Enron’s chairman did meet with the president and the vice president in the Oval Office.

• Enron gave $420,000 to the president’s party over three years.
• It donated $100,000 to the president’s inauguration festivities.
• The Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times.
• The corporation had access to the administration at its highest levels and even enlisted the Commerce and State Department to grease deals for it.
• The taxpayer-supported Export-Import Bank subsidized Enron for more than $600 million in just one transaction.

BUT…..the president under whom all this happened wasn’t George W. Bush.

It was Bill Clinton. (Will his sycophants in the media elite report all this or continue to insist that it was George W. Bush who was in bed with them, instead of our past beds-for-dollars President?)

We are having a hard time getting an answer from the DNC (Democrat National Committee), and maybe you could help.

We have been calling for days asking a simple question.

How many millions of dollars did Terry McAuliffe (the Chairman of the DNC) make from a $100,000 investment into Global Crossing, just months before they went under?

I have heard everything from $5 mil. to $18 mil., but they don’t seem to know the answer. It can’t be that hard for a member of their research team to walk down the hall, stick their head in his door and say, “Heh Terry, how much did you cheat the investors out of on your inside deal with Global Crossing?” How big can the building be? He has to be somewhat accessible.

Maybe they could stop him on his way to the press conferences where he blames President Bush for accounting practices pushed through congress by Democrats while claiming that the current corporate crisis is the fault of Bush and Cheney. They could even whisper in his ear, after they get the answer we are looking for, that people are still a little curious about Hillary’s windfall from cattle futures, and the fact that they came to the White House with no assets and little money and left multimillionaires.

He should mention in his press conferences that the decade of the 90’s makes the decade of the 80’s divinely altruistic instead of the political spin of a party defining it as the decade of greed. He could try telling the truth about the Clinton administration redefining greed by opening the door for corporate deception, in the name of stimulating the economy, to give the appearance of achieving economic growth and stability, when just the opposite was happening under his watch.

And I guess we shouldn’t hold our breath for the media to ask the tough questions of Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin and his ties to Enron . . . or remind Terry McAuliffe of Clinton’s midnight pardon of Marc Rich who cheated taxpayers and investors out of millions and fled the country to avoid prosecution. This huge, greased smeared, black pot looks a little odd pointing to a tiny tea kettle claiming its sins are more scarlet.

But if you don’t know the answer, could you do us a favor and try and call the DNC for us and see if they will answer our question about McAuliffe’s investment returns, since we are sure he will want to give it back to the poor defrauded investors?

They just won’t return our calls. For your convenience, their number is 202-863-8000.

It would be a shame if we all forgot the hypocrisy charges leveled against the Republicans when they began holding Bill Clinton accountable to his vows to the country, and his wife, when he was using the oval office for his personal message parlor. So now, the door swings the other way, with the hands of the Democrats in money deals up to their elbows and they have the cajones to sling the accusation of “permissiveness” at the Republicans. So, a little justice, accountability and equal treatment would be a refreshing change for them . . . especially before an election when America is watching . . . and expects it from their leaders.

P.S. If the DNC research team happens to answer you . . .can you e-mail the response back to us?

Well, I guess the period of America United has come to an end. And who has dusted off his old-Anti-American rhetoric from his communist-hugging, military-loathing, flag-burning days at Oxford?

Yes, our former president Bill Clinton, who said yesterday that terror has existed in America for hundreds of years and the nation is “paying a price today” for its past of slavery and for “looking the other way when a significant number of native Americans were dispossessed and killed.” (Sort of like Democrats looked the other way when he was trashing the constitution, exploiting and TERRORIZING women, and lying under oath).

I am waiting now, to see if those same critics who castigated Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell for daring to suggest that the attacks of 9-11 were a result of God’s judgment against the US for our position on abortion, and other social issues, will judge Clinton that harshly.

But if we are in the blame mode, why go back to slavery? Why not just go back to the Clinton Administration and suggest that if he had not used the Oval Office as a brothel, the White House as a hotel, the military as the driver of his getaway car, the Justice Department as his hired gun, The Chinese as his bank, and the gullible, biased press as his personal PR firm, then none of this would have happened.

But Bill, still wrapping the cloak of “victim” around his self-mutilated ego, has even been quoted as saying, “If the FBI hadn’t been so busy trying to dig up dirt on me, none of this [Sept. 11] would have happened.”

Try? No one had to TRY. He makes the Charlie Brown character, Pig Pen, look hermetically sealed. But what about the “dirt” he is stirring up to try and divide the nation over actions that not one single living person in this country is guilty of committing?

We should not hold our breath expecting a consistent, rational, selfless statement to issue from this pathetic little man. But we can hold our nose so the stench of rotten ideologies, reeking rhetoric, and foul self-righteous smugness, spewing forth from this man does not defile a wounded, yet healing nation.

After the first debate between Rick Lazio and Hillary Clinton, most agreed that Lazio won.

And how could you tell? The talking heads were furious at Tim Russert’s pointed questions of Hillary, actually holding her accountable to lying to the American people, blaming them for her husband’s indiscretions, and hiding the truth of the health care discussions, naming just a few of the scandals she has been embroiled in.

And the feminists were furious that Lazio was so mean to her. They felt that was no way to treat a lady.

They are right. But we are talking about a seasoned politician who has scurried up the coattails of her wayward husband while claiming to be a femme sole.

She wants to be considered a hardhitting politico, yet she cries foul when a man bests her in a debate. Her fans echo her cry without holding her accountable to the same standards they would hold a male candidate.

So is she able to lead or not? If she can’t handle a little debate with Rick without calling foul, how is she going to handle over fifty Ricks on the Senate floor? They will cut her no slack.

It looks like her victimization is showing. She needs to put a little powder on that shine.

Hillary Clinton is fond of saying it takes a village to raise a child.

She of course assumes that every village will have the requisite number of compassionate adults who really care about raising kids.

She is going to have to amend that statement though in light of members of her political party booing children belonging to the Boy Scouts.

You know, the children the Supreme Court ruled can determine who sleeps with them on camping trips?

And what exactly do the Democrats of Hillary’s large, compassionate, global village have against the Boy Scouts?

They honor God over man, their parents over a political party, and integrity and morality over politically correct oppression.

They are the last bastion of individuality battling against a barrage of attacks trying to force them to conform to mediocrity.

Are they intolerant? Yes, they are intolerant of bullies, hypocrites and people who claim to be against intolerance while practicing it.

So if Hillary wants her village really represented, she will praise the Boy Scouts for their courage, and their refusal to become experiments in a cultural petri dish.

And she will label those who booed these kids as what they are . . . Village Idiots.

I was a little surprised to see a usually slick and hermetically sealed Clinton begin to unravel in his desperation to trash George W. Bush.

Without anticipating that the queen would be in danger as he moved his pawns across the board, he accused Dubya of being the crown prince to his father, and not really earning the right to even run for President.

Hmm, check mate. Sort of like his wife Hillary being his anointed queen and not really earning the right to run for Senate from New York?

And in comparing resumes, if Clinton was qualified as governor of the last ranking state in everything from education to health care to be President, then certainly Bush, is qualified as governor of the first ranking state in education.

And instead of being offended, he should be flattered that the Bush campaign recognizes that same need for change that he saw eight years ago.

I would suggest to Bill that he think before moving his rhetoric around on the board . . . or at least review his old talking points. But a bigger question I have for Bill and Hillary . . . if the voters of New York fail to crown her queen . . . will they still call themselves New Yorkers?

On May 24 the democrats honored Bill Clinton at an event in Washington, D.C. It sadly reflected the elitist disconnect of the party with the people.

The spectacle was punctuated by raw language, foul references, sexist and blasphemous remarks . . . all with the back drop of laughter and applause by those who have lost the ability to show shame or contrition . . . or to even blush.

This event is the culmination of a legacy shredded and unraveled by those trying so hard to preserve it. The Clinton Administration is pro-actively giving life to the global view that he is a laughing stock. He squanders what tattered remnant he held on to every time he acts the buffoon and goes for the cheap laugh.

There never has been accountability and now to shrug the entire eight-year experience off as an exercise in comic relief insults all Americans. .. Even those who laugh nervously at what they clearly see is the pitiful swan song of a man dethroned and tarnished by his own hand.

America wants a leader who respects them . . . who won’t lie to them . . . and won’t reduce them to a Colosseum of imbeciles clamoring for more, more, more . . . until there is none left.

President Clinton is not ashamed of being impeached, yet he will still say that what President Nixon did was shameful deserved not just impeachment, but conviction.

Nixon avoided this by doing the honorable thing and resigning from office. Even though he left in shame, he left the country in tact, with moral values reigning supreme in a sea of questionable activities and bad judgement.

The government righted itself and the office of president remained a hallowed position to aspire to.

Now, it has become little more than a PR seat for values clarification, and self-aggrandizement.

Even GW Bush is talking about increasing the size of his tent. If Gore can try and be expediently inclusive . . .why not the other side?

The office just isn’t what it used to be… except for one very important fact… it still has the power to appoint judges. So in spite of the demise of the office… the officer will still have incredible power.

If there is no shame by a man who has hurt the image of the office .. there should be no shame for those doing or saying anything to achieve the office. But maybe the voters will see it differently.