Posted on 05/10/2014 12:18:28 AM PDT by dignitasnews
This was superb.
I enjoyed your post and hope you will expand on it and send it up as a vanity. My only disagreement with the premise of this article is when it all started, which was with Whitewater, Cattlegate, Vince Foster, Waco, and the previous Clinton women. They had already sold their souls by the time Monica came around, and didn’t even report the story.
Liberalism came back as the form it always was - pure unadulterated Fascism.
I thought you would never ask…
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.
That concluding paragraph should be read/re-read carefully by all. He is warning that we are up against single party statists, with all e ugliness that implies.
Exactly!
I didn’t read the whole thing and stand corrected.
The Progressives goal is to make the Collective comply with the masters.
Thank you for that thoughtful post, something we all have come to expect from you. You understand completely what we’re up against, and it sure isn’t pretty. You note, “This is a fight to the political death.” That it is, and if we lose, all we treasure in this country will be lost, all of it.
Progressive = Repressive
This has always been the goal of the Progressives.
While Americans can almost universally agree that the greatness of our republic comes from our political traditions of two-party conflict and debate, those of us on the conservative side of the aisle are beginning to wonder, aloud, if we find ourselves facing simply a political opposition or a true enemy that seeks to destroy and silence us, to pave the way for one-party rule and an end to our democratic traditions.And as we look at the actions, ferocity and methods of the modern left in the two decades since the Monica Lewinsky affair, we cant help but wonder if this marks the death of pluralism and if we need employ similar methods to avoid becoming extinct. As we survey the political landscape, we no longer can find any 'classical" liberals, only Democrats who seek victory at all cost.
given how they are now i’d say they came back as zombies.
Indeed. Thats why they have no right to call themselves liberals.
Paul,welcome to FreeRepublic.
I found your article to be almost exactly my view of the last 16 years.
And your conclusion is that liberalism as we who are more then 50 years old understood it, died with the Monica Lewinsky affair.
Since the events leading up February 12, 1999 from 12 months previously, we saw a shift from a deliberate attempt to up-nd our view as Americans of what was right and wrong, and were offered a ringside seat to tactics designed to cover for a lawbreaking President and to, at all costs, hold onto the reigns of power, no matter the cost to society.
The failure of the Senate to do its job and to remove a sitting President due to illegal acts forever inoculated the Democrats to being held to ANY standard.
It also signaled that the Democrat Party and the MSM were now wedded into a monolithic Communist enterprise which meant to consolidate its power over America, strip its wealth, and destroy America’s moral integrity and defense of freedom worldwide.
These Communists began their long march 100 years ago with the Progressives, infiltrated the ranks of DC in the 1930s, and set the stage for the Cold War, with defeats, or perhaps more accurate “non-victories” in both Korea and Vietnam, instigating racial riots in the 1960s and the 1990s, and installing one of their own as President in 1993.
The eight years of Clinton and his harridan wife, while good ecomically, were a moral disaster for our nation, leading to its most horrific and costly attack on its citizens since its founding with the events of 9/11/01, and the financial collapse of September-November 2008.
This ushered in the Manchurian Candidate of all times to finish the process since 2009.
So, we no longer are in a fight against classic liberalism. We are now anchored in a fight to the finish with true forces of Communism which mean to finally win the Cold War with the crowning achievement of the neutralization of America as a global power for freedom, the delegation of the Constitution to the scrap heap of history, and the total stripping of the finances of the American government and its people, ending in national collapse, resulting in a Balkanization of these once-united States.
This is where we find ourselves in May of 2014.
We have less then six months to wake America up and to vote out Democrats across the board in order to save our nation from catastrophe.
The Democrats have proven over and over again that only raw power matters, at whatever cost is borne by the American people being irrelevant.
They must relegated to the scrap heap or history or we will be.
“By Paul M Winters”
Really?
You know...
I don’t see you posting anything BUT Paul M Winters.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:dignitasnews/index?tab=articles
Could it be that you are just here to promote yourself>
Thank you very much. I concur 100%.
I didnt know that there was a problem with that. Free Republic certainly seem to mind, why do you?
You don't see a problem with USING Free Republic as a free (stolen) source of advertising?
Really?
They are very well aware of who I am, what I post and guided me where to post to. This is the “Bloggers” forum. Im not posting this to “news” or any other source. What is the problem? If you dont like my work, dont read it..very simple. My understanding is this is a forum to help spread conservative thought. Go look at my site, Im not flooded with ads...Im monetized about enough to cover my monthly hosting..and thats good enough for me.
And all you can find in that genre is your own writing?
Dont read my articles...very simple. Im sorry if between working full time and doing my blog I dont have the time to promote other sources, which Ive done for years. I list all my article sources on my blog.....
bttt because I like bumping NathanBedford
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.