Your Influence Counts ... Use It! The SPOTLIGHT by Liberty Lobby

Reprinted from, home of The SPOTLIGHT archive

The SPOTLIGHT October 19, 1998

Hillary Clinton for president in 2000?

For more than two years, Van Loman, a longtime figure in the populist movement, has been telling anyone who would listen that he is convinced first lady Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party's presidential candidate in the year 2000.

By Van Loman

Despite the ongoing impeachment brouhaha and the likelihood that more is to come from the Starr inquisition, my prediction that Hillary Clinton will be the next Democratic presidential nominee still stands.

While the original game plan to capture the nomination may have been changed due to unforseen developments, and while it may yet have to be adjusted from time to time, Hillary's new-found "victim-hood" has enhanced, rather than devalued, her political currency.


Who else can better stand to defend the accomplishments of her husband's administration (using the term "accomplishments" loosely, of course) while commanding the moral high ground as the wounded wife and mother bravely enduring the excesses of an otherwise well meaning, but errant husband; bearing the burden alone now to protect her daughter, save her marriage and save the country?

It's a scenario combining all the qualities of Joan of Arc and Mother Theresa all wrapped into a ball of political was that would even make James Carville blush. It's a classic American presidential campaign, especially given the "consequences of victory," that would capture the attention of the entire world.

In this role she effectively shields herself form the best weapons in the opposition arsenal. How can Gov. George bush of Texas, former Vice President Dan Quayle -- or whoever -- stand to effectively attack the immorality, deceit and incompetence of a failed administration when Hillary is prepared to not only defend her husband's administration's policies, but also to endure the public humiliation of a failed marriage so that she may advance the cause of liberal humanitarianism? Betty Freidan, Gloria Steinem and Patricia Iraeland will be so proud.

It is inconceivable to me that the liberal spin doctors are not considering this plan. For them, it is a potential bonanza. Think about it. Should my prediction -- which a few dyed-in-the-wool Clinton haters insist is "preposterous" although the thought of it coming to pass scares them to no end) -- not come to pass, I won't feel silly for having gone on the record with the scenario. It makes as much sense as anything in this topsy-turvy political arena that we have in this sordid world.

The SPOTLIGHT October 19, 1998

Big brother stands ready to snatch your kids -- in the name of protection

What should (or can) you do when the state comes for your children?

By Paula Demers

An investigation into your parenting fitness could be based on as flimsy an excuse as one anonymous report.

The state will try to intimidate you, with bureaucrats demanding meetings and asking questions that are none of their business.

Remember, you have rights, both as a parent and as a citizen. But sometimes functionaries of the state move in when you're not at home or unprepared.


If the children have already been removed, the state functionaries will have you sign papers. These papers give them some of your rights, such as what type of health care the children are to receive. They could even decide your child needs to be on drugs (such as Prozac or Ritalin) for "behavior problems."

Many times the workers will tell you that if you don't sign the papers, you will never get your children back. If this happens, demand to see the law that states this -- not the "Child Protective Policy" -- the law. Do not sign anything without consulting an attorney.

Another thing the state people will ask parents for is their Social Security number. It is illegal (federal law) for anyone to ask for a person's Social Security number as identification. You do not have to give it to them.

If your children have been taken into "protective custody," that does not mean you have lost your parental rights. You have the right to see your children. You have the right to make sure they are not allowed to do anything that you don't agree with. And you need to make sure your wishes are followed.

I know this for a fact, because I had to follow the parents' wishes with children who have stayed with me. If the state doesn't, you may need to use legal means.

Many parents all over the country whose children have been "abducted" by the state have sued the state and won. If you know the law in your state concerning "child abuse," and you haven't broken it, this may be an avenue for you. It's important for us to let our state government know they work for us. I stress that you know the state law -- not the 'child protective policy." many times these are not the same. It's the law, not policy, you need to use.


Now we have public schools telling our children about their rights, usually in junior high or high school. At this time, children are going through puberty and believe they are older than they are. This is the time many children will turn their parents in to the state simply because they don't like the rules in their home. Or they will threaten to do it if the parents don't allow them to do what they want.

One of my children tried to do it to me. He didn't want any rules and wanted me to give custody to his friend's grandfather. My son turned me in to "Child Protective services," and ran away to his friend's house almost daily for two months. I came to know every deputy in my area. This went on until we let the grandfather know we would have him arrested.

When the state people came out, with my permission, I immediately put them on the defensive. They told me, though they weren't pressing charges, they thought there had to be a major problem in the house since my child was running away. They also told me I had to go to counseling. I refused. I told them the only one who could make my 14-year-old son behave was himself.


They called me a week later and told me I had to go to counseling. Again, I refused. The social worker told me that they couldn't make me go and I said, "that's right." I had intimidated them so well, that when my son turned me in again, they did not even come out to the house. They knew I understood my rights and the system well.

They just called me and asked me over the phone about it. (Concerning my son, he got his act together. He also told me he was glad I did not give up on him.)

It is important that parents educate their children about the system. Children think they will be free of rules if they can just "get out of their horrible situation."


Here are some examples:

In the state of Florida, foster Children (wards of the state) can't even spend the night at a friend's house unless they get permission from their social workers. The foster parent have no say. (When I was a foster parent we did, but the state controls more now.)

If a child is uncontrollable, and the state can't find a home that is willing to take him, the child can be committed to a mental institution for "evaluation." This simply means the state has no place else to put them, and the state agency will have six weeks to tree months to find the child a place. I was a foster parent in three states: Florida, Indiana and Kansas. In both Florida and Kansas we saw this happen.


They also put the children on various types of drugs to "control behavior." Because a doctor writes the prescription, parents have no say. Remember, the papers the state have the natural parents sign? My husband and I had a policy to take no one who was on prescription drugs. We made an exception one time to keep a child overnight on his way to a mental institution. This child was so doped up that he just hung his head and drooled.

If a foster child (ward of the state) becomes completely "out of control" (as the state puts it), the child could be court-ordered into a group home that has security or even a detention center. Judges usually go with the recommendations of the state in these cases.


Many children go from home to home. All foster parents have to do is say they don't want them any more and the social worker has to come out and get them. Many of the foster homes are far worse than the homes these children are taken from. I knew of several homes where children were being physically and sexually abused, and the state didn't move them or close down the homes. Why? Because they are having problems getting foster parents.

Some foster parents are even in it for the money. I can say I never made any money at it. But is the foster parents don't buy the children clothes, birthday and Christmas gifts, school pictures, cover graduation expenses and anything else that is normal for bringing up children, they can make a few bucks. I have seen foster children in rags and eating very poorly.

Much of this can be verified just by getting to know some of the foster parents in your area. It is important to educate your children to the truth. They may or may not believe you.

I had that problem. Recently, we allowed a child to live with us. We refused to get our foster care license, because the state was not going to tell us what we could and could not do in our home. He was placed in our home as a "non-relative" placement. He was still a ward of the state so I had to contact the state for anything major, like running away, skipping school, etc.

The reason why is because he was court ordered to obey all of our house rules. I told him if he continued in his current behavior, he would be taken out of our home. They would probably first place him in a foster home. Then, if he persisted, he would go into a group home that had security. If that continued, he woud be locked up.


I also told him once he was out of my home, we would not be able to get him back because he would to totally in the system. He called me from the group home that had security and told me I was right. He wanted to move back in with me, but the state said no. His social worker told me one of the reasons was that we refused to get our license. There was nothing I could do; my hands were tied.

If your children are taken from you, you will have to go to court. You will not be given free counsel. Yet if you commit a crime, you may receive free counsel. What is wring with this picture?

You are bing accused of the crime of abusing your child. Yet, they allow you no defense? They could come in, search your house and take your children just from a phone call, yet you don't receive the services of an attorney.

While every situation is different, and I can give no guarantees, it is very important that parents know the laws in their state and their rights. Compare those laws to the Constitution. Know your rights as a parent. Don't let the state control your fears. We as parents need to not let the state control us. How do they control us? Through fear. If we are afraid of them, they own us. We as parents need to remember the state works for us.

Paula Demers can be reached at P.O. box 280, Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32549.

The SPOTLIGHT October 26, 1998

Congress is killing Americans' jobs

Huge international corporations want cheap labor and Congress has approved importing workers to deny mobs to thousands of Americans. These greedy giants have demonstrated more love for immense profits than for their country.

By James P. Tucker, Jr.

The license to exploit cheap foreign labor and throw Americans out of work is contained in little-noted legislation to expand the H1-B visa program for high-technology workers. The bill, the workforce Improvement and Protection Act of 1998, H.R. 3736, passed in the House Sept. 24.

Giant corporations told Congress they had an urgent need for such high-tech employees because of a domestic shortage, and warned of economic repercussions if they were unable to fill their "vacancies" with foreign workers.

But the government's own data and other studies show there was no such shortage of American workers.

High-tech industries have cut four times as many jobs this year as in 1997, creating more layoffs than any other sector of the economy, according to Challenger, Gray and Christmas, an international placement firm.

The electronics, computer and telecommunications industries alone have laid off 143,000 workers and constituted three of the top five industries in total 1998 job-cut announcements.


The Bureau of Labor Statistics, in its third-quarter data released Oct. 8, revealed that electrical engineering unemployment jumped to 3.4 percent -- more than an eight-fold increase since the beginning of the year and the highest rate since the record levels of 1994.

Moreover, a new National Science Foundation report found that nearly 50 percent more Americans who hold high-technology degrees are working outside of their fields than the total number of professionals in the U.S. workforce.

"Congress is fiddling with an H-1B visa hike while our high-tech workforce burns,' said Paul Kostek, president-elect of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers-U.S.A.

"It's bizarre policy to give the industries laying off the most U.S. workers special access to an expanded foreign guest worker program -- while millions of trained U.S. technical professionals toil outside their chosen fields," Kostek said.

"But the most damaging aspect of the bill is that it strips away layoff protections from the U.S. workers who will become vulnerable to displacement by low-cost H-1B workers in a newly glutted labor market," Kostek said.

"This legislation was clearly bought by industry leaders and paid for with campaign contributions; Congress should stamp it 'return to sender,'" Kostek said.

The house bill had contained a measure of protection, which was approved in a bipartisan 23-4 vote by the Judiciary Committee. It would prevent all employers from displacing American workers and reqire them to recruit first in this country.

The protection is now provided only for so-called "H-1B dependent" employers -- a tiny fraction of the overall high-tech sector. The science and engineering workforce (S&E) reached nearly 3.2 million in 1995, the National Science Foundation reported. At the same time, however, about 4.7 million people whose highest degrees were in S&E were working outside their fields.

"It's absurd to contemplate approving thousands of additional guest workers while legions of displaced U.S. engineers are working as computer salesmen,' Kostek said.

Kostek cited the case of Bard-Alan Finlan, 43, who has a bachelor's degree in computer engineering, as an example of the human cost of expanding the guest worker program.

Finlan and several colleagues were laid off from their jobs recently at a major technology company while the company applied for two H1-B visas in the same department, Kostek said.

"Here's a bright guy whose gotten himself retrained in the latest technology -- and now he's being left behind in the stampede to sign up low- cost, indentured guest workers," Kostek said.

"Is this the way to develop the high-tech workforce we need to stay competitive after the guest workers have gone home? Kostek asked.

The Harris poll showing that 82 percent of Americans oppose expanding the guest worker program hasn't stopped our "representative" Congress from discriminating against Americans.

The SPOTLIGHT October 26, 1998

American troops aren't prepared for war

Here's firm evidence Clinton has devastated the U.S. military.

By Mike Blair

In the current issue of The Chosin Few, a magazine for Korean War veterans, retired U.S. Marine Jean P. White asks readers to identify the country that has the following forces: 709,000 regular service soldiers, 293,000 reserve troops, eight standing army divisions, 20 air force and navy air wings with 2,000 combat aircraft, 232 strategic bombers, 13 ballistic missile submarines with 3114 nuclear warheads on 232 missiles, 500 ICBMs with 1,950 warheads, four aircraft carriers and 121 surface-combat ships and submarines, "plus all the support bases shipyards and logistical assets needed to sustain such a naval force."

Then, Mrs. White poses a series of questions: "Is this country Russia? No, it's not. Red China? Hardly. Give up?

Well, don't feel too badly if you are unable to identify this global super power no longer exists. It has vanished.

"These are the American military forces that have disappeared since bill Clinton took office," the retired Marine concluded.

Mrs. White astutely pointed out how President Clinton has systematically allowed America's military might to dwindle to a point where it is even worse than it was during the era of President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s.

As in the carter days, when the U.S. military and the nation as a whole were stricken by "malaise," U.S. military forces today have become short of virtually everything.


Now, a drastically weakened U.S. military has been committed to foreign agendas, as a component of either NATO or the United Nations. Supposedly, U.S. troops are committed to maintain global peace. Others insist it will be a force to globalize world governance and perpetuate a new world order.

According to military experts interviewed by The SPOTLIGHT, the military can only get a limited number of defensive and offensive aircraft in the air at one time due to breakdowns and the lack of spare parts.

In addition, they claim, after denuding the U.S. Navy of dozens of combat ships, dozens of others are unable to go to sea due to lack of sufficient crewmen and /or spare parts to keep them operational.


After U.S. military might ha shown razor-sharp efficiency and capability during the Persian Golf War, America's powerful navy has been reduced by the Clinton administration by four entire aircraft carrier battle groups.

Neither U.S. active nor reserve forces have the resources available to keep their equipment "action ready."


This is why members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently appeared before Congress, pleading for increased funding to bring America's military power up to par.

Critics are wondering if they may have waited to long?

The SPOTLIGHT October 26, 1998

Congressman: Return to gold standard now

  • On Oct. 9, 1998, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) Had the opportunity to say "I told you so" to his colleagues as the global house of cards came crumbling down. Instead, he offered some constructive criticism.

By Ron Paul

Global leaders are scurrying around to put together, as quickly as possible, a new plan to solve the international financial crisis.

The world economies have been built on generous credit expansion, with each country inflating their currencies at different rates. Additionally, each country has had different political, tax and regulatory policies leading to varying degrees of trust and stability. Economies that have 'enjoyed' inflationary booms, by their very nature, must undergo a market correction. The market demands deflation of all excesses, while the politicians and special interests agitate for continued credit inflation. Under these circumstances, financial assets may deflate in price but monetary inflation continues. As a result, the currency is further deprecated, putting serious pressure on the dollar. This is the case of the United States.

Fluctuating fiat currencies, no matter how inefficient as compared to a world commodity monetary standard, function solely because exchange rates are allowed to fluctuate and currency movement across borders are freely permitted as capital seeks the most efficient market. This process provides an indication as to the need for host countries to improve monetary and fiscal policy.

A gold standard solves capital flow problems automatically and avoids all currency speculation. Gold prevents excesses from developing to any dangerous level.

Decades ago, the gold standard was abandoned and now our global planners want to take another step to regulate all capital flows throughout the world, removing the only good indicator left to warn of dangers ahead and the need for sound reform. The rapid transfer of capital around the world is the messenger and no the cause. Killing the messenger will only hide and increase distortions while prolonging the economic pain.

The proposal of the Group of 22 to regulate capital flows through a new 'World Central Bank' prevents any effort to restore efficient market mechanisms and prevents any serious discussion for using gold as the money of choice.

All money managers in major countries decry currency controls by any individual country, yet are now about to embark on a new world-wide approach to regulating all capital flows: a global economic plan to socialize all world credit. But it won't work because the plan is deeply and inherently flawed.

First, the plan demands additional appropriations to transfer wealth from the richer to the poorer nations through increased funding of the International Monetary Fund, World bank, Development Bank and direct foreign aid programs.

Second, it calls for more credit expansion by the richer nations, more loan guarantees and export-import bank credits and, indirectly, by providing credit to the Exchange Stabilization Fund and Possibly, to the Bank International Settlements.

Third, this plan calls for an international government agreement to strictly control capital flows and mandate debt forgiveness in contrast to allowing countries to default. Controlling swift movements of capital is impossible. Any attempt only encourages would government through planning by a world-wide fiat monetary system. Any temporary 'benefit' can only be achieved through an authoritarian approach to managing the world economy, all done with the pretense of preserving financial stability at the expense of national sovereignty and personal liberty.

Let there be no doubt: The current chaos is being used to promote a new world fiat monetary system while giving political power to its managers.

Instead, we should be talking about abandoning the paper money we have lived with for 27 years. It has, after all, brought us the current world-wide financial mess.

Free markets and stable money should be our goal, not further institutionalizing of world economic planning and fiat money at the sacrifice of personal liberty. Indeed, we need a serious discussion of the current crisis, but so far no one should be encouraged by the direction in which the Group of 22 is going. Our responsibility here in the Congress is to protect the dollar, not to sit idly by as it's being deliberately devalued.

Rep Ron Paul (R-Tex.) Is serving his fifth term in Congress.