CNS News Ticker

Sports Tickers






Stock Market Indices
&ltPARAM NAME="1:multiline" VALUE="true">
[Scroll Left] <     • STOP •     > [Scroll Right]



Haircut: 25 Cents / Shave: 15 Cents / Talk Of The Town: Free



The Inside Track ... News With Views You Won't Hear On The News ...


New GlowBarber Shoppe Gazette Articles Are Also Indexed Online At ... http://del.icio.us/Gazette

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Oregon Undersheriff: "F*** The Public"


LAW ENFORCEMENT / OREGON UNDERSHERIFF: "F*** THE PUBLIC"



US Observer



Smiley Flag WaverOne of the affidavits reads in part, "... Brian Anderson a patrol lieutenant ... came in to briefing and told ALL of us, 'I want all of you to only go out on emergency calls and do NO patrolling f--- the public they don't want to give us any money then f--- them go out on the emergency call and come right back to the office.' ... We were not allowed to go to burglary or theft calls and many more."

The evidence supporting that Anderson told his staff in briefings to only work on emergency calls comes in the form of the department's own published reports on burglaries in 2004. The report says that they had received 516 burglary calls but that only 95 of these cases were reviewed and only 43 were actually investigated, something many, especially in the outlying county areas, know all too well. One resident stated that she had called the sheriff's department when her home was burglarized but didn't hear back and it was only after several calls and almost a week when they actually responded by sending out officers. According to this woman who wished to remain anonymous, when they did respond they were rude and never investigated the crime.



“F--- The Public” Says Brian Anderson

Affidavits cite Anderson as saying,“citizens get what they pay for”



Sheriff Candidate Brian Anderson


~ By Ron Lee
Investigative Reporter
US~Observer


Josephine County, OR - Recently, several ex-Josephine County sheriff deputies along with one on-duty officer have stepped forward with affidavits claiming that on many occasions Brian Anderson, current undersheriff, made disparaging remarks toward the public in briefings to his staff saying, "F--- 'em. They get what they pay for." According to an affidavit Anderson even went on to say that he would release the prisoners of the jail if the public didn’t want to fund it and let them deal with the criminals. In the affidavits Anderson also instructed deputies not to respond to anything other than emergency calls. Included as well was information alleging Anderson allowed "false investigations against deputies to proceed despite his knowledge the deputies were innocent," because they didn't belong to the "A Team" - a group some in the department call the good-old-boy club that currently exists. One of the affidavits even cites specific criminal misconduct. The US~Observer has also obtained a recent letter written by Grants Pass Chief of Police Joe Henner stating that the city police will no longer back the sheriff's department unless it is an absolute emergency. This is because there are no procedures in place within the sheriff's department to take care of many situations they face. In his letter Henner specifically mentioned that he had previously brought this to the attention of Undersheriff Anderson, but that no procedures have as yet been adopted. These affidavits and the letter by the city police chief come at a pivotal point for Anderson who is seeking to be elected as the county sheriff in the upcoming election on the grounds that he is well qualified for the position and has been doing a good job as undersheriff.

On October 10, 2006, US~Observer investigative reporter John Taft called Anderson for comment on the allegations stated in the affidavits, specifically that of him saying, "F--- the Public." Anderson at first responded that his remarks were taken out of context but later recanted saying that he never used the F-word. However, commenting on the grounds of anonymity one high-ranking public official stated that he had heard Anderson say this many times.

One of the affidavits reads in part, "... Brian Anderson a patrol lieutenant ... came in to briefing and told ALL of us, 'I want all of you to only go out on emergency calls and do NO patrolling f--- the public they don't want to give us any money then f--- them go out on the emergency call and come right back to the office.' ... We were not allowed to go to burglary or theft calls and many more."

The evidence supporting that Anderson told his staff in briefings to only work on emergency calls comes in the form of the department's own published reports on burglaries in 2004. The report says that they had received 516 burglary calls but that only 95 of these cases were reviewed and only 43 were actually investigated, something many, especially in the outlying county areas, know all too well. One resident stated that she had called the sheriff's department when her home was burglarized but didn't hear back and it was only after several calls and almost a week when they actually responded by sending out officers. According to this woman who wished to remain anonymous, when they did respond they were rude and never investigated the crime.

Anderson has, in part, based his platform on running for the position of sheriff that there needs to be an individual in the top position who has budgetary experience as funding is, according to Anderson, the biggest law enforcement challenge this county faces saying, "we don't have stabilized funding so we end up losing a lot of our officers to other agencies because they might not have a job next year. And to me you can't fight the meth problem and any of those other issues if you don't have the staff to do it. You need detectives. You need deputies out there handling calls. You need directors for when people call in. You need the jail, a jail that's adequately funded to house people. I think funding is the biggest issue." But mismanagement of funds is one of the many issues the affidavits address calling into question Anderson's ability to head the department, one which obviously has more issues than previously known. As for “budgetary experience;” any experience Anderson does have is for naught given the excessive amount of lawsuits (most successful) that have been filed against the Josephine County Sheriff’s Office while Anderson and Dave Daniel have overseen the department, or in better terms, failed to oversee the department.

The authors of the affidavits all feel the public need to be informed of what is going on in the department. One of the affidavits reads in part, "In making these statements, it is not my will or intent to bring disfavor upon the Josephine County Sheriff's office. I still have many friends there that are good people that work hard. I simply want the citizens to know the truth about what has been happening ..." Another even says, "I do not believe that the public would want someone like this (Anderson) to be our sheriff for Josephine County."

With the election now days away the effects of these affidavits remain to be seen. As for Gil Gilbertson, Brian Anderson's opponent in the election, he had no comment when asked if he had any opinion on the effects the affidavits might have.

Editor's Note: It has come to light that the editor, Denis Roler, of the Grants Pass, OR local news publication, the Daily Courier, also has the affidavits and has yet to publish any kind of story. Is Roler trying to protect Anderson by remaining silent, or does he feel that it isn't worthy news for their readers? Whatever the answer, it makes one wonder.

Denis Roler at the Daily Courier can be reached by calling:
(541) 474-3700
or by e-mail at newsdept@thedailycourier.com

To voice your opinion to Brian Anderson, he may be reached by calling the Josephine County Sheriff's Department:
(541) 474-5123
or by e-mail at jocosheriff@co.josephine.or.us




© 2006, US~Observer. All Rights Reserved.




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend


Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Friday, December 08, 2006

Pelosi Faces Ethics Test In "Culture Of Corruption"


POLITICS / RADICAL LIBERAL EXTREMIST PELOSI EXPANDING DEMOCRAT'S "CULTURE OF CORRUPTION"



CNS News



Smiley Flag WaverRep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia is under investigation by the F.B.I. regarding accusations that he funneled taxpayer money into nonprofit organizations he helped to set up and which support him with campaign contributions.

He is in line to head the panel that determines the FBI's budget.

"Somebody under investigation by the FBI shouldn't have any leverage over his investigators," Boehm said. "If Pelosi or the new majority in Congress doesn't understand that, then they don't have a clue as to what the 'culture of corruption' is because it's staring them in the face."



Politics

Pelosi Faces Ethics 'Litmus Test' With Mollohan Case, Analyst Says


~ By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
December 08, 2006


(CNSNews.com) - For the third time in as many weeks, House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi faces what one analyst called a "litmus test" of her stated commitment to ethics, as a congressman whose finances are being examined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation is in line to head the panel that determines the FBI's budget.

Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia is the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee's subcommittee for Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies, which oversees the Department of Justice, including the FBI. Other than Mollohan, no Democrat has announced an intention to seek the chairmanship.

However, the FBI is investigating the 63-year-old lawmaker regarding accusations that he funneled taxpayer money into nonprofit organizations he helped to set up and which support him with campaign contributions.

Ken Boehm, chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) told Cybercast News Service on Thursday that Mollohan's leadership aspirations were a "litmus test" of how serious Pelosi was when she and fellow Democrats campaigned this year on "draining the swamp" in Congress of what they called a GOP "culture of corruption."

"Somebody under investigation by the FBI shouldn't have any leverage over his investigators," Boehm said. "If Pelosi or the new majority in Congress doesn't understand that, then they don't have a clue as to what the 'culture of corruption' is because it's staring them in the face."

Noting that Pelosi made ethics in government "the absolute, number one issue" in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, the NLPC chairman said her decision regarding Mollohan is "going to be pretty telling," especially since the speaker-designate has suffered two political setbacks in recent weeks.

On Nov. 16, Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer was overwhelmingly voted in as the new majority leader despite Pelosi's efforts supporting Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha for the post.

Murtha, whose war hero status and Abscam involvement came under scrutiny earlier, was supported by Pelosi because of what she called his "courageous leadership" in the national debate over the war in Iraq.

"Is that the type of person she wants as majority leader?" Boehm asked. "Apparently, her own caucus - by a vote of 149 to 86 - rejected that.

"If she can't sell her own caucus on putting a sleazy member of Congress into a position of authority, then how is she going to sell that [the Mollohan post] to the public? I don't think she will," Boehm added.

On Nov. 28, Pelosi announced she would not elevate Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) - her original choice for chairman of the House Intelligence Committee - because of concerns over his impeachment while serving as a federal judge in 1989. Instead, she named Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas to the post.

Because of the Murtha and Hastings setbacks, Pelosi's decision on Mollohan will be "a big, underappreciated test" of her leadership, Boehm noted.

'Integrity versus corruption'

According to documents obtained by the NLPC, Mollohan and his wife, Barbara, reported under $550,000 in assets in 2000. That figure soared to more than $8 million just five years later.

On April 10, the NLPC accused the West Virginia Democrat of violating more than 250 House ethics rules.

Eleven days later, Pelosi announced that Mollohan would step down from the ethics committee while defending himself against the allegations.

On June 13, Mollohan filed two dozen corrections to his past six annual financial disclosure forms, asserting that his accountant had uncovered several unintentional errors. He attributed his substantial rise in assets to prudent real-estate investments.

However, Boehm said that the congressman had admitted to other ethical breaches as well.

Mollohan should not serve on the subcommittee that handles appropriations for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the NLPC chairman said, because he "has a history of using earmarks in HUD to direct tens of millions of dollars to a group run by one of his business partners" who used to be a member of his staff.

"Wouldn't anybody who wants to 'drain the swamp,' as Nancy Pelosi has so elegantly put it, think that somebody who's shown time and again he'll abuse the appropriations process should be taken off the committee, and pronto?" Boehm asked.

Hoyer told reporters on Tuesday: "I don't have any thought that Mr. Mollohan ought to step down at this time."

The liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has recommended that "no member under federal investigation be involved in the oversight or appropriations of any agency involved in investigating that member."

Boehm welcomed CREW's stance. "This shouldn't be a conservative-versus-liberal issue, a Republican-versus-Democrat issue. This is an issue of integrity versus corruption.

"The standard that Nancy Pelosi has set for the 110th Congress is that this is going to be the most ethical one ever," Boehm added.

"She is being called upon to use her position to make a decision, and the decision ought to be in favor of what's right and what's ethical and the way Congress can be, especially in light of the fact that that's been her mantra for the past year," Boehm said.

Calls seeking response from Pelosi and Mollohan were not returned by press time.




Make media inquiries or request an interview with Randy Hall.

Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-Brief.

E-mail a comment or news tip to Randy Hall.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.


CNS News Footer Copyright 1998-2006 Cybercast News Service




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Republicans Abandon Conservative Base


POLITICS / McCAIN WILL BE 2008 GOP NOMINEE



Republicans Abandon Conservative Base ...

NewsMax



Smiley Flag Waver "If you have a McCain candidacy, you are going to capture the middle," D'Amato said. "We will have a more moderate Republican tone, tuition assistance, an immigration policy that deals with reality . . . and stay away from bashing gays.

Republicans will "race to the center" in 2008 to make up for losses in the 2006 elections.


Breaking News


Al D'Amato: McCain Will Be GOP Nominee


Thursday, Dec. 7, 2006


Former GOP Senator Al D'Amato said Republicans will "race to the center" in 2008 to make up for losses in the 2006 elections, and Sen. John McCain will be the man to lead them there.

D'Amato, appearing Thursday on Fox News Channel, said the Republican Party was hurt in the elections by the "morass" in Iraq and the ineffectiveness of a GOP-controlled Congress to pass meaningful legislation.

He also said President Bush was damaged by the appearance that he didn't do enough to help Hurricane Katrina victims, with the image of Bush "flying over" New Orleans in a helicopter viewed by Americans as showing he was "out of touch" with the tragedy.

D'Amato said McCain can help bring voters back to the party for the 2008 presidential elections.

"If we have someone who demonstrates strength and compassion, like a John McCain, if we stay away from issues which almost trivialize the political process, like gay marriage . . . that's nonsense. We shouldn't be about that."

D'Amato said Republicans may not favor McCain now, as some polls indicate, but he predicted that will change during the upcoming presidential campaign.

"If you have a McCain candidacy, you are going to capture the middle," D'Amato said. "We will have a more moderate Republican tone, tuition assistance, an immigration policy that deals with reality . . . and stay away from bashing gays."

"He's going to be the nominee," D'Amato said.





All Rights Reserved © 2006 NewsMax.Com




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below






GOP Blames Constitution Party For Election Losses


POLITICS / DESPERATE REPUBLICANS -- IN NEED OF A COVER-UP SCAPEGOAT -- BLAME ELECTION 2006 LOSSES ON THE CONSTITUTION PARTY


Sierra Times

Sierra Times



Smiley Flag WaverThe potential losses to the Republican Party will be much higher in the 2008 presidential elections. If the Constitution Party continues to grow -- and it will, directly proportional to how far the Republican Party continues to move to the Left -- then the Constitution Party will take away not only votes, but also contributors, from the GOP. The Big Two political parties are full of people who earn their daily bread from politics: not only elected officials, but also staffers, administrators, analysts, and ... yes, operatives.

Has the GOP membership lost its collective mind for continuing to follow along? Either way, it is painfully obvious that the GOP is no longer the party of true conservatives. Thus, its members have only two choices: "go along" and become more liberal themselves, or "jump ship" to another party that is more conservative.

But, if there is a national party that is more conservative (and there is), then that leaves the Republican Party in the middle.



The GOP Blame Game: It'll Get Worse By 2008


~ Tom Kovach

The trouble has started already. And, if it has started this early, then I expect the Republican Party to behave even worse by the time the 2008 presidential election season heats up to near boiling.

In the recent election, the Republican Party got spanked. They lost control of both houses of Congress, plus several state legislatures, despite having had a fairly comfortable margin before the election. Now, instead of admitting that their own policies and methods caused them to lose the elections, the GOP is looking for a scapegoat.

Who will the Republican leaders blame for their losses?
  • Will it be the Congressional Page sex scandal of disgraced former representative Tom Foley?
  • Will it be the poor timing of the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld? Will it be the news of the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" (which is anything but any of those words!)?
  • Will it be the government's arrest, prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment of two Border Patrol agents for doing exactly what the public expects all of them to do?
  • Will it be the point that the citizenry is finally waking up to the fact that President Bush invaded two countries without a formal declaration of war? ("Enforcing UN sanctions" does not meet the standard of our Constitution!)
  • Will it be the failure of the Republican Party, despite the control of both houses of Congress and the White House, to prevent the RU-486 abortion pill from getting into American drug stores?
The answer is a firm and resounding "no!" to all of the above.

Instead, they are blaming the Constitution Party.

The blog linked above is far from the only one spewing venom toward the one nationally recognized political party that is openly to the Right of the GOP on the political spectrum. For example, this blog displays amazing ill-logic. It simultaneously chides the Constitution Party, saying that it, " ... actually does more harm to Christianity, as it does to Republicanism, than it does to help, ... " and of having " ... the power of testimony which, granted, potentially can be positive." The author of that blog tries -- as do certain foolish talk-radio hosts -- to give the appearance of wisdom by being on both sides of the fence. The author accuses the Constitution Party of being "factious," while stirring up that condition himself by the epithets and arguments that he has chosen. Example: "They are wise in their positions. They are stupid in their place in politics ... and in their testimony." In other words, we that refuse to compromise should "know our place." And, in a single sentence, he attacks both our politics and our Christianity -- even though the author claims to be a Christian himself. Sounds like desperation to me.

I expect it to get worse, because the potential losses to the Republican Party will be much higher in the 2008 presidential elections. If the Constitution Party continues to grow -- and it will, directly proportional to how far the Republican Party continues to move to the Left -- then the Constitution Party will take away not only votes, but also contributors, from the GOP. The Big Two political parties are full of people who earn their daily bread from politics: not only elected officials, but also staffers, administrators, analysts, and ... yes, operatives. (Did you see the surveillance photos that Bob Corker and Harold Ford had on each other? It reminded me of "Spy vs. Spy" from Mad magazine!) The bottom line is that those people -- part of what I call "the hidden aristocracy in America" -- would need to go out and actually get a job if the Republicans fall from power.

And, when I saw "fall from power," I don't mean simply losing the majority. (They just did that, but still have power.) Here is the ugly secret: the Democrats know how to build coalitions, but the Republicans refuse to learn! (For even more details, click here.) Now, don't get me wrong. I do not like the goals of the Democrats, nor of their partners. (This year, the Communist Party encouraged its members to vote for Democrats, and not to even run their own candidates!) What I do admire about the Left is their willingness to work together. But, we on the Right cannot do that as long as the Republican Party -- while continuing to drift toward the Left -- pretends that it is the only conservative party in America. The GOP has the audacity to refer to the Constitution Party as the "spoiler." But, one can only be the spoiler if one is in the middle.

For example, in 1994, Bob Moppert -- a pro-abortion Republican -- lost the election for the 26th District of N.Y. because I was the only anti-abortion candidate. Moppert lost by 1,241 votes; I got 4,529 votes. Moppert, the compromiser, was in the middle. Thus, he was the spoiler. But, all that "the elephant" will choose to remember is that "Tom Kovach cost the Republicans the election." They will not even consider that their big-money, compromising candidate cost himself the election by trying to be Democrat Lite. And, as we saw with the 2006 elections, the elephant has a long memory, and is not prone to forgiveness.

So, as both the small example (my 1994 campaign), and the large example (the nationwide spanking of the Republicans this year) both prove, the Republican Party continues to drift toward the Left, while simultaneously continuing to claim that they are the only hope of the Right. Has their leadership lost its collective mind? Or, has the GOP membership lost its collective mind for continuing to follow along? Either way, it is painfully obvious that the GOP is no longer the party of true conservatives. Thus, its members have only two choices: "go along" and become more liberal themselves, or "jump ship" to another party that is more conservative.

But, if there is a national party that is more conservative (and there is), then that leaves the Republican Party in the middle.

The above statement is much more than political hair-splitting or name-calling. There is a tectonic shift in not only the balance of power in Congress, but in how we define power in Congress, hidden beneath that statement. You see, our Congress is structured around committees that are led by majority party chairmen, but with minority party input. If there is a third party, and if that party is stuck in the middle, then it has neither of those positions of power. It is left out to pasture.

During the heyday of the Republicans during the mid-1990s, they had no problem with the Constitution Party. Why? Because they were hoping that, if the Constitution Party grew and won, then any Constitution Party member elected to Congress would become a one-person minority. And, with the Republicans in the majority, that would put the Democrats out to pasture.

But, even with the possibility of effectively hamstringing the Democrats, the GOP didn't do anything the help the Constitution Party grow. They just didn't do anything to hurt the Constitution Party, either. The GOP had a wonderful opportunity to build a strong conservative coalition, but that wasn't good enough -- they want it all. Now that the Democrats are in the majority, though, it seems that the GOP is wasting no time in trying to make a scapegoat out of the Constitution Party. Personally, I think that such a strategy will backfire, and the Republicans will lose far more members than if they had kept their mouth shut.

Regardless of which of the Big Two is in the majority, the cat is now out of the bag. There are only eight nationally-recognized political parties. Chances are that another one could not be organized before the 2008 election cycle. So, as I've written before, multi-party politics is here to stay. And, the politics of compromise must give way to the politics of coalitions. Political beliefs are not either-or, they are aligned along a spectrum. Multiple parties give people an opportunity to join the group that most closely represents their position along that spectrum. Of course, multi-party politics would also require votes to think more, because it's not just "A or B" anymore.

Abused Becomes Abuser??

Here is the real irony of the Republican Party's current angst over the sudden growth of the Constitution Party. The GOP claims that any "third party" is a "spoiler." (The correct term is "smaller party," because only one party can be third) They try to maintain a myth that America has, and always did have, only a two-party system. But, that is not true. And, back in 1854, when a small group of anti-slavery activists got together in the Ripon Schoolhouse and founded a new political party, the Republicans were the fourth party involved in the slavery argument alone! (The others were the Whigs, the Democrats, and the Free Soil Party.) So, by the standard that they now proclaim, the Republican Party should never have been allowed on the ballot in the first place, because it would have disrupted the "two-party system" of their day! Ask some elephant how he likes those peanuts!

The Constitution Party got its start in 1992 as the U.S. Taxpayers Party. By 1994, the Republicans should have seen a golden opportunity to build a powerful conservative coalition. But, they either ignored or eschewed that opportunity. Now, the Republican Party -- by its own choice, via their leadership -- has become almost unrecognizable as a conservative organization. The proof is that, rather than try to woo conservatives back into the GOP by returning to the Right, the GOP tries to brand those conservatives as "traitors" or "spoilers." Well, 'ya know, with friends like that ...

Conservatives can no longer "fix" the Republican Party. They can either "loyally" ride it into the iceberg, or they can board the rescue ship. The Republicans are busy playing the blame game -- as though the crew of the Carpathia (which rescued scores of passengers) was somehow to blame for the captain driving the Titanic into the iceberg. So, even after being spanked by its own membership, the Republican Party is acting like the rebellious little toddler that says, "That didn't hurt." They are also acting like the prisoner that blames the police officer for his incarceration, instead of accepting responsibility for his own misdeeds. Sophisticated voters will not stick around to listen to the Republican blame game while the conservative Titanic sinks.

Here, let me throw you a safety line.





Tom Kovach lives near Nashville, is a former USAF Blue Beret, has written for several online publications, and recently published his first book. He is also an inventor, a certified paralegal, and a former talk-radio host. Tom has been involved in politics since 1992, and recently got the highest total votes of any Constitution Party member that sought Federal office in the country (but not enough to win election to Congress). He is available to speak to your group. To learn more, click: www.Tom.Kovach.com

© Copyright 2006 by Tom Kovach


SierraTimes.com™ A Subsidiary of J.J. Johnson Enterprises, Inc.

P.O.Box 101
Corning, New York
A Registered Nevada Corporation Contact Information:

Office 607.937.3443 Fax
607. 398.7914



E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Tuesday, December 05, 2006

The Democrat's Ties To The Communist Chinese Party


POLITICS - DEMOCRAT COMMUNISM / THE DEMOCRAT PARTY'S TIES TO THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY


Just Facts



Smiley Flag Waver * James Riady has left the country.


* Sonaya & Arief Wiriadinata have left the country.


* John Huang is pleading the Fifth Ammendment.


* Attorney General Janet Reno (Clinton appointee) heads the Justice Department, which is responsible for investigating campaign finance violations. The head of the FBI, (Louis Freeh, Clinton appointee) and the lead investigator (Charles LaBella) have recommended the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate this matter. As of July 1998, Janet Reno refuses to appoint an independent counsel.



Democrat Paty Ties To The Communist Chinese Party


Lippo Group


* A 12 billion dollar Indonesian financial conglomerate. (1)


* Lippo has a business partnership with China Resources Holding Company, which is owned by China's government and staffed with Chinese military intelligence officers. (2)


James Riady

* Indonesian billionaire. (3)

* He and his family run the Lippo Group. (4)

* An acquaintance of Bill Clinton since the 1980's. (3)

* Former permanent green card holder who worked in Arkansas. (3)


Soraya & Arief Wiriadinata

* Daughter and son-in-law of a Lippo partner. (4)

* As of 1996, Arief worked as a gardener in Virginia. (4)


John Huang

* "Long time" friend of Bill Clinton. (4)

* Former director of Lippo Group USA. (4)

* Former Commerce Department employee. (4)

* Former DNC Vice Chairman of Finance. (4)


Laws:


* 2 U.S.C. 441(e) It is against the law for foreign nationals to directly or indirectly contribute, solicit, or receive campaign contributions. (9)

* 18 U.S.C. 1956 It is against the law to solicit or receive campaign contributions that have been laundered in an effort to conceal the actual source of the money. (9)

* 18 U.S.C. 600 It is against the law for a government official to reward or provide a benefit to someone based on their political activity. (9)

* 18 U.S.C. 595 It is against the law for government employees to use their office in any way to affect federal elections. (9)

* It is legal for foreigners who are permanent residents and for individuals who work for U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations to donate to political campaigns, but the money must be generated inside the U.S. (3)



Photo 1
Presidential Radio Address in the Oval Office - September 10, 1994
Bill Clinton, James Riady (right), John Huang (facing in center) and Mark Middleton (back to camera)

What They Gave:


Lippo Group

* The Lippo Group made consulting payments to Webb Hubbell totaling between $100,000 and $250,000 after Hubbell had promised to cooperate with Whitewater investigators. Hubbell did not cooperate and no recommendation for leniency was made at his sentencing. (5)


James Riady

* Riady has donated over $475,000 to the DNC, Clinton Inaugural Fund, and related Democratic candidates. An August 1992 memo to Bill Clinton says Riady "will be giving $100,000 to this event and has the potential to give much more." (3)

* Bank statements, memos, and checks show that one of Riady's 1992 donations was directly covered by foreign funds and the rest came from a personal bank account that appears to have received foreign money before and after donations were made. (3)


Sonaya & Arief Wiriadinata

* Illegally contributed $450,000 to the DNC. (8)

* Arief is heard on videotape (at a White House coffee) telling Bill Clinton, "James Riady sent me." (4)


John Huang

* Has raised over $3.4 million for the DNC, approximately half of which, has been returned. (4)

* At a 1996 Los Angeles fund raiser, Bill Clinton said, "I'd like to thank my long time friend, John Huang, for being so effective. Frankly, he's been so effective, I was amazed that you were all cheering for him tonight after he's been around in his aggressive efforts to help our cause." (4)


Photo 2
Bill Clinton and Arief Wiriadinata
White House Coffee - December 15, 1995

What They Got:


Lippo Group

* The Lippo Group has investments in the coal mining industry in Indonesia. The leading export of Indonesia is a new form of clean burning, low sulfur coal. This is the only type of coal that meets the U.S. Clean Air Standards Act. (6)

* The largest known deposit in the world of this coal is located in Southern Utah. (6)

* The coal in Utah was slated to be mined when Bill Clinton declared 1.7 million acres in Southern Utah as the "Grand Escalante National Momument." This declaration made the coal mining project infeasible and locked up over a trillion dollars worth of this coal. (6)

* Bill Clinton never discussed his decision with Congress , Utah officials, or the Democratic Congressman who represented this district until the midnight before the declaration was made. (7)

* The head of the Council of Environmental Quality (Kathleen McGinty) stated in an email that the lands were "not really endangered." The associate director (Linda Lance) stated in an email that the lands were "not threatened." (6)

* The surrounding 29 Utah counties have filed suit to overturn Clinton's declaration. (6)


James Riady

* James Riady was an occasional visitor to the White House and had direct access to Bill Clinton. (3)

* Clinton spokes people told reporters that visits with James Riady were "social visits." A videotape of a July 1996 dinner for James Riady shows Bill Clinton discussing the deployment of U.S. aircraft carriers to the Taiwan Strait. (4)


John Huang

* Huang was hired at the Commerce Dept. in 1994. His supervisor (Jeff Garten) testified, "He was totally unqualified." (1)


* When Huang left the Lippo Group for the Commerce Department, he was paid a $780,000 bonus by Lippo. (1)


* Huang received Top Secret Security Clearance before, during, and after his tenure at Commerce. (1)


* According to a memo dated January 31, 1994, the chief of security at Commerce (Paul Buskirk) granted Huang "a waiver of background investigation." (2)

* While at the Commerce Dept. Huang received intelligence briefings from the CIA, had access to top secret reports, visited the White House at least 67 times, and met with Bill Clinton at least 15 times. (2)

* According to telephone records, Huang made at least 261 phone calls to Lippo Group offices during his tenure at Commerce. (2)

* Huang received 37 classified briefings on China and Vietnam from the CIA. According to the testimony of a CIA officer John Dickerson, Huang had access to "extremely sensitive sources." (1)


Obstruction / Cover Up:


* In March of 1997, the House Resources Committee requested documents detailing President Clinton's decision to designate the 1.7 million acres in southern Utah as the Grand Escalante National Monument. The White House supplied over 100 documents and withheld 27. The House Committee subpoenaed the 27 withheld documents and they were produced on October 22, 1997. (7)


* James Riady has left the country. (4)


* Sonaya & Arief Wiriadinata have left the country. (4)


* John Huang is pleading the Fifth Ammendment. (4)


* Attorney General Janet Reno (Clinton appointee) heads the Justice Department, which is responsible for investigating campaign finance violations. The head of the FBI, (Louis Freeh, Clinton appointee) and the lead investigator (Charles LaBella) have recommended the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate this matter. As of July 1998, Janet Reno refuses to appoint an independent counsel. (10)



Sources:

1) "John Huang: In His Own Words." Fox News, October 24, 1997.

2) Judicial Watch Newsletter, 1998.

3) Associated Press. "Memo shows Riady got ride with Clinton." Washington Times National Weekly Edition, June 15-21, 1998.

4) Editorial: "Those many former FOB's." Washington Times National Weekly Edition, October 28-November 2, 1997.

5) Seper, Jerry. "Hubbell, wife indicted on tax evasion." Washington Times National Weekly Edition, May 4-10, 1998.

6) The Citizens Presidential Impeachment Indictment, Citizens for Honest Government, 1998. Source cited: Washington Times

7) Larson, Ruth. "Panel gets papers on Utah land decision." Washington Times National Weekly Edition, October 28-November 2, 1997.

8) Editorial: "Dealing with the Suharto crisis." Washington Times National Weekly Edition, March 31- April 5, 1998.

9) Levin, Mark R. "Commentary: Want reform? Make politicians obey the law." Washington Times National Weekly Edition, November 8-14, 1997.

10) Seper, Jerry. "Reno refuses to turn over memos to Burton committee." Washington Times National Weekly Edition, August 10-16, 1998.



Related Links:

*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy
*
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/players/huang.htm
*
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/players/riady.htm
*
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/players/lippo.htm





E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend


Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below