-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a prelude to war! CONGRESS ACTION: February 20, 2000 ================= POLITICS OF REFORM: Election year politics can be strange indeed. Especially when the Executive is a shameless partisan, more concerned with building a legacy that will befog his record of impeachment and as the first president ever to be fined by a federal judge for obstruction of justice; and when the Legislature of the opposite party is afraid of its own shadow, hoping that if it doesn't rock the boat nobody will notice and it can retain its grasp on power. Expect the usual months of wrangling between Congress and the President over the latest Clinton budget, which proposes to spend $1.84 trillion (with precious few tax cuts), and includes plums for every special interest group under the sun including, not inconsequentially, special spending of taxpayer money to help boost the election prospects for would-be president Gore and would-be Senator Hillary (proving once again the foolishness of McCain-style campaign finance reform). A National Taxpayer's Union analysis concluded that Clinton proposed adding $126 billion in over 100 new or expanded programs during the course of his 89 minute State of the Union speech, over $1.4 billion every minute (the Bureau of Engraving can only print about $1 billion a minute). As with any election year budget, much of what was proposed was aimed less at serious legislation than at creating issues over which the candidates can argue. Republicans have already reprised the democrats' refrain whenever Reagan sent one of his budgets to Congress, and have declared Clinton's last budget "dead on arrival". Devotees of limited government that complies with the Constitution -- a dying breed -- can only hope that this is more than just empty election-year rhetoric from Congress. But the arcane fracas over the budget shouldn't obscure other issues that could be even more important in this last Year of Bill. As reported two weeks ago, Senator James Inhofe put a hold on all of Clinton's future judicial nominees because of the president's abuse of his recess appointment power. Last week, Majority Leader Trent Lott undercut Inhofe's plans, by allowing a Senate vote on the confirmation of two Clinton nominees in exchange for Clinton's agreement to appoint a republican nominee to the Federal Election Commission. Filling FEC posts is usually a routine matter, 3 appointees are nominated by each party and presidents usually defer to congressional recommendations. But this particular republican nominee, Bradley Smith, has been a lightening rod for a hot election-year issue, campaign finance reform, ever since he was nominated a year ago by the chief opponent to the McCain-Feingold "reform", Senator Mitch McConnell. Smith believes that the best reform is repeal of contribution limits, along with full disclosure of contributions. Naturally, this idea has the so-called "good government" types appalled. Common Cause president and former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger promised a fight against Smith's confirmation, whining that Clinton has ".caved in to an increasingly extreme faction.who actually believe that big money in politics should be increased, rather than reduced." But so what? Why isn't that also called "reform"? Why is an assault on the First Amendment the only thing called "reform" these days? After all, to "reform" means to improve. Reducing individual contributions would only increase the media's already obscene influence over politics, and that is certainly no improvement. Why does the media think that they are the only ones protected by the First Amendment? The dream of the big government reform types is, eventually, complete taxpayer financing of election campaigns. For decades, taxpayers have had the option of choosing publicly financed campaigns, by checking off the box on their income tax returns that diverts some of their tax payments to the FEC for that purpose. At its highest in 1978, only 29% of taxpayers checked the box. By 1996, that number had fallen to a mere 13% -- meaning that more than 7 out of every 10 taxpayers do not want taxpayer financed election campaigns. So what do the so-called "good government" types want to implement? Taxpayer financed election campaigns. No longer would you have the choice of deciding which candidate to support, government will take your money in taxes and some bureaucrat will make that decision for you. Leave it to democrats and other leftists to pick the one "solution" that provides a maximum of government coercion and a minimum of free choice. The net result of the Clinton-Lott deal is that Clinton gets to portray himself as reasonable and "bipartisan" by nominating a GOP choice who will be only one vote among six; who has only a six year term in office; who, presumably, will feel obligated to follow the existing law, including contribution limits (unlike some Clinton appointees who blithely disregard the law); and who will be attacked so ruthlessly by Clinton's allies on the left that enough waffling republicans might vote against his confirmation and show that they, too, endorse the right kind of "reform". In exchange for this "bipartisan" gesture, Clinton gets the confirmation of two lifetime tenured federal judges. MISSILE THREATS, DEFENSE DELAYS: "The proliferation of medium-range ballistic missiles -- driven primarily by North Korean No Dong sales -- has created an immediate, serious, and growing threat to US forces, interests, and allies, and has significantly altered the strategic balances in the Middle East and Asia. . The worldwide ballistic missile proliferation problem has continued to evolve during the past year. The proliferation of technology and components continues. The capabilities of the missiles in the countries seeking to acquire them are growing. We expect the threat to the United States and its interests to increase over the next 15 years. . We continue to judge that we may not be able to provide much warning if a country purchased an ICBM or if a country already had an SLV capability. We also judge that we may not be able to provide much, if any, warning of a forward-based ballistic missile or land-attack cruise missile (LACM) threat to the United States." -- National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of the growing ballistic missile threat to the United States, our interests, our forces deployed overseas, and to our allies. Last week, the National Intelligence Council delivered that stark warning to the Senate Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services. The Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization continued the warnings in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and subcommittees this week. In 1999, the Congress passed and Clinton signed into law the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, which stated that "It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack." It is now the law of the land. Bill Clinton twice swore an oath that he ".will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Under the Constitution, the duties of the President include that ".he shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Which means that he took an oath to, among other things, faithfully execute the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, "as soon as is technologically possible". Clinton's refusal to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in relation to his "intentionally false and misleading" testimony and his "willful refusal" to obey court orders (in the words of federal judge Wright when she held him in contempt of court) was the topic of much discussion a year ago, and his perjury before a grand jury was one basis for his impeachment. But that was, we were constantly told by Clinton flaks, only about sex. No big deal. But nuclear missiles aimed at the United States or at U.S. military forces deployed overseas is not about sex. And that is a very big deal indeed. Experts in the field of ballistic missile defense agree that the best system would be a layered defense, situated in several locations, beginning with the Aegis system that can be deployed relatively cheaply, and fairly soon, on U.S. naval vessels. The system would grow to include spaced-based sensors and land-based, and possibly spaced-based, interceptors. A number of successful tests have shown that such a system is technologically feasible. There are only two catches: first, such a system would violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (the ABM), an obsolete treaty signed with the now-defunct Soviet Union. Fundamental legal analysis would suggest that any contract signed between two parties ceases to be of any force or effect when one of those parties ceases to exist and has no legal successor. Russia is not the legitimate successor of the Soviet Union, because a number of the former Soviet republics -- now independent nations -- have inherited Soviet ICBMs. None of those independent nations consider themselves in the least bit bound by the ABM, and of course, China and North Korea were never parties to it. But regardless of the legal niceties, the ABM Treaty itself provides that either party may withdraw from the treaty upon giving six months notice. And therein lies the second catch: Bill Clinton, despite changed circumstances and proliferating threats to the United States from nations with growing missile capability, refuses to withdraw from the ABM or to do anything that might be seen as conflicting with the ABM without permission from the Russians. For several months Clinton has been trying to cut a deal with the Russians so that they will permit us to try to defend ourselves with Clinton's preferred option: a single complex system based in a single location. The one-location restriction would render the system incapable of protecting the entire United States, especially against threats that could come from multiple directions, and the system favored by Clinton could not possibly be deployed in under five years. Meanwhile, despite the constant refrain we hear about Russian financial crises, the Russians have found money to continue to develop and improve their own nuclear missile, as well as their biological warfare, capabilities. And according to a General Accounting Office report on U.S. payments to help dismantle Russian nuclear and chemical weapons facilities, "Russian reluctance to share critical information with the United States may limit.national security benefits. Notwithstanding its growing investment in the Mayak [nuclear complex] project, the United States continues to lack clear assurance that Russia will actually use the Mayak facility in a manner that will ensure the achievement of all U.S. national security objectives for the project." The Russians are also providing technical assistance to other countries hostile to the U.S. Again from the NIE report: "Foreign assistance continues to have demonstrable effects on missile advances around the world. Moreover, some countries that have traditionally been recipients of foreign missile technology are now sharing more amongst themselves and are pursuing cooperative missile ventures. Russian missile assistance continues to be significant. China continues to contribute to missile programs in some countries. North Korea may expand sales." Yet Bill Clinton refuses to withdraw from the ABM treaty, continues delaying the decision on deploying a missile defense (in disregard of the legal mandate to do so), and keeps looking for a deal with the Russians. Watch for the announcement of a "historic" agreement -- at best useless, at worst dangerous -- with the Russians just before the election, just in time to portray Al Gore as a foreign policy master. Might there would be some line of damage to national security that democrats and this administration would refuse to cross in their pursuit of political power? Then again, that would be the same bunch that embraced the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that, had it been ratified, would have benefited no one -- except our enemies. Whether it be international treaties or domestic gun control, the left always thinks it better to depend on paper promises and good intentions than the self reliance entailed in self defense. The most fundamental reason that any government exists is to protect its citizens against foreign attack, and it is the primary responsibility of our national government to "provide for the common defense". When a known threat to the safety and security of a nation exists, and when the means exist, or can be developed, to thwart or reduce that threat, and when the leaders of that nation refuse, in the face of that threat, to take steps to defend their nation, then those leaders have betrayed the nation and the people they have sworn to serve. There is no excuse for such a betrayal. But there certainly will be consequences from ignoring or minimizing the threat. The leaders will always be insulated from the threat, but a stiff price could be paid for that betrayal by a defenseless population. FOR MORE INFORMATION. ======================== Senate Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services: http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/ispfs.htm Senate Subcommittee hearing on National Intelligence Estimate on the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States: http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/hearings00.htm National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) Report: http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/020900_nicreport.htm House Armed Services Committee: http://www.house.gov/hasc/ House Committee hearing on ballistic missile defense programs (Lt. Gen. Robert T. Kadish, Director, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization): http://www.house.gov/hasc/testimony/106thcongress/00-02-16kadish.htm General Accounting Office report on Russian nuclear and chemical dismantling efforts and cost (NSIAD-99-76): http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&fil ename=ns99076.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mr. Kim Weissman [EMAIL PROTECTED] **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
