This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Posted on 04/18/2002 10:49:16 AM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
Watch the watch dog huh? Well, God bless you, I think you're off on a tangent. The IRS being used as a scourge upon those whose concience moves them to criticize the corruption of the political left is just a taste of what is to come if that evil movement can rewrite the compact between the American People and the American Government.
Which is the plan of course, stated long and loud by hitler's stepchildren, the left wing of modern American politics.
Today's IRS abuse of scores of citizens will be tomorrow's executions and reeducation centers if the left can do here what it has done on every other corner of the planet.
You flog whoever you please, I have bigger fish to fry.
I'm glad you showed up; I have a question from this monrning?
When you said:
"Instead, why don't you tell us why Jackson isn't now being audited if the Bush IRS is so fair minded and honest as you maintain?"
Am I to understand that you are suggesting that the administration conduct politically motivated IRS audits to prove that they do not engage in politically motivated IRS audits?
Also......since you claim intimate knowledge.......Do you have an approximate figure of JW's annual donations and a rough accounting of where and how the money is spent?
What does this word mean?
Well, interesting you should wonder; I found one person's opinion:
April 18, 2001
Clinton-basher Klayman targets Bush, GOP
Larry Klayman made his name suing Bill and Hillary Clinton every time they turned around. Last week the founder and head of Judicial Watch turned his guns on President George W. Bush and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas). They are, he intimates, not much better than the Clintons, and unless they straighten up and fly right he is ready to sue, sue, sue.
Klayman, who founded Judicial Watch in 1994 to serve as a conservative watchdog over the ethical and legal wrongdoing so much in the news in those days, began suing the Clintons almost immediately, finding the administration what the military calls a target-rich environment.
Many of his suits came to naught and some have yet to be resolved, but his efforts unearthed more than a little Clinton wrongdoing that others had missed. It was Klayman, after all, who managed to find John Huang and begin uncovering Bill and Hillarys involvement with fundraisers who were, in fact, operatives of the Communist regime in Beijing.
Whats more, it was Klayman who stepped forward to take the case of the first Bush administration officials whose FBI files had been illegally transferred to the White House and apparently became bedtime reading for the first lady. Hillary and a few of her cohorts continue to be at some legal risk as a result of this and other Klayman-initiated cases.
Its no wonder that Klayman soon became one of the most hated and admired figures in town. The Clintons and their friends came to despise the man who fast emerged as a watchdog with real bite. Both Clinton critics and Clinton haters came to see him as a hero, a courageous lawyer battling to get at the truth that they were firmly convinced would ultimately sink the gang from Arkansas.
Klayman basked in his notoriety, became a regular on cable television and built Judicial Watch into a truly formidable operation. The numbers tell the story. In 1995, Judicial Watch raised less than $10,000, but by 1998 the operation was bringing in more than $11 million a year through advertising and direct mail.
While others were celebrating the fact that with the election of George W. Bush the Clintons would at last be leaving town, Klayman began hinting that the only reason Bush wasnt anxious to continue pursuing the Clintons in court was that he was contemplating the same sort of activities. Why else, he hinted, would the new president keep saying he wanted to put this behind us when there was so much yet to investigate?
Indeed, Klayman began questioning Bushs ethics even as he was taking office. Things in Washington havent changed much, Judicial Watch advertising seemed to be suggesting, but the public should be assured that he and his team of lawyers are still on the job.
Then, last week, Klayman held a press conference damning the Bush administration, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and DeLay. They were, he fulminated at a press conference, engaged in the same sort of illegal activity that characterized the Clinton administration.
He followed this up with a complaint alleging that an NRCC fundraising appeal represented an attempt to sell meetings with government officials and was, in effect, an effort to solicit bribes. The charges were, to put it mildly, a stretch, but did represent a Klayman declaration of war on the GOP and the president.
Klayman then promised a Judicial Watch probe of the supposed secret deal that resulted in the release of the 24 American fliers being held by China. We aim to find out if any secret promises were made to the Butchers of Beijing behind closed doors, said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. How? By going to court.
Cynics suggest that Klayman pursues his watchdog role because he cant help himself. This, after all, is a man who sued his mother. Others say his motives are suspect in the NRCC-DeLay case because of a business dispute, but if one takes Klayman at his word, he comes across more as a super litigious Common Cause type than as a conservative.
Indeed, to listen to him, one is forced to conclude that he just happened to be targeting Democrats and liberals during the Clinton years, but is now ready to go after conservatives and Republicans with equal vigor. He even implicitly took credit for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform vote in the Senate during his press conference attacking DeLay.
The question is whether he can get conservatives or others to continue to write checks to his operation while he attacks DeLay rather than Clinton. Whether one likes him or agrees with him, Larry Klayman has now put his future and that of the organization he founded on the line.
For example, if he was backed by a conservative group. Am I wrong on that?
This statement of yours is most interesting. I felt sure that your confidence and extreme defense was backed by first-hand knowledge.
So, you're really just supposin' and hopin' that ol' Lar is what you think he is??????
You are arguing with the fry guy from Arthur Treacher's?
Yep, everybody whose political head rests on a pike because of Klayman's service to society, now get this...
< does not like him >
So, sure, lots of folks, yourself included, good sir (which makes your question rather unfortunately humerous to ponder) have a vendetta against Klayman.
Aren't you proof?
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.