The latest right-wing e-mail smear

Remember the e-mail strings of lies we were talking about earlier, the ones that continually circulate through your brother-in-law's inbox? Here's the latest, and yes, it's regarding Hillary Clinton:

Fw: "INDICTMENT OF HILLARY CLINTON"


"I would share the following link that came to me from a friend. Taking for granted that he's not particularly a Clinton enthusiast, still the accompanying video is worth your investment of 13 minutes. Taken as a whole it is incredible nearly to the point of unbelievability. I checked it out on Snopes but there is no reference whatever to this story, the Paul lawsuit, the 2000 $1.2MM fund raiser, or any part of what you'll see. In light of the magnitude of the story, that fact alone is puzzling."

"Whatever, watch it and make up your own mind whether it's relevant to you and your potential choice for President of the United States or not. Or even whether it's worth sharing with others who might find it interesting."

"I suggest you watch this immediately before the Clintons have it removed from the internet..."

Hillary Uncensored - Banned by the Media

Now most of the people who receive e-mail of this kind are on dial-up connections, so they won't be able to view the video. But you can read about Peter Paul at his Wiki entry. I'll summarize:

Paul emerged in 2000 as the largest contributor to Senatorial candidate Hillary Clinton. Paul and his attorneys have at various times offered two explanations for this. First, that he was trying to attract her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, to serve on the board of Stan Lee Media after leaving office. Second, that he hoped to negotiate a pardon for his previous criminal convictions.^[21][22] Paul produced and underwrote what he described as the largest fund raising event ever held for a federal candidate ^[23], in Los Angeles, days before the 2000 Democratic Convention began. The Hollywood Farewell Gala Salute to President William Jefferson Clinton featured prominent entertainers singing for the President, while raising over $1 million for Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign.^[24] The event cost $1.9 million to organize according to Paul and $500,000 according to the Federal Election Commission filing, much of it borrowed fraudulently by Paul from Merrill Lynch. Later indictments would state that Merrill Lynch lost about $5 million it had lent to Paul.^[22]

Two days after the gala, the Washington Post publicized Paul's criminal record, and Hillary Clinton denied knowing Paul and "vowed not to take any contributions from him". Through her official spokesman, Howard Wolfson, Hillary stated on August 16, 2000 that she would return $2,000 she reported receiving from Paul in June 2000,^[22] and would not have anything further to do with him.

Paul alleged that Clinton was deceitful in this,^[25] and retained public interest law firm, and frequent Clinton opponent, Judicial Watch to represent him in a series of civil and criminal lawsuits against the Clintons, the Clinton campaign, and ultimately the Federal Election Commission (which he charged was negligent in failing to convict Mrs. Clinton).^{[26][27][28][29]} These charges were delayed, as courts held that Paul could not bring charges against the Clintons as he fought extradition from Brazil,^[30] but proceeded once he was returned to the States.^[31]

The Clinton campaign was ultimately asked to pay $35,000 in fines for having underreported the cost of the gala.^[32] Paul's suit against the FEC was thrown out; his attempt to bring ethics charges against Clinton were rejected,^[33] and his fraud charges against Senator Clinton were tossed out in April 2006.^[34] As of April 2007^[35], Paul's civil charges against Senator Clinton and former President Clinton for "looting"^[36] his business remained outstanding.

Peter Paul, a career criminal, sues everyone that he gets even remotely involved with -- or else he steals from them and then sues them. The GOP has been reduced to using a chronic and habitual felon to carry their latest message of hate, lies and distraction.

Has the supply of honest Republicans been exhausted by their 15-year smear machine? I'm surprised the inventory lasted as long as it did.

CNN examines noose displays

In a special report broadcast this evening at 7 p.m. (Central) CNN will air "The Noose: An American Nightmare":

Do all the incidents of hanging nooses -- many with hateful notes to their intended black audience -- reveal an ugly truth about race relations in the United States, or are they just stupid pranks by a few foolish, attention-starved people?

Oh, Jesus. I hope this isn't going to be a 'fair and balanced' account.

And days before Halloween, a Stratford, Connecticut, woman reluctantly removed from her yard a dark-hued figure hanging from a noose. It was among numerous innocuous lawn decorations, such as ghosts and a plastic grave marker. "It's unfortunate that now, we're goingto have to think twice about what we display because someone might be offended," Jennifer Cervero told CNN.

Yes, how unfortunate for you to be inconvenienced by tolerance, Ms. Cervero. Back to some actual news:

Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate crimes, said that the apparent increase in noose incidents is, in part, reaction to the news coverage of the "Jena 6".

Since September, the SPLC has recorded between 40 and 50 suspected hate crimes involving nooses, one involving two people traveling the road to Jena during the protests in a pickup truck with nooses affixed to the bumper.

"Tens of thousands of white people, if not more, feel that the events in Jena were grossly misportrayed by a politically correct media that twisted what was [to them], really, a six-on-one, black-on-white hate crime into an instance of the oppression of black people," Potok said. "That accounts, in part, for a backlash."

And then there's the well-documented effect in the "corporate" environment:

While the Department of Justice doesn't keep track of noose-specific offenses, the government published a report in 2000 showing an increase of nooses in professional environments.

And The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says the race-baiting technique still creeps up in professional environments. There have been at least 20 lawsuits involving nooses in the workplace since 2001.

Of the 5,500 racial harassment charge filings in 2006, anecdotal information from EEOC field offices suggests that some involved nooses, but the agency is unable to quantify that data, according to EEOC spokesman David Grinberg.

On Wednesday, seven black workers employed by an Oklahoma-based drilling company won a $290,000 settlement in a discrimination lawsuit which claimed they felt threatened by the display of a noose on a Gulf of Mexico oil rig.

"It's time for corporate America to be more proactive in preventing and eliminating racist behavior," said EEOC Chairwoman Naomi C. Earp. "The EEOC intends to make clear that race and color discrimination in the workplace, whether verbal or behavioral, is unacceptable and will not be tolerated."

Don't miss the special broadcast this evening.

Constitutional amendments: an opposing viewpoint

My man David offers a his usual cogent opinion on the Texas constitutional amendments appearing on next Tuesday's ballot -- or sooner than that if you're an early voter. He endorses several 'against' votes, including Propositions 12 ($5 billion in bonds to be issued to the TxDOT for road maintenance) and 15 ($3 billion for a new cancer research and prevention facility). I'll excerpt his analysis on those two below and refer you to Bluedaze, who has the full list:

-------------------------------------------

Proposition 12 – I begin with Proposition 12 because it is the worst of the worst. In this proposition, we are being asked to amend Article III, Section 49 of the Constitution in order to permit the Texas Department of Transportation to sell 5 billion dollars worth of bonds. This is the same agency that today, this very day, is cynically and arrogantly using your and my tax dollars in a high-pressure marketing campaign designed by a political consulting firm to convince us that we want toll roads; in complete disregard of the fact that government is supposed to follow the will of the people, not the other way around. This is the same agency that intends to tear up our beautiful Texas with the most gigantic land grab in history, the Trans-Texas Corridor, so that Texas will turn from a state into a highway and the people and farms of Texas will turn into the highway’s butlers. This is the same agency that Slick Rick Perry uses as his personal toy for the pleasure of the special interests, both domestic and international, whose moneys are expected to continue funding the political ambitions of Slick Rick and his new patron, Rudy Guliani (and it is such a coincidence that the international corporate law firm of Bracewell Guliani is legal counsel to CINTRA). Let’s put it this way – if you trust TXDOT and Rick Perry, then by all means do cast your vote to amend the Texas Constitution to allow TXDOT to indebt your children to paying off 5 billion dollars more for TXDOT to build toll roads and the Trans-Texas Corridor with. But if you don’t think TXDOT and Rick Perry have earned your trust, then get off your duff and tell everyone you can think of to vote against Proposition 12.

Proposition 15 – This Amendment of Article III of the Texas Constitution would authorize the issuance of up to 3 billion dollars in bonds for a new Cancer Prevention and Research Institute, to research the causes and prevention of cancer. There is no doubt in my mind that it would a good thing to have this. However, I object to the borrow-and-spend philosophy. The State of Texas has a fiscal surplus and could pay for this project out of general revenues without selling bonds. The interest on 3 billion dollars in bonds will be 1.6 billion dollars. Thus the project is not a 3 billion dollar project, it is a 4.6 billion dollar project, to be paid for by future taxpayers. No explanation has been offered as to why the legislature did not fund this project directly out of the existing fiscal surplus. I submit that the explanation is the political convenience of passing the responsibility for spending decisions off to the future. The Texas Cancer Prevention and Research Institute is a worthy project for Texas. It is worthy of being paid for directly out of existing general revenues, rather than engaging in the scam of selling bonds. The corporate law firms that prepare governmental bond issues pull in very large fees in one of the most atrocious rackets in the legal-governmental world. Those same law firms often make large political donations out of their law firm PACs. This proposed bond issue is very likely another example of the hogs wallowing deep in the public troughs while claiming all kinds of feel-good notions to gain themselves entry. Tell the legislature to come back in 2009 and fund this project straight up in the open, as it deserves. Vote NO to passing the buck.

-----------------------------------------

Again, read all of the Van Os endorsements at Bluedaze.