après-ski: Frank's a no-show

Q ERTY7
debut
ping!

clinton-McAuliffe-DNC CORRUPTING ELECTORAL PROCESS/UNDERMINING HOMELAND SECURITY

hey...yer bak...that's a good thing

:)

Outstanding!

Mia, I hope you make money doing this. You're Good!

REAL good to see ya again!!!!

Deus Vult! 'Pod

Thanks Mia Bttt

Sax boy...where's the sax boy!

Rumor has it William Jefferson Clinton himself is to recite Honest Abe's lines in this New Year's Eve pageant. Whoever writes these scripts has a natural talent for irony. For some irrepressible reason, one cannot help but think of that costume party in "The Manchurian Candidate,'' complete with Red Queen and Abe Lincoln in stovepipe hat and fake beard.

Hey, what a party! New Year's at the White House

The Manchurian Candidate?
Or Being There?

by Mia T

The Republicans' latest talking point is that the breach of national security enabled by clinton must be simple incompetence, that the concept that anyone in government would commit treason is too outrageous even to contemplate.

If the Republicans believe what they are saying, then they are morons.
If they don't believe what they are saying, then they, too, are traitors.

Outrageousness is an essential element of clinton corruption. The clinton crimes -- rape, murder -- and now treason -- are so outrageous that they allow clinton hacks to reasonably brand all clinton accusers clinton-hating neo-Nazi crazies.

Yet privately few clintonites would deny that Bill Clinton facilitated China espionage. Their only question: "Why?"

Some call clinton a quisling, a Manchurian Candidate, bought off in Little Rock by Riady and company decades ago (and much too cheaply, according to his Chinese benefactors), trading our national security for his political power. This argument is persuasive but incomplete; clinton, a certifiable megalomaniac, is driven ultimately by his solipsistic, messianic world view and by that which ultimately quashes all else -- his toxic legacy.

William J. Broad suggests (Spying Isn't the Only Way to Learn About Nukes, The New York Times, May 30, 1999) that clinton had another reason to empower China and disembowel America. Broad argues that clinton sought to disseminate our atomic secrets proactively in order to implement his postmodern, quite inane epistemological theory, namely, that, contrary to currently held dogma, knowledge is not power after all -- that, indeed, quite the contrary is the case.

Broad writes in part:

Since 1993, officials say, the Energy Department's "openness initiative"
has released at least 178 categories of atom secrets. By contrast, the
1980s saw two such actions...

Its overview of the disclosures, "Restricted Data Declassification
Decisions," dated January 1999 and more than 140 pages long, lists such
things as how atom bombs can be boosted in power, key steps in making
hydrogen bombs, the minimum amount (8.8 pounds) of plutonium or uranium
fuel needed for an atom bomb and the maximum time it takes an exploding
atomic bomb to ignite an H-bomb's hydrogen fuel (100 millionths of a
second).

No grade-B physicist from any university could figure this stuff. It
took decades of experience gained at a cost of more than $400 billion.

The release of the secrets started as a high-stakes bet that openness
would lessen, not increase, the world's vulnerability to nuclear arms
and war. John Holum, who heads arms control at the State Department,
told Congress last year that the test ban "essentially eliminates" the
possibility of a renewed international race to develop new kinds of
nuclear arms...

"The United States must stand as leader," O'Leary told a packed news
conference in December 1993 upon starting the process. "We are
declassifying the largest amount of information in the history of the
department."

Critics, however, say the former secrets are extremely valuable to
foreign powers intent on making nuclear headway. Gaffney, the former
Reagan official, disparaged the giveaway as "dangling goodies in front
of people to get them to sign up into our arms-control agenda."

Thomas B. Cochran,:..."In terms of the phenomenology of nuclear weapons...the
cat is out of the bag."

...[F]ormer Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the "extensive declassification" of secrets had inadvertently aided the global spread of deadly weapons. ["inadvertently" ???!!!!]

Broad would have us believe we are watching "Being There" and not "The Manchurian Candidate." His argument is superficially appealing as most reasonable people would conclude that it requires the simplemindedness of a Chauncy Gardener (in "Being There") to reason that instructing China and a motley assortment of terrorist nations on how to beef up their atom bombs and how not to omit the "key steps" when building hydrogen bombs would somehow blunt and not stimulate their appetites for bigger and better bombs and a higher position in the power food chain.

But it is Broad's failure to fully connect the dots -- clinton's wholesale release of atomic secrets, decades of Chinese money sluicing into clinton's campaigns, clinton's pushing of the test ban treaty, clinton's concomitant sale of supercomputers, and clinton's noxious legacy -- that blows his argument to smithereens and reduces his piece to just another clinton apologia by The New York Times.

But even a Times apologia cannot save clinton from the gallows. Clinton can be both an absolute (albeit postmodern) moron and a traitor. The strict liability Gump-ism, "Treason is as treason does" applies.

(The idea that an individual can be convicted of the crime of treason only if there is treasonous intent or *mens rea* runs contrary to the concept of strict liability crimes. That doctrine (Park v United States, (1974) 421 US 658,668) established the principle of 'strict liability' or 'liability without fault' in certain criminal cases, usually involving crimes which endanger the public welfare.)

Calling his position on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty "an historic milestone," (if he must say so himself) clinton believed that if he could get China to sign it, he would go down in history as the savior of mankind. This was 11 August 1995.

According to James Risen and Jeff Gerth of The New York Times, "the legacy codes and the warhead data that goes with them" -- apparently stolen from the Los Alamos weapons lab by scientist, Wen Ho Lee aided and abetted by bill clinton, hillary clinton, the late Ron Brown, Sandy Berger, Hazel O'Leary, Janet Reno, Eric Holder and others in the clinton administration (not to mention congressional clinton accomplices Glenn, Daschle, Bumpers, Harkin, Boxer, Feinstein, Lantos, Levin. Lautenberg, Torricelli et al.) -- "could (especially when combined with the supercomputers that clinton sold to China to help them finish the job) be particularly valuable for a country, like China, that has signed onto the nuclear test ban treaty and relies solely on computer simulations to upgrade and maintain its nuclear arsenal. The legacy codes are now used to maintain the American nuclear arsenal through computer simulation.

Most of Lee's transfers occurred in 1994 and 1995, just before China signed the test ban treaty in 1996, according to American officials."

Few who have observed clinton would argue against the proposition that this legacy-obsessed megalomaniac would trade our legacy codes for his rehabilitated legacy in a Monica minute and to hell with "the children."
Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

Bill Clinton may not be the worst president America has had, but surely he is the worst person to be president.*

---GEORGE WILL, Sleaze, the sequel

Had George Will written Sleaze, the sequel (the "sequel" is, of course, hillary) after 9-11-01, I suspect that he would have had to forgo the above conceit, as the doubt expressed in the setup phrase was, from that day forward, no longer operational.
Indeed, assessing the clinton presidency an abject failure is not inconsistent with commentary coming from the left, most recently the LA Times: "Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize."
When the clintons left office, I predicted that the country would eventually learn--sadly, the hard way--that this depraved, self-absorbed and inept pair had placed America (and the world) in mortal danger. But I was thinking years, not months.
It is very significant that hillary clinton didn't deny clinton culpability for the terrorism. (Meet the Press, 12-09-01), notwithstanding tired tactics (if you can't pass the buck, spread the blame) and chronic "KnowNothing Victim Clinton" self-exclusion.
If leftist pandering keeps the disenfranchized down in perpetuity, clinton pandering,("it's the economy, stupid"), kept the middle and upper classes wilfully ignorant for eight years.
And ironically, both results (leftist social policy and the clinton economy) are equally illusory, fraudulent. It is becoming increasingly clear that clinton covertly cooked the books even as he assiduously avoided essential actions that would have negatively impacted the economy--the ultimate source of his continued power--actions like, say, going after the terrorists.
It is critically important that hillary clinton fail in her grasp for power; read Peggy Noonan's little book, 'The Case Against Hillary Clinton' and Barbara Olson's two books; it is critical that the West de-clintonize, but that will be automatic once it is understood that the clintons risked civilization itself in order to gain and retain power.
It shouldn't take books, however, to see that a leader is a dangerous, self-absorbed sicko. People should be able to figure that out for themselves. The electorate must be taught to think, to reason. It must be able to spot spin, especially in this age of the electronic demagogue.
I am not hopeful. As Bertrand Russell noted, "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so. "

Mia T, hillary clinton blames hubby for terrorism

(SHE knew nuttin')

Meet the Press, 12-09-01

*George Will continues: There is reason to believe that he is a rapist ("You better get some ice on that," Juanita Broaddrick says he told her concerning her bit lip), and that he bombed a country to distract attention from legal difficulties arising from his glandular life, and that. ... Furthermore, the bargain that he and his wife call a marriage refutes the axiom that opposites attract. Rather, she, as much as he, perhaps even more so, incarnates Clintonism

Q ERTY3 co-rapist bump!

^{Q ERTY6}
Had George Will written Sleaze, the sequel (the "sequel" is, of course, hillary) after 9-11-01, I suspect that he would have had to forgo the above conceit, as the doubt expressed in the setup phrase was, from that day forward, no longer operational.
clinton-was-an- utter-failure
NORTH KOREA REALITY-CHECK
bump!

October 18, 2002

Vol. 24

'Lautenberg's Shameless Ducking of Televised Debates Makes a Mockery' of Democracy

Democrats won the right to put Frank Lautenberg's name on the ballot this year after arguing that democracy would be better served by a healthy, vibrant competition between two major-party candidates.

Lautenberg's shameless ducking of televised debates makes a mockery of that position. New Jersey voters vote statewide for only two offices: governor and U.S. senator. Less than three weeks before the election, voters more than ever need to see GOP Senate candidate Douglas Forrester and his brand-new opponent, Lautenberg, debate each other on the issues. Health care. Education. Environment. Defense. Civil liberties. Homeland security.

When he met Forrester at a campaign stop two weeks ago, Lautenberg said he would debate Forrester 'anywhere, anytime.' Pure bluster. Lautenberg canceled a planned debate this Sunday on 'Meet the Press' and has so far agreed to only one face-to-face, televised debate -- a mere three days before the election. That's not enough.

Time is running out. There are numerous organizations and media outlets willing to sponsor debates -- including The Press, for that matter. Forrester says he will debate anytime. He'll even reluctantly agree to Lautenberg's caveat that debates include third-party candidates, as well.

But flush with money and leading in the polls, Lautenberg's strategy is apparently to minimize his appearances before the press and public. That's wrong -- particularly in this election. Debate, Mr. Lautenberg. Your name is on the ballot because this state and its courts have a fierce commitment to a healthy, vital election process. Don't let them down.î

-- The Press of Atlantic City editorial, October 18, 2002

click here to view full column:

Paid for by Forrester 2002, Inc.

LONG TIME NO SEE!!!!

Mia,

The Republican National Committee needs you. Please use me for a reference! Great work!

Thanks Mia.... looks like you have cranked up the output going into the election next week. If you have a 'ping' list could you please add me?

Keep up the good work!

It's over - congratulations to the Angels! Here's something I thought I would never say: Angels 2002 World Champions!

Glad to see you here again!! Missed ya!!

EXCELLENT WORK!! You are a politicial commentator-computer whizz!

October 18, 2002 Vol. 24

'Lautenberg's Shameless Ducking of Televised Debates Makes a Mockery' of Democracy

October 18, 2002

Vol. 24