-Caveat Lector-
WHY EXPOSE GORE'S RECORD NOW?
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
Date: December 9, 1998
He is as dumb and poisonous as a Gila Monster, as slimy-
tailed and mean-spirited as a 'possum, as greedy as a backwoods
loan-shark; he is an Armand Hammer protege, with connections,
disloyalties, and morals to match. You know how that good old
Tennessee boy can get, when he doesn't get his way! There are
some who might suggest, that if some relevant Baptist minister
had held young Al Gore, Jr. under for just another three minutes,
the baptism might have succeeded in making a Christian of even
that "New Age" heathen fanatic. Our bi-polar Vice-President has a
record as long as your arm. The question which will be asked of
me, is, why did I wait so long to speak publicly of the matter in
these terms?
In life in general, especially in history-making matters of
state, there are some true facts, like your cousin Butch's smelly
feet, Mathilda's insufferably bad breath, or Al Gore's ethics,
which we avoid mentioning, unless absolutely necessary. But,
then, if there comes a time when the survival of nations, even of
civilizations, demands it, the unpleasant truths must be told,
plainly, in timely fashion, with pungency and force.
How will you react, for example, to the curious coincidence,
that one of my own and President Clinton's loudest enemies,
Conrad Black's Hollinger Corporation, has said pretty much the
same thing about Gore, in the Nov. 1, 1998 edition of its
flagship publication, {The London Daily Telegraph}? How will you
react to learning the additional, hard evidence, which the
{Telegraph} did not report, which shows, that Vice-President Al
Gore has deep, long-standing, close connections to a wide
assortment of some of the most savage among President Bill
Clinton's most impassioned, and nastiest, Zionist far-right-wing
and other political and personal enemies, the recently retired
Newt Gingrich and Conrad Black notably included. Ask yourself:
Why would my own and Clinton's perfervid enemies at the London
{Telegraph}, ruin their otherwise nearly perfect publishing
record, by, for once, telling the insider's truth about anyone,
even Gore?
The time to speak out, came on the day, in Kuala Lumpur,
when Vice-President Gore made an ass of the United States
government, before the entire world. Admittedly, with his
infantile Bozo-the-Clown act at that recent APEC meeting, he
created a scandal which has ruined forever his chances of
becoming President of the United States; but, that is only the
surface of the crucial national-security problem he created by
his behavior.
The gut of the Gore issue, is that this is no ordinary
strategic crisis. By acting as he has done, repeatedly, in the
worsening world crisis which erupted this Autumn, in the midst
of the most awesome, global financial and monetary crisis in
modern history, Gore's foolish actions, like the treachery of the
Confederacy's Jefferson Davis, crossed the bloody line. He went
beyond his usual, childish foolishness, and crossed that line,
which defines where U.S. national-security ends, and intolerable
conduct begins.
In the present world crisis, in face of the terrible crisis
to hit during the coming eight weeks, U.S. national security
demands that very plain words be spoken, without the usual
double-talking, boardroom etiquette. The man whom the very-well-
informed {Telegraph} reporter aptly described as "President-in-
Impatient-Waiting" Gore, has crossed the line. After what he has
done, even those who have otherwise tended to be sympathetic to
him, or, at least tolerant, at the {Telegraph}, the {New York
Times}, and elsewhere, have written Gore off publicly as a man
who crossed a line, the type of defective personality which could
never be allowed to become President.
As a result, President Clinton's ability to deal with the
multiple threats, both to his Presidency and to the nation,
depends upon his acting now to put his Vice-President under
apparent foreign-policy wraps, for the duration of the presently
onrushing global financial crisis. I shall, first, sum up the
nature of the crisis which prompts me to present this report on
what is fairly labelled "The Gore Problem." After that, I shall
summarize the broader strategic issues of foreign policy
involved. In conclusion, I shall summarize the Gore problem as
such.
{1. The Breaking World Crisis}
During the coming eight weeks or so immediately ahead, most
of the world, including the U.S.A., will have been plunged into a
deep economic depression, far deeper, far more menacing than what
the U.S.A. experienced under President Herbert Hoover. There is
no guesswork in that forecast; the present figures, showing that
that is what is now about to strike, are easily accessed, and
correspond precisely to the warning I first presented, in the
form of my now well-known "Triple Curve," in the closing weeks of
1995.
That "Triple Curve" was presented to illustrate the crux of
my long-range economic forecast issued in mid-1994: to show how
and why the world economy was then approaching entry into the
terminal phase of that long spiral of financial collapse which
had been set into motion, initially, by the August 1971 launching
of the now-doomed "floating exchange-rate" monetary system, the
present IMF system.
During the Summer of 1997, I announced that we must expect
the world to actually enter that terminal phase of the world
financial crisis not later than mid-October of that year. It
happened exactly as I warned it would. Now, the crucial
financial, monetary, and hard-commodity-trade figures, for the
period April 1998 to the present date, show, that the world's
financial system, in its present form, will reach an end-point,
of either a drop into a world depression, or a hyperinflationary
blow-out, during as early as the eight or so weeks ahead.
There is nothing miraculous about my ability to forecast
with such degrees of precision. The world's financial and
economic situation has recently entered a boundary-layer,
somewhat like reaching supersonic speed. Look at three sets of
figures which demonstrate that fact most simply. First, look at
the lunatic rates of growth of U.S. M1, M2, and M3 over the past
twelve months. Second, look at the rates of collapse in hard-
commodity trade among nations during the same period. Third, see
the causal connection among both those two sets of figures.
Compare that with the temporary, wholly artificial growth in
leading financial indicators. What these three sets of figures
tell anyone who is not a complete dunce in the ABCs of economic
facts, is that the system is now in the process of "going off all
charts."
Since early October 1998, the G-7 central-banking systems
have been virtually printing money (for example, U.S. M2) at
rates of acceleration which must be compared with the final phase
of Weimar Germany's hyper-inflationary blow-out, during Summer
1923. This lunatic action by the G-7 central bankers, has been
accompanied by the outbreak, during recent weeks, of the wildest,
international, desperation-driven merger-mania in modern history;
this has also been accompanied by the steepest rates of collapse
of key sectors of hard-commodity production and world trade, and
of raw materials prices, in post-war history.
All of this means, that the so-called "Keynesian
alternative," as proposed by international "Third Way" freaks
such as Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, is finished, as of
about now. The critical "triple relationship" --the combination
of up-zooming monetary expansion, hyperinflationary financial
speculation, and down-zooming rates of collapse of hard-commodity
production and trade-- has now been reached, at which any further
attempt to "save the system" by monetarist pump-priming methods,
will now cause a virtually immediate blow-out of the very system
which the "born-again Keynesian" clowns, such as Britain's Tony
Blair, propose to bail out. We have now, already entered the
boundary layer which defines the end of the world financial
system as we have known it since August 1971.
So, there are now only three options from which to choose.
No matter which option you choose, what will erupt in the world
economy beginning the coming period of approximately eight weeks,
will be a shattering break-down of the world's financial system
in its present form. The first option, is a straight-forward
chain-reaction collapse, bringing on a much steeper, and deeper
depression than that during the early 1930s. The second option,
the very temporary alternative, is a slightly later "Keynesian
blow-out" of a Weimar-hyperinflation style financial bubble. The
third option, is my specifications for the emergency
implementation of drastic and sudden measures, which I have named
as a "New Bretton Woods System." The latter measures include a
sudden return to capital controls, exchange controls,
approximately fixed parities of currencies, and measures of
protectionism and financial regulation, echoing the pre-1958
period of the old Bretton Woods system. There now exist no other
alternatives than these three.
Therefore, that third option is the only policy which
corresponds with the vital foreign policy and other national
security interests of the United States. This means scrapping the
programs inherited from the "New Age" freaks of the old Gore-
Gingrich Congressional Clearinghouse for the Future. It means
scrapping "free trade." It means scrapping "globalization." In
brief, Gore's fanatically stubborn policies and the U.S. nation
can no longer co-exist, as practice, on the same planet.
Otherwise, the alternative to that third, non-Gore option,
is the "dog's dinner" recently referenced by U.S. Treasury
Secretary Robert Rubin. Then, the weeks ahead are times to say,
"Boys, the party is over. You better call it a day and go home,
if you still have a place you could call home."
That is what I mean by issues of "national security."
Without a national and international political-economic
arrangement which replaces the present, hopelessly bankrupt
present international financial and monetary system, there will
be no future U.S.A. much beyond the end the present century.
{2. Two Views of U.S. Foreign Policy}
My duty here, is to identify, and defend two rather
different, but overlapping views of the foreign-policy side of
U.S. national security. The first, is the view of foreign policy
implicit in our good-hearted, but often temporizing President
Bill Clinton's not always successful foreign-policy efforts. The
second, is my own view, which substantially coincides with the
thrust of President Clinton's often frustrated, and often bungled
intentions, but which, on the other hand, also features my unique
expertise in areas, notably economics, in which the President has
shown essentially no competence. For our purposes here, it is
essential that both the coincidence, and distinction between
those two views be made clear.
Apart from his now loudly proclaimed, official standing as
our republic's First Sinner, President Clinton, with all his
tendency for shilly-shallying, and other personal shortcomings,
has been a decent man with decent personal political impulses on
a large range of issues. We have had worse Presidents, often
much worse. On the good side, from early in his administration,
the central thrust of President Clinton's foreign policy has
pivotted on three nations: Germany, Russia, and China. A certain
streak of his inclination for personal decency, in contrast to
Gore's blinkered ambitions, has been crucial in shaping the
President's expressed policy-orientations in these and kindred
areas of policy.
The President had rightly chosen Germany as the desired U.S.
partner of choice in spearheading improved economic relations
among the U.S.A., continental western Europe generally, and
Russia. That view of the natural, three-way economic partnership
among the U.S.A., Germany, and Russia, echoes what had been the
policy of all the greatest statesmen of Germany and Russia, and
of the pre-McKinley-assassination U.S.A., since the global
strategic diplomacy of Benjamin Franklin and John Quincy Adams.
If the President has had reason to be disappointed with the net
performance of his dinner partner, the now-former German
Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Kohl's relevant short-coming was that he
was acting often as the victim of the murderous evil which the
Thatcher-Mitterrand-Bush-Gorbachev gang shoved upon both Germany
and Russia, during 1989-1992, before Clinton came on watch.
The President has been committed to the economic recovery of
Russia, a commitment unfortunately colored in performance by the
President's ignorance of the ABCs of economics. His Russia policy
has been a record of good intentions almost fatally blemished by
the President's blindness to the effects of Gore's pro-mafia
policies and connections; Gore's influence is the chief single
cause for the catastrophic failures of Clinton administration
Russia policy during the past five years since the September 1993
shoot-out at the Russian parliament.
The President's relations with the government of China have
been, on balance, the one area in which Clinton has so far
achieved great, if only qualified personal success. This will
continue, if deference to the disastrous meddling of Al Gore and
Gore-controlled political advisors does not ruin China policy, as
it ruined Clinton's Russia policy. Today, the success of the U.S.
President's strategic cooperation with China, is the cornerstone
of any viable U.S. foreign policy. It is also the last chance to
salvage some durable net good, at last, from the two terms to
which President Clinton has been elected.
The possibility of success in any other areas of the world
depends on U.S. success in its dealings with the cornerstone
partners Germany, Russia, and China. That does not mean policies
based exclusively on these three partners alone; it means the
building of the broader economic-policy partnership which depends
upon bringing together these three as the seed-crystal of a
planet-wide, new system of economic co-operation. India is a
major partner for both Russia and China, and Japan for Russia,
China, and Southeast Asia, for example. The survival of Germany
and Russia, and, indeed, all of Clinton's foreign-policy options,
now depend absolutely on the pivotal success of Clinton's crucial
partner, China.
Admittedly, President Clinton has shown no understanding of
any of the essentials of the relevant economic policies, in these
or other areas of foreign policy. Nonetheless, his thrust toward
finding a fruitful relationship with a group of nations
associated with these three, and other nations, is correct, and
corresponds to the most vital national-security interests of the
U.S.A.: our nation's most urgent, life-or-death foreign-policy
interests. In fact, unless those interests are defended, the
United States itself will not exist as a viable economy and
nation much beyond the end of this closing century.
By intention, there is no reason to doubt that President
Clinton intends to serve such interests. Serving interests,
however, is like fighting war; it is necessary to command both
those competencies which are indispensable for victory, and the
will to act accordingly.
Our nation's and your family's personal lives depend,
unconditionally, upon your rallying, as a citizen should, to the
defense of those foreign-policy interests.
Thus, on this point, and in this way, his foreign-policy
efforts, and his continued role as President, must be supported
unconditionally by all U.S. patriots. Neither Democratic
Leadership Council Dr. Jekylls nor Republican Mr. Hydes must be
allowed to put our nation into jeopardy with any more treasonous,
anti-constitutional, British-parliamentary-style tricks, of the
sort spewing out of the mouth of the world's worst pornographer
and sleaze-ball in general, Kenneth Starr.<fn 1>
That much said, if we relied upon President Clinton's
policy-making alone, the United States would not survive much
beyond the close of this present century. Either we add to his
efforts, exactly those policies which I have specified, or the
U.S. will not survive many years to come --as a nation. This
brings us to the second view of U.S. foreign-policy interests, my
view of the same matters. This is a view of those interests on
which even the mere survival of the U.S.A. now depends
absolutely.
{3. The Crucial Policy-Issues}
The axiomatic foreign-policy interest of the United States,
is to defend what President Abraham Lincoln once described as
that form of government "of the people, by the people, and for
the people," established by our Leibnizian 1776 Declaration of
Independence and 1789 Preamble of our Federal Constitution, a
form of government, then unique on this planet, for which so many
Americans gave their lives in the great struggle for freedom
conducted under his command. It is important to stress, that on
this account Lincoln was a knowledgeable follower of the greatest
architects of the foreign policy of the United States, Benjamin
Franklin and our greatest Secretary of State and one of our
greatest Presidents, John Quincy Adams.
As I have avowed repeatedly, these United States are the
great exception among all modern nations. This nation was the
creation of the best minds of all European civilization, built
here by Europeans, at a time when oligarchical rule over Europe
could not be broken within Europe itself. Never, to this date,
with the near exception of President Charles de Gaulle's Fifth
Republic in France, has any state in Europe achieved a true
republic. Only poor parliamentary approximations of a republic
have been achieved there, to the present day. The combined
former power of Europe's landed aristocracy, as under Metternich,
and vast financier-oligarchical power, as of London, has made
concessions to demands for democracy, but a true republic has yet
to be achieved there.
Wise U.S. patriots have never scorned Europe on this
account. We know that it was the best ideas of Europe, on which
all the good achievements of the U.S. were built. Rather than
scorn Europe for its failure to free itself from the grip of
financier-oligarchical overlordship, we support Europe's efforts
to achieve a more perfect freedom. We consider the right of all
peoples to their own perfectly sovereign form of nation-state, as
not only their moral right; we also recognize that it is our
vital interest that all nations achieve that right in full. The
informed foreign policy of the U.S. is to build a world based
upon the principle of the modern perfectly sovereign nation-
state, and upon the principle of mutually advantageous
cooperation among such states.
The notion of rights which has informed all of the greatest
statesmen of our republic, is premised on a specific view of the
nature of each man and woman as made in the image of the Creator,
as a creature set absolutely apart from, and above all others,
and so distinguished by that power of reason, by means of which
valid discoveries of physical principle and other notions of a
similar quality of truthfulness, are generated within the
appropriately educated mind of the individual person. The growth
of the population and improvement of the material and demographic
conditions of life of nations and their individual members,
attests to the superiority of the form of modern European
civilization which emerged from the Fifteenth-Century
Renaissance, over all of those oligarchical forms of ancient and
feudal society earlier. It is upon the perception of this
progress in the condition of life of the individual member of
society, that the notions of natural law and foreign policy of
our republic are rightly defined.
Simple pure democracy among pigs or 'possums, would never
transform them into human beings. It is the increase of the per
capita power of the human individual mind over nature, which
expresses the distinction of man from beast, and the moral
distinction between moral human beings, and beast-like predators
such as George Soros.
In these considerations lie both the coincidence and the
difference between President Clinton's political practice and my
own. The President often shows himself a good-hearted person, but
has not yet succeeded in honing his impulses into the form our
domestic and foreign affairs require. Compassion for the human
individual is an absolute requirement of a President, law-maker,
or judge; but, the compassion must be efficiently expressed. It
can not be efficiently expressed under conditions shaped by
policies such as "post-industrial" utopianism, "free trade," and
"globalization." The state is responsible for generating and
maintaining policies and conditions under which morally required
results are actually made available to each nation, and to each
person, as the Preamble of our Federal Constitution was intended
to be read.
There, the President and I have often agreed; there we have
sometimes differed. We have often agreed in spirit; we have
often differed respecting the means actually required to meet
effectively the domestic and foreign-policy requirements of our
government. If he could bring himself to adopt the appropriate
economic policies, I believe the differences would wane.
The United States' government has it within its present
reach, to catalyze the bringing into being of a new world order
among many perfectly sovereign nation-states. The monstrous
failure of the post-1971 world monetary order, forces us to
consider sweeping changes, changes expressed as new forms of
economic cooperation among sovereign nations. We are challenged
to establish now, the post-colonial order which President
Franklin Roosevelt had intended to bring into being at the close
of World War II. The principal means for doing this now, are
given to us by those nations which were abandoned to second-class
status by the death of President Franklin Roosevelt; these latter
include the leading "outsider" nations of the present world
financial system, in particular, of Central and South America,
Africa, and Eurasia. Cooperation among the U.S.A., Russia, China,
India, and others, could very well provide the seed-crystal of
the needed just new order of economic relations among perfectly
sovereign nation-states.
If these our United States evade that great opportunity now,
we shall almost certainly be sent to spend some pedagogical years
in Hell, until we have learned to respond in better fashion to
what are plainly the Creator's present, and impatient intentions.
{4. Gore In Himself}
Turn now to the Kantian problem, the subject of Al Gore-in-
himself.
Given the implications of what I must now say, it is I, not
my collaborators, who must assume personal responsibility, as I
do here, for publicizing the national security and related
strategic implications of the truth about Al Gore.
A few curious inconsistencies in Gore's behavior and
connections must now be examined and cleared up. Tearing away the
fraudulent "Mr. Clean" hoax which had been spread by earlier
editions of the mass media, reveals an Al "thick und dumb" Gore
better described as among the currently more notable sleaze-balls
of the past quarter-century. That is just the beginning; it
becomes much worse.
Begin with a brief look at one of the many, dog-like carpet-
soiling travesties on Gore's record.
With the Nov. 1, 1998 {Telegraph} clipping in hand, let us
now travel to Moscow, Russia, where Al Gore's personal
connections to Soviet officialdom were established, no later than
1988, by the same Armand Hammer who launched Al Gore's political
career, and had also helped promote the rise to power of two
Soviet General Secretaries, Yuri Andropov and Michael Gorbachev.
In today's post-Thatcher-Bush Russia, there are two leading
U.S.-based, sleaze-ball connections. One is to George Bush's
International Republican Institute, which launched and maintained
the political power of the so-called "Russian Mafia." The other
U.S. connection to that same Mafia, is the perennial greed-ball,
Vice-President Al Gore. Why, then, is the {Telegraph}, a known
backer of the much-rumored year 2000 Bush Presidential campaign,
attacking Bush's nominal mafia rival Al Gore? The facts are not
quite so simple as popular opinion might wish.
In fact, the chances of George Bush, Jr.'s winning the year
2000 U.S. Presidential nomination have depended, until now, upon
guarantees that Al Gore, with support from the deviant Democrats'
Democratic Leadership Council, will win the Democratic
nomination. Any non-Gore Democratic campaign based on reviving
the FDR tradition, could win a year 2000 election against 1932-
Hoover-lookalike Bush. In other words, Gingrich's Republican
cronies had been boosting Gore (while savaging President Clinton)
in order to sink Gore, too, in the end.
However, in Russia, where a very poor quality of political
intelligence, and some post-Soviet ideological blindness, on the
actual dynamics of the internal U.S. situation, dominate most
leading circles, the Gore connections are spreading the fairy
tale, that the only way Bush can be defeated, is that Gore wins
sufficient political support, from Russia and elsewhere, for a
Gore victory in the year 2000 U.S. elections. In fact, a Gore
victory in the Democratic primaries, is the one thing which might
have virtually ensured a Bush victory in the year 2000 general
election, just as the shambles of the 1988 Democratic Party's
campaign locked in Bush's election as President! Worse, if
international policy-making, right now, were to be based on the
delusion that the only relevant choices are between a Bush and
Gore victory for 2000, you might as well write off most of the
human race for the foreseeable future.
Read the November 1, 1998 {Telegraph} article on Gore as a
sign of what the Bush supporters' press campaign against Gore
would come to look like --if Gore's candidacy is not scrapped.
Either way --Gore actually nominated as a rival for Bush, or Gore
chased out like a yelping whipped hound before the convention--
Bush supporters shovelling tons of scandals into the
international mass media, will make a globalized laughing-stock
of Gore's fraudulent claims of being the "Mr. Clean" of U.S.
politics. Come 2000, there would not be a backwoods in Tennessee
remote enough for Al Gore to hide from relentless ridicule, as
the exposed "political sleaze-ball of the century." For these,
and other reasons, Gore for "2000" is a born loser --and, you how
that Tennessee boy can get, if he doesn't get his way.
Admittedly, apart from his bi-polar outbursts of rage, and
the sleaze, Gore, politically, is essentially a nothing; but, so
is a gaping hole in the bottom of a boat. The problem is, to make
that fact clear now, while the potential damage of his candidacy
can still be corrected.
The issue is not the fact that Gore's policies are usually
bad ones. Al Gore has had bad policies longer than he has been a
candidate for political office. The fact that he has, or has had
bad policies, is not the reason I raise the Al Gore problem as I
have done here. Nor am I proposing to impeach him. Many
politicians have bad policies, but often, with help of facts and
reason, we are able to change their opinions. Not so with Gore: I
am simply insisting that, from this point onward, Gore should
assume none other than his strictly defined constitutional duties
as Vice-President, and should not be considered a virtual "co-
President," nor a serious candidate for election as President.
Let him, in the course of time, retire quietly to enjoy his
favorite indoor sport: counting his money. That is not really a
drastic, or unfair proposal, all facts considered.
The problem I address here, is not merely that Al Gore has
just burned the bridges to his Presidential aspirations behind
him. The issue is the way in which he has burned his bridges; the
issue is what that bridge-burning tells us about the character of
the man. His disgusting display of bi-polar infantilism in his
behavior at the Kuala Lumpur APEC meeting, is only the most
visibly dramatic of a number of actions which requires that he be
left out of the shaping of economic, social, and foreign policy
from here on out.
The immediate issue is not that Gore has bad policies in
most areas; that has always been a problem with him. The
immediate issue is, that he has dug in his heels in such a way,
that he has demonstrated his intent to wreck any Clinton policy
which does not please the bi-polar Mr. Al Gore. It is not his bad
policies which are the immediate issue; our government is filled
with elected and other officials who have bad policies. The
issue is, to coin a phrase, that he is the dog who has made up
his mind to refuse to be house-broken any longer; therefore, he
should be kept off the living room carpet. Under stress, Gore has
reverted to type. He has become the old boy who warns you, "You
know how I get, when I don't get my way."
As we have seen over the course of the recent years, as soon
as Gore sniffs power in his reach, he drops his "Uriah Heep" act,
and grabs for power for the sake of power, power for its own
sake. He reacts with rage --the pure and simple bi-polar rage of
a corn-ball Napoleon-- against whomever he sees as "getting in
his way." See his connections to super-grifter George Soros, for
example; see his unmasked lunatic rage displayed against the
enemy of his crony Soros, Prime Minister Mahathir, at Kuala
Lumpur. That is only the best known of numerous examples of
Gore's corn-ball Napoleon style. That brutish sort of mind-set
must never be allowed to occupy the position of our republic's
Commander in Chief.
Gore himself underscored another reason that he is clearly
mentally and morally unfit to play the part of U.S. President, or
virtual "co-president." In his lunatic rant against the Prime
Minister Mahathir who had insulted Gore's crony Soros, Gore
presented his own mentally and morally twisted definition of
"democracy," as "billions" of gambling transactions placed daily
on the electronic croupier-tables of the world's financial
gambling establishment! Gore's moral arithmetic should remind any
literate person of the perversity of those Confederate slave-
owners who employed John Locke's defense of slavery, in the name
of an allegedly democratic natural right to own one's property.
Gore shows thus the same type of mind as that of the Soros
who used part of his own ill-gotten gains to promote legalized
drug-trafficking, or those Dutch, who in the footsteps of the
Nazis, argue in defense of the legalized "involuntarily assisted
suicide" being practiced on a mass scale in the Netherlands
today. Al "Thrasymachus" Gore showed himself so, once more, of
that twisted, profoundly immoral twist of mind which threatens
his victim self-righteously, "You know how I get, when I don't
get my way."
This combination of Gore's lunatic rages, and sheer moral
perversity, and the disastrous effects of those policies he
supports during those explosive rage-fits, are an intolerable
security-risk for this nation. This very bad chemistry, of
lunatic passion and wild-eyed policy-obsessions, require that
"the Gore Problem" be now generally recognized for what it is.
The national-security interests of the U.S. require nothing less.
The onrushing disintegration of the world's financial
system, makes certain immediate, drastic changes in U.S. foreign
and economic policies an absolute imperative. All of those
changes which must be made, more or less immediately, are changes
which the crowd of "advisors" around Gore will never tolerate.
This issue is a life-or-death question for our nation. Given
Gore's manifest disposition for fits of impassioned, bi-polar
irrationality, the most vital national-security interests of the
nation demand that he be relieved of the means to continue to
sabotage and obstruct those policy deliberations which must now
be ongoing among our nation's political leadership.
Nothing special need be done. It is sufficient to have a
clear understanding of the problem this represents, and to act
calmly, but firmly, accordingly.
30-30-30
1. It should be suggested, that those deviant Democrats
and lynch-mob Republicans debating which way to skin
the President, might join together to create a crooked
law-firm, to be known as Heckel, Jekyll and Hyde.
LEADING DEVELOPMENTS
[Wall Street Journal, 12/7/98; Washington DC sources]
THUG AL GORE JR. TO RUN CONFERENCE TO OVERTHROW NATION
STATES UNDER GUISE OF ANTI-CORRUPTION. The {Wall Street Journal}
on Monday carried the most detailed information to date on Gore's
upcoming February conference on corruption. The WSJ doesn't pull
any punches that Gore's disgusting performance in Malayasia is
exactly what the conference is about. It says: "Gore last month
took the bold step of criticizing the government of Malaysia on
its own turf, and calling for a campaign in Asia `to root out
corruption and cronyism' the shock waves went round the world....
In Asian countries, Gore was denounced.... [B]ack home, political
observers took note of one of Gore's biggest moments yet on the
world stage." The WSJ says that the February conference is "the
next step in this process."
Gore, from Tennessee, where he was attending his father's
funeral, told the {WSJ}: "Tragically, our best world-wide efforts
to build stronger economies and stronger democracies are
sometimes undercut by corruption -- and no corruption is more
evil and destructive than the corruption of government
officials.... This conference will bring together many of the
world's top anti-corruption experts with leaders from all around
the world to organize a new global effort to fight corruption
wher it does the most damage -- among key justice and security
officials."
It says that the conference has been in the works since last
year, but singles out Mexico, at exactly the moment that Helga
LaRouche was turning politics in Mexico upside down by sparking a
national debate on the real global alternative and breaking the
black-out on the Land-Bridge. For members of the ICLC, it is
clearly reminiscent of the {WSJ's} September 1997 freakout about
Dr. Mahathir and the EIR expose of George Soros.
The article quotes Nancy Boswell, the Washington rep of
Transparency International at some length about TI's efforts
against corruption, and uses the bizarre "Corruption Perceptions
Index" developed by TI's self-identified intellectual, Johann
Graf von Lamsdorff of Gottingen University that rates 85
countries on a 0-10 scale for their corruption ratio. The bottom
ten countries, listed in a chart in the {WSJ} are Cameroon,
Paraguay, Honduras, Tanzania, Nigeria, Indonesia, Venezuela,
Ecuador, and Russia (the lower the rating, means the more corrupt
the country is, according to T.I.)
A few items of note about Gore and T.I.: Gore is a
thug/prosecutor from his earliest career, going back to his days
as a sting man for the {Nashville Tennessean} newspaper, and the
Tennessee Bureau of Investigation against a prominent black
elected official in Tennessee; the head of T.I. is Peter Eigen, a
former World Bank executive, and at the T.I's conference last
January, the keynote was given by Michel Camdessus, where he
specifically targetted Indonesia, Korea and Thailand. The campaign
against President Suharto of Indonesia continues to this day.
(mjs/file material from uip/ahc)
Dec. 11 (EIRNS)--HYDE'S HOLY WARRIORS APPROVE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT. In the face of unanimous Democratic opposition,
Henry Hyde's Jihad Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee
had approved the first two Articles of Impeachment as of late
Friday evening. The two articles pertained to: (1) alleged
perjury before Starr's grand jury; and (2) alleged perjury in the
Paula Jones deposition last January. Debate on the third article
was underway; the fourth article is to be considered Saturday.
The vote was straight party-line, except that Rep. Lindsey
Graham (R-SC) jumped ship on the second article and voted against
it. On Article I, the vote was 21-16; and on Article II, it was
20-17.
At the beginning of the mark-up session, Reps. Barney Frank
and Charles Schumer asked for a specification of the exact
statements which were being charged as perjurious; Hyde denied
the requests. [ews]
[source: FNS transcript, House Judiciary Committee hearings, Dec.
10-11]
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OPENS DEBATE ON ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT.
Following the presentations by minority counsel Abbe Lowell and
majority counsel David Schippers, the House Judiciary Committee
proceeded last night into hearing 10-minute opening statements by
each of the 37 members of the committee. When the statements
concluded at midday Friday, the committee proceeded to
consideration of the Articles of Impeachment, with debate
starting Friday afternoon.
From the opening statements, there was only one Republican
member of the committee, Rep. Ed Pease of Indiana, who appeared
to have been in any way influenced by the preceeding days'
presentations. Pease did not declare how he would ultimately
vote, but he stated that, although he has concluded that
President Clinton has committed perjury, obstruction of justice,
and abuse of office, Pease said that he does not at this point
believe that the allegations have met the standard of "clear and
convincing evidence" which he believes should be the standard of
proof to vote for impeachment.
Only one Republican committee member, Rep. Bob Barr of
Georgia, came close to the outrageous statements made by
Schippers last night, in claiming that Clinton is guilty of other
crimes besides those being charges by Starr and the committee.
Barr raised the issue of "the 900-plus FBI files brazenly and
illegally misused by the White House," and he accused Clinton of
having "committed other acts of obstruction of justice."
"I believe the case we are discussing today is but a small
manifestation of President Clinton's utter and complete disregard
for the rule of law," Barr continued. "Throughout his presidency,
his administration has been so successful at thwarting
investigations and obstructing the work of Congress and the
courts, that it may be decades before history reveals the
vastness of his abuse of power, or the extent of the damage it
has wrought." [ews; full transcripts 98496ews001-002]
[source: FNS transcript, House Judiciary Committee hearings, Dec.
10]
CONYERS: "WE STAND POISED ON THE EDGE OF A CONSTITUTION
CLIFF, staring into the void below into which we have jumped only
twice before in our history. Some encourage us to take this
fateful leap, but I fear that we are about to inflict irreparable
damage on our nation if we do."
Conyers recounted how the inquiry has been conducted, saying
that "in too many respects this inquiry has been a textbook
example of how not to run an impeachment inquiry." Conyers also
warned about the effects of a vote for impeachment: "The
Congress shut down the government before, and the results were
disastrous for our citizens and for the majority party. A vote
for impeachment is a vote for another government shutdown." [ews]
[source: FNS transcript, House Judiciary Committee hearings, Dec.
10]
SCHUMER: DOING THE UNTHINKABLE. "The American people may
wake up Sunday morning to find out that this committee has passed
articles of impeachment on the President," said Rep. Charles
Schumer, (R-NY) -- who will be in the Senate in January.
"The American people may wake up next Friday morning to
discover that the House of Representatives has indeed impeached
the President. You know, I think the American people still don't
believe that we're foolish enough or partisan enough to do this.
I think the American people are waiting for us to come to our
senses and end this political game of chicken. But to the
American people I say that the House may very well do the
unthinkable....
"If the House impeaches, we will tie up all three branches
of government for months and months, the House Judiciary
Republicans will prosecute the case with all of the zeal that we
have seen thus far, the president will call witness after witness
because he can and because to defend himself, he must. The
Supreme Court chief justice will hear the case in the Senate, the
Senate will be paralyzed from legislating, and it will poison
relations between the House and the Senate, between the Congress
and the White House, between Democrats and Republicans for a long
time after the trial is over. And all the while, the crushing
problems around us -- in Iraq, in the Middle East, with the world
economy, with health care, with education, with Social Security
-- will fester." [ews]
[source: FNS transcript, House Judiciary Committee hearings, Dec.
10]
NADLER ATTACKS `LAME-DUCK' IMPEACHMENT. "There are clearly
some members of the Republican majority who have never accepted
the results of the 1992 or 1996 elections, and who apparently
have chosen to ignore the message of last month's election," said
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). "But in a democracy, it is the people
who rule, not political elites, and certainly not those members
of political elites who will not be here in the next election, in
the next Congress, having been repudiated at the polls...."
"This committee, this House, is not a grand jury. To impeach
the President would subject the country to the trauma of a trial
in the Senate. It would paralyze the government for many months
while the problems of Social Security, Medicare, a deteriorating
world economy, and all our foreign concerns festered without
proper attention. We cannot simply punt our duty to judge the
facts to the Senate if we find mere probable cause that an
impeachable offense may have been committed. To do so would be a
derogation of our constitutional duty." [ews]
[source: FNS transcript, House Judiciary Committee hearings, Dec.
10]
REP. BOBBY SCOTT (D-VA) charged that the Republican Party
"is engaged in an unprecedented, substantive, and procedural
abuse of Congress' impeachment powers." Scott recounted how he
and others had asked for a fair and focussed process which would
have first specified the allegations, and then established a
constitutional standard.
"If any of the offenses were alleged which might constitute
an impeachable offense, the process would then have determined,
with a presumption of innocence, whether those allegations were
true by using cross-examination of witnesses and other
traditionally reliable evidentiary procedures," Scott continued.
But instead, he said, it has been a totally partisan
procedure, in which "we have wandered blindly through an inquiry
without any specific allegations or scope.... And so here we are,
on the verge of impeaching a United States President, overturning
a national election, plunging our nation into constitutional
crisis, in contradiction of everything the Founding Fathers
labored to avoid, on a totally partisan basis." [ews]
[source: FNS transcript, House Judiciary Committee hearings, Dec.
10]
LOFGREN ATTACKS LEGISLATIVE TYRANNY. "For more than 200
years, a directly elected chief executive has been one of the
great distinctions between our wonderful country and
parliamentary democracies," stated Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Cal).
"That is why, unlike so many other countries, we don't have a
rapid succession of governments, one after another, as votes of
no confidence drive out prime ministers who hardly have time to
govern before they must stand for re-election." Lofgren pointed
out that the Founders had established the process of impeachment
as a legislative safety valve against a tyrannical executive,
but, she asked, "What remedy do we have for legislative tyranny?"
Lofgren warned of the government gridlock that will occur if
there is a Senate trial, citing "challenges abroad, including the
continuing financial and business crisis in Asian countries that
has already been felt there, and may get worse." [ews]
[source: FNS transcript, House Judiciary Committee hearings, Dec.
10]
WATERS: `TYRANNY KNOWS NO BOUNDARIES.' Rep. Maxine Waters,
the departing chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, began by
saying, "I am reminded of the terrible sacrifices of the heroic
men and women of this nation, who have fought for Americans to be
able to be free of a police state, and to be free of intimidation
and harassment. I knew I would have to fight for the rights of
minorities, women, the poor, and the marginalized for the rest of
my life. Never did I believe I would have to fight to protect the
rights of the so-called most powerful individual of the free
world."
Later, Waters said: "I am not here to blindly support or
defend President Clinton. I have opposed President Clinton on
such issues as NAFTA, fast track, the crime bill, welfare reform,
and much more. As I sit here today, and as God is my judge, if I
felt Bill Clinton was guilty of impeachable offenses, I would
join with the most right-wing of my colleagues, to impeach him.
Witness my support of the McDade-Murtha bill, where I joined a
right-wing Republican in a measure that would hold federal
prosecutors accountable for their abuse of power."
Waters was the only member of the committee to details
Starr's bias and his prosecutorial abuses and misconduct,
including his own and his law partner's involvement in the Paula
Jones case. [ews]
[source: FNS transcript, House Judiciary Committee hearings, Dec.
11]
WEXLER: "WAKE UP, AMERICA!" That was the call of Rep.
Robert Wexler (D-Fla), who opened by saying that "this has been
the scariest week of my life."
"This process has been a sham from the beginning. Wake up,
America! They are about to impeach our President. They are about
to reverse two national elections. They are about to discard your
votes. They are about to exercise a congressional power that has
been used only twice before in our nation's history...."
"The Republicans on this committee say the President
tampered with witnesses. Well, you better wake up, America. You
could be tampering with a witness and not even know it, because,
according to the majority on this committee, you can be guilty of
witness tampering a person who is not a witness in any case....
"They claim the President abused his power. How? By
asserting his constitutional rights and privileges pursuant to
the advice of his lawyers. Well, wake up, America! Because if
they can do it to the President, they can do it to you! If this
committee supports an article of impeachment for abuse of power,
they will be saying that any American who goes into court and
claims their constitutional protections is at risk."
"So wake up, America! Our government is about to shut down.
The public's business will grind to a halt. The Senate, the
Supreme Court and the House of Representatives will all be
hostage to a process that never should have been triggered in the
first place.
"Be prepared to turn on your TV and watch the chief justice
of the Supreme Court swear in Lucianne Goldberg, Linda Tripp,
endless testimony in front of the whole world, showcasing America
at its most absurd." [ews]
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! 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 credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
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
