Posted on 10/04/2007 1:56:08 PM PDT by nathanbedford
From High-Tech Lynching to Impeachment
Someday historians will acknowledge the direct causal relationship between the near high tech lynching of Clarence Thomas and the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
Liberal partisans such as Nina Totenberg, disguised as reporters, contrived as feminists to enrage much of the world against Clarence Thomas for alleged offenses which, in the wake of Clinton's sordid grotesqueries and felonies committed during the Monica Lewinsky affair, can only be considered trivial. What exactly did Thomas do to Anita Hill? She testified for the first time years after the alleged facts, that he (1) exclaimed that there was a "pubic hair" on his coke can and that he (2) had seen the movie Long Dong Silver. She also alleged that Thomas repeatedly (3) asked her out, (4) bragged of his sexual prowess, and (5) said that he had satisfied women with oral sex.
What Bill Clinton did a couple of years later was so egregious that it renders these unsubstantiated allegations merely frivolous, a fey neuroses of a bizarre era: Bill Clinton, in contrast to Thomas, sodomized a young intern in the Oval Office with a cigar and masturbated into the presidential sink; Bill Clinton repeatedly talked dirty to his young intern over the telephone while they mutually masturbated ; Bill Clinton suffered his young intern to fellate him while she was crouched under the presidential desk. I wonder what Nina Totenberg's reaction would have been had she learned that Bill Clinton had committed the atrocity of asking Monica Lewinsky out on a formal date?
Liberals say that the matter was all about redressing the imbalance of the power relationship between men and women, between master and servant, and between boss and employee. Of course, the relationship of Clinton and Lewinsky fit this template perfectly. But the Clintons did not stop there, they tag-teamed women who complained of sexual mistreatment (even actual assaults) by Bill Clinton and compounded his original crimes. Gennifer Flowers was made to lie publicly to protect Bill Clinton, to sign a perjurious affidavit denying their relationship, and suffered her apartment to be ransacked. Kathleen Willey was intimidated professionally by ominous strangers. Juanita Broderick was admonished by Hillary Clinton, the implication clear that Broderick was to remain silent about her rape by Bill Clinton. Those women whose silence and lies could not be assured by intimidation were vilified, publicly humiliated, and discredited as "sluts and nuts".
There are other such examples that make anyone who has even the most cavalier concern for women's rights righteously indignant. The Nina Totenberg's of the world never turned a hair.
It is hard to believe how the liberals succeeded with the Thomas hearings in convulsing a nation over these frivolous charges which were very likely untrue, explicitly denied, and otherwise uncorroborated. For three days the nation sat transfixed before its television sets absorbing a drama played out in the judiciary committee of the United States Senate.
As a result of these proceedings it is possible, if not likely, that four leftist women were added to the United States Senate as Democrats: Murray, Moseley Braun, Mikulski, Feinstein, and Boxer. Indeed, 1992, the year following the hearings, became known as the "Year of the Woman." The ripple effect from these proceedings extended beyond politics and beached again in the judiciary as Bill Clinton appointed to the Supreme Court an extreme feminist, an arch advocate for the ACLU, and, in my view, a bloodthirsty abortionist, Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
It is not a stretch to assert that the election of Bill Clinton was clearly advanced by the contrived hysteria surrounding the Clarence Thomas hearings. Clinton's famous sales pitch, "vote for me and you get her-two for the price of one", referring to Hillary Rodham-Clinton, was simply echoing the drumbeating on behalf of Clinton and Rodham by the mainstream media press who had dubbed Hillary to be, "the smartest woman in the world" in the run-up to The Year of the Woman. Polls taken during the course of the hearings of Americans who actually watched the proceedings on television and drew their conclusions from what they saw, revealed that Americans believed Clarence Thomas and did not believe Anita Hill. Polls taken months and years later, after the mainstream media had its relentless way with the public, reflected precisely the opposite sentiment.
After Clinton attained the White House, and a coalition of Democrats passed The Violence against Women Act over the opposition of minority Republicans. That pernicious statute federalized domestic violence and distorted our precious presumption of innocence. If there is a saying of the law, "hard cases make bad law", surely there is a corollary, "mass psychosis makes for bad laws." Even the ACLU was led to criticize the excesses of the statute.
The Clintons and the Democrats shamelessly exploited the feminist pathology as the national psychosis played out in the Clarence Thomas hearings. They rode it into the White House. But irony had yet a card to play. In addition to the Violence Against Women Act, the Democrats contrived a law which made admissible into evidence alleged incidences of sexual-harassment which a defendant in such a lawsuit might have previously engaged in against a third unrelated party. The theory behind the law: once a cad always a cad; so evidence of bad behavior on one day is proof of bad behavior on another day. Bill Clinton signed this bill into law. With the stroke of his own pen, Bill Clinton ensured that his sexual peccadilloes against Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, and especially, Monica Lewinsky would become the stuff of Paula Jones' lawsuit.
When the Monica Lewinsky scandal erupted, I was struck by the dichotomy between the reactions of folks here in Germany and back home in America. Later, I was to be struck by a similar dichotomy in reaction to the invasion of Iraq. The unanimity of opinion in Germany was striking. Germans simply could not believe America had lost its mind over a trivial matter like sex and they certainly could not believe that the world's only superpower would overthrow its government over a few bumps and tickles. Ultimately, the German view would come to prevail in America and the case in impeachment against Bill Clinton would not lie in the Senate. The assault on Clarence Thomas also failed, but no one ever said he got even any bumps or tickles in compensation for his ordeal. To the contrary and unto this day he is denied by the left even the decency of an acknowledgment that he has conducted himself utterly free of taint. Justice Thomas' only compensation would be the quiet inner satisfaction that comes from a righteous life, a "Normal Christian Life,"
I did not share the German view then and I do not hold it now. I believe that Bill Clinton committed high crimes and misdemeanors in trying to fix a civil trial (for money and reputation), that he conspired to fix a court case (with Monica Lewinsky, Betty Currie), that in furtherance of that conspiracy he suborned perjury (of Monica Lewinsky, Betty Currie), conspired to hide evidence, hid evidence (gifts hidden under the bed), and actually committed perjury (too notorious to require recounting). These were all felonies and as such they qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under the constitutional standard for impeaching a president. Further, the president is the chief law enforcement officer in the land and by committing a string of felonies he breached his constitutional duty to see to the faithful execution of the laws-which misfeasance constitutes additional impeachable offenses. One need only consider the brouhaha over the alleged misrepresentations to Congress of Attorney General Gonzales, or the ordeal of Scooter Libby, to understand the gravity of the real offenses committed by Clinton.
As the Lewinsky impeachment drama played out and it became apparent that Slick would slither around impeachment, those of us who had a memory span larger than a gnat and so recalled the hysteria of the Clarence Thomas hearings, were utterly dumbfounded. I can recall explaining to my German friends and neighbors that the Monica Lewinsky affair was not just about sex but about the very real and important felonies I have described. One could tell from the expression on their faces that they had never heard this information before yet they received it quite skeptically even begrudgingly. I challenge any reader to lay out Bill Clinton’s crimes to your apolitical American friends and neighbors. I bet you will get the same reaction today of surprise, indifference, and even hostility from most Americans. Like the vines of Angkor Wat, time has shrouded Clinton's crimes.
It is a sure bet that few of them will remember the Clarence Thomas hearings, their context and aftermath, much less will they be aware of the chain of causation which led from the near high tech lynching of Clarence Thomas to the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.
I would imaging that Robert Packwood would fit in there someplace as well. Oh, and Newt, and Bob Livingston, too.
It should be pretty obvious to everyone by now that NONE of the Democrats in the House or Senate can ever be presumed to be heterosexual.
bump for history. I haven’t seen such a clear recitation of the Clinton Crimes in years.
The hypocrisy of self-proclaimed “feminist organizations” regarding Clinton’s sexual predations is outrageous.
One pertaining to "Liberal Guilt".
My wife watched the entire sordid mess live on TV. When I'd watch the evening news with her and they "reported" on what had happened, she couldn't believe it. There was almost no correlation between what she had seen and what the reporters said. For one thing, they uniformly ignored that EVERY other woman who had worked with or for him testified indignantly that he had always behaved as a perfect gentleman.
Guys who are into this type of power trip do it over and over. It's a pattern of behavior. Thomas didn't do it.
At least he wasn't accused of child molestation. I guess that's the next big bomb that somebody will drop.
My wife watched the entire sordid mess live on TV. When I'd watch the evening news with her and they "reported" on what had happened, she couldn't believe it. There was almost no correlation between what she had seen and what the reporters said. For one thing, they uniformly ignored that EVERY other woman who had worked with or for him testified indignantly that he had always behaved as a perfect gentleman.
Guys who are into this type of power trip do it over and over. It's a pattern of behavior. Thomas didn't do it.
At least he wasn't accused of child molestation. I guess that's the next big bomb that somebody will drop.
Packwood had to be taken out by the Clintonistas because he was Senate Finance Chairman (and because he would be replaced by a Dem if driven out, which he was). While his behavior was poor, what he did was nothing compared to anything an average rodent has done.
“NONE of the Democrats in the House or Senate can ever be presumed to be heterosexual”
True, but, they ALL can be presumed to be self-loathing.
Maybe not Barney Frank ~ Ann Lewis may be, but Barney seems to like it.
He didn't. He was impeached. Only the second President to be impeached. The other was Johnson, no not LBJ, but Andrew Johnson, who became President after Lincoln was killed. Both Slick and Johnson were impeached. Neither was convicted in the Senate nor removed from office.
But I think the 1868 Senate at least *looked at* the evidence, unlike Clinton's "jury". Johnson's "crimes" were mostly political, involving reconstruction policy and which branch of government should set it, and thus not really crimes at all, but policy disagreements. Clinton's crimes were personal and quite criminal indeed.
In a sane and rational society which sought to preserve itself for future generations, Justice Thomas would be held out as the consummate example to follow, especially for those from humble beginnings who must use self-reliance to advance one's lot in life. However, in our children's history books, paid for with our tax dollars, Justice Thomas must not be praised nor cited as a positive role model, for to do so would not be politically correct, i.e. it would not advance the liberal agenda. In our demented society it is considered politically correct to malign and smear such a man (and even openly wish for his early death), especially if he happens to be Black, because there is no greater threat to those who demean our county than a man like Clarence Thomas who has risen from the depths of poverty to embrace, credit and profess his admiration for the nation which made it possible to do so.
The defenders and supporters of Anita Hill were the first to slander the victims of Bill Clinton, showing once and for all that there is no grand allegiance to any moral principal whatsoever from these people. The only motive in play is the attainment and expansion of power, and every person standing in the way must be destroyed. Have they gone too far? Has the absurdity of their actions become so obvious that it is now evident to every person with an IQ above a lollipop? Apparently not, because the last couple of months have shown us that even more brazen attacks are underway. It seems the Clinton-MoveOn-MSM machine feels itself to be in utter control and free to set whatever agenda within whatever parameters it chooses.
If this machine succeeds in putting Hillary in power, the next four years will be one helluva ride. I can envision that little blonde haired Alice frantically searching for her looking glass in order to climb back through into Wonderland, just to escape a place which has gone more insane than Louis Carroll could have ever imagined.
Being a liberal requires some very interesting mental contortions. Of course, when they attacked Judge Thomas, they had no idea that Bill and Monica were coming. Standing by Clinton in light of the accusations of Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick and Kathleen Willey looks pretty silly when they were ready to crucify Judge Thomas solely on the word of Anita Hill. Or maybe womens’ rights is just an empty vessel they attach their leftist agenda to, like environmentalism. To them, of course, this all makes perfect sense.
bttt
One disagreement on an otherwise interesting article. Time did not shroud them, they were deliberately shrouded by the MSM, the Clintons, and spun by Carville, Stephanopolis, et al.
Bump for later.
22 Ways to be a GOOD DEMOCRAT
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented cyclical changes in the earth’s climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV’s.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can’t teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don’t care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make “The Passion of the Christ” for financial gain only.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is a very nice person who was shocked by her husband’s infidelities.
17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried is because the right people haven’t been in charge.
18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.
19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese government is in the best interest to the United States.
21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.
22. You have to believe that it’s okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day but it’s not okay to say “Merry Christmas.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.