Nothing less than Vindication
for President Clinton

Now that Republicans have voted for Impeachment, we will not be satisfied with anything less than vindication!

Now it's our turn to go after them!

The right wing forces that control the Republican Party have declared that history will record that President Clinton's name is forever tarnished because the President was impeached. President Clinton is one of history's finest presidents and enjoys higher voter approval than any president this century. I consider it an honor to support such a great man. President Clinton is so popular that he would still win an election even if only Republicans voted. That's because there are a lot of Republicans for Clinton. President Clinton has work hard for us and has had the courage to hang in there against a constant and unrelenting right wing assault. Because he has stood up for us, we now stand up for him. The time for vindication has come. History will record this impeachment as an honor to a great man who stood up in the face corruption and brought down the moralistic hypocrites who tried and failed to undermine democracy and the American way.

The right wing forces have used their Republican Puppets to attempt to overthrow our twice elected President of the United States and undermine the Constitution and the will of the voters. These people have become a threat to democracy and the American way of life. Now that President Clinton has been impeached, they have crossed the line and this can no longer be ignored. Censure and Moving On is no longer enough. We the people demand nothing less than vindication. It's time to have it out and try this on the merits.

Clinton Vindicated! We Won! Now it's our turn to go after them. They have and continue to threated our way of life and we must actively resist them. This war isn't over, It's just begun.

Oreo Banner We now draw a line in the sand. Tobacco lawyer Kenneth Starr, the Christian Coalition, Jerry Falwell, and Reverend Sun Myung Moon ( the Moonies) have decided to override the will of the voters and overturn the election. Who are these people to decide that the voters voice doesn't count and that because they are morally superior that they can just throw out a president that they people want? I am not going to stand by and let this happen.

Many people who support President Clinton as I do look at impeachment as a curse, but it's not. This impeachment is a blessing because the right wingers have been working hard to undermine our freedoms and liberties and it's time to put a stop to them. We have the Republicans trapped by this impeachment process and this is an opportunity to flush these right wingers out into the light of day for all to see their evil deeds. Hillary talked about a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and what she said was true. Religious cults like The Moonies are pouring billions of dollars into America to influence the media, the Christian Coalition, and Politics. Reverend Sun Myung Moon owns and controls The Washington Times, the premier paper of American conservatives. Moon recently bailed out Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, giving him some 70 million dollars. Former President George Bush is a regular speaker at Moon's mass weddings earning him millions in speaking fees. Boy are the right wingers going to be surprised to find out how much they are influenced by the Moonies! I wonder if George Bush's sons are taking Moonie money to get elected?

Impeachment looking for a Crime

The right wingers have been after President Clinton ever since he took office in 1993. In their obsession to get Clinton they fabricated scandals saying the Vince Foster was murdered because Hillary was having an affair with him. These Republicans, who claim to be morally superior, are such cowards that they have to make up rumors and go after a persons wife to put political pressure on them. What a bunch of cowardly slimeballs! They appointed Kenneth Starr to investigate the President. He spent years and millions of dollars and even after torturing witnesses like Susan McDougall, Starr failed to get anything on Clinton.

It's about whatever it takes to get Clinton.
That's what this impeachment is all about.
Get Clinton! Get Clinton! Get Clinton!

Then word came to Starr about Monica Lewinsky. Starr, working with Paula Jones lawyers tried to set Clinton up in a deposition and get him to lie so that they could fabricate a perjury charge. They played with definitions of "sexual relations" and tried to trick the President into lying. They failed. The Jones case also lacked a key element of perjury. In order to be perjury, the statements have to be material. The judge ruled it immaterial and dismissed the case.

But Starr and his right wing minions wouldn't give up. They called Clinton in front of the "secret" grand jury and tried for four hours to try to get him to lie so they could manufacturer a perjury charge. Calling someone before a grand jury for the purpose of creating perjury is called a

forex fundamentals forex trade vindication for president and defying online trading Free ringtones: : download ringtones.
Perjury Trap and is highly illegal, however, the courts are impotent when it comes to enforcing their own ethical standards, so Kenneth Starr can break the law with impunity and the courts just sit back and let him do it.

President Clinton is being charged with a crime that was manufactured by the Republicans.

Kenneth Starr, having fabricated a crime now becomes impeachment advocate, and act so offensive that his ethics advisor resigns. The Republican controlled judiciary committee then releases the Starr allegation of Monica Lewinsky's "secret" grand jury testimony on the internet so that they could embarrass the president into resigning. Starr figured that he could destroy Clinton's family with that report and these high moralistic Republicans gloated in hopes that Hillary would be shamed into divorcing her husband. What dirty evil people these Republicans are! What do you think is worse, the President getting oral sex, or Republicans trying to destroy a man's family for political gain?

It's not about sex. It's not about lying under oath. It's about getting Clinton no matter what. That's what this is about. And it's about power and undermining the Constitution and the will of the voters. What kind of democracy will we have if we allow right wing radicals to take our freedoms away from us? It's time we take the fight to the enemy and expose this plot for what it really is. I think this impeachment is an opportunity to draw out these people who hide in the shadows and expose them for what they really are. We aren't the ones who are immoral, they are!

Legal Issues - The Articles of Impeachment are Constitutionally Defective

Every person charged with a crime has the right to know the charges against them, and the charges must be specific. If the charges aren't in proper form, they are thrown out. For example, suppose a cop showed up at your home and gave you a ticket for speeding. That isn't enough to charge you with a crime. The charge has to say that you are charged with speeding because you were driving on Main Street at 11:37am on January 1st 1999 traveling 45 mile per hour in a 30 mile per hour zone. Without the requirement to be specific and include the facts, you wouldn't know when or where you are accused of speeding and wouldn't be able to prepare a defense.

The Articles of Impeachment are defective in that they accuse the President of committing perjury, but fail to say what it was he said that constitutes a false statement. If Clinton were being charged in court with a crime, the prosecutor would have to say that Clinton committed perjury by stating "A" when he knew that the truth was "B". The Articles of Impeachment say that Clinton lied to the grand jury, but fails to state what he said that constitutes a lie. This leaves everyone to have to guess what was said in the four hours of testimony that constitutes perjury.

Charges can't be broad. The House has essentially charged that Clinton lied at some point in his four hours of testimony and is asking that the President be impeached if something he said can be construed as a lie. If Clinton is to be charged with lying under oath, then why can't the House state what it was specifically that Clinton said that was a lie? The answer is, they can't! Clinton didn't commit perjury in his grand jury testimony.

Rather than the President filing a Motion to Dismiss the Articles of Impeachment for being defective, the Senate should send them back to the House for correction.

Additionally, the rules are that each article has to charge a single act. You can't charge multiple offenses in a single Article of Impeachment. Each offense has to be voted on separately. President Clinton raised these issues on 01-11-99 in his 13 page answer to the Articles of Impeachment claiming correctly that they are unconstitutionally vague and not in proper form. In other words, the articles are constitutionally defective. If the articles are defective, the Senate can't proceed with the trial.

Normally, a defendant would file a Motion to Dismiss. But this is a political process and not a legal one. Although it would be constitutionally correct to dismiss, the senators are unlikely to do so because of political pressure. However, what they could do is to vote that the Articles of Impeachment are defective and send the articles back to the House to be resubmitted in proper form. How can the Senate put the President on trial if the charges are defective? They can't! Thus it would be correct to require that the house submit Articles of Impeachment that are not defective.

If the Senate sends the defective Articles of Impeachment back to the House for correction, impeachment is dead!

The House can't amend the Articles of Impeachment. They would have to vote for new articles and that would never happen. This is a new Congress with 5 more Democrats and 7 less Republicans (counting 2 resignations) than the old House. Not only that but one of the five Democrats who votes for impeachment wasn't reelected. In spite of the impeachment, the People are clearly in Clinton's camp. Clinton still has a higher approval rating than any president in the 20th century and surely by now the Republicans must realize this. If the Senate sent the Articles of Impeachment back to the House, impeachment is dead.

If the Senate votes that the Articles of Impeachment are void because they are constitutionally defective, and the House fails to pass new Articles, it will be as if Clinton were never impeached.

Additionally, if the Senate were to vote that the articles of impeachment were defective and send them back to the House, the articles passed would become null and void. A void impeachment is as iof the impeachment never occurred. And if it never occurred, President Clinton would not go down in history as if he had been impeached. He will at best be remembered as almost impeached. Ultimately, history will record this dark time as being the fault of the Republicans. I personally think Clinton is honored to be impeached by these Republican scum suckers.

I want to encourage everyone to copy this section and send it to your Senator. The Senate is looking for an easy way out, and this is it. A lot of senators don't like the bind the House put them in and this is a way for the Senate to get even with the House. Besides, it isn't fair to the Senate to have to try the President on defective charges. How do you do that? You don't! But these senators need to know that. Contact your Senator!

Clinton had sex with Monica - But the Republicans raped her

The Republicans look down their noses and ask, "How can someone be of such low morals that they have sex with a woman who's practically a teenager?" President Clinton wasn't the first married man Monica Lewinsky had sex with. How do we know that? We know that because of the Republicans. We know everything about Monica because of the Republicans.

It started with a highly moral Republican woman named Linda Tripp who befriended Monica Lewinsky. Linda Tripp made illegal tape recordings of her friend talking to her confidentially about her life and her lovers. Linda "I'm-just-like-you" Tripp and her partner Lucianne Goldberg saw this as an opportunity to make a buck and write a book. She turned the tapes over to Kenneth Starr who captured Monica and questioned her for hours without a lawyer and tried to pressure her to wear a wire to try to entrap the President. Monica refused.

Starr then went after Monica's family. He harassed her mother and father, her friends, everyone she knew. Starr was obsessed with forcing her to talk that it didn't matter who's lives he ruined in the process. Finally, in order to save her friends and family, and under the guise of "Grand Jury Secrecy" Monica Lewinsky told her story. Now the nightmare was over, or was it?

Kenneth Starr brought his report to the Republican controlled judiciary committee. They were so eager to get Clinton that, without even giving the President a chance to read it, published this "secret" grand jury material on the Internet. Now the whole world new all the details of how Monica Lewinsky gives head. And after it was printed in the newspapers, there was probably some 2 billion people who read it making her history's most widely known slut.

The Republican Party has no concept of privacy or individual rights. They think it's just fine for the government to publish people's private sex acts on the Internet.

But even that wasn't enough. Polls were showing that the public was still solidly behind Clinton. So they released more details about where she put a cigar. Then they released the Linda Tripp tapes so we could all listen in on those private conversations. Does Monica Lewinsky have any rights? Not according to the Republicans.

What is this? Are we living in the United Soviet States of America? This is a country where people are taped illegally. Then they are dragged in front of a grand jury to testify against their will under threats of going after a persons friends and family. Then their private sex life is published on the Internet by the government. The Republican Party doesn't seem to understand concepts like individual rights or privacy. If we let them win they'll have the sex police looking in everyone's windows and the government bugging people's phones.

Larry Flynt is a Saint

Larry Flynt is a hero and he's doing a great service for this country. I'd like to see you all quit trying to take the high road by taking the position that it's improper to look into personal lives. I happen to agree with you except for the "Hypocrisy Exception" to the rule. The hypocrisy exception make's it legitimate to look into the personal lives of people who hold themselves out as morally superior.

Because of this it's not news or no one's business if Ted Kennedy hookers surface with credit card receipts for services rendered. However, if these same hookers have receipts where Newt was charging sex, that's news. It's news because of the hypocrisy. If Al Gore were caught dumping cigarette butts into a mountain stream, that would be news. But if Trent Lott did it no one would care. So I agree that sex is private, but hypocrisy is public. So let Larry Flynt do his job and accept that it's the Republican's own fault for holding themselves out as being morally superior. And it would be a mistake for the President to act morally superior because Larry Flynt isn't politically correct. Politically correct is the reason the President is in this mess in the first place. I hope if nothing else comes from this, that it is the death of political correctness. The feminists invented sexual McCarthyism; the Republicans made it an art.

It is morally correct to hold the Republicans to their own standards and ask them if they are going to follow their own rules.

Because the Republicans have created an artificial moral high ground, they are now subject to being judged by their own standards. In spite of what President Clinton says, it is ethical to judge a person by their own hypocritical standards. And that's just exactly what we are going to do. Bob Livingston resigned and said that his resignation is an example that should be followed. President Clinton doesn't believe in the politics of personal destruction so Livingston's standard doesn't apply to him. Who does it apply to? It applies to his fellow Republicans.

Livingston resigned for only sex shattering the illusion that "this is not about sex". So what does it mean for his fellow Republicans who are yet to be caught having politically incorrect sex? Do they follow the Livingston standard of the Clinton standard. I think they would be obligated to follow the Livingston standard. So is it moral for us, who believe sex is private to look into the lives of these Republicans? Yes it is!

Reforming the Republican Party

This woman believes Clinton is immoral and should be impeached. Who is she?
Although sex is private and no ones business, there is an exception when a person claims a high moral standing and uses sex to persecute other people. Anyone who voted to impeach Clinton is now subject to the Hypocrisy Exception and it is now moral and politically correct, even for people who believe sex it private, to look into the sex lives of these hypocrites. In fact we have a duty to the Constitution to do so. These people are trying to criminalize sexuality and undermine the constitution and substitute a theocracy for democracy. We must explore fully the future they are trying to lay out for us. Since they hold themselves out as moral examples, we are entitled to look into their past because by holding themselves out as examples, they have given permission to be examined.

In 1988 Gary Hart, running for president, was questioned about having affairs. He said he wasn't and invited the media to follow him around, and they did, and they caught him in the act. But it was fair for the media to follow him because he invited them to. Similarly, the Republicans have invited the public to look into their private lives because they are morally superior and Bob Livingston set the example of what Republicans should do if they are caught in a sex only scandal. In fact, I want to thank Bob Livingston for giving us a valuable tool to use the Republican's moral superiority against them. After all, how can Republican have the moral high ground if they are doing the very same things they want to impeach the President for? In the process of putting the President on trial, I think we should look into and confront the Republicans who are doing the same thing. How can an adulterer put another adulterer on trial for adultery?

I therefore declare Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler Magazine to be a Hero and a Saint for exposing and continuing to expose Republican hypocrites and holding them to they own standards. Should Republicans be thrown out of office for having sex? No! No one should be thrown out for having sex. But we can ask Republicans the question, "Based on your standards of morality, shouldn't any Republican caught having immoral sex resign?" And if they decide to resign, we're not throwing them out, they're throwing themselves out. We already got two Republican Speakers of the House to throw themselves out of office. I think that we can take out about two dozen more, and we ought to do it. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander!

Republican Hall of Shame

Heh, Heh - I though Democrats were Kool. But these Republicans really know how to party! Republicans score!
The Republicans started this witch hunt, and now they cry foul when they become the witches. The Republicans have spent 6 years and 50 million dollars digging into the personal lives of Clinton and all his friends, destroying anybody and everybody who got in their way. Now we know all the sexual details of his encounters with Monica Lewinsky and he has now been impeached. They have spread viscous rumors and lies and have sunk to new lows in order to destroy us and grab power at any cost. This is where we get even.

You would think that the Republicans who are prosecuting the President would have a cleaner sexual history than he does. Not so. As it turns out they are all far worse. I used to think Democrats were bad to sleep around but now after the latest scandals, I think that even Beavis and Butthead would think the Republicans were kool! For people who consider themselves to be morally superior, they sure aren't setting much of an example.

What I really enjoy about this is that it's putting these Republican morallists in their place. They've been looking down their noses at the rest of us as if they are morally superior and that they are doing the work of God. What an example they set. If these guys represent God, Jesus and Christianity, I'll stay with the Church of Reality. I was just about to get saved, but if Bob Barr isn't going to resign, I just don't have faith anymore.

If the Republicans consider themselves to be morally superior, they sure aren't setting a very good example!

When Bob Livingston became Speaker of the House there were a lot of big fish Republicans who wanted the job. But after Livingston resigned in disgrace, what happened to all the other big fish? Why did they have to dig up this Dennis Hassert guy who no one ever heard of before. Is Hassert, who is now third in line for the Presidency, the only Republican they could find who never cheated on his wife? Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Saving their Hyde - First on the list of Republican hypocrites is Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Henry Hyde. As it turns out, Henry Hyde had an affair of his own. And there's no doubt he has "sexual relations". Hyde's affair lasted 9 years and broke up a family with three children, ruining a lot of lives in the process. Hyde is considered by his fellow Republicans to be a moral man and an example of Republican ethical standards. According to Hyde's mistress, she wasn't Hyde's only lover.

Now Hyde sits in judgement of President Clinton. In fact, Hyde will be the one who prosecutes President Clinton in his upcoming Senate trial. President Clinton didn't break up any marriages. So why is Hyde prosecuting the President? Oh! Because he lied about it! Clinton is the first man in history to lie about sex. These people think we're stupid! Based on Republican standards of moral conduct and Bob Livingston's example, shouldn't Henry Hyde resign from the Congress?

Did Hyde lie under oath? Hyde took an oath of office to become a congressman and swore to uphold the integrity of his office. He held himself out as a "family values" guy with high sexual morals and failed to disclose that he had several sexual affairs. I'd call that lying under oath. He'd say anything to save his Hyde!

Did someone say Scumbag? - Earlier this year, Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., the powerful head of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee and a major critic of both President Clinton's personal behavior and his campaign fund-raising techniques, startled the country by suddenly admitting that he had fathered a child out of wedlock.

In an election preview, The Indianapolis Star reported in October that Burton had approved nearly $500,000 in payments and salary to Claudia Keller, mostly since 1990, including money for appearances by her "Buttons and Bows" clown service. Salon Magazine published a detailed account of the arrangement earlier this week, the result of a lengthy investigation by author Russ Baker.

"To say it's eyebrow-raising is an understatement," said Charles Lewis, director of the Center for Public Integrity. "I think Dan Burton is going to have a lot of answering to do over the next several months because of these revelations." Records also show that Burton's campaign paid at least $1,500 to Keller's daughter, Sandy, and $1,000 to her ex-husband William Fair, the Post reported. The newspaper said Keller's sister, Elizabeth, has received payments from the campaign while working in Burton's district office.

Dan Burton was known as the biggest skirt chaser in the Indiana legislature. Privately, some of his fellow Republicans expressed embarrassment. Lobbyists whispered about the stories of Burton's escapades. Dan likes to get out there and see the sin up close. Dan Burton enjoys a 100% rating for the Christian Coalition. Based on Republican standards of moral conduct and Bob Livingston's example, shouldn't Dan Burton resign from the Congress?

Baby Killer! - Bob Barr is a member of the Pro-Life Caucus, and has received the Friend of the Family Award from the Christian Coalition. Bob is so anti-abortion that he opposes abortion even in cases of rape. Barr claims that even if his wife were raped, he wouldn't allow her to get an abortion. Not so! Barr's 2d ex-wife said in an affidavit that Barr supported - and did not oppose - her having an abortion, drove her to the clinic, paid for it, etc. When pressed about this issue on Larry King Live, Barr claimed it was a "private family matter." If abortion is a private family matter for him, then why isn't it a private family matter for the rest of us? Where was Operation Rescue when Bob Barr was getting his abortion?

According to CNN, Barr said under oath in his divorce proceeding that he did object to that abortion. Barr, in his Impeachment Inquiry Opening Statement ((October 5, 1998) said: "If the proposition that perjury is sometimes acceptable is allowed to stand, in the blink of an eye, it will become acceptable in every case (after all, 'equal protection of our laws' will be used to demand equal protection of perjury for all). Such a precedent would hang forever, as an albatross, around the neck of our judicial system." Now Bob Barr is one of the House impeachment managers trying to convict the President for the same thing he did.

Bob Barr, well know as a white supremacist and hollier than thou Christian conservative was having an affair with his third wife while buying abortions for his second wife. By his own pro-life standards, Bob Barr murdered his own child. And this guy is held up as a person who stands for Christian morals and family values. I think it looks bad for a Republican leader to even have a second ex-wife in the first place. But that doesn't bother old Bob. He's not going to follow Livingston's example because is fine to hole the President up to a higher moral standard, but when it comes to one of their own, Christians look the other way. Christians aren't going to save very many souls with leaders like Bob Barr.

Personally, I hope Bob Barr doesn't resign. That way when these anti-abortion types get in my face about their morals, I'll just point my finger back at Bob Barr and say, "Yea Right". Let's me rub their noses in it. Thank you Bob Barr!

Paula Jonestown - Republican Mass Suicide

A Senate trial it just what this country needs. I think the time to expose the Republican's for what they really are is long overdue. A trial will focus the spotlight on Clinton's accusers and drag the coup out into the open. The Republicans have already lost two Speakers of the House and many more Republican will fall on the sword in the coming weeks as they are held up to their own standards.

Our Senate leaders are political wussies who want a nice neat little trial with no witnesses. They support whatever is most painless for their political career. Many Republican senators are scared to dead, and for good reason, about what a trial of the President will do for their political careers. I think it would be good for the country to see what a farce the government have become because of right wing control. I think that the public needs to get good and disgusted with it. The Republicans voted for impeachment, so I say, let's rub their noses in it.

Chief Justice Rehnquist Lied under Oath

One thing that the public needs to see is the sorry state of the United States Supreme Court under William Rehnquist. They say that a fish rots from the head, and it seems to have been proven true. Our courts systems have deteriorated to the point where the Rules of Professional Conduct are little more than a prop to create the illusion of ethics in the mind of the public.

Rehnquist, a right wing partisan Republican, was appointed by Nixon and elevated to Chief Justice by Reagan in 1986. Rehnquist has only presided over one trial in his entire career, and he's Chief Justice! What a country! This trial could provide much needed and overdue scrutiny of Chief Justice Rehnquist's own ethical lapses. Here's some information I dug up on Rehnquist as reported by Joe Conason of The New York Observer.

Among the questions that could be raised, however, is Mr. Rehnquist's responsibility for the Independent Counsel Act and the partisan perversion of that law by Judge David Sentelle of North Carolina's appellate court. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the 1988 majority decision upholding the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute in its present form, an opinion that may not hold up well against the prescient dissent by his colleague Antonin Scalia, who foresaw all too well the possibility of the abuses committed by Kenneth Starr.

More immediately, Chief Justice Rehnquist selected the relatively junior and inexperienced Judge Sentelle to preside over the three-judge panel that appoints independent counsels, despite a clear legal requirement that he give preference to senior and retired members of the judiciary. Then Judge Sentelle removed the first Whitewater special prosecutor and replaced him with Mr. Starr only weeks after Mr. Starr had a controversial lunch with the two ultra-right senators from North Carolina: Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth, Judge Sentelle's patrons from his home state. That deplorable breach of impartiality, and all that has followed from it, may thus be laid directly at the feet of the Chief Justice, who not only failed to discipline or remove Judge Sentelle, but renamed him to the panel.

Although he's Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Rehnquist has only presided over one actual court trial.

Unfortunately, there was nothing startling about Chief Justice Rehnquist's partisan misuse of his authority in that instance. Dating back to his days as a Supreme Court clerk, when he wrote a nauseating memo on Brown v. Board of Education citing his own opinion that whites simply don't like blacks, he has aligned himself with the far right. His personal ideology lay somewhere between the John Birch Society and the Goldwater platform of 1964, and doesn't seem to have changed much since. That was why Richard Nixon admired him enough to place Chief Justice Rehnquist in a sensitive position at the Justice Department and then on the Supreme Court, and it is also why Ronald Reagan elevated him to Chief Justice.

Chief Justice Rehnquist is part of the right wing conspiracy who appointed Kenneth Starr in the first place.

Nor is Chief Justice Rehnquist in the best position to examine the President's alleged lies under oath. On both occasions when he gave sworn testimony at his confirmation hearings, he left a distinct odor of dishonesty in his wake. The late Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana, among others, called Chief Justice Rehnquist's 1971 testimony "self-serving" and publicly questioned his veracity.

When he was nominated for Chief Justice in 1986, he testified that he had known little about Army spying on antiwar protesters during his years at Justice, although documents were found proving that he had helped to plan the illegal surveillance program. He later cast the deciding vote in a 1972 lawsuit concerning those military abuses when he clearly should have recused himself. Ultimately, he was confirmed, but not without severe damage to his ethical standing.

Conservatives, Christians, or Moonies?

Many Republican identify themselves as "Conservative Christians" and praise right wing newspapers like the Washington Times. But little do they know that Reverend Syung Mung Moon of the Moonies has been buying the Right. What is this Christian - Moonie link? In a Series of Articles from Consortium News is exposing the links between the right wing and the moonies. And what they reveal will shock and amaze you, especially if you're a Christian Conservative.

An article by Robert Parry exposes the Right Wing - Moonie connection. Jerry Falwell was deep in debt. Falwell's Liberty University, the fundamentalist Christian school that Falwell had made the crown jewel of his Religious Right empire, was $73 million in the hole. But Falwell had a secret benefactor who bailed him out. That secret benefactor was the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the self-proclaimed South Korean messiah who is controversial with many fundamentalist Christians because of his bizarre Biblical interpretations and his brainwashing tactics that have torn thousands of young people from their families. Moon also has grown harshly anti-American in recent years.

Covertly, Moon helped bail out Liberty University through one of his front groups which funnelled $3.5 million to the Reber-Thomas Christian Heritage Foundation, the non-profit that had purchased the school's debt.

What Christian Conservatives don't realize is that Reverend Syung Myung Moon is in control. Christians don't realize how much influence the Moonies have in contemporary Christian thinking.

The full public record strongly suggests that Falwell solicited Moon's help in bailing out Liberty University. In a lawsuit on file in the Circuit Court of Bedford County -- a community in southwestern Virginia -- two of Reber's former business associates alleged that Reber and Falwell flew to South Korea on Jan. 9, 1994, on a seven-day "secret trip" to meet "with representatives of the Unification Church."

The court document states that Reber and Falwell were accompanied to South Korea by Ronald S. Godwin, who had been executive director of Falwell's Moral Majority before signing on as vice president of Moon's Washington Times.

According to Bedford County court records, Reber, Falwell and Godwin also had discussions at Liberty University in 1993 with Dong Moon Joo, one of Moon's right-hand men and president of The Washington Times. Though Reber was queried about the purposes of the Moon-connected meetings in the court papers, he settled the business dispute before responding to interrogatories or submitting to a deposition. He did deny any legal wrongdoing.

But Moon's secret financial ties to Falwell raise some sensitive political questions, particularly amid congressional hearings on foreign money influencing U.S. politics: For instance, did the $3.5 million from Moon's front group give Falwell the means to become a national pitchman for "The Clinton Chronicles" and other conspiracy-mongering videos which fingered President and Mrs. Clinton in a wide range of serious crimes, including murder? During the period of the Liberty bail-out, Falwell was using his expensive TV time to hawk the videos.

I remember when Christianity was about, "Love thy Neighbor as Thyself" and selfless service to humanity. Mother Teresa represented Christian devotion to service and the Lord's work. Now Christians represent hate and judgement. This is Moon's influence at work.

When The Roanoke Times & World News interviewed Falwell about the bail-out, the televangelist sat at his desk in front of two life-size, full-color cutouts of Bill and Hillary Clinton, whom he jokingly called his "advisers." The cut-outs were gifts from Liberty staffers in recognition of Falwell's success in distributing the Clinton-hating videos. [RT&WN, Feb. 6, 1995]

Many of those lurid right-wing conspiracy theories have since been discredited, including allegations connecting the Clintons to the death of deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster. But the Falwell-promoted videos did feed a Clinton scandal fever that helped the Republicans seize control of Congress in 1994.

Moon's largesse is additionally suspect because Moon has never publicly accounted for his mysterious source of wealth. Much of the money apparently comes from shadowy Asian industrialists, some with links to organized crime and fascist political circles. But Moon has refused to open his books, even in the late 1970s when a congressional investigation identified his church as a front for the South Korean CIA, which was then engaged in a secret political influence-buying scheme known as "Korea-gate."

Republicans and the Moonies

Is your Republican Congressman a Moonie? Is he taking money from the Moonies? Is he influenced by the Moonies? The answer is probably Yes. Republicans have been behaving oddly, in way that don't make any sense. One asks how the Republicans can be so stupid and so oblivious to the will of the American people. It's because of who is pulling their strings. Reverend Moon hates Clinton and that hate is reflected in the Republican Party and the Christian Right. Moon sees himself as being better than Jesus. Moon asserts that Satan corrupted mankind by sexually seducing Eve in the Garden of Eden and that only through sexual purification can mankind be saved. In line with that doctrine, Moon says Jesus failed in his mission to save mankind because he did not procreate.

Moon sees himself as a second messiah who will not make the same mistake. He has engaged in sex with a variety of women over the decades. The total number of his offspring is a point of debate inside the Unification Church.

Moon's rhetoric has turned stridently anti-American, another problem for the Religious Right and its strongly patriotic positions. On May 1, 1997, Moon told a group of followers that "the country that represents Satan's harvest is America." [ Unification News, June 1997] In other sermons, he has vowed that his victorious movement will "digest" any American who tries to maintain his or her individuality. He especially has criticized American women who must "negate yourself 100 percent" to be a receptacle for the male seed. [For details of Moon's speeches, see The Consortium, July 28, 1997]

According to Moon investigator Robert Parry, the connection is scarry. At times, Moon's penetration of conservative ranks has raised red flags among Republicans. In 1983, the GOP's moderate Ripon Society charged that the New Right had entered "an alliance of expediency" with Moon's church. Ripon's chairman, Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, released a study which alleged that the College Republican National Committee "solicited and received" money from Moon's Unification Church in 1981. The study also accused Reed Irvine's Accuracy in Media of benefitting from low-cost or volunteer workers supplied by Moon.

Leach said the Unification Church has "infiltrated the New Right and the party it [the New Right] wants to control, the Republican Party, and infiltrated the media as well." Leach's news conference was broken up when then-college GOP leader Grover Norquist accused Leach of lying. (Norquist is now head of Americans for Tax Reform and a prominent ally of House Speaker Newt Gingrich.)

For its part, The Washington Times dismissed Leach's charges as "flummeries" and mocked the Ripon Society as a "discredited and insignificant left-wing offshoot of the Republican Party." [WP, Jan. 6, 1983]

Despite periodic fretting over Moon's influence, conservatives continued to accept his deep-pocket assistance. When President Reagan and Oliver North were scratching for support for the Nicaraguan contras, The Washington Times established a contra fund-raising operation. Moon's international group, CAUSA, also dispatched operatives to Central America to assist the contras.

By the mid-1980s, Moon's Unification Church had carved out a niche as an acceptable part of the American right. In one speech to his followers, Moon boasted that "without knowing it, even President Reagan is being guided by Father [Moon]."

Yet, Moon also made clear that his longer-range goal was the destruction of the U.S. Constitution and America's democratic form of government. "History will make the position of Reverend Moon clear, and his enemies, the American population and government will bow down to him," Moon said, speaking of himself in the third person. "That is Father's tactic, the natural subjugation of the American government and population."

As Andrew Ferguson wrote in the right-wing American Spectator, Moon's church attracted U.S. conservatives by advocating a muscular anti-communism. "There is little else in Unificationism that American conservatives will find compelling," Ferguson noted -- except, of course, the money. "They're the best in town as far as putting their money with their mouth is," one Washington-based conservative told Ferguson. [AS, Sept. 1987]

My Kool Links

Other Kool Links

The Official Politics 2000 Web List
Politics 2000 Web List
Prev5 * Prev * Next * Next5 * Random * List

Member of the
We Will Remember in 2000 Ring.
Watch out Republicans!
Join the We Will Remember
2000 Ring!
Prev | Next | Random | List Sites
This site is owned by Marc Perkel. Want to join?


Copyright Terms

People before Lawyers

A project of the People's legal Front