Liberals Agree With Conservatives About The Clintons?

Cross posted from Spree at Wake Up America!

(Cartoon by Glenn McCoy at Townhall)
When Bill and Hillary Clinton were bare-knuckle fighting the Conservatives in this country, the liberals all bought in to their “vast right wing conspiracy” theory; now that their tactics, lies and underhanded tricks are being used against the other members of the left, lo and behold, the liberals are starting to notice some thing they don’t like about the Clinton Duo.

Poetic justice and greatly amusing at that.

Let me start with Hillary’s latest gambit which is causing a little firestorm on the left side of the blogosphere and then I will get into the harshest outright criticisms of Hillary and Bill, about their “character”–again using the words from liberals.

I did a few pieces on the DNC refusing to sit the party delegates in states which broke the rules and moved their primaries forward; I even asked if they were slitting their own throats by making Michigan and Floria feel irrelevant, but they did and they agreed not to campaign there; in Michigan most candidates took their names off the ballot because of those agreements.

Hillary didn’t.

Now Hillary wants to change the rules midstream, and you don’t have to take my word for how the left is seeing through this gambit–we will show you how liberals are seeing it themselves.

Ezra Klein, a liberal, thinks this little game of Hillary’s has the potential to tear the party itself apart:

This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart. In an attempt to retain some control over the process and keep the various states from accelerating their primaries into last Summer, the Democratic National Committee warned Michigan and Florida that if they insisted on advancing their primary debates, their delegates wouldn’t be seated and the campaigns would be asked not to participate in their primaries. This was agreed to by all parties (save, of course, the states themselves).

[…]

But if this pushes her over the edge, the Obama camp, and their supporters, really will feel that she stole her victory. They didn’t contest those states because they weren’t going to count, not because they were so committed to the DNC’s procedural arguments that they were willing to sacrifice dozens of delegates to support it. It’s as hard as hardball gets, and the end could be unimaginably acrimonious. Imagine if African-American voters feel the rules were changed to prevent Obama’s victory, if young voters feel the delegate counts were shifted to block their candidate.

This next one shocked even me, because some liberals (as I will show below) might not like the Clintons, Hillary especially, but would be willing to hold their noses and vote for her anyway to keep a Republican out of the White House…not so with shamanic from NewsHoggers. Iff you have ever read NewsHoggers you already know they are so far to the left that they cannot even SEE the center anymore.

This is tough stuff for me to stomach, wanting a politics of aspiration and hope and progress. Call me crazy, but I have this thing that I do where when I agree to something, I do my best to fulfill my obligation to the agreement. I’d like to think it’s possible to elect leaders who also do their best to fulfill their obligations.

But I look at Hillary Clinton’s campaign and I see people lacking in goodwill, overcome by raw ambition, and devoid of principle. This is exactly what drove my parents and tens of millions of other Republicans crazy during the 90s, and I’m not looking forward to a repeat.

I’m crossing my fingers for John McCain if Clinton wins the nomination. I disagree with him on everything, but I’ll take him over four more years of this kind of shady, leave no opponent standing politics.

Take a second to let that sink in. This radical left liberal would not just sit home on election night if Hillary was the nominee, but would actually go vote for McCain!!!!!

Pretty much makes Ezra’s point above, wouldn’t you say?

Lawyers, Guns and Money, perhaps not as radical as NewsHoggers, but still a liberal blog from the few times I have read it, starts off with “this is pretty appalling”:

It’s dirty business on the part of the Clinton campaign, no question. And cloaking the nasty little power grab with the language of democratic inclusion irritates me even more. I can’t say that I’m completely surprised, but I would have preferred if Hillary had demonstrated more appreciation for party unity than this; it amounts to an effort to steal delegates.

As a side note…click that link and take a look at the comment section. They are even harsher, calling her out on exactly what she is.

You can find more liberals taking Hillary to task for this at Carpetbagger, Talking Points Memo and Rolling Stone.

That is simply but a small sample of the reactions against Hillary on the far left liberal side of the blogosphere and media.

Now for the meat and potatoes of this post, a very surprising article caught my eye from the Los Angeles Times Opinion page, from a liberal writer who seems to have just discovered what and who the Clintons are and finding their character, ethics and morals seriously lacking. (Notice this is written without mention of her latest little sleight of hand about the Michigan and Florida delegates)

The title itself gave me a huge chuckle when it asks Is the right right on the Clintons?

The sub header is just as amusing: “Hillary’s campaign tactics are causing some liberals to turn against the couple.”

Something strange happened the other day. All these different people — friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read — kept saying the same thing: They’ve suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we’ve reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons.

The sentiment seems to be concentrated among Barack Obama supporters. Going into the campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational. We’re not frothing Clinton haters like … well, name pretty much any conservative. We just really wish they’d go away.

It goes on to say the turning point for them was when the Clintons misrepresented what Barack Obama said about Ronald Reagan, they mention Hillary’s email tactics against Obama before the New Hampshire primaries and goes straight into the robocalls happening now in South Carolina against Obama…lastly they find “the Clintons’ habit of surrounding themselves with the most egregious characters: Dick Morris, Marc Rich and so on.” (That was in relation to the Black Entertainment Television founder Robert L. Johnson invoking Obama’s youthful drug use.)

The Clinton campaign is trying to make it seem as if the complaint is about negativity, and it is pointing out that Obama has criticized Hillary as well. That’s what politicians are supposed to do when they compete for votes. But criticism isn’t the same thing as lying and sleaze-mongering.

Am I starting to sound like a Clinton hater? It’s a scary thought. Of course, to conservatives, it’s a delicious thought…..

I am stopping there because I have no problem admitting that yes, it IS a delicious thought as well as poetic justice; the irony also comes into play.

But the conservatives might have had a point about the Clintons’ character. Bill’s affair with Monica Lewinsky jeopardized the whole progressive project for momentary pleasure. The Clintons gleefully triangulated the Democrats in Congress to boost his approval rating. They do seem to have a feeling of entitlement to power.

With all that said, they acknowledge that if Hillary ends up the Democratic nominee, with all those negatives they just listed themselves, they would probably hold their collective noses and vote for her again.

Talk about a lack of character…

Pot. Meet. Kettle.

From the right side of the blogosphere is some justified snark at the very fact it has taken members of the left 16 YEARS to FINALLY start seeing Bill and Hillary Clinton for what they are.

Captain Ed titles his piece “Rules? The Clintons Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Rules!” and PoliGazette asks if “Anyone really up for four years of this deceit?” That piece is appropriately named “Cheater”.

Macsmind put the figures out there, a reminder of what happened under Bill Clinton when he held the office of presidency:

– GOP seats gained in House during Clinton: 48
– GOP seats gained in Senate under Clinton: 8
– GOP governorships under Clinton: 11
– GOP state legislative seats gained under Clinton: 1,254
– State legislatures taken over by GOP under Clinton: 9
– Democrat officeholders became Republicans under Clinton: 439

You can keep up with the firestorm of comments, blog posts and discussion about Hillary, Bill and this latest salvo in dirty politics, and left against left, over at memeorandum.

A quick note to the far liberal left here: You knew what they were and you didn’t care as long as those tactics were only used against the right, so quit whining, quit bitching…… You are getting exactly what you deserve.

Advertisements

Liberals Agree With Conservatives About The Clintons?

Cross posted from Spree at Wake Up America!

(Cartoon by Glenn McCoy at Townhall)
When Bill and Hillary Clinton were bare-knuckle fighting the Conservatives in this country, the liberals all bought in to their “vast right wing conspiracy” theory; now that their tactics, lies and underhanded tricks are being used against the other members of the left, lo and behold, the liberals are starting to notice some thing they don’t like about the Clinton Duo.

Poetic justice and greatly amusing at that.

Let me start with Hillary’s latest gambit which is causing a little firestorm on the left side of the blogosphere and then I will get into the harshest outright criticisms of Hillary and Bill, about their “character”–again using the words from liberals.

I did a few pieces on the DNC refusing to sit the party delegates in states which broke the rules and moved their primaries forward; I even asked if they were slitting their own throats by making Michigan and Floria feel irrelevant, but they did and they agreed not to campaign there; in Michigan most candidates took their names off the ballot because of those agreements.

Hillary didn’t.

Now Hillary wants to change the rules midstream, and you don’t have to take my word for how the left is seeing through this gambit–we will show you how liberals are seeing it themselves.

Ezra Klein, a liberal, thinks this little game of Hillary’s has the potential to tear the party itself apart:

This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart. In an attempt to retain some control over the process and keep the various states from accelerating their primaries into last Summer, the Democratic National Committee warned Michigan and Florida that if they insisted on advancing their primary debates, their delegates wouldn’t be seated and the campaigns would be asked not to participate in their primaries. This was agreed to by all parties (save, of course, the states themselves).

[…]

But if this pushes her over the edge, the Obama camp, and their supporters, really will feel that she stole her victory. They didn’t contest those states because they weren’t going to count, not because they were so committed to the DNC’s procedural arguments that they were willing to sacrifice dozens of delegates to support it. It’s as hard as hardball gets, and the end could be unimaginably acrimonious. Imagine if African-American voters feel the rules were changed to prevent Obama’s victory, if young voters feel the delegate counts were shifted to block their candidate.

This next one shocked even me, because some liberals (as I will show below) might not like the Clintons, Hillary especially, but would be willing to hold their noses and vote for her anyway to keep a Republican out of the White House…not so with shamanic from NewsHoggers. Iff you have ever read NewsHoggers you already know they are so far to the left that they cannot even SEE the center anymore.

This is tough stuff for me to stomach, wanting a politics of aspiration and hope and progress. Call me crazy, but I have this thing that I do where when I agree to something, I do my best to fulfill my obligation to the agreement. I’d like to think it’s possible to elect leaders who also do their best to fulfill their obligations.

But I look at Hillary Clinton’s campaign and I see people lacking in goodwill, overcome by raw ambition, and devoid of principle. This is exactly what drove my parents and tens of millions of other Republicans crazy during the 90s, and I’m not looking forward to a repeat.

I’m crossing my fingers for John McCain if Clinton wins the nomination. I disagree with him on everything, but I’ll take him over four more years of this kind of shady, leave no opponent standing politics.

Take a second to let that sink in. This radical left liberal would not just sit home on election night if Hillary was the nominee, but would actually go vote for McCain!!!!!

Pretty much makes Ezra’s point above, wouldn’t you say?

Lawyers, Guns and Money, perhaps not as radical as NewsHoggers, but still a liberal blog from the few times I have read it, starts off with “this is pretty appalling”:

It’s dirty business on the part of the Clinton campaign, no question. And cloaking the nasty little power grab with the language of democratic inclusion irritates me even more. I can’t say that I’m completely surprised, but I would have preferred if Hillary had demonstrated more appreciation for party unity than this; it amounts to an effort to steal delegates.

As a side note…click that link and take a look at the comment section. They are even harsher, calling her out on exactly what she is.

You can find more liberals taking Hillary to task for this at Carpetbagger, Talking Points Memo and Rolling Stone.

That is simply but a small sample of the reactions against Hillary on the far left liberal side of the blogosphere and media.

Now for the meat and potatoes of this post, a very surprising article caught my eye from the Los Angeles Times Opinion page, from a liberal writer who seems to have just discovered what and who the Clintons are and finding their character, ethics and morals seriously lacking. (Notice this is written without mention of her latest little sleight of hand about the Michigan and Florida delegates)

The title itself gave me a huge chuckle when it asks Is the right right on the Clintons?

The sub header is just as amusing: “Hillary’s campaign tactics are causing some liberals to turn against the couple.”

Something strange happened the other day. All these different people — friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read — kept saying the same thing: They’ve suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we’ve reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons.

The sentiment seems to be concentrated among Barack Obama supporters. Going into the campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational. We’re not frothing Clinton haters like … well, name pretty much any conservative. We just really wish they’d go away.

It goes on to say the turning point for them was when the Clintons misrepresented what Barack Obama said about Ronald Reagan, they mention Hillary’s email tactics against Obama before the New Hampshire primaries and goes straight into the robocalls happening now in South Carolina against Obama…lastly they find “the Clintons’ habit of surrounding themselves with the most egregious characters: Dick Morris, Marc Rich and so on.” (That was in relation to the Black Entertainment Television founder Robert L. Johnson invoking Obama’s youthful drug use.)

The Clinton campaign is trying to make it seem as if the complaint is about negativity, and it is pointing out that Obama has criticized Hillary as well. That’s what politicians are supposed to do when they compete for votes. But criticism isn’t the same thing as lying and sleaze-mongering.

Am I starting to sound like a Clinton hater? It’s a scary thought. Of course, to conservatives, it’s a delicious thought…..

I am stopping there because I have no problem admitting that yes, it IS a delicious thought as well as poetic justice; the irony also comes into play.

But the conservatives might have had a point about the Clintons’ character. Bill’s affair with Monica Lewinsky jeopardized the whole progressive project for momentary pleasure. The Clintons gleefully triangulated the Democrats in Congress to boost his approval rating. They do seem to have a feeling of entitlement to power.

With all that said, they acknowledge that if Hillary ends up the Democratic nominee, with all those negatives they just listed themselves, they would probably hold their collective noses and vote for her again.

Talk about a lack of character…

Pot. Meet. Kettle.

From the right side of the blogosphere is some justified snark at the very fact it has taken members of the left 16 YEARS to FINALLY start seeing Bill and Hillary Clinton for what they are.

Captain Ed titles his piece “Rules? The Clintons Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Rules!” and PoliGazette asks if “Anyone really up for four years of this deceit?” That piece is appropriately named “Cheater”.

Macsmind put the figures out there, a reminder of what happened under Bill Clinton when he held the office of presidency:

– GOP seats gained in House during Clinton: 48
– GOP seats gained in Senate under Clinton: 8
– GOP governorships under Clinton: 11
– GOP state legislative seats gained under Clinton: 1,254
– State legislatures taken over by GOP under Clinton: 9
– Democrat officeholders became Republicans under Clinton: 439

You can keep up with the firestorm of comments, blog posts and discussion about Hillary, Bill and this latest salvo in dirty politics, and left against left, over at memeorandum.

A quick note to the far liberal left here: You knew what they were and you didn’t care as long as those tactics were only used against the right, so quit whining, quit bitching…… You are getting exactly what you deserve.

This Has Just Gotta Hurt!

Boortz on the Clintons

Oh, by the way. I think that Bill Clinton was the most corrupt and dishonest President we have ever suffered through in this country during my lifetime. If I had to say something nice about him I would say that he is more honest than his wife, and cuter. Well, that’s something, I guess.

This Has Just Gotta Hurt!

Boortz on the Clintons

Oh, by the way. I think that Bill Clinton was the most corrupt and dishonest President we have ever suffered through in this country during my lifetime. If I had to say something nice about him I would say that he is more honest than his wife, and cuter. Well, that’s something, I guess.

Executive Order No. 12938


We hear plenty of talk about hillary and WMD’s.

She thought Saddam had them, then she didn’t, then she did and on and on.

However, perusing a book I’ve had for quite some time, I find WMD’s were a part of her–and our–lives as far back as November 14, 1994.

What happened November 14, 1994? hillary’s husband, then POTUS, declared a National Emergency. It became known as Executive Order 12938. This order was extended by bill November 14, 1995, November 14, 1996 and November 14, 1997. As of this date, I can find no evidence of this Executive Order being rescinded, almost fifteen years later.

The purpose of this particular EO was quoted by a source close to the White
House who stated: “The President has empanelled a small, trusted group of
legal minds…their charge…to identify the options available or needed to
extend Clinton’s administration beyond its current term…”

The supposed results of this panel were the following points:

Step One: Extend a National State of Emergency as defined unter United
States Code, Title 50.

Step Two: Cause an event which is defined under this code (nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon threat). The event must be by use of a “weapon of mass destruction.” The event does not have to happen within the boundaries of the United States. (Kathleen Keating, “The Final Warning: Your Survival Guide to the New Millenium”)

EO 12938 doesn’t specify the exact nature of the national emergency. Below is the text of EO 12938 and can also be found here.

Executive Order 12938

PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the Arms Export Control Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), Executive Orders Nos. 12851 and 12924, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, find that the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (“weapons of mass destruction”) and of the means of delivering such weapons, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. Accordingly, I hereby order:

Section 1. International Negotiations. It is the policy of the United States to lead and seek multilaterally coordinated efforts with other countries to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering such weapons. Accordingly, the Secretary of State shall cooperate in and lead multilateral efforts to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

Sec. 2. Imposition of Controls. As provided herein, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce shall use their respective authorities, including the Arms Export Control Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to control any exports, to the extent they are not already controlled by the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that either Secretary determines would assist a country in acquiring the capability to develop, produce, stockpile, deliver, or use weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery. The Secretary of State shall pursue early negotiations with foreign governments to adopt effective measures comparable to those imposed under this order.

Sec. 3. Department of Commerce Controls.

(a) The Secretary of Commerce shall prohibit the export of any goods, technology, or services subject to the Secretary’s export jurisdiction that the Secretary of Commerce determines, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and other appropriate officials, would assist a foreign country in acquiring the capability to develop, produce, stockpile, deliver, or use weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery. The Secretary of State shall pursue early negotiations with foreign governments to adopt effective measures comparable to those imposed under this section.

(b) Subsection (a) of this section will not apply to exports relating to a particular category of weapons of mass destruction (i.e., nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons) if their destination is a country with whose government the United States has entered into a bilateral or multilateral arrangement for the control of that category of weapons of mass destruction-related goods (including delivery systems) and technology, or maintains domestic export controls comparable to controls that are imposed by the United States with respect to that category of goods and technology, or that are otherwise deemed adequate by the Secretary of State.

(c) The Secretary of Commerce shall require validated licenses to implement this order and shall coordinate any license applications with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense.

(d) The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall take such actions, including the promulgation of rules, regulations, and amendments thereto, as may be necessary to continue to regulate the activities of United States persons in order to prevent their participation in activities that could contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery, as provided in the Export Administration Regulations, set forth in Title 15, Chapter VII, Subchapter C, of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 768 to 799 inclusive.

Sec. 4. Sanctions Against Foreign Persons.

(a) In addition to the sanctions imposed on foreign persons as provided in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 and the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991, sanctions also shall be imposed on a foreign person with respect to chemical and biological weapons proliferation if the Secretary of State determines that the foreign person on or after the effective date of this order or its predecessor, Executive Order No. 12735 of November 16, 1990, knowingly and materially contributed to the efforts of any foreign country, project, or entity to use, develop, produce, stockpile, or otherwise acquire chemical or biological weapons.

(b) No department or agency of the United States Government may procure, or enter into any contract for the procurement of, any goods or services from any foreign person described in subsection (a) of this section. The Secretary of the Treasury shall prohibit the importation into the United States of products produced by that foreign person.

(c) Sanctions pursuant to this section may be terminated or not imposed against foreign persons if the Secretary of State determines that there is reliable evidence that the foreign person concerned has ceased all activities referred to in subsection (a).

(d) The Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury may provide appropriate exemptions for procurement contracts necessary to meet U.S. operational military requiorments or requirements under defense production agreements, sole source suppliers, spare parts, components, routine servicing and maintenance of products, and medical and humanitarian items. They may provide exemptions for contracts in existence on the date of this order under appropriate circumstances.

Sec. 5. Sanctions Against Foreign Countries.

(a) In addition to the sanctions imposed on foreign countries as provided in the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and more 3 Warfare Elimination Act of 1991, sanctions also shall be imposed on a foreign country as specified in subsection (b) of this section, if the Secretary of State determines that the foreign country has, on or after the effective date of this order or its predecessor, Executive Order No. 12735 of November 16, 1990,

(1) used chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law;

(2) made substantial preparations to use chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law; or

(3) developed, produced, stockpiled, or otherwise acquired chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law.

(b) The following sanctions shall be imposed on any foreign country identified in subsection (a)(1) of this section unless the Secretary of State determines, on grounds of significant foreign policy or national security, that any individual sanction should not be applied. The sanctions specified in this section may be made applicable to the countries identified in subsections (a)(2) or (a)(3) when the Secretary of State determines that such action will further the objectives of this order pertaining to proliferation. The sanctions specified in subsection (b)(2) below shall be imposed with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Treasury.

(1) Foreign Assistance. No assistance shall be provided to that country under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, or any successor act, or the Arms Export Control Act, other than assistance that is intended to benefit the people of that country directly and that is not channeled through governmental agencies or entities of that country.

(2) Multilateral Development Bank Assistance. The United States shall oppose any loan or financial or technical assistance to that country by international financial institutions in accordance with section 701 of the International Financial Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262d).

(3) Denial of Credit or Other Financial Assistance. The United States shall deny to that country any credit or financial assistance by any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government.

(4) Prohibition of Arms Sales. The United States Government shall not, under the Arms Export Control Act, sell to that country any defense articles or defense services or issue any license for the export of items on the United States Munitions List.

(5) Exports of National Security-Sensitive Goods and Technology. No exports shall be permitted of any goods or technologies controlled for national security reasons under the Export Administration Regulations.

(6) Further Export Restrictions. The Secretary of Commerce shall prohibit or otherwise substantially restrict exports to that country of goods, technology, and services (excluding agricultural commodities and products otherwise subject to control).

(7) Import Restrictions. Restrictions shall be imposed on the importation into the United States of articles (that may include petroleum or any petroleum product) that are the growth, product, or manufacture of that country. more

(8) Landing Rights. At the earliest practicable date, the Secretary of State shall terminate, in a manner consistent with international law, the authority of any air carrier that is controlled in fact by the government of that country to engage in air transportation (as defined in section 101(10) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. App. 1301(10)).

Sec. 6. Duration. Any sanctions imposed pursuant to sections 4 or 5 of this order shall remain in force until the Secretary of State determines that lifting any sanction is in the foreign policy or national security interests of the United States or, as to sanctions under section 4 of this order, until the Secretary has made the determination under section 4(c).

Sec. 7. Implementation. The Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Commerce are hereby authorized and directed to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. These actions, and in particular those in sections 4 and 5 of this order, shall be made in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and, as appropriate, other agency heads and shall be implemented in accordance with procedures established pursuant to Executive Order No. 12851. The Secretary concerned may redelegate any of these functions to other officers in agencies of the Federal Government. All heads of departments and agencies of the United States Government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order, including the suspension or termination of licenses or other authorizations.

Sec. 8. Preservation of Authorities. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under the authority of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, the Export Administration Act, the Arms Export Control Act, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Act, Executive Order No. 12730 of September 30, 1990, Executive Order No. 12735 of November 16, 1990, Executive Order No. 12924 of August 18, 1994, and Executive Order No. 12930 of September 29, 1994.

Sec. 9. Judicial Review. This order is not intended to create, nor does it create, any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, officers, or any other person.

Sec. 10. Revocation of Executive Orders Nos. 12735 and 12930. Executive Order No. 12735 of November 16, 1990, and Executive Order No. 12930 of September 29, 1994, are hereby revoked.

Sec. 11. Effective Date. This order is effective immediately. This order shall be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
November 14, 1994.

********************
Most people don’t know this; however, EO’s become law if not voided by Congress within sixty (60) days. To date, Congress has yet to repeal any EO.
Clinton began consolidating power under EO 12919 in June, 1994. Throughout his tenure as POTUS, he issued 364 EO’s. 364. And not one ever repealed.
So, how does this apply to hillary? She was right there as he instituted these orders. Over the next few weeks, I’ll show how, between the two of them, they did all they could to consolidate power into the CIC job–a job hillary desparately wants now. And it follows their socialist agenda.
Can you honestly think this woman and her philandering, lying, morally corrupt husband are good for this country? She would devastate this country–right after opening the floodgates to the jihadists.
Manufacturing an unspecified state of national emergency and continuing it through successive years is an extremely ominous sign. It leaves the door wide open to whatever and however she and bill choose to interpret “national emergency” (what does “is” mean?).

Executive Order No. 12938


We hear plenty of talk about hillary and WMD’s.

She thought Saddam had them, then she didn’t, then she did and on and on.

However, perusing a book I’ve had for quite some time, I find WMD’s were a part of her–and our–lives as far back as November 14, 1994.

What happened November 14, 1994? hillary’s husband, then POTUS, declared a National Emergency. It became known as Executive Order 12938. This order was extended by bill November 14, 1995, November 14, 1996 and November 14, 1997. As of this date, I can find no evidence of this Executive Order being rescinded, almost fifteen years later.

The purpose of this particular EO was quoted by a source close to the White
House who stated: “The President has empanelled a small, trusted group of
legal minds…their charge…to identify the options available or needed to
extend Clinton’s administration beyond its current term…”

The supposed results of this panel were the following points:

Step One: Extend a National State of Emergency as defined unter United
States Code, Title 50.

Step Two: Cause an event which is defined under this code (nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon threat). The event must be by use of a “weapon of mass destruction.” The event does not have to happen within the boundaries of the United States. (Kathleen Keating, “The Final Warning: Your Survival Guide to the New Millenium”)

EO 12938 doesn’t specify the exact nature of the national emergency. Below is the text of EO 12938 and can also be found here.

Executive Order 12938

PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the Arms Export Control Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), Executive Orders Nos. 12851 and 12924, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, find that the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (“weapons of mass destruction”) and of the means of delivering such weapons, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. Accordingly, I hereby order:

Section 1. International Negotiations. It is the policy of the United States to lead and seek multilaterally coordinated efforts with other countries to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering such weapons. Accordingly, the Secretary of State shall cooperate in and lead multilateral efforts to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

Sec. 2. Imposition of Controls. As provided herein, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce shall use their respective authorities, including the Arms Export Control Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to control any exports, to the extent they are not already controlled by the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that either Secretary determines would assist a country in acquiring the capability to develop, produce, stockpile, deliver, or use weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery. The Secretary of State shall pursue early negotiations with foreign governments to adopt effective measures comparable to those imposed under this order.

Sec. 3. Department of Commerce Controls.

(a) The Secretary of Commerce shall prohibit the export of any goods, technology, or services subject to the Secretary’s export jurisdiction that the Secretary of Commerce determines, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and other appropriate officials, would assist a foreign country in acquiring the capability to develop, produce, stockpile, deliver, or use weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery. The Secretary of State shall pursue early negotiations with foreign governments to adopt effective measures comparable to those imposed under this section.

(b) Subsection (a) of this section will not apply to exports relating to a particular category of weapons of mass destruction (i.e., nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons) if their destination is a country with whose government the United States has entered into a bilateral or multilateral arrangement for the control of that category of weapons of mass destruction-related goods (including delivery systems) and technology, or maintains domestic export controls comparable to controls that are imposed by the United States with respect to that category of goods and technology, or that are otherwise deemed adequate by the Secretary of State.

(c) The Secretary of Commerce shall require validated licenses to implement this order and shall coordinate any license applications with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense.

(d) The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall take such actions, including the promulgation of rules, regulations, and amendments thereto, as may be necessary to continue to regulate the activities of United States persons in order to prevent their participation in activities that could contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery, as provided in the Export Administration Regulations, set forth in Title 15, Chapter VII, Subchapter C, of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 768 to 799 inclusive.

Sec. 4. Sanctions Against Foreign Persons.

(a) In addition to the sanctions imposed on foreign persons as provided in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 and the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991, sanctions also shall be imposed on a foreign person with respect to chemical and biological weapons proliferation if the Secretary of State determines that the foreign person on or after the effective date of this order or its predecessor, Executive Order No. 12735 of November 16, 1990, knowingly and materially contributed to the efforts of any foreign country, project, or entity to use, develop, produce, stockpile, or otherwise acquire chemical or biological weapons.

(b) No department or agency of the United States Government may procure, or enter into any contract for the procurement of, any goods or services from any foreign person described in subsection (a) of this section. The Secretary of the Treasury shall prohibit the importation into the United States of products produced by that foreign person.

(c) Sanctions pursuant to this section may be terminated or not imposed against foreign persons if the Secretary of State determines that there is reliable evidence that the foreign person concerned has ceased all activities referred to in subsection (a).

(d) The Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury may provide appropriate exemptions for procurement contracts necessary to meet U.S. operational military requiorments or requirements under defense production agreements, sole source suppliers, spare parts, components, routine servicing and maintenance of products, and medical and humanitarian items. They may provide exemptions for contracts in existence on the date of this order under appropriate circumstances.

Sec. 5. Sanctions Against Foreign Countries.

(a) In addition to the sanctions imposed on foreign countries as provided in the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and more 3 Warfare Elimination Act of 1991, sanctions also shall be imposed on a foreign country as specified in subsection (b) of this section, if the Secretary of State determines that the foreign country has, on or after the effective date of this order or its predecessor, Executive Order No. 12735 of November 16, 1990,

(1) used chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law;

(2) made substantial preparations to use chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law; or

(3) developed, produced, stockpiled, or otherwise acquired chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law.

(b) The following sanctions shall be imposed on any foreign country identified in subsection (a)(1) of this section unless the Secretary of State determines, on grounds of significant foreign policy or national security, that any individual sanction should not be applied. The sanctions specified in this section may be made applicable to the countries identified in subsections (a)(2) or (a)(3) when the Secretary of State determines that such action will further the objectives of this order pertaining to proliferation. The sanctions specified in subsection (b)(2) below shall be imposed with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Treasury.

(1) Foreign Assistance. No assistance shall be provided to that country under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, or any successor act, or the Arms Export Control Act, other than assistance that is intended to benefit the people of that country directly and that is not channeled through governmental agencies or entities of that country.

(2) Multilateral Development Bank Assistance. The United States shall oppose any loan or financial or technical assistance to that country by international financial institutions in accordance with section 701 of the International Financial Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262d).

(3) Denial of Credit or Other Financial Assistance. The United States shall deny to that country any credit or financial assistance by any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government.

(4) Prohibition of Arms Sales. The United States Government shall not, under the Arms Export Control Act, sell to that country any defense articles or defense services or issue any license for the export of items on the United States Munitions List.

(5) Exports of National Security-Sensitive Goods and Technology. No exports shall be permitted of any goods or technologies controlled for national security reasons under the Export Administration Regulations.

(6) Further Export Restrictions. The Secretary of Commerce shall prohibit or otherwise substantially restrict exports to that country of goods, technology, and services (excluding agricultural commodities and products otherwise subject to control).

(7) Import Restrictions. Restrictions shall be imposed on the importation into the United States of articles (that may include petroleum or any petroleum product) that are the growth, product, or manufacture of that country. more

(8) Landing Rights. At the earliest practicable date, the Secretary of State shall terminate, in a manner consistent with international law, the authority of any air carrier that is controlled in fact by the government of that country to engage in air transportation (as defined in section 101(10) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. App. 1301(10)).

Sec. 6. Duration. Any sanctions imposed pursuant to sections 4 or 5 of this order shall remain in force until the Secretary of State determines that lifting any sanction is in the foreign policy or national security interests of the United States or, as to sanctions under section 4 of this order, until the Secretary has made the determination under section 4(c).

Sec. 7. Implementation. The Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Commerce are hereby authorized and directed to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. These actions, and in particular those in sections 4 and 5 of this order, shall be made in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and, as appropriate, other agency heads and shall be implemented in accordance with procedures established pursuant to Executive Order No. 12851. The Secretary concerned may redelegate any of these functions to other officers in agencies of the Federal Government. All heads of departments and agencies of the United States Government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order, including the suspension or termination of licenses or other authorizations.

Sec. 8. Preservation of Authorities. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under the authority of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, the Export Administration Act, the Arms Export Control Act, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Act, Executive Order No. 12730 of September 30, 1990, Executive Order No. 12735 of November 16, 1990, Executive Order No. 12924 of August 18, 1994, and Executive Order No. 12930 of September 29, 1994.

Sec. 9. Judicial Review. This order is not intended to create, nor does it create, any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, officers, or any other person.

Sec. 10. Revocation of Executive Orders Nos. 12735 and 12930. Executive Order No. 12735 of November 16, 1990, and Executive Order No. 12930 of September 29, 1994, are hereby revoked.

Sec. 11. Effective Date. This order is effective immediately. This order shall be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
November 14, 1994.

********************
Most people don’t know this; however, EO’s become law if not voided by Congress within sixty (60) days. To date, Congress has yet to repeal any EO.
Clinton began consolidating power under EO 12919 in June, 1994. Throughout his tenure as POTUS, he issued 364 EO’s. 364. And not one ever repealed.
So, how does this apply to hillary? She was right there as he instituted these orders. Over the next few weeks, I’ll show how, between the two of them, they did all they could to consolidate power into the CIC job–a job hillary desparately wants now. And it follows their socialist agenda.
Can you honestly think this woman and her philandering, lying, morally corrupt husband are good for this country? She would devastate this country–right after opening the floodgates to the jihadists.
Manufacturing an unspecified state of national emergency and continuing it through successive years is an extremely ominous sign. It leaves the door wide open to whatever and however she and bill choose to interpret “national emergency” (what does “is” mean?).