Sexual predator alert: The worm of the body politic continues his slimy slither around truth, ethics and morality. But, unlike the common worm, he neither aerates nor fertilizes. He only pollutes.

Would a major corporation like Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Company hire an office manager who hits on the part time girl hired to run the copy machine in his office?  "No" you say?  Well, effectively, they hired someone who was indicted for that.  The guy was too corrupt to know he was supposed to keep his pants on while at the office.

Would a major corporation like Morgan Stanley Dean Witter hire an executive they know was involved in commodities market fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, selling secrets to the enemy for campaign cash, and who actually had people killed overseas in an effort to keep the above scandals out of the news?  Would they hire someone with a history of stealing expensive goods and services from the workplace and using the company's legal team for personal gain, someone who actually stole the furniture from the executive suite when he left?

How about executives who think it's fun to cop a feel, at least once, from any good looking female around -- is that type of person now acceptable? Apparently.

There was a time when the executives of major banks and brokerage houses would shun undesirables like the Clintons and their supporters. But, the morality of the country has been lowered. Deviancy in the workplace is now acceptable. Other major corporations are planning to hire this scumbag, too. So, we had better get used to it.

Except, some people do not wish to get used to the likes of the Clintons socializing in polite society. Therefore, quite a few people independently took action last week.

"I do not believe there was a coordinated effort," a senior gentleman (both in age and position) we know at Dean Witter said. "We sure as hell got a lot of complaints. It was a surprise to us all. We won't be doing anything like that again soon."

Outrage was what the man was talking about. Apparently Dean Witter customers around the country called and wrote to express great displeasure that the company hired Bill Clinton to speak at their annual junk-bond conference in Florida last week. So many people called to express their displeasure, in fact, that the company's management actually sent scripts to 13,000 brokers and representatives in 500 offices.

The company will not say exactly how many complaints they received. We can estimate, though. Everyone at the company answering the telephone and/or getting e-mail received a few complaints. Which means, nationwide, there were a LOT of complaints.

"Please don't make emotional decisions on your finances based on this event," the script from company headquarters had account representatives telling customers. Nonetheless, quite a few customers were upset enough to pull their accounts.

Clinton's speech was closed to the public. However, we do know that he was (Freeped) greeted by protesters from Free Republic.(1) And, this time, Clinton did not have dozens of Secret Service agents available to shoo the pesky protesters out of sight. This time, Clinton saw them.

Bill Clinton wanted a legacy and it seems he will have one, albeit not quite what he had in mind. Because the federal justice system is a shambles, Bill and Hillary will probably never be required to answer for their numerous crimes in court. Public opinion, however, is an entirely different matter. There are not enough police to make all of us shut up.

Last week's events happened because of the disgust held by millions of Americans for the Clintons. There was no coordinated protest effort made by any group, yet one of the nation's largest financial organizations was so repeatedly scolded by its customers that it became truly worried. And that, from just a momentary association with Clinton.

So now it starts. That was a warning. Now there is a palpable fear bubbling up in other groups around the country that would also have hired Clinton to speak. The concern is that these protest activities could grow and have an adverse affect on any group inviting Clinton.

We think this concern is based on a very strong foundation. Furthermore, we congratulate those many thousands of people who independently took the initiative to register a complaint with Dean Witter. Clinton spoke to the group anyway. But, as one of their senior people said: "We won't be doing anything like that again soon."

Now . . . who's inviting the scumbag next? Let's all have at them. The Justice Department will not indict him. This is the least we can do.

Just as a sidebar here -- provided for news information value only: It appears that some enterprising young conservatives guessed they can make money betting on nearly anything, even Clinton. Coincident(?) to the Clinton fiasco, Dean Witter's stock slipped a few points. They picked up a buck or two playing it short for a couple days. Interesting concept. But we cannot recommend it. After all, one in a row does not make a trend.

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

1. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a804fbd1189.htm

Nearly forty years ago I was occupied playing Army in foreign lands. Back then, we were called "advisors" by the powers that be. Really, though, we were a small, but very well equipped, military force. Ours was one of the groups that visited many areas where we later learned the U.S. government stated it had no military forces.

Of course, that's all old news today. President Kennedy sent only "advisors" to South East Asia. Nobody ever actually shot or bombed anything . . . right? Nope. Those Super Sabers were just flying around sightseeing. And, heck, since we were out in the woods anyway, we took the opportunity for a little target practice, shooting critters to eat and the tops off of rice plants. Those Purple Hearts were given simply because of trip and fall injuries caused while playing in the bush. Sure.

That's basically how many news accounts had it back then. We were not where we were and did not do what we were doing. Such is usually the way of the military when a situation is just starting to heat up. They don't wish to alarm the American people.

As I said, this is all rather well documented history. The problem is, it is also forgotten history. People still talk about Viet Nam, just not how it all got started from the American perspective.

Early on, Viet Nam was basically the CIA's playground. Most of the shenanigans they pulled there would require a series of books to properly describe. It's all probably still buried as classified information, anyway, so we won't dwell on that.

Anyway, there came a time when we ground pounders -- the quick and quiet variety -- were needed to help clean up a few odds and ends that kept bothering people. News accounts had us occupied as advisors "training" the locals and bar hopping at night. I'll admit to part of that, but we never trained anyone for anything -- unless chugging beer counts.

Actually, what we "trained" locals for was to vacate the area briskly while we were "working." But, that's another story altogether.

Last week I picked up the newspaper and back on page six noticed many of the same words they wrote about us four decades ago: "Under Washington's $1.3 billion aid package to Colombia, no more than 500 U.S. soldiers and 300 contract employees can be in the country at any one time."

According to the report, our military people, and a few hundred CIA "contract employees" are down there killing plants. Coca plants. The type that produces cocaine.

U.S. Special Forces were deployed "as trainers to jungle camps near the war zone." Forgetting the improper use of the English language for a moment, here we go again! "Advisors" again. Lots of "untruths," too.

For instance, we are sending "dozens of combat helicopters." Reading down a little comes yet another hint of the full extent of our activity there:

"Under the U.S. aid package, 10 fumigation planes will be deployed in addition to the 10 already being used. The U.S. special forces have also been training three Colombian army battalions containing about 3,000 troops."

So, we sent (or are sending) 20 large aircraft to deliver agent orange, enough American troops to train 3,000 of their people and "dozens" of combat helicopters and some "Super Hueys." Which means, of course, that we will need considerably more than 500 military people and 300 "contract employees" on the ground. It will take 200 military people just to protect the facilities and equipment. All these aircraft will also need care and feeding. Just the supply section will require nearly 100 people.

Obviously, they are planning on war. A hot war.

The area they are "fumigating" now is not well protected. Generally speaking, they are getting a free ride there. However, next on the list is a large cocaine producing region protected by Columbia's largest rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

The FARC actually taxes cocaine producers in their areas and provides protection. They now protect 70 percent of the cocaine producing areas in the country. This army has had five years to dig in and plan their defenses. They have better knowledge of the area than we do, have the hills on their side and promise they will resist. Money is not a problem in that area of the world, so the FARC is able to purchase whatever arms it may need and is said to have a rather impressive stockpile of weapons.

Our military forces could make short work of the FARC, of course. But, that would require a full declaration of war and the mobilization of whole armies.

Do we really need to do this? It's your call. Tell them your opinion.

Yet another revolting development recently came to my attention. This one is not very impressive in its specifics, but the generalities caused quite an argument -- unintentionally.

The conversation was with a lawmaker who (for very good reason) much prefers to remain anonymous. And, not being a person of national interest, identifying the person lends nothing to this article, anyway.

The conversation, of course, concerned the proposal for yet another new law.

My first response was with a question: You people have been making laws for over 200 years. We have thousands of laws, rules and regulations on the books. When do you think we will have enough? That is, is there any end to this lawmaking business -- a time when it is done -- or will you just keep making more laws because you can?

Not a good way to talk to a friend, eh?

Well I can't help it. It's true. They should be repealing laws. We don't need more.

Besides, we already have many more laws than any person can know. And they can't be very necessary laws if hardly anyone even knows about them, or cares.

Police do not even know most of the laws. In many cities, police carry a Cliff Notes type of book around outlining the laws. That's in case they want to arrest someone. They can usually find something, after scrounging around in their book for a while.

My question to the lawmaker was a rather straightforward test for the proposed law: Would you agree that it is OK for police to kill someone for violating that new law?

After all, that's how laws are enforced: By threat. At the barrel of a gun. If a violator protests being hassled for an infraction of some silly law, the police WILL apprehend the person by whatever force is necessary. That pertains to the violation of any law from spitting on the sidewalk to armed robbery.

For instance, they told us no one would ever be bothered by the seatbelt law. Citations would only be issued if and when a driver was stopped for another infraction.

Two years later, police were setting up "check points" where drivers must stop and present their papers. If a driver does not stop, they will be chased down until they crash into something. Protest further and they can be shot dead.

That's how it is done. A law can be unconstitutional as hell, but we are not allowed to protest. Only millionaires able to hire a roomful of attorneys can protest legally. That's the system.

So, ultimately, the violation of any law can escalate into violence. We just do not hear much about that because, after the incident, there could be a dozen charges against the citizen. The original reason for the confrontation would then be buried so far in the background as to never be reported.

Such things happen. I remember hearing of a routine traffic stop escalating into a gunfight where three people were wounded. All the police officer wanted to do was tell the driver that a rear tire was dangerously low on air. Someone from the side of the road fired a shot and all hell broke loose. It's doubtful that the full truth of that story ever came out. But, later it was learned that the driver did absolutely nothing wrong and had zero in the way of even a traffic record. He pulled a gun only after someone shot him in the arm.

That's an aberration, of course. But, stuff happens from time to time.

The fact is, the American people have a right to be let alone. Passing more silly laws is a violation of that right. The force of government should not be used to command the people to obey every little behavior trait some legislator may wish to mandate.

The full force of government should be used to protect the rights to life, liberty and property of all American citizens equally. Instead, many of the laws passed these past couple decades seem to authorize agents of government to violate our rights, rather then protect them.

And, for that, I protest.

How many more laws do we need? When is enough enough? Will there ever be enough laws? When will they start repealing laws?

These are questions that need to be asked. Frequently.

This is an open letter to the President of the Senate, the Senate Majority Leader and the chairman of the Senate Select Committee On Ethics.

Under 18 USC, the misprision of felony law, I am required to inform you of the possibility that there were a series of felonies committed which it appears you have overlooked. Knowing that you gentlemen intend to enforce the highest ethical standards for members of the Senate, I trust you will want to look into these matters immediately. So, I will start with the easiest to verify.

Upon leaving the White House, Former President Bill Clinton and his wife, newly elected Senator Hillary Clinton, removed at least $28,000 in government owned furnishings -- including sofas, rugs, and artwork -- last month when they vacated the premises.

That they were later shamed into giving some of the illegally taken property back, after being caught, means nothing. Both perpetrators being lawyers, one can safely expect they knew they were stealing.

"It appears that everything on the list is White House property," said Jim McDaniel, speaking for the National Park Service, which conducted the investigation. "I feel 99 percent certain that everything that's been returned to us is government property."

The Park Service will not accuse an ex-president of stealing. The Senate, however, should take action against Hillary Clinton because she was a Senator elect at the time.

We then learned that Hillary and Bill Clinton begged, borrowed and coerced a few million dollars to purchase a multi-million dollar home in the District. They also begged and coerced Democratic Party campaign contributors and lobbyists with business before the Senate to contribute furnishings for said new house. This would be in direct violation of Senate rules of what, how much and when money and gifts may be accepted by members of the Senate.

Furthermore, we learned that Senator Hillary Clinton has not even used her new home because she does not want to be inconvenienced while the place is being remodeled -- also with donated money. Therefore, instead of renting a hotel room or an apartment like normal people, Senator Clinton took up residence at the home of Terry McAuliffe. This is also an obvious violation of Senate rules because McAuliffe is a lobbyist with business before the Senate and now chairman of the Democratic Party.

Worse yet, when Senator Clinton moved from the McAuliffe home, she moved in with one of the biggest lobbyists in the District, Vernon Jordan. At least McAuliffe did a few things in life that did not include lobbying government. Most of Vernon Jordan's life is centered around lobbying the administrative and legislative branches of the federal government.

Clearly, these are improper relationships. Senator Clinton is receiving gifts and services well in excess of any authorized by law or the rules of the Senate.

Finally, there are strong indications that Hillary is intentionally violating the law. After all, what other Senator is out begging for bucks for a large legal defense fund? Quite obviously, she intends to do anything that pleases her -- with absolutely no consideration for any law, rule or regulation -- and is collecting funds to use to immediately attack anyone who questions her about it.

All the above being easily verified, I trust the Senate Ethics Committee will take immediate and decisive action on these matters.

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh and GR Force, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 2001 by Forest Glen Durland, subject to Fiedor's rights.

fron217.htm. Revised 2-10-01. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.