hile the Left continue to smear the Bush administration for the Enron collapse, either for cause or effect, it is becoming clearer to me that the finger pointers may be the actual culprits in this whole affair.  According to ex-New York Representative Dan Frisa, the Clinton's Security and Exchange Commission sidestepped the law that protects investors from the very abuses committed by the Enron Corporation.
     In 1996, Representative Frisa was on the House Commerce Committee and a cosponsor of a bill to amend the Investment Company Act of 1940.  The new amendment was passed in 1996 and, according to Frisa, the amendment's intent is "to impose greater investor protections on the mutual companies governed by the statue."
     Also Representative Frisa indicated while the House Commerce Committee finalized the bill, "Enron vigorously sought provisions to enable its growing investment activities to be exempted from certain prohibitions in the law with regard to foreign investments and the shifting of debt from its books to the off-shore subsidiaries as well as from provisions preventing corporate officers from investing in partnerships related to the company."
     Although the House Commerce Committee thought Enron's provisions were "odd" at the time, they thought nothing of it.  Enron's provisions were ignored and were not included in the final amendment.  However, within a year of enactment, Enron sought relief from the new law and was granted exemption by the Clinton's Security and Exchange Commission.
     Now, what the hell is that all about?  Was there a quid pro quo?  I want to know what the Clintons and the Democrats got in return for their generosity, and I revert to one of my earlier commentaries, "Clinton does everything for a reason, and I believe that reason is normally money."  But, you know, the American people will never know because the left-leaning media is steering public attention away from these types of questions by drumming up sympathy for the Enron employees who lost millions, maybe even billions, in their 401k plans, while the Democrats redirect guilt away from the Clinton administration toward the Bush administration.
     It should be obvious to every American the spin machine is in high gear and the facts in this matter will never be known.  I have no sympathy for those who lost their lifesavings in the collapse of Enron, because they should have diversified.  Any wise investor knows not to but all his or her eggs in one basket.  And more importantly, the American taxpayer should not bail out these or any other investor who was a victim of a crime.  If Enron or some other entity did committed a crime, there are legal avenues in which these investors can pursue to obtain justice, and/or damages.  In my view, this is just plain and simple.
     I've also heard pundits on television say new laws should be enacted to protect the investor, but what they fell to realize is such laws are currently in place.  The Enron collapse occurred because the Clinton administration exempted Enron from these laws four years earlier.  And I say to these pundits, take the blinders off for you can't see where you are going.
     Interesting enough, the liberal news network, CNN, even reported a few weeks ago that Enron only paid income tax once since 1996.  This fact alone should raise a few eyebrows, especially since this is when the Clinton administration gave Enron the free pass on the new federal law, and possibly a few others.
     In any case, this whole thing stinks, and it's not because people lost their lifesavings.  It's because the Clintons are going to get another bye on their wrongdoings at the expense of the innocent and the American taxpayer.  According to WorldNetDaily, "Federal overseas economic-development agencies have financed or underwritten 18 Enron Corp. projects, exposing U.S. taxpayers to a total of more than $1.73 billion in potential liability, according to agency officials."  Open wide America, because here comes Billy-boy.
     All the while, the mainstream media gleefully report the Republicans, particularly the Bush administration, received Enron contributions.  However, they neglect to mention Enron gave $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee and Clinton's re-election effort in June of 1996, four days before India approved a multi-billion dollar contract to Enron for an energy project; a matter Bill Clinton had a say in.  Sounds like a quid pro quo to me.
     Regardless, Bush has already been blamed for Bill Clinton's recession, and the Democrats are desperate to find something on the Republicans, so when November rolls around, they'll have some dirt to throw.  And it won't surprise me that Bush will be blamed for the fall of Enron.  But even if the Democrats aren't able to pin some sort of improprieties on Bush for Enron, the current media blitz against Bush should be enough to tarnish the GOP to trick the America to vote Democrat.  And to tell you the truth, watching all this is truly disheartening.  Seeing justice be defied again and again is enough to completely turn me off of politics, and it's strengthening my belief that all politicians are self-serving and care nothing of our country or of her people.  And, regretfully, I must admit the liberals are winning.