perot ended up being a stalking horse for Clinton. And lots of white male votes were drawn off by Perot.
She was a wishy washy woman to say the least. She made those comments in 1999 and has since then she endorsed North Carolina’s law allowing the carrying of concealed weapons.” (News & Observer, 11-20-01)
She has futher related the below lately. "Seven years after President Clinton and his allies outlawed so-called assault weapons, there appears to have been little effect on crime prevention or punishment. What is effective is the Instant Check system. We should stick with what works. We do not need new restrictions on those who already observe the thousands of gun laws on the books."
But what did her opponent support???? Dole has backed down on her statements and looked at the issue futher and changed her position. But I, like you, do wish the woman was not so flip/floppy, but at least she flopped the right dirrection. Personally I don't like to vote for a women in high positions for this very reason. (Yeah women, gripe all you like, I'm a pig). But I don't vote in that state and my armchair computer chat here carries little weight. Mrs. Dole was not who I would of chosen in the primaries, but the people did. She is the better still than the demorat nethertheless.
BTW. Looks like Bowles stands firmly in the gun control group. (source: http://www.ncrpa.org/pc402.htm ) ---National North Carolina rifle and pistol association.
Dole in 1996 was another story. That guy was such a horrible candidate he would have lost to a ham sandwich. And if the Republicans hadn't given up their spine in backing such a lackluster candidate they might have been much better able able to keep Clinton 'in check'.
Bill Clinton was/is a vile human being, but Republicans seem to forget that he was actually not a flaming liberal. He was more interested in his own gratification than in opposing the Republicans, and in fact passed a considerable number of Republican initiatives after re-branding them as his own.
Dole would probably have been a far worse President than Clinton should have been allowed to be (if the Republicans in Congress had had any spine), and may perhaps have been a worse president than Clinton in fact was.
So you want the government to become the church. They weren't able to prevent 9/11 and you want them to create a moral populice? LOL.
I am sure that is not the case. Clinton only won 43% of the vote, and did not have a blowout on electoral college.
I agree that Dole was an awful candidate. It kind of underscores my point about how libertarians must behave. Dole nevers articulated WHY YOU SHOULD THINK CONSERVATIVE AND VOTE ACCORDINGLY. He just stated his positions, often without any intellectual girding. Much different from say a Reagan or a Newt Gingrich. With guys like Dole, it just makes it so easy for the Liberals to set the agenda.
I emphatically disagree with Dole vs. Clinton on who would be better as President though. Clinton *was* a flaming liberal on all but the headline issues and only was in the center because he was poll-driven. his judge appointments have been consistent leftists, his appointees passed regulation after regulation, and he did a lot to aid and abet the corruption that increased democrat patronage and power.
Conservatives and Libertarians need to be less concerned about who get into office, and more concerned about the IDEAS that are advocated and advanced. We can only talk about our issues if we get advocates who are Republicans into office, if we make sure Democrats do not have majorities in Congress, and that the media doesnt use their power to set a liberal agenda.
The battle for ideas will continue. In the end, the truth will win.
This current GOP administration is the most socialist, anti-Constitutional Republican administration in history.
We may both be right. Pretty sad, no?
I am sure Tom, Dick and Hilllary! will appreciate you and your principled stand.
I no longer care. I used to hate Billary, but now that Billary = Bush, I no longer care.
I voted for Bush (holding my nose) because I wanted a retreat from globalism, but instead, I got war hysteria. "Conservatism" now means "war at all costs." Doesn't matter how flimsy the evidence tying Iraq to 9/11, we must attack Iraq, no matter what the financial or political costs. Even as Bush is cozying up to Red China -- which is calling its own dissidents "terrorists" -- and Bush may agree.
9/11 could have been avoided if we had followed the Libertarian policy of foreign non-intervention. Well, I've voted GOP long enough. Regardless of whether the Demopublicans or Republicrats win, it's all the same.
Hillary, Bush, Daschle, Rumsfeld ... who cares? Not me. Not anymore.
libertarian and refuse to vote for a candidate simply because of the "R" beside their name. If 'pubbies can't win because of ideological differences it's their problem. Become MORE conservative, and maybe they'll separate themselves from the dims.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.