NOW took the money and looked the other way

Post #33,043 by marlowe 3/21/02 4:54:32 PM Reply	NOW took the money and looked the other way [link\|http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/3/19/220751\|It's all about the benjamins] Excerpt: The National Organization for Women received a series of unprecedented federal grants from the Clinton administration totaling over $700,000 before the women's group fell silent on charges of sexual harassment, sexual assault and even rape in the Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky cases four years ago. In an exclusive interview with NewsMax.com, Tammy Bruce, former head of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW and more recently the author of "The New Thought Police," said the federal windfall to the nation's premier feminist group came in 1997, just after the Supreme Court decided that Ms. Jones could sue President Clinton before he left office. "NOW had never taken federal funds before," Bruce told NewsMax. "But as soon as Paula Jones won the ability in the Supreme Court to sue Bill Clinton" the federal dollars began flowing to NOW in a big way, she said. "The California chapter was pretty close to bankruptcy. And suddenly there's this grant that was given to NOW through the Department of Health and Human Services, headed up at the time by Donna Shalala - from the Centers of Disease Control element of HHS through their Tobacco Control Office." [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
Post #33,068 by Brandioch 3/21/02 6:38:12 PM Reply	sigh editing. The National Organization for Women received a series of unprecedented federal grants from the Clinton administration totaling over $700,000 before the women's group fell silent on charges of sexual harassment, sexual assault and even rape in the Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky cases four years ago. Okay, so Monica was... #1. sexually harassed? no. #2. sexually assaulted? no. #3. raped? no. BTW, isn't "rape" rather similar to "sexual assault"? Didn't the judge say that Paula Jones' "sexual assault" charge didn't meet the criteria for "sexual assault"? But that wouldn't make such an interesting story now, would it?
Post #33,071 by wharris2 3/21/02 6:54:33 PM Reply	Paula wasn't the alleged rapee if I remember correctly Wasn't Paula the one who was merely harassed when the then-governor dropped his pants in front of him? Damn, I must be going liberal and non-conspiratorial, I've lost track of the playing pieces. "I didn't know you could drive to Europe." -- An eavesdropper, piping in when he overheard a conversation about someone who had driven to Montreal.
Post #33,155 by Brandioch 3/22/02 12:21:12 PM Reply	Yup. That's why I said "editing". And the judge ruled that, if he HAD done that, it would NOT have been "sexual assault". And I'm sure that any lawyer anywhere would have the knowledge to see that. But she was being pushed by the Republican witch hunt and "sexual assault" charges sound so much more...........sinister? damaging? MEDIA WORTHY? than just dropping his pants. So, poor (or intended) editing makes a dull story much more interesting. Otherwise, poor Marlowe might not find it worthy of linking to here.
Post #33,143 by mmoffitt 3/22/02 10:55:04 AM Reply	Brock's new book explains Paula. Saw him on CSpan the other day. I'm ordering the book for my father-in-law. [link\|http://www.msnbc.com/news/720655.asp?cp1=1\|Blinded by The Right]

Welcome to IWETHEY!