I'm fed up with the sanctimonious liberals imposing
their values on me. Is this a free country, or isn't it?
I'm fed up with the liberals telling me that I can't be
judgmental about crimes and sins, even when committed
by the President. We have every right to be judgmental,
and the liberals have their nerve trying to dictate a "Thou
shalt not be judgmental" commandment.
I'm fed up with the liberals telling me I must be
nonpartisan. Do we have political freedom in America or
don't we? The liberals have their nerve trying to enforce
a nonpartisan rule on Republicans, while at the same time
winking at Democratic Senators who goosestepped to a
unanimous partisan vote to save Bill Clinton from the
fate he deserved.
Maybe it depends on what the meaning of partisan is.
I guess, if you behave like a Republican, you are partisan,
but if you behave like a Democrat you are nonpartisan.
The Democratic Senators knew that Clinton, like
O.J., was guilty. The Democrats called his behavior
"outrageous," "disgraceful," "dishonorable," "reckless,"
"contemptible," "shameful," "inexcusable," "sordid,"
"deplorable," "immoral," "debased," and "reprehensible." But all the Democratic Senators closed ranks to
impose their values on the country by defeating what
Alan Dershowitz called "the forces of evil" (i.e., Republicans and the so-called religious right).
I'm fed up with the liberals imposing the label
"mean-spirited" on Republicans. Is it mean-spirited to
criticize Clinton but not mean-spirited to criticize Ken
Starr or Newt Gingrich (even though he was fully
exonerated by the IRS investigation)?
I'm fed up with the liberals imposing their values on
us about perjury, along with their absurd caveat that
"everybody lies about sex." If it's just "he says, she
says" and everybody lies, we should toss out all the
sexual harassment cases, enjoy sex in the workplace, and
then lie about it.
I'm fed up with the liberals blaming the Republicans
for Clinton's impeachment and trial. The Independent
Counsel law, which required Starr to investigate Clinton,
and the law that allowed Paula Jones to have discovery
rights against Clinton to prove a pattern of sexual harassment, were both Democratic laws signed by President
I'm fed up with the liberals dictating their new moral
imperative that we must "move on" and "become moderate," or else they will label us "extremist." Who gave
them the right to enforce a new law of moderation and
extremism and to brand people with their judgments? I
thought we were supposed to be nonjudgmental, or does
that rule depend on who is making the judgment? Or,
maybe it depends on what the meaning of extremism is.
Let's try to understand the new moral code that the
liberals are trying to impose. Is it "moderate" for a CEO
(hypocritically posing for photo-ops carrying a Bible) to
use an entry-level employee as his office sex toy, but it's
"extremist" for observers to say he doesn't observe the
Biblical moral code?
I'm fed up with the Clinton Administration telling us
we have a moral obligation to spend American blood and
money in ethnic wars all around the world. Where did
the interventionist liberals get any authority to impose
their foreign-policy morality on us? The fact is, the
Clinton Administration doesn't have any moral authority
to impose any "obligation" on us at all.
How dare the liberals impose their values on us by
pretending that the way they spend our money is morally
superior to the way individual Americans spend it! Bill
Clinton says he won't refund the surplus tax revenues to
the taxpayers because we might not "spend it right."
I'm fed up with the liberals saying it is our moral
duty to spend our money for their pet projects (it's called
taxes) in order to provide benefits to special constituencies that are expected to vote liberal. This endless stream
of constituencies seeking handouts runs the gamut from
illegal aliens, to the welfare bureaucracy, to the con
artists peddling pornography in the National Endowment
for the Arts, to the big bankers demanding that we
finance their risky overseas investments through bailouts,
the IMF and the OPIC.
I'm fed up with the liberals and the teachers unions
imposing their Whole Language, School-to-Work,
"comprehensive" sex education, and diversity curricula
on other people's children. The educrats won't even
allow parents a choice for phonics, abstinence classes, or
traditional academic basics.
I'm fed up with the liberals telling me I have to
respect their gods: the Presidency and his "wag the dog"
foreign policy, the Imperial Judiciary and its activist
decisions, and the public schools with their failed
methods. Who gave the liberals the authority to substitute those gods for God and His Ten Commandments?
I'm fed up with the liberals prescribing tolerance as
the supreme moral value and imposing their notions of
what is acceptable behavior. I'm fed up with the liberals
telling us that we must show forgiveness about Clinton's
perjury, peculiar sex, and perversion of justice at the
same time that he spells reconciliation R-E-V-E-N-G-E.
I'm fed up with the liberals falsely accusing Republicans and the so-called religious right of imposing their
values on society, when the evidence proves that the
liberals have been using the full powers of government,
the media and academia to impose their values on us.
Their values, like Clinton's Presidency, are just as
stained as the famous blue dress.
It's Bribery, Not 'Just Sex'
The new book called Year of the Rat is a political
blockbuster. No, it doesn't call Bill Clinton a "rat" --
"year of the rat" is a Chinese expression to describe 1996.
And 1996 was the year when Clinton solicited illegal
funds from foreigners and took massive contributions
from favor-seeking corporate interests, paid them off with
preferential trade policies and wide access to U.S.
intelligence, and then used the illegal money to steal the
Year of the Rat was written by two Republican
Capitol Hill staffers, Edward Timperlake and William
Triplett (Regnery Co.), with extensive investigative experience in the fields of China, national security, and international financial crimes. The book contains 275 pages of
detailed evidence of how Clinton sold out America's
national security to Communist China in return for
campaign cash. The facts about bribery, extortion and
obstruction of justice are copiously documented with
more than 600 footnotes from public information,
recently declassified documents, and personal interviews.
Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE) and then-Majority Leader
Dick Gephardt (D-MO) must have been completely
mystified as to how they could have been defeated for the
1992 Democratic Presidential nomination by the Governor of a southern state who carried so much baggage of
lifestyle and financial misbehavior. Now we know the
reason. At a crucial point in the spring of 1992, Clinton's
faltering campaign received a multi-million dollar
transfusion from an Arkansas bank controlled by the
Riady family of Indonesia.
Clinton was elected President both in 1992 and in
1996 with large sums of illegal foreign cash. Nearly $5
million in political donations to the 1992 and 1996
Clinton campaigns came from the Riadys.
A Chinese banking family based in Indonesia, the
Riadys have some $5 billion of business investments
closely interlocked with the Chinese government, the
Chinese Communist Party, and Chinese military intelligence. When the Riadys wanted property on Wangfujing
Street, the most valuable commercial block in central
Beijing, they were powerful enough to get Beijing to
break China's lease with McDonalds and move America's profitable fast-food outlet to an inferior location.
Obstruction of justice explains the payment of hush
money to Clinton crony Webb Hubbell. In June 1994, as
Ken Starr was closing in on the then-broke Hubbell, he
suddenly received $100,000 from the Riadys and possibly
a similar amount from a Macau criminal syndicate figure.
Clinton paid off the Riadys by giving their man in
America, John Huang, a key job in the Commerce
Department with Top Secret clearance. This gave Huang
access to extremely sensitive CIA information of great
value to the Riadys and to their associates in Chinese
After the Republicans captured Congress in 1994, a
worried Clinton turned to Dick Morris for political
advice. Morris laid out a plan to run a television blitz in
key states, but that required lots of money. Clinton
moved John Huang, with his security clearance intact, to
the Democratic National Committee in order to strut his
skills as a fundraiser. In nine months, Huang raised
$2,660,000 for Clinton's television campaign, most of
which the DNC later had to return as illegal -- after
Clinton was reelected in 1996.
The illegal Chinese contributions to the Democratic
Party and the Clinton-Gore campaign came mostly from
illicit activities, including prostitution and drug trafficking. In return, Clinton used the White House as a visitor's center for agents of the Chinese army, the Chinese
Communist Party, Chinese criminal syndicates, and
Chinese generals from the Tiananmen Square massacre.
Another Democratic fundraiser and friend of Clinton,
Johnny Chung, was convicted of funneling political
contributions from a Chinese military officer to the
Democrats. A hundred potential witnesses of Chinagate
have either taken the Fifth Amendment or fled the
Meanwhile, the number-one contributor to the 1995-1996 Clinton-Gore re-election cycle, Bernard Schwartz of
Loral Space Systems, turned out to be interested in China,
too. Schwartz went from a $12,500 contributor in the
1991-1992 cycle to a $2.2 million contributor. The
Clinton Administration gave Loral the export licenses it
wanted in order to have the Chinese launch its satellites.
The result is that China acquired U.S. technology that
enabled China to target its missiles against us more
accurately. Clinton should have been impeached based
on the facts set forth in Year of the Rat.
China's Espionage Proves Need for Missile Defense
We heard a lot of posturing this year about Senators
fulfilling their obligation to obey the Constitution. The
Senate has no more important obligation than to fulfill its
constitutional duty to "provide for the common defense."
Ever since the dawn of the nuclear missile age, the
liberals and the Democrats have adamantly and peculiarly
opposed building a system that would shoot down
intercontinental missiles before they kill Americans. The
Democrats consistently demand that U.S. citizens remain
sitting ducks in the face of enemy threats under the policy
known as Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Twice
last year, a Democratic filibuster prevented a missile
defense bill from coming to a vote in the Senate, and in
February the Clinton Administration said it is "strongly
opposed" to building a missile defense.
The China bribery scandal exposed in Year of the
Rat, and the coverup of the Chinese Communist espionage at Los Alamos exposed by the New York Times on
March 6, changed the political landscape. Clinton
suddenly announced he won't veto the National Missile
Defense Act, which declares it to be U.S. policy "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 (whether accidental, unauthorized, or
deliberate)." The Senate passed this bill 97-3 on March
17 and the House passed a similar bill 317-105 on March
18. Anti-missile defense is what Ronald Reagan called
SDI -- Strategic Defense Initiative.
This marks a major setback for Bill Clinton, and the
Republican Congress should take the ball and run with it.
In the post-Cold War era, Republicans have been seeking
a major issue to serve as a unifier and motivator, and
there is no better goal than the protection of the lives and
property of American citizens from attack by rogue
dictators. This issue can rally the troops of all factions of
the conservative movement: fiscal and social activists,
free traders and protectionists, interventionists and
America Firsters, libertarians and the religious right.
Despite Clinton's announced change of heart, we
know he will use every power of the bureaucracy to
prevent an anti-missile defense from actually being built,
so Congress should move aggressively to do its constitutional duty to provide for the common defense.
The New York Times exposé described how Communist China, using an espionage operation at our Los
Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico, stole the strategic
know-how to miniaturize its nuclear bombs and launch
them at multiple targets from a single missile. The
espionage probably started in the mid-1980s, but U.S.
intelligence didn't discover it until 1995 when an analysis of Chinese tests revealed that China has miniature
warheads like our most advanced warhead, the W-88.
Multiple nuclear warheads that can be launched from
long-range missiles, mobile missiles, and submarines are
the main elements of a modern nuclear force. They can
be used on China's 13 intercontinental ballistic missiles
that are already targeted on U.S. cities.
As Yogi Berra would say, it sounds like déjà vu all
over again because this espionage success story ranks
with the Soviets' theft of our atomic secrets by Klaus
Fuchs and the Rosenbergs. It's more damaging to U.S.
security than the betrayal of our secrets by convicted spy
Another parallel between the Chinese and the Soviet
espionage of the 1940s is the coverup by the Administration. The Times' investigation shows that the Clinton
Administration's response to the 1995 discovery of this
daring and dramatic theft of our most vital technology
was "delays, inaction and skepticism," plus shockingly
lax security at Los Alamos.
Of course, the Clinton Administration didn't want its
China policy to be upset by messy revelations that our
trading "partner" was stealing our technology and using
it to target weapons of mass destruction on U.S. cities!
The centerpiece of Clinton's China policy was to allow a
billion-dollar-a-week trade deficit with China, which
provides the U.S. dollars China needs to build an up-to-date, aggressive war machine.
Clinton's China policy also included okaying increased exports of satellites and other militarily useful
items, looser controls over sales of supercomputers, and
trying to work out a deal to allow U.S. companies to sell
commercial nuclear reactors. After all, these sales were
of major commercial importance to the biggest contributors to the Democratic Party's campaign coffers.
It was in 1995 when the whistle-blower in the Energy
Department, intelligence official Notra Trulock, first
sounded the alarm about Chinese Communist penetration
at Los Alamos. But making a fuss with the Chinese
would have interfered with those millions of dollars still
to be raised from the Chinese for Clinton's 1996 reelection.
So, the Clinton White House and its National Security
staff feigned "skepticism," denied that China's extraordinary and inexplicable leap forward in nuclear technology
could have come from theft of American secrets, and
downplayed the significance. It was just so much more
important for Clinton to have a friendly meeting with
China's President Jiang Zemin and let photo-ops mislead
the world with the illusion that China was moving toward
"democracy" and "capitalism."
The attitude of Clinton's National Security staff was
ominously reminiscent of the way the Roosevelt and
Truman Administrations stonewalled evidence about (in
Harry Truman's words) "good old Joe" Stalin's espionage, pretending to believe Secretary of War Henry
Stimson's famous words that "gentlemen don't read other
gentlemen's mail." But Joseph Stalin was no "gentleman," and neither are the perpetrators of the Tiananmen
Trulock encountered one roadblock after another in
trying to present his evidence of China's espionage to
Clinton's National Security staff, the FBI, the CIA, and
his own boss, Energy Secretary Federico Pena. The FBI
opened a criminal investigation in 1996 and identified
five suspects, but no one was arrested. Trulock finally
became a major witness before the Cox Committee last
year, even though senior Administration officials had
ordered him not to tell Congress about his findings, and
demoted him after he testified.
The Cox Committee reached unanimous, bipartisan
agreement in a 700-page report that China's theft has
severely hurt U.S. national security.
The Ballistic Missile Threat Commission, a distinguished bipartisan committee headed by former Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, released a unanimous and
ominous report on July 15, 1998 that provides Congress
with powerful arguments to build an anti-missile defense
The commission warns us that "hostile nations" such
as North Korea, Iran and Iraq, are making "concerted
efforts . . . to acquire ballistic missiles with biological or
nuclear payloads" that will be able "to inflict major
destruction on the U.S. within about five years of a
decision to acquire such a capability." And further, we
are warned that "the U.S. might not be aware that such a
decision has been made."
Can't we rely on the U.S. intelligence community to
keep us posted on imminent military threats? The
Rumsfeld Commission warns us that the threat from
rogue countries is "evolving more rapidly" than U.S.
intelligence has told us, and that our ability to detect the
threat is "eroding" because "nations are increasingly able
to conceal important elements" of their missile programs.
We also continue to be threatened by the existing
ballistic missile arsenals of Russia and China, and the
fact that both are exporters of ballistic missile technologies to countries hostile to the United States. Russia has
accelerated Iran's missile program, and China has carried
out extensive transfers to Iran and Pakistan. Any nation
that wants to develop ballistic missiles and weapons of
mass destruction can easily get assistance from outside
The Rumsfeld Commission notes that North Korea
has a "well developed" ballistic missile infrastructure,
and it is unlikely that the U.S. would know of a decision
to deploy its missiles. House National Security Committee Chairman Floyd Spence (R-SC) concluded that "the
missile threat is not 15 years away, it is here and now."
The CIA reported this year that 13 of China's 18
long-range nuclear missiles are now targeted at U.S.
cities. Four of these missiles were produced in the first
four months of 1998. China's new missile capability
gives that regime a tremendous opportunity for blackmail to achieve its goals, such as taking over Taiwan.
The Rumsfeld report noted that Gen. Xiong Guangkai is
already on record as threatening the United States by
boasting that we would not be willing to "trade Los
Angeles for Taipei."
Bill Clinton is trying to block the building of a U.S.
missile defense by resuscitating the moribund 1972
ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty. This effort is so
untenable as to be downright ridiculous. Under international law, our 1972 ABM Treaty with the Soviet Union
expired when that country went out of existence in 1991.
This is admitted by legal scholars and even by the author
of the 1972 treaty, Henry Kissinger.
The Clinton Administration is trying to resurrect the
old ABM Treaty by signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with four of the 15 states born out of the
former Soviet Union: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and
Russia. This would allow those four to outvote the U.S.
on interpretation and implementation. The remaining 11
countries would be free to develop, test and deploy ABM
systems, along with all the other outlaw countries identified by the Rumsfeld Commission, while the United
States would be forbidden to do so. The MOU is actually
a new treaty, also known as the ABM Expansion Treaty,
and ratification should require a two-thirds vote in the
This MOU/ABM Expansion Treaty would perpetuate
the asinine Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) policy,
which means promising to keep Americans undefended
against incoming missiles. Since the liberals have no
sensible argument against this, they just recite their Ted
Kennedy mantra "Star Wars, Star Wars" and have their
allies in Congress secretly block all appropriations to
build any system to shoot down incoming missiles.
We live in a dangerous world, which has a lot of
powerful men who are evil or irrational (or both), unpredictable, and hate Americans. Even with unlimited
access to highly classified information, Rumsfeld said,
"There is a lot we don't know, can't know and won't
know . . . there will be surprises."
The 106th Congress has no greater duty than to act
now to protect American lives against incoming nuclear
Phyllis Schlafly is the author of five books on defense and foreign policy:
The Gravediggers (1964), Strike From Space (1965), and The Betrayers
(1968) covering the McNamara years, and Kissinger on the Couch (1975)
and Ambush at Vladivostok (1976) covering the Kissinger years.