Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report


Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Order Books






Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

20 years


hen the Tea Party magically sprung up out of the veneer of Americana last spring as the Obama Congress initiated a series of town hall meetings to convince the idiots on Main Street USA that Obamacare was better than a stick in the eye, the Democrats never knew what hit them. Not even after-the-fact. They thought the Republicans were doing what they do—buying their audiences and busing them in to their "town halls" for media photo ops designed to make it look like both the blue and white collar the working class: black, brown and white actually agreed with the social progressive agenda that was enacted to rape the American people of their hard-earned "wealth." Interviewed by Hardball host Chris Wallace after an August, 2009 "town hall" on Obamacare, Sen. Barbara Boxer [D-CA] told Wallace that the media needed to "...take a look at what's going on here," insisting that the healthcare protests were GOP instigated "...to hurt [Obama], and to change Congress." The people who were disrupting the townhalls, she insisted, were rent-a-protesters for the Republican Party "...in limes and pinks and Brooks Brothers suits" who, she contended, showed up the health care town halls all over the country on cue from the bigwigs in the Party, wearing Dockers and short sleeve sport shirts, or dresses, shorts and tank tops and flipflops to protest.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs referred to the Tea Party protesters who suddenly appeared at the town halls as a form of "manufactured anger" to make it appear that the American people were against Obamacare when, he noted, all of the polls showed the American people favored the theft of their money and totalitarian control over their lives. Blaming the national GOP organization, Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse went much further than Gibbs by branding the protesters as "angry mobs of rabid rightwing extremists." The Democrats well know from experience, when you want to disrupt the message of the opposition, you bus in protesters. And well they should know. They've been doing it since the FDR New Deal years.

The concept of a spontaneous protest by disgruntled voters is an alien notion to the left by the right. The Democrats know that protesters have to be paid only because they have to pay them to protest. Big labor has been buying attendees, or forcing union members, to attend Democratic rallies for almost 80 years. Thus, from experience, they know how the game of political attendance is played. And, not just with respect to building photo op crowds but, even more, funding their political advocacy with covert donations.

In the same token, watching their numbers plummet in the polls, the Democrats had no difficulty accusing Republicans—via the US Chamber of Commerce—of taking illegal foreign contributions to help GOP members win both State and federal elections. An unfounded, groundless rumor, started by what was purported to be a bogus sub-domain blog "ThinkProgress" posted on the far left, George Soros-funded Center for American Progress website which alleged that the US Chamber of Commerce was using foreign money to fund its political education program. And, even without posting a shred of evidence to substantiate their claims, the New York Times picked up the story and ran it as an editorial as "fact." The US Chamber wrote to the New York Times, saying: "Since when is it acceptable for the nation's 'Newspaper of Record' to publish editorials repeating unfounded and unproved allegations by advocacy groups with blatant political agendas ('Clean and Open American Elections,' Oct. 6)? The liberal Center for American Progress (CAP) posts a bogus blog alleging that the US Chamber of Commerce uses foreign money to fund its political education program without offering a shred of evidence and the Times' editorial writers swallow it hook, line and sinker.

"While its often difficult to differentiate the paper's news stories from its editorials, both have an obligation to adhere to journalistic standards of fact-checking, credibility, and content of the highest quality and integrity, which the paper states as its number one core values.

"CAP's ridiculous blog post is a deliberately deceitful and desperate diversion by people upset about current poll numbers and losing an election. As we've said loud and clear, the Chamber complies with all applicable laws and no foreign money is used to fund our political activities, which are only a fraction of the work we do to promote free enterprise in America. The New York Times is supposed to be about "all the news that's fit to print," not "printing unsubstantiated rumors that suit our politician views."

When the Chamber's letter was printed by the New York Times on Oct. 6, 2010 under the title "Clean and Open American Elections," the article sounded slightly different. The edited version says: "Your Oct. 6 editorial "Clean and Open Elections" repeats unfounded and unproved allegations by an advocacy group with a blatant political agenda. The liberal Center of American Progress posted a blog alleging, without offering a shred of evidence, that the United States Chamber of Commerce uses foreign money to fund its political education program. The blog post is a desperate diversion by people upset about their current poll numbers and losing an election. As we've said loud and clear, the Chamber of Commerce complies with all applicable laws, and no foreign money is used to finance our political activities, which are only a fraction of the work we do to promote free enterprise in America." Omitted were the yellow journalism references about the New York Times. More fittingly today, yellow journalism today should be called "blue journalism," since the yellow journalists are revisionist social progressives who specialize in changing facts to tidy up history. (By the way, I wonder why the social progressive, communist -leaning states are called "blue states" and conservative, patriotic states are referred to as red states? I guess its just more of that yellow...er...blue journalism.)

Once the Soros-funded Center for American Progress fed the bogus story about the Chamber into the mainstream via the New York Times, the Democrat's clown prince, Sen. Al Franken [D-MN] (who owes his election in 2008 to ACORN and not the voters of Minnesota) reported on his blog on Oct. 6 that he asked the Federal Election Commission to investigate the US Chamber. Franken noted that the blog, ThinkProgress, reported that "...the Chamber raises thousands from foreign individuals and companies through its overseas branches. The money," Franken claimed, "reportedly goes into the Chamber's general fund which it is using to run a $75 million midterm campaign, mostly against Democrats." He added, "It is illegal to solicit or accept donations from foreign nationals, directly or indirectly, for election activity." Franken, the subject of a pretty-much out-of-print 20-year old book, "Al Franken Is a Bucktoothed Moron" might be a moron, but he's a very dangerous one.

From Franken and the New York Times, the baseless rumor was picked up by Vice President Joe Biden who passed it around during his fund-raisers as fact. It was the perfect canard to hammer potential Democratic donors for money by suggesting the Republicans were not playing by the rules. Barack Obama did the same during his fund-raisers. The fact that there was no truth to the rumor was of no consequence. As far as both Biden and Obama were concerned, it could be true since Democrats have been taking foreign money, particularly from China, since 1983 when the People's Republic of China, deathly afraid of Ronald Reagan, decided to fund Democrats to defeat the Great Communicator when Reagan ran for reelection. The money was funneled through Sen. Alan Cranston [D-CA], head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Cranston devoted most of his political life defending socialism and attempting to change America into a communist welfare state. He was the perfect bagman for the People's Liberation Army.

Cranston, like Senators John McCain [R-AZ], Dennis DeConcini [D-AZ], Donald Reigle [D-MI], and John Glenn [D-OH] were involved in Charles Keating's Lincoln Savings & Loan scandal and were dubbed by the media as the Keating Five. In the end, only Cranston, the head of the Senatorial Campaign Committee, paid the ultimate price for taking money from Keating. Had Cranston not had terminal cancer, he likely would have been charged and faced jail time for taking bribes from Keating. He was forced to resign his seat in the Senate.

But not for taking and distributing hundreds of thousands of dollars from Chinese agent Maria Hsia who worked for Lt. Col. Liu Chaoying, the daughter of Gen. Liu Huaqing, the head of Chinese military intelligence. Liu was not only the benefactor for scores of Senatorial and Congressional incumbents from 1983 and 1996, she was a key backer of Al Gore's 1988 presidential campaign. Gore lost that bid to Gov. Michael Dukakis [MA] who, in turn, lost to Vice President George H.W. Bush who followed Reagan into the Oval Office.

When Arkansas governor Bill Clinton threw his hat in the ring in the presidential arena in 1992, so did Al Gore. Interestingly, Clinton's foreign backer was the People's Republic of China through Indonesian banker Mochtar Riady and his son, James. Both Riady and his son were tied to Chinese military intelligence. Clinton met Riady in the early 1980s through his mentor, Witt Stephens when Stephens was trying to negotiate a rice deal through Riady's Lippo Company.

Gore's foreign backing came from the People's Liberation Army through Maria Hsia and Liu Chaoying. According to the Thompson Committee Report and the investigation by Judicial Watch, Gore's money was largely funneled to him through Hsia. A letter among the documents uncovered by the Thompson Committee was the copy of a letter Hsia sent to Gore invited him to a Riady-financed trip to Taiwan. In Taiwan, Gore visited Master Hsing Yun at the Fo Kuang Shan Buddhist Monastery in Kiaoshung. (The Fo Kuang Buddhist Temple was a PLA stronghold in Taiwan. Most of the military and industrial spying that took place in Taiwan originated in the Temple where many of the monks were actually PLA agents.)

While Gore was there, arrangements were made for financing his campaign through the Hai Lai Buddhist Temple in Hacienda Heights, California. If you recall, Buddhist nuns who had taken a vow of poverty, supposedly donated $50 thousand to him in one fund-raiser at the Temple. The itinerary for Gore's trip to Taiwan was planned by John Huang, who became one of the Clinton Campaign's biggest fund-raiser. Huang, if you recall was given the job as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for International Economic Affairs where he had access to many of America's industrial secrets. Huang was allowed to keep his Clinton Administration top secret clearance for a year after he left the government before it was revoked. Huang avoided prosecution by pleading guilty to charges of reimbursing American citizens for donations they made to Clinton.

America learned much about how the Democrats got, and used, covert illegal donations from foreign donors and from foreign governments during the Clinton years. It was called Chinagate. While Special Prosecutors Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr spent $70 million puddle-jumping around Fostergate, and Hillary Clinton was busy concealing the fraud of what would be called Whitewatergate by playing musical chairs with the Rose Law Firm billing records, the Clinton Administration was quietly receiving millions of dollars from Red China in what would ultimately be labeled Chinagate by the media. Fiske and then Foster spent most of their investigations trying to figure out how to rule that a guy who had been rolled up in a rug and deposited in Fort Marcy Park with blood running uphill from a wound in his head, and the murder weapon (not his gun), was in his wrong hand (Foster was a southpaw), somehow committed suicide, Sen. Fred Thompson [R-GA] launched a Senate hearing that identified most of the Chinese agents that funneled money to the Clinton-Gore Election and Reelection. Committees and Congressman Chris Cox [R-CA] tracked the quid pro quos from the Clintonestas to the People's Republic of China through special waivers that should never have been granted.

Conservatives in Congress struggled to impeach President Bill Clinton for what they viewed to be a criminal act, taking what could only be construed as bribes from the People's Republic of China and the the People's Liberation Army that was nothing short of treason. Moderates and social progressives on both sides of the aisle, fearful of their own illegal bribe-taking from allies of the United States for equally illegal quid pro quos, resisted efforts by a small cadre of House Republicans to impeach Clinton for taking illegal money from China. The solution? Impeach Clinton for something other than Chinagate and preserve the public image of the Presidency of the United States. US presidents simply don't commit treason. Or do they?

In the end, the bamboo curtain that exposed Chinagate was flung open by an investigation launched by then Judicial Watch Chairman/CEO Larry Klayman. Klayman, Clinton's nemesis, revealed most of the Clinton sins. The evidence uncovered by Klayman should have been used in Clinton's impeachment or rather, in both Clinton and Al Gore's impeachment. Both should have been charged with treason. Instead, Clinton was impeached for perjury. Like President Andrew Johnson who was impeached in 1868 for violating the Tenure in Office Act that prevented him from firing Lincoln's cabinet, Clinton was not convicted during his Senate trial. The evidence ferreted by Klayman became the basis for the Thompson Committee's investigation of illegal contributions.

Remember the farcial Fiske Investigation? Followed by the equally farcial $70 million Kenneth Starr bag of political nothing? Both investigations appeared to be specifically designed to uncover nothing because neither man was willing to ruin what was left of their political careers. America learned most of what it knows about Chinagate from Klayman, the Thompson Committee, the Washington Times and the now defunct Insight on the News magazine. Approximately $600 million in illegal campaign contributions flowed from the Red Chinese People's Liberation Army to the co-presidency of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Vice President Al Gore (1994-98), and from the political government of the People's Republic of China through Chinese-Indonesian businessman Moctar Riady to Clinton (1980-96). What the Chinese got for their money was detailed in the Cox Commission Report from the House Select Committee in 1999. Yet, the only thing Congress impeached Clinton for was a semen-stained blue dress.

Sometimes current news headlines—even bogus ones—like the one which Vice President Joe Biden and White House resident Barack Obama chose to imply that the US Chamber of Commerce might be taking illegal campaign contributions to help elect Republicans brings back to mind the headlines that did not appear in the New York Times and Washington Post when the events I just describe were happening. They didn't appear because the dirty hands did not belong to a Republican. They belonged to Democrats. The subject of those headlines which, surprisingly never appeared beyond the term "alleged," would have or should have incriminated a sitting President and Vice President of the United States—and a First Lady who went on to become a US Senator from New York.

There seemed to be just a little hypocrisy in Biden and Obama's allegations about foreign contributions taken by the US Chamber of Commerce when Obama's FEC records were replete with small donations from clearly bogus donors in 2008. The website through which thousands of minuscule donations were made to the Obama Campaign came from "donors" with names like Donald Duck, Elmer Fudd, Mickey Mouse, Dagwood Bumstead and even names that were simply random letters like "Zfrenfq Bcoxzsbs." The Seattle Times reported one donor on a December, 2007 donor list who gave a $764 contribution was named "Test Person," from "Some Place, UT." Another donor was named Jockim Alberton who lives at 1581 Leroy Avenue in Wilmington, DE who donated $445 to Obama. The problem? There is no Leroy Avenue in Wilmington. Nor, for that matter is there a Jockim Alberton who works for "Fdsa Fdsa." In the one list the Seattle Times checked, over 3,000 names were phony. For some unexplained reason, the Seattle Times seemed to believe the donors were real people making real donations who, for some reason, did not want their identities revealed.

CBS News reported on Oct. 8, 2008 that the names of the latest Obama donors looked "...like they were written by a mouse running across a keyboard." They were simply random letters that very tired, very bored clerks would keystroke because they simply didn't know any more real names to enter without re-entering names already entered. Two of the donors CBS tried to trace, Dahsudhdu Hdusahfd of Df, Hawaii and Uadhshgu Hduadh from Dhff, Florida both purported to work for Dasada/safasf. Dasada/safasf must be one of those new Fortune 500 companies since it appears to have offices from Florida to Hawaii. Hdusahfd and Hduadh seemed to have each donated more than is allowed by law. Hduadh theoretically gave $14,200. Hdusahfd gave $7,500.00. The law allows citizen donors to give $4,200 between the primary race and the general election. When these names were revealed by CBS, the Obama Campaign said that "...out of an abundance of caution," all of the random letter named donations were returned (as other donations from people like John and Mary Smith replaced them).The Obama Campaign took in an unprecedented $450 million through its website. According to CNS, Andrew Brietbart and other conservative bloggers there is evidence that the small donations from Uadhshgu Hduadh and other keystroke donors were actually laundered donations from the Muslim world. From his globe-trotting world campaign to win the White House, Obama received contributions on his website from Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, England, the Gaza Strip, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Russia, Spain, St. Croix, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Uganda, and the Virgin Islands. While most of these countries are allies of the United States, their citizens cannot donate money to the political campaigns of American citizens running for public office, nor can a US citizen running for office accept those donations. I wonder if any of those donations qualify, in Obama's mind, as foreign donors?

During the Clinton's reelection campaign the White House held a series of approximately 70 White House Coffees that began on April 16, 1996 and which reportedly raised upwards of $100 million. The Coffees were ostensibly designed so the President could listen to the views of concerned rank-and-file American citizens about the problems facing the nation. But, there were two pesky problem with the Coffees. First, the concerned "Americans" who attended them were, for the most part, not Americans. They were foreign nationals, primarily from China. The second problem? There was a "price of admission" for the concerned American to visit with the President, First Lady or one of the key Secretaries and air their concerns about the issues that bothered them most. It should have been troublesome for the Clintons as well, since those "Coffees" were prohibited by The Pendleton Act, The Hatch Act of 1939, The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1979—even if all of the donors were natural born US citizens.

The fact that any, if not most of them, were foreign nationals made it a crime since it is a felony to take campaign contributions from a foreign national. So, according to the Thompson Committee Report, the Clintons funneled the money through the Democratic National Committee and laundered it. It came out squeaky American-clean on the other side. The DNC, who was a party to fraud perpetuated on the American people by the Clintons, claimed they were shocked that foreign nationals had contributed money to the Clinton Campaign, and they ceremoniously returned it—they said. Did anyone see the wire transfers for millions of dollars in illegal donations?

Easy money from the Near East, Middle East and Far East has been too tempting for far too many politicians in the United States. Most feel the money will never be traced from the donor to their PAC groups which theoretically are not run by the politician. Senator Hillary Clinton fell in love with money from India. In exchange for contributions to the Clinton Library or the William J. Clinton Foundation or WJC Investments, Hillary championed legislation to outsource US jobs to India. When Hillary threw her hat in the New York Senate race in 1999, one Sikh donor with business interests in India enriched her to the tune of $50 thousand. She enriched Sant Singh Chatwal, a naturalized US citizen from India, with access. Chatwal donated $210 thousand to Hillary in 1999 through 14 companies he owned. In addition, he held a fund-raiser for Hillary in his Upper Eastside penthouse and raised another $500 thousand for her campaign war chest.

In addition to being a trustee of the William J. Clinton Foundation, Chatwal is a US tax deadbeat and a debt deadbeat in both India and Europe. He was also a very early contributor and fund-raiser for the Clintons. Once they reached 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Clintons reciprocated (the old political quid pro quo) by approving grants to Indian-American advocacy groups to lobby Congress to out-source jobs from the United States to India. In 1996, Cisco Systems, another major Clinton donor, began laying off $60 thousand-plus high tech employees and replacing them with new hires from Bangalore, India for less than half the dollars. Cisco Systems justified the outsourcing by claiming they could not find qualified employees in the United States. Most of Cisco's 850 IT employees now work in India In 2006, Newsweek reported that Cisco's new Research & Development facility, employing 3,000 people, would be located in India

As pressure mounted in Congress to stop outsourcing US jobs to India in 2004 while Sen. John Kerry [D-MA] campaigned for the White House, Clinton, Kerry and Chuck Schumer [D-NY] were instrumental in creating the Senate India Caucus (which was coordinated by the US-India Political Action Committee) to lobby the Senators and Congressmen who were attempting to derail Hillary's job outsourcing program. Unknown to all but a handful of people, as many of these India companies received outsourcing contracts from America's Fortune 500 companies, WJC Investments bought stock in several of them. One, in particular, was Easy Bill Limited, an Indian corporation that serves US utility companies as a bill paying outlet for electrical, gas and telephone bills, and credit card payments and most of the bills you pay online. When they began receiving contracts from US utility and credit card companies, WJC Investments bought $50 thousand in Easy Bill stock.

Once you climb the ladder to the top of the world and join the small cadre of royals, money barons and the princes of industry at the pinnacle of power, the opportunity to profit from the taxpayers is almost endless. There are no rules—and there also appears to be an immunity from the laws that control the rest of us. The only problem with those who are rewarded by the elite cadre at the pinnacle of global power is that none of the invited guests of the elites know who else is an invited guest. For that reason, the social progressives who do the bidding of the invisible rulers behind the seats of government think every member of the privileged class has that immunity. And, that's why the social progressives felt at ease pointing a finger at the US Chamber of Commerce, confident that an investigation would prove that they were taking money from illegal sources. Or, that the insinuations would be enough to keep thousands of patriotic conservatives home from the polls on Nov. 2 and minimize Democratic losses in close swing States.


Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved