| Donate $25 for two DVDs of the Cryptome collection of files from June 1996 to the present |
16 September 2009
__________
Subject: RE: Shadow Government
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:28:19 -0400
From: "Yonnie Nania" <Yonnie.Nania[at]i2inc.com>
To: <KenGabriel[at]aol.com>,
<Rachael.Ondrus[at]myfloridahouse.gov>, <TADoBatIS[at]aol.com>,
<david.yerushalmi[at]verizon.net>, [cc'd to cc-list of recipients omitted]
Please remove me from your list…..ASAP…..
Thanks
__________
From: "Katherine Stethem"
<kstethem[at]smartneighborhood.net>
To: "'Morrison, Tim \(Kyl\)'" <Tim_Morrison[at]kyl.senate.gov>, "'Ben
Lerner'" <lerner[at]centerforsecuritypolicy.org>,
<TADoBatIS[at]aol.com>, <david.yerushalmi[at]verizon.net>, [cc'd
to cc-list of recipients omitted]
Subject: RE: Shadow Government
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:28:11 -0400
Remove me from this list.
__________
From: "Morrison, Tim (Kyl)" <Tim_Morrison[at]kyl.senate.gov>
To: "'Ben Lerner'" <lerner[at]centerforsecuritypolicy.org>,
"TADoBatIS[at]aol.com" <TADoBatIS[at]aol.com>,
"david.yerushalmi[at]verizon.net" <david.yerushalmi[at]verizon.net>,
[cc'd to cc-list of recipients omitted]
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:58:13 -0400
Subject: RE: Shadow Government
Likewise.
__________
Subject: RE: Shadow Government
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:56:39 -0400
From: "Ben Lerner" <lerner[at]centerforsecuritypolicy.org>
To: <TADoBatIS[at]aol.com>, <david.yerushalmi[at]verizon.net>,
[cc'd to cc-list of recipients omitted]
I don’t know how I got on this list, but I want off immediately.
I’m hitting the “reply all” button just this once in the hope that whoever compiled this list will take me off.
__________
From: TADoBatIS[at]aol.com
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:47:12 EDT
Subject: Re: Shadow Government
To: david.yerushalmi[at]verizon.net, [cc'd to cc-list of recipients omitted]
You might well disagree with me on various points, but to use terms like "sophomoric" and "vacuous" means either that the meaning of the words has eluded Mr Yerushalami or he simply likes to use insulting language rather than engage in serious debate.
I'll address his points briefly:
1. If you were to take all government policies in aggregate you will find that there is continuity through administrations, with some departures, but most policies remain the same. It was the Bush administration that took some radical departures -- in the Justice Department (with people like Yoo holding extreme views) as well as policies with respect to dealing with terrorism. If, for example, you look at US foreign and defense policy, you will find that most policies, ranging from trade policy through relations with allies, under the Obama administration are not much changed from previous administrations. The same can be said of the great corpus of defense policies. The Obama may not look centrist if you think the Bush administration was, but compared to most administrations in the last decades it most certainly is.
2. It is not just the uninsured and underinsured that should concern us, it is the drag on our industry and the effects on worker mobility. Further, the percentage of GDP devoted to health and the relatively poor outcome should indicate to even the least informed that changes are needed.
3. Wilson came to mind because it was not only egregiously uncivil, but recent. Cheney's vulgarity was, certainly, a low for the vice-presidency. Of course there have been Democrats who have behaved badly and they should be censured as well. My point is that that sort of behavior is uncalled for and does not help.
4. There is nothing trite about a number of people foaming at the mouth about the sexual orientation of a relatively small percentage of people. And the sex lives of consenting adults should not be the concern of government. But what I was trying to get across was that, given cultural and attitudinal changes, the social conservatives are not only fighting a losing battle, but that there are far more important issues to deal with.
5. The "twisted views of radical environmentalists" by the congressman was in reference to "cap and trade." Very few of those who identify themselves as environmentalists take the position of "granting equality to all living things." I can't think of one environmental group of any note that takes such a position. As to endangered species, given the complexity of ecosystems, we simply don't know the secondary and tertiary effects that extinction may cause. But we also know that what could be valuable genetic material may be lost. Again, a balance of policies which address both short-term and long-term concerns in the best possible way is not made possible by hysteria.
6. I was not dismissive of religion, but was dismissive of a primitive belief -- that a Biblical account of creation can be believed literally by anyone with a shred of intelligence. I'm just as dismissive of Navajo or New Guinea creation myths. Science, I should note, is more about process than certainty.
Stuart J. D. Schwartzstein
4311 Warren St., N.W.
Washington, D.C.
tel: (202) 362-0586
(cell) (202) 390-4557
__________
Subject: RE: Shadow Government
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:01:33 -0400
From: "Fischer, Ken " <Ken.Fischer[at]saftas.com>
To:
<david.yerushalmi[at]verizon.net>,
<TADoBatIS[at]aol.com>, [cc'd to cc-list of recipients omitted]
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein (1907 - 1988) American Science Fiction Author
__________
From: "Mihnovets, Nicholas, CIV, OSD-POLICY-DTSA -
Nicholas.Mihnovets[at]dtsa.mil"
<Nicholas.Mihnovets[at]dtsa.mil>
To: "'david.yerushalmi[at]verizon.net'"
<david.yerushalmi[at]verizon.net>,
"TADoBatIS[at]aol.com" <TADoBatIS[at]aol.com>, [cc'd to cc-list of
recipients omitted]
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:58:52 -0400
Subject: RE: Shadow Government
I couldn't agree more with David.
Please remove me for your list as well
Thanks
Nicholas P. Mihnovets
__________
From: "David Yerushalmi" <david.yerushalmi[at]verizon.net>
I have no idea why I have been included on this email. I know some of the
names here but not many, and apologize for including you on this email. But,
I’d ask to be removed. While there is always room to criticize overheated
political debate, this response by Mr. Schwartzstein, whom I don’t know,
to whatever precipitated it is vacuous and sophomoric in the extreme. Given
the correspondent’s call for rational discourse, a call he himself ignored
in the email, a few salient points:
__________
From: "Beowulf" <beowulf[at]thedurendal.com>
For someone supposedly dealing in "facts and reasoned debate" this [Schwartzstein
email] is certainly a highly subjective and vituperative email.
__________
16 September 2009
From: TADoBatIS[at]aol.com
I find it hard to understand that anyone
with a modicum of intelligence and education would find this sort of nonsense
is in any way either conducive to civil and productive democratic governance
or rational approaches to serious issues. Throwing about words
like "communist" and "socialist" as epithets achieves nothing other than
clouding the issues and exciting the uneducated and uninformed. It is also
unhelpful to toss in adjectives like "unelected" or "unaccountable." (Anyone
with even the most elementary knowledge of our government knows that within
the Executive Branch only the president and vice-president are elected and
it is within the purview of the president to appoint officials in his
administration, with, of course, Senate approval for those most senior.
Moreover, there is most certainly accountability, if only through the budget
processes.)
And "radical agenda"? A sad, empty
phrase intended to frighten those who know no better. The Obama
administration is clearly centrist, maintaining most policies of previous
administrations (which, in many cases, I see as unfortunate, as change is
needed).
And using terms like "czar" –
undoubtedly intended to evoke an authoritarian government – is fatuous,
given that all government officials are constrained by the Constitution and
law. We all know, too, that the term "czar" has often been used and
overused by the press for government officials whose work is to deal with
a particular issue or problem, but who (usually) fall outside the usual
hierarchy. Nonetheless, not only are they entirely subordinate to the
president and constrained by law and the Constitution, but in many cases
they must work closely and in concert with and are subordinate to the heads
of the departments in which they work. Richard Holbrooke, for example,
whether he is called a "czar" or not, must coordinate closely with Secretary
Clinton to whom he is subordinate, as must George Mitchell, as special
envoy. Another example is John Holdren, as the president's science
advisor, who might be called a "czar" but that would be very, very misleading:
he has little authority over the science and technology activities of the
US government, almost all of which fall under a number of different departments.
This is not to say that no government official has never overreached, but
that phenomenon is not unique to any administration. (I might add that we
most certainly do not have a president who is a disciple of Bossuet.)
The kinds of misleading and vituperative
rhetoric we have seen recently in the course of the debate over health care
reform should be instructive. To talk of "death panels" and "socialized
medicine" is not only far from the truth, but panders to the mob, raises
inchoate fears among the uneducated (many of whom are poor and most in need
of significant change in our health care system). The kinds of
misapprehensions that are laughable, if not pathetic, include "keep government
hands off Medicare." And some politicians have engaged in truly appalling
attempts to mislead the public. Sarah Palin, of course, with her well-known
knowledge of foreign affairs, doesn't surprise any of us with her nonsense.
On the other hand, Senator Mitch McConnell, who should know better, on one
of the Sunday morning talk shows a few months ago actually said that the
US had the "best system of health care in the world" – whhich, I think,
we all know is most certainly not true. (Yes, some of the best medical care
in the world is available in the US, but for those with good health insurance
or coverage, including the VA, and/or money. Anyone who has looked at the
percentage of GDP spent on healthcare overall and the data on outcomes in
aggregate can see that it is far from the truth that this country has the
best health care system in the world. And that health insurance is
largely linked to employment (which does not help our economy) and not affordable
for large numbers of people is a national disgrace. In sum, we spend
too much money for too little in results – and I doubt that anyone rational
can dispute that. None of that means that any specific approach or
piece of legislation is what's necessary or good, but achieving what is best
for the country as a whole requires reasoned debate, not falsehoods, not
hysteria and most certainly not apathy. (Let me note that when the
Republicans held both the White House and the Congress there was no effort,
none whatsoever, to make changes to the disgraceful health care status
quo.)
Lack of civility in politics is not,
of course, nothing new. And if Rep. Joe Wilson's intemperate outburst
was appalling, it was not a recent nadir. (The prize goes to Dick Cheney
for telling Senator Leahy to do something physically impossible.) But it
does not help in dealing with issues that must be dealt with in a way that
best serves the nation as a whole.
Sadly, amongst some social conservatives
it seems that even the mention of homosexuality is a call to arms, as if
it constituted some sort of serious threat to the republic. The fact
is that a certain percentage of the population is homosexual and it is likely
that it is no less biologically-determined than heterosexuality. (Is the
attraction of most people to those of the opposite sex something
"learned"?) But we're also seeing a cultural change, with far greater
acceptance of homosexuality. (For my college-age son and his peers, it's
simply not an issue to worry about.) As to the Obama administration
"promoting homosexuality in elementary schools" – my guess is that it
is likely to be a reaction to some very anodyne materials. Again, anyone
with a modicum of intelligence and education knows that such a claim is intended
solely to stir up those on the right-wing fringe who have little knowledge
of actual policies. And certainly there are more important issues for political
debate.
On the radio a few days ago I heard a
(no doubt conservative) Republican Congressman refer to the "twisted desires
of radical environmentalists." I'm not sure what a "radical
environmentalist" is. Is it someone concerned with global climate change?
Clean air? Clean water? Someone who hopes that we can pass on to future
generations a world that is liveable? As with other areas where action
is needed, it is not with inflamed and misleading language that we
balance a wide range of interests and concerns to arrive at policies and
legislation that best serve the country.
The Rush Limbaughs and other extremists
make little contribution to engaging the public in the kinds of civil and
rational debates, but only mislead and frighten the ignorant, the uneducated
and the uninformed. (Of which, sadly, there are great numbers.
To cite only one statistic: according to some opinion polls more than half
of the American public believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.)
N.B. Those to whom this is sent who know
me also know that it isn't possible to pigeon-hole me politically.
Just as Henry Adams described himself as a "conservative, Christian anarchist,"
my views on different issues range from what is often called conservative
to what is called left-wing. Most of all, I believe in dealing with
facts and reasoned debate.
Stuart J. D. Schwartzstein
14 September 2009
A sends:
Subject: Internal Insurgents.... White Skin Terrorists in the Heartland
That email on
http://cryptome.org/0001/obama-biz.htm
surely identifies radical elements actively underminining the POTUS and
seeding home dissention and revolutionary disquiet and disaffection.
__________
__________
Cryptome: The names and addresses are an informative part of the message.
__________
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:40:28 -0400
Put my name and address on the list also, you fucking prick.
__________
13 September 2009
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 11:44:09 -0400
The Obama Administration has dozens of un-elected and unaccountable czars
working to execute his radical agenda. These include communists, socialists,
anti-capitalists and far left wing radicals that are implementing a plan
to reshape the American image. The National Republican Trust has researched
and exposed the truth behind Obama’s czars in a new book: Shadow
Government: What Obama Doesn’t Want You to Know About His Czars.
CLICK HERE NOW TO ORDER AND RECEIVE
FREE SHIPPING
The National Republican Trust PAC is not an official RNC committee. We are
conservative Republicans dedicated to helping restore the GOP to its historic
conservative roots by mobilizing like-minded Republicans nationwide.
To: <TADoBatIS[at]aol.com>,
Subject: RE: Shadow Government
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:53:34 -0400
[1] “The Obama administration is clearly centrist . . ..” The factual
predicate for this “clearly” held belief of centrism is that the
administration is “maintaining most policies of previous
administrations”. Which policies? The administration has made very
significant (and un-centrist like) changes at the US Attorney’s office,
in the “GWOT”, and on the environment. The administration has hardly
completed all it has set out to do. But, centrist is not a word that comes
to mind.
[2] As to the “disgraceful health care status quo”, the presumption
is that 20 million uninsured out of a 300+ million population is a
“national disgrace.” Why is that? Did the writer proffer a rational
argument for an entitlement here that I missed? It is a rather facile task
to build a castle on sand but it is no better than a castle of sand without
some foundation.
[3] Representative Wilson’s outburst was unfortunate, but the reference
to Wilson and then to Cheney seems to suggest a rather selective ear. Does
one suppose he missed the catcalls by Congressional Democrats during President
Bush’s 2005 State of the Union. Here, it was not one voice but many.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/10/flashback_democrats_boo_bush_at_2005_state_of_the_union.html
[4] The writer’s dismissal of social conservatives and reducing them
to homophobes is trite at best. The issue of homosexuality, while certainly
important in and of itself to a large segment of our fellow citizens, is
even more important to social conservatives and others in the context of
policy. I might suggest Justice Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v Texas,
as an example of these implications.
[5] Apparently, the man who felt compelled to opine on a range of subjects
through this email is left guessing what a “radical environmentalist”
is. While I don’t pretend to know what the particular quote refers to
since the source is left out, but in general it is fairly well-known what
this genre of environmental advocacy references. Quite simply it is the granting
of equality to all living things such that the survival of a species of toad
or water mammal has a value no less than man’s. The policies we have
embraced to protect endangered species while directly damaging the livelihood
and prosperity of our fellow citizens are but one example.
[6] As to half of the population that “believes” in a literal
interpretation of Genesis, I would venture a guess that our man of enlightenment
would also render his own epistemological equation to this: Science = Certainty;
All Else (beliefs, opinion, preferences) = Uncertainty. I would challenge
him or anyone to offer a coherent rational for national existence of this
country or any other on this basis. It cannot be done, without resort to
tyranny.
While the man’s nota bene suggests equanimity in search of reasoned
discourse, the evidence he provides is of an elite who presumes to know of
facts and political opinions that are beyond question. Not a good start to
an email chain among a group you know not.
David Yerushalmi
Law Offices:
Washington, D.C., New York, California & Arizona
T: 646.262.0500
F: 801.760.3901
E: david.yerushalmi[at]verizon.net
W: http://www.davidyerushalmilaw.com
==========================================================================
This electronic message transmission may contain ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the individual or entity
named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and
notify sender immediately. Thank You.
==========================================================================
To: <TADoBatIS[at]aol.com>, [cc'd to cc-list of recipients omitted]
Subject: RE: Shadow Government
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:17:06 -0400
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:41:47 EDT
Subject: Re: Shadow Government
To: higginsctcenter[at]gmail.com,
ChristopherH[at]centerforsecuritypolicy.org,
DrWASaxton[at]aol.com,
jchildreth[at]gmail.com, Jimco703[at]aol.com,
Nicholas.Mihnovets[at]dtsa.mil,
igalatas[at]yahoo.com,
ed_corrigan[at]demint.senate.gov,
harmonc[at]marshallcenter.org,
lcohen[at]centerforsecuritypolicy.org,
bob3638[at]msn.com,
david.yerushalmi[at]verizon.net,
ldlintl[at]sympatico.ca,
dr_debra_anderson[at]yahoo.com,
eisen3[at]bezeqint.net, dklim[at]crosslink.net,
dha_levy[at]netvision.net.il,
dean.popps[at]hqda.army.mil,
nwtc[at]bigplanet.com,
ez[at]acenter.us, jepstein02[at]snet.net,
edwin.meese[at]heritage.org,
egabriel[at]umd.edu,
mark.ellmore[at]bankofamerica.com,
jambush[at]ambushlaw.com,
gaffney[at]securefreedom.org,
fafnjaf212[at]roadrunner.com,
michael.fechter[at]ctnews.org,
Ken.Fischer[at]saftas.com, fsmith[at]cei.org,
brent_furer[at]vitter.senate.gov,
fred.salek[at]verizon.net,
jgoldman[at]andersonkill.com,
Gerson4221[at]aol.com,
julie.gasiorek[at]po.state.ct.us,
Richard.Greenberg[at]nbcuni.com,
greenber[at]juris.law.nyu.edu,
agreen[at]rothcocpa.com,
kenneth.brennan[at]fairfaxcounty.gov,
jwicecarver[at]msn.com,
shantler[at]marcusfoundation.org,
roberthberrie[at]gmail.com,
larry.henderson[at]fairfaxcounty.gov,
chardy[at]gmu.edu,
irene_shannon[at]yahoo.com.sg,
ijablon[at]hotmail.com,
blacknet1[at]navyseals.com,
ied[at]igc.org, david.isby[at]sparta.com,
jsinai[at]theanalysiscorp.com,
jrthomas28[at]juno.com, jya[at]pipeline.com,
jtoranzo[at]cra-usa.net,
jtrindal0842[at]gmail.com, jameslafferty[at]usa.net,
kstethem[at]smartneighborhood.net,
kincaid[at]comcast.net,
Norman.Kass[at]osd.mil,
tim_morrison[at]kyl.senate.gov,
ken.alibek[at]afgbio.com,
kearns[at]usbusiness.org,
lucylightning13[at]yahoo.com,
lerner[at]centerforsecuritypolicy.org,
WendyL[at]samfox.wustl.edu,
tinydancer9824[at]hotmail.com, Nitaleit[at]aol.com,
michaelmaloof[at]hotmail.com,
waller[at]iwp.edu,
Reilly[at]centerforsecuritypolicy.org,
cbmts[at]asanltr.com,
NProffitt[at]aol.com,
gnesterczuk[at]cox.net, NY2DCmetro[at]aol.com,
nab4441[at]aol.com,
JLONE410[at]comcast.net, odonnmic[at]suffolkcountyny.gov,
oksana.nesterczuk[at]osd.mil,
ohad.cohen[at]israelemb.org,
Rachael.Ondrus[at]myfloridahouse.gov,
pspoole[at]gmail.com,
WParker260[at]aol.com,
sperry[at]sperryfiles.com, RA2040J[at]aol.com,
rweinste[at]gmu.edu, vrao4[at]csc.com,
raohigginscenter[at]venkatrao.net,
Amy[at]spgs.mailstreet.com,
seffydubi[at]gmail.com, btefft[at]cra-usa.net,
btyree[at]washingtontimes.com,
rboehne[at]raytheon.com,
michael_unsel[at]cap-police.senate.gov, Jeffrey.W.Curry[at]us.army.mil,
cverzoni[at]cra-usa.net,
anintitav[at]thaiembdc.org, VancleaveM[at]ndu.edu,
virginia[at]unitedamericancommittee.org, weitz[at]hudson.org,
curt.weldon[at]yahoo.com,
terry[at]losward.com, robyoung[at]att.net,
yonrazalex[at]hotmail.com,
yalexander[at]potomacinstitute.org,
yonnie.nania[at]i2inc.com,
zvetlana[at]gmail.com, zuhdi[at]jasserclinic.com
4311 Warren St., N.W.
Washington, D.C.
tel: (202) 362-0586
(cell) (202) 390-4557
From: Peter Leitner <higginsctcenter[at]gmail.com>
To: John Young <jya[at]pipeline.com>
So John, Any particular reason for you to post the e-mail addresses on your web site?
From: "David E. Crawford" <davidecrawford[at]cfl.rr.com>
To: cryptome[at]earthlink.net
Subject: obama-biz
Subject: Shadow Government
From: Peter Leitner <higginsctcenter[at]gmail.com>
To: Christopher Holton <ChristopherH[at]centerforsecuritypolicy.org>,
"J.C. Hildreth"
<jchildreth[at]gmail.com>,
Jimco703[at]aol.com,
Dear Townhall Reader:
This book reveals the “shadow government” Obama has installed without
Senate confirmation or voter approval.
Many political organizations ask you for money to promote intangible concepts
and projects, but not us. The National Republican Trust has conducted in
depth research of thirty-five of Obama’s czars and provided you with
the hard facts. We are committed to fighting for causes you believe in by
undertaking actions that are effective and accountable to you, our
supporters.
We are in this, just like you, to save America. We are the true conservatives,
the Republicans you CAN Trust, we are fighting the Democrat’s socialist
agenda and holding Republicans accountable when they sell out our American
values. This book is just an example.
Get the book Obama doesn't want you to read.
CLICK HERE TO ORDER
Shadow Government covers all thirty-five czars Obama has picked to
carry out his socialization of America. Arm yourself with the information
and knowledge you need to take to your town hall meetings and tea parties
and start demanding answers. Did you know that Obama has appointed czars
that have promoted homosexuality in elementary schools, fought to give animals
the right to sue in court, declared war on conservative talk radio, praised
Hugo Chavez, and aligned with communists and socialists? This book reveals
it all. Order now and receive free shipping. If you sign up with your email
address, you will receive updates on the activities of the czars free
for six months.
CLICK HERE TO ORDER
At the National Republican Trust PAC “we remain committed to promoting
candidates who support conservative values including limited government,
lower taxes, strong national defense and free-market economics. With your
help, we will continue to expose the radical agenda being pursued by the
Obama Administration and liberal Democrats in Congress.
Join with me and help take our country back! This book and your generous
contributions will help keep the process going.
Yours for America,
Scott Wheeler
Executive Director
Contributions to The National Republican Trust PAC are not deductible as
charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. No corporate funds
are accepted.