Why Clinton Still Raises Big Campaign Money|
In his struggle to hang on to his failed presidency, Bill
Clinton appears only before the groups he can count on
to shore up his self-esteem by giving him a standing
ovation, such as the United Nations General Assembly,
the Council on Foreign Relations, and Democratic "fat
cats" in multinational corporations. They like his policies
and just don't care about his morals.
No wonder the UN provided an enthusiastic audience! Just a year ago, Clinton addressed that same forum
and assured the delegates that he would enhance UN
power by bringing the United States into a "web of
institutions and arrangements" for "the emerging international system" through four specific UN treaties. Clinton has delivered on his promises. He successfully
persuaded the Senate to ratify the World Trade Organization, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the
NATO Expansion Treaty, and he is implementing the
unratified Global Warming Treaty through federal
regulations. He is also implementing the unratified
Biodiversity Treaty and other agreements from the 1992
Earth Summit through his American Heritage Rivers
Initiative and the President's Council on Sustainable
Meanwhile, Clinton has gone the last mile to deliver
on the legislation so eagerly sought by the global economy advocates, whose most elite spokesmen nest in the
Council on Foreign Relations. Their wish list includes
the $18 billion handout to the International Monetary
Fund, Fast Track (trusting Clinton to make trade agreements), Most Favored Nation status for Communist
China, allowing U.S. technology to go surreptitiously to
China, the permanent stationing of U.S. troops in Bosnia
under NATO command, and corporate welfare to
subsidize trade with corrupt Asian regimes.
The global economy enthusiasts are well satisfied
with President Clinton because he gives them what they
want, at our expense. That's why his high-dollar dinners
produce so much cash for Democratic coffers.
The New York Times (September 20, 1998) has just
provided an in-depth look at how corporate welfare for
the multinational corporations and big political insiders is
milking the U.S. taxpayers for billions. While a lot of
folks are worried about their stake in mutual funds and
401(k) accounts that are invested in the global market,
the Times reminds us that the "politically connected and
well-heeled financiers with big bets in these shaky regions
can sleep better" because their losses will be covered by
U.S. taxpayers through the Overseas Private Investment
OPIC is a little-known Federal Government agency
that encourages Americans to invest new capital into
"emerging-market" businesses in "developing" countries
where no sane investor would risk his own money. OPIC
investments are now in 140 countries around the globe.
And how does OPIC "encourage" these overseas investments in unstable, corrupt, totalitarian, faraway countries? By adding $2 in government-guaranteed notes,
backed by the full faith and credit of the United States,
for every dollar of private investment.
OPIC funds are structured so that the multinational
corporations will reap enormous gains if the investment
turns out well, and U.S. taxpayers will cover the losses if
they fail. OPIC fund managers get a fee of 2.5 percent
of the fund's assets and 20 percent of the ultimate
profits, which can run into the tens of millions.
When Clinton took office, OPIC had only two funds
with combined assets of $100 million. Today there are
26 OPIC funds with $4 billion. No wonder the globalists
want to keep Clinton in power! They look upon his
romping with Monica as petty stuff compared to the big
bucks they have at stake.
We've been given full disclosure about what goes on
in the Oval office, but not about what goes on in OPIC's
bank accounts. OPIC doesn't make its financial details
public, even though it is a government agency. Whatever
happened to Freedom of Information?
Don't be under any illusion that we all have the same
chance to get government guarantees for our own risky
investments. The New York Times reveals what it calls
"a disturbing relationship between OPIC and major
Democratic Party donors, people who attended White
House coffees or slept in the Lincoln Bedroom."
Six funds valued at $585 million were approved in
1996 shortly after the sponsors of four of them had
attended White House coffees. Paul Hendrie of the
Center for Responsive Politics, a liberal research group,
says that a large percentage of OPIC funds is going to
"people with strong political connections or who made
big contributions to Democrats in the last election."
OPIC funds have committed $1.5 billion to Russia.
Off-hand remarks by Robert Peyton, manager of
Agribusiness Partners International, a $100 million OPIC
fund with investments in seven Russian plants, reveal the
Peyton said, "If the politicians can hold the country,
we'll be O.K." It's not the survival of the Russian
politicians but the survival of the Clinton politicians that
will make his investment O.K.
Clinton's sex scandals are only the tip of the iceberg.
It's time to call a halt to OPIC's taxpayer subsidies for
overseas risk-taking by the politically well-connected.
Clinton's Treatment of Women
When former Senator Bill Bradley was asked his
current opinion of Bill Clinton, he used the most appropriate word in the English language. Bradley called
Clinton's behavior "disgusting." Indeed, that is the best
word to sum up Clinton's treatment of women.
Monica Lewinsky's plaintive words quoted in the
Starr report -- "I feel disposable, used and insignificant"
-- display Bill Clinton's attitude toward women. He is
typical of men who push for feminist laws and policies,
pretending that mistreatment of women is a societal
problem. It's not. The treatment of women as second-class or subservient is a personal offense by individual
men like Bill Clinton, who look upon women as things
rather than persons.
The star-struck, ambitious girl, who had stalked and
courted Clinton, desperately wanted him to treat her like
"a person." That was not to be. He used her to service
him sexually while he conducted his business by phone
with Congressmen and with his famous adviser, Dick
Morris. Monica was insignificant to Clinton. After all,
he told her he had had hundreds of adulterous liaisons,
so she was just as disposable as all the others.
The way Clinton used his secretary Betty Currie was
almost as degrading. Acting like the lord of the White
House plantation, Clinton required Betty Currie to serve
as an enabler for his sexual encounters. She guided
Clinton's girls into the Oval office, told him how much
time he had before his next appointment, and protected
him from sudden discovery. She, too, was disposable,
used and insignificant.
Contrary to the whines of Clinton's defenders,
Monicagate is not "just about sex," nor is he entitled to
shield it as "his private life." It was a workplace offense
for which any corporate or military boss would have
long since been fired.
The acts took place in a taxpayer-financed office,
with a taxpayer-salaried very subordinate employee, with
a taxpayer-salaried secretary as facilitator, with taxpayer-salaried secret service protecting his trysts and lying for
him, with taxpayer-salaried surrogates sent out to lie
about it on the media and to the grand jury, and with
taxpayer-salaried lawyers defending his illicit acts.
Clinton didn't treat any women as equals or with
respect. He humiliated his wife, he used vulnerable
women (Monica, Paula, Kathleen) to gratify his sexual
wants, he used his secretary as a facilitator, and he used
the few strong women he had around (Madeleine
Albright, Donna Shalala, Ann Lewis) to spread his lies.
One good result of Monicagate is that it has totally
discredited the feminists and exposed them as part of the
radical left wing of the Democratic Party. Their pretense of being advocates for women's rights has been
blown away, exposing them as a mean-spirited bunch
whose affections are for sale. Feminist Erica Jong
explained why the feminists continue to support Clinton
on CNBC on Sept. 29: He vetoed the ban on partial
birth abortion and he appointed feminist Ruth Bader
Ginsburg to the U.S. Supreme Court. The entire media,
including the liberals, are laughing at the feminists'
hypocrisy and double standards.
Monicagate has also legitimized Paula Jones, whom
the feminists disdained, ridiculed, and refused to support. The explicit description of Clinton's "inappropriate" relationship with Monica is exactly the behavior that
Paula alleged in her lawsuit. The difference is that
Monica accepted the proposition, while Paula refused it.
But under the doctrine of sexual harassment, as defined
by the feminists, that shouldn't make any difference
when the man is the CEO and the woman is a vulnerable
low-level employee. Clinton's grand jury testimony also
confirms the tremendously different career prospects
available to Monica, who complied with Clinton's sexual
advances, and Paula who rejected them.
Clinton Is a Security Risk
Bill Clinton is a security risk. He convicted himself
out of his own mouth in his grand jury testimony which
was broadcast to the world on September 21.
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's lawyers were
much too deferential in their interrogation and allowed
Clinton to filibuster time and again. But in those filibusters, Clinton's admissions reveal himself as a security
risk who should not enjoy the top-secret clearance that
is an essential part of presidential prerogatives.
In referring to Monica Lewinsky in his grand jury
testimony, Clinton said, "I'm quite aware that Ms.
Lewinsky has a way of getting information out of people
when she's either charming or determined."
How's that again! The President admits to an
inappropriate, intimate relationship extending over a year
or more with a woman who he knows "has a way of
getting information out of people"! How did Clinton
know that Monica was not an agent of a foreign power?
How did he know she wasn't trying to be a modern day
But that's not all. In the latter part of his grand jury
testimony, Clinton compounded his culpability by
admitting that he knew she would talk about confidential
matters with third parties. Here, again, are Clinton's
own words. "I formed an opinion really early in 1996 .
. . that she would talk about it. . . . I knew that . . . she
would talk about this. She would have to. She couldn't
help it. It was part of her psyche. So, I had put myself
Can we have a President who knowingly, deliberately, puts himself at risk in intimate moments with a
woman who he knows has a way of getting information
out of people and who he knows will talk about it to
established a Security
Policy Board, which
set forth guidelines for
for access to classified
Sec.147.6 Guidance D
states: "Sexual behavior is a security concern if it involves a
criminal offense, indicates a personality or
may subject the individual to coercion, exploitation, or duress, or reflects
lack of judgment or discretion."
On August 2, 1995, Clinton issued Executive Order
12968 on Access to Classified Information. Sec.3.1(b)
states: "eligibility for access to classified information
shall be granted only to employees . . . whose personal
and professional history affirmatively indicates loyalty to
the United States, strength of character, trustworthiness,
honesty, reliability, discretion, and sound judgment, as
well as freedom from conflicting allegiances and potential for coercion. . . ."
Bill Clinton doesn't pass the test. He can't be trusted
with the classified information available to the President.
Clinton Is an Embarrassment
Everybody knows that Clinton lied. He looked us in
the eye through the television camera, shook his finger
at us for emphasis, told us to listen to what he was
saying, and declared, "I did not have sexual relations
with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." That statement
can't be excused by any bizarre definition of "sexual
relations." He was talking in plain language to the
Clinton has never apologized for that lie. Based on
his arrogant and self-righteous grand jury testimony,
there is no evidence that he is sorry for it.
If Clinton had any sense of decency, he would
resign. But, of course, he won't. Having put our nation
through eight months of obscene soap opera, which he
could have avoided by telling the truth in January, he
will have no compunction about continuing to try to
bluff us, ride the polls, and blame his problems on
For the self-respect of America, the Congress must
go forward with impeachment proceedings. Clinton's
last ditch defenders are trying to pretend that Clinton's
behavior, while "inappropriate," doesn't rise
to the level of
is not a criminal proceeding; it's a political
proceeding. Conviction does not send anyone to jail. The only
conviction is removal
The best description of what impeachment requires was
written by -- guess
who -- Hillary
Rodham when she was on the staff of the Judiciary
Committee about to impeach President Richard Nixon
in 1974. She quoted approvingly from Alexander
Hamilton in Federalist 65 that impeachment should
apply to "those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the
abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a
nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done
immediately to the society itself."
Yes, Clinton should be impeached for presidential
misconduct and violation of the public trust. He has
made the Presidency a dirty joke.
Calling Activist Judges to the Bar of Public Opinion
I participated in an event on June 23 called the Court
Jester Awards, sponsored by the Family Research
Council at the National Press Club. The purpose was to
spoof some of the bad court decisions handed down by
My assignment was to give the "Invisible Ink Award"
to a judge who sees words in the Constitution that aren't
there, but can't see words that really are there. I chose
U.S. District Court Judge Ira DeMent for his decision in
Chandler v. James, which went far beyond Supreme
Court decisions in banning all semblance of prayer in
schools, even if initiated by students, and set up a system
of court monitoring of classrooms to ensure compliance.
I presented the award in verse:
We present the award for Invisible Ink
To an activist judge who stirred up a big stink
By thinking his job was new law to invent.
Our winner is clearly Judge Ira DeMent.
The judge's temptation to see words invisible
And think he's infallible was so irresistible.
Chandler v. James is without precedent;
It's a "con law" contortion by Ira DeMent.
Alabama's indignant at the scope of his decision;
He declared a court war against children's religion.
He joined in the atheists' culture destruction
By thumbing his nose at the law's strict construction.
Our Constitution's not safe from his gavel and quill;
He's replacing James Madison with Hillary and Bill.
DeMent makes us wonder where common sense went;
He just can't comply with original intent.
He distorted the meaning of First Amendment;
Free Exercise is in danger, we sadly lament.
The Supreme Court allows prayer if started by student.
Under Ira's policemen, even that is imprudent.
This judge has created his own prayer police
To monitor classrooms and tell students to cease
Asking for help from th' Almighty, and then
Inviting their classmates to answer "Amen."
Even prayer in emergency, DeMent won't relent;
He calls it religion Establishment.
He prohibits all prayer, even during a crisis.
No student may utter an ora pro nobis.
No hurricanes, cyclones, killings, disaster
Can make prayer legal under this court schoolmaster.
He banned invocations and all benedictions;
But can't cite prior cases for his activist fictions.
He forbids high school grads to recite godly speeches;
He's determined to censor what everyone teaches.
If schools dare to announce baccalaureate event,
That will bring down the ire of Judge Ira DeMent.
When playing school sports, beware of the shame;
He'll send you to jail for prayers before game.
He forbids kids or teachers to carry a Bible;
Only books are allowed with a secular title.
The teachers must suffer through re-training sessions
And study texts only from Ira's selections.
Prayer monitors report to Judge Ira DeMent
In ex parte sessions, their complaints to present.
This judge is so proud of his way-out decision,
He posted it all over, despite public derision.
Just look at prayer monitors this judge has invented;
He gives new meaning to the word of "demented."
We urge him to promise a new resolution
To stick with the words of our real Constitution.
We all hope some day he'll reform and repent;
So let's join in prayer for Judge Ira DeMent.
Note: Eagle Forum has set up a Court Watch Committee to
educate and lobby Congress to use its constitutional powers to
curb the Imperial Judiciary, to alert members to oppose Senate
confirmation of activist judges, to press for impeachment of
judges who misbehave, and to reverse recent transfers of jurisdiction from the states to the federal judiciary. If you would like
to work on this project, contact our Eagle Forum Court Watch
Chairman, Virginia Armstrong, at Eagle Forum headquarters or
email her: firstname.lastname@example.org