geoff wrote: Hi Geoff,
The Reds were considered subversive at that time, and the ones I suspected of being Red then were certainly the sort of people no one would turn his/her back on. HUAC was *supposed* to be keeping an eye on the bastards. Nowadays, we are *supposed* to investigate people being considered for sensitive positions, but often we don't. On the other hand, Huma is used to the idea of her man having three other women so maybe she is ideal for Weiner, but just needs to be security cleared for Clinton? > While I see the point, I wonder if any of you remember the "committee on > un-american activities' in the 50s. Seems like you might be moving back to > the same era with the same blinkers on. 'guilt by association' is the worst > possible kind of guilt. It might as well be guilt by colour or religion > which interestingly enough, has been used before. There are risks in > sticking to your principles, but there are also rewards. One of them is > 'freedom'. > http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44549 > > "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's aide and Deputy Chief of Staff > Huma Abedin, who has been with Clinton since 1996. She was never > properly screened -- Regards, Pete http://pete-theisen.com/ http://elect-pete-theisen.com/ _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
