Posted on 04/04/2002 8:01:20 AM PST by Mia T
FREE REPUBLIC EXCLUSIVES DOCUMENT CLINTON RAPES
FINGER HILLARY CLINTON AS CO-RAPIST AIDER AND ABETTOR, VICTIMIZER
otwithstanding the best efforts of hillary clinton, the Senate of the United States, Doris Kearns Goodwin and those 400 other hog-and-bow-tied-save-clinton retrograde-obsessing historiographers, and, of course, Betty Friedan, the rape of Juanita Broaddrick by bill clinton became perhaps the defining issue of his impeachment trial. The rape was quickly if quietly reduced by the House of Representatives--the only impeachment participant that history will view kindly--to the obvious. How can a rapist be a fit president? (How, indeed.)
I revisit this issue in The Real Danger of a Presidential Fake: Post-9/11 Reconsideration of The Placebo President. Nine-eleven has clarified for thoughtful democrats what Juanita Broaddrick, Eileen Wellstone, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers and clinton's "ministering to hundreds of troubled young girls"--the wife's euphemism for the ad nauseams--apparently did not: clinton putrescence was not "just about sex."
Even as bill clinton, the person, quickly fades into irrelevancy, 9/11 puts the lasting danger of the clinton presidency into sharp focus; and because the clintons have made it clear that they are not yet through with the trashing of the White House and the deconstructing our democracy, 9/11 renders the clinton rapes more relevant than ever.
Make no mistake. hillary clinton was never, ever some betrayed little wife. Not only was this wife aware of the sexual predation from day one, she aided and abetted the rapes and exploited the victims for decades. That is to say, to gain and maintain power, hillary clinton raped, too...
The clinton rapes, real devastation taken alone, synergistically affected, and ultimately became the metaphor for, the depraved clinton presidency itself. Chalk America's first rape up to ignorance. What will America's excuse be if she allows the clintons to violate her again?
|
BRITISH JOURNALIST: Yes, Clinton Raped a Second Woman
source withheld | 4-3-02 | Doug from Upland
oday I spent about 6 hours with a British journalist, now living in the U.S. We were joined for dinner by a mutual friend. The journalist, whose name I am withholding, has impeccable credentials and is in town for about a week on business. No, it is not Ambrose Evans Pritchard.
Both of these gentlemen did extensive research into the criminality of Bill Clinton. They have reviewed many documents from various law enforcement agencies and interviewed many people with first hand knowledge. Yes, it is as bad as we always have said it was.
Over dinner, I had the opportunity to grill my source and relive many of the Clinton moments. He was amazed when I brought up things he'd forgotten.
Mr. Source was very candid, and I wanted to share with you the biggest bombshell of the evening.
On this forum and at the FReeper Victory Brunch last year, I charged that Clinton raped another woman in addition to Juanita Broaddrick (and how many others, we wonder -- can you say Eileen Wellstone?). It happened during his first term as governor and the woman was treated at the hospital after being smashed in the face. Mr. Source confirmed what I had learned from another source. He interviewed a nurse who was at the hospital at the time. The woman said that the perpetrator, who hit and raped her, was none other than the Governor of Arkansas, William Jefferson Clinton. The doctor involved was scared to death and would not go on the record and be interviewed.
America, particularly you RATS, are you so afraid to face the truth? Do you feel it would make you look foolish? Would it erode the strength of the RAT party if everyone know they protected a rapist?
I guess those are silly questions. DemocRATS have no shame. It didn't matter that Clinton severely damaged our security, treated the White House like a whore house, committed perjury many times, and actually raped women. He's their guy and it is easier to blame those who brought the crimes to light than blame the criminal. Facing the truth would do too much damage. What disgusting lowlifes. All of them.
Oh, yes, I should not leave this out. Vince Foster did not kill himself in that park. Clinton personally knows the man who killed Jerry Parks. Clinton really was treated for a severe nose problem because of cocaine use. There really was a security tape showing Clinton going into Gennifer Flowers' apartment with his own key. Her audio tapes, in which he instructed her to lie, were not doctored. And my source outed David Brock on a radio show. |
The death of Betty Curry's brother is a very curious happening which did not get much coverage or discussion except on this forum.
And Monica was supposed to have said that she did not want to end up like Mary Mahoney. Although Marcia Lewis, Monica's mother, is on the public record that she wanted to keep the dress for Monica's protection.
The FBI agents who covered up the Mary Mahoney murder by finding a patsy were also assigned to the Chandra Levy case. The Levy case unfortunately signaled that Clinton's departure from office had not changed things in our government as much as one might had hoped for.
While the country has changed since 9/11, there are still not enough people out there who pay close attention to the Clintons and what they have in mind for this country. The Dems and their vile fear mongers remind me of the Islamic terrorist bombers - they just keep chipping away until they wear you down.
Wake up America - the terrorists are among us and their name is CLINTON.
Peter Paul Almond Joy® |
|
Nutrition |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is also barely a mention in Moore's book about the current war on terrorism. You can understand why. It raises questions the left simply doesn't want to answer. Was the American intervention in Afghanistan, which many leftists opposed, a liberating mission after all? How can leftists bemoan the removal of an oppressive, sexist, homophobic tyranny? But how at the same time could they support a war conducted by a president inimical to their beliefs and interests? On the opposite side of the spectrum between reason and unreason, the eminent liberal political theorist Michael Walzer has just written an essay worrying about exactly this kind of leftist surrealism. Unlike Moore, he's less concerned with a form of purist performance art than how the left can actually change America, if it hates her so. "The truth is," Walzer writes, "the guilt produced by living in such a country and enjoying its privileges makes it impossible to sustain a decent (intelligent, responsible, morally nuanced) politics. Maybe festering resentment, ingrown anger and self-hate are the inevitable result of the long years spent in fruitless opposition to the global reach of American power. Certainly, all those emotions were plain to see in the left's reaction to September 11, in the failure to register the horror of the attack, the barely concealed glee that the imperial state had finally got what it deserved." This anti-American nihilism is exactly what some parts of the left sought refuge in as terrorists killed thousands of their fellow citizens. In one gesture, such leftists both showed how far gone they were and also how unhinged from most Americans they had become. Walzer sees the deeper problem as an inheritance from the new left of the 1960s, a left that still cannot see religious motives for terror, for example, preferring to view Islamofascism with some kind of Marxist subtext, to the point of misreading the nature of the terrorist threat altogether. And he sees the endless legacy of defeat for the American left as a debilitatingly alienating experience: "Many left intellectuals live in America like internal aliens, refusing to identify with their fellow citizens, regarding any hint of patriotic feeling as a surrender to jingoism. That's why they had such difficulty responding emotionally to the attacks of September 11 or joining in the expressions of solidarity that followed." |
Why was the World Trade Center destroyed by kamikaze-style Islamic terrorist airline hijackers? Why did 5,000 American perish Sept. 11? Why was the Pentagon attacked? To hear former President Bill Clinton explain it, the United States of America is "paying a price today" for its past sins of slavery and for looking "the other way when a significant number of native Americans were dispossessed and killed." That's what he told 1,000 students at Georgetown University Wednesday evening, according to news reports. "This country once looked the other way when a significant number of native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human," Clinton said. "And we're still paying the price today." |
By Mia T, 3-3-02
It is obvious to anyone who bothers to remove his political blinders. It is so patently obvious that even those whose political blinders are a permanently fixed fashion statement -- that is to say, even Hollywood -- can see it. (Just ask Whoopie Goldberg...or Rosie O'Donnell...) Bush's poll numbers are a reflection of this self-evident truth. What is manifestly obvious and confirmed on a daily basis is the plain fact that Democrats are, by definition, constitutionally unfit to navigate the ship of state through these troubled, terrorist waters. Democrats were unfit pre-9/11, but few could see it then. It was 9/11 and its aftermath that made this truth crystal clear even to the most simpleminded among us. The unwashed masses, the uninformed, the disinformed can see it now. All America can see it now. Self-preservation is kicking in, trumping petty politics at every turn. And this is why Democrat demagoguery and stupidity and sedition are achieving new lows... We are witnessing the last gasp of a political relic. The Democrat party is not merely obsolete. As 9/11 and clinton-clinton-Daschle action and inaction have demonstrated, the Democrat party is very dangerous. We must now make sure that this fact, too, is obvious to all... |
That Joe Klein still thinks he can, post-9/11, credibly argue that clinton ran "a serious, disciplined, responsible presidency" is testament to leftist self-delusion, indeed, to the left's utter unfitness to govern. |
by Mia T, Mar. 14, 2002
n Hannity & Colmes last night, Joe Klein undermined the central thesis of his most recent clinton hagiography, "The Natural," that clinton ran "a serious, disciplined, responsible presidency." Klein exposed the absurdity of his own reasoning by admitting that "clinton was weak on terrorism," (a position, BTW, that is not inconsistent with the more enlightened current leftist dogma). The clintons' failure to confront terrorism -- the clintons' failure even to recognize the critical need to confront terrorism -- indeed, the clintons' aiding and abetting of the terrorists -- must necessarily be the defining moment of the clintons' --uh -- presidency, trumping even the systematic deconstructing of our society as a democracy by clinton corruption. . . And all of this, BTW, ultimately renders "sleaze, the sequel" unelectable, clinton "infrastructure" notwithstanding.
|
reckless rodham-clinton-gore reinvention-of-government schemata KNOWNOTHING VICTIMS RODHAM/CLINTON REVISITED Q ERTY2 "There isn't a shred of evidence." HILLARY, YOU KNOW, KnowNothing Victim Q ERTY4 double bagel, W I D E B O D Y. low-center-of-gravity Dim Bulb, Congenital Bottom Feeder clinton zipper vitiated by obvious spilth Q ERTY6 utter failure 4th-Estate Malfeasance (DEATH BY MISREPORT) rodham-clinton reality-check BUMP!
|
Please. Spare us your illogic. You are begging the question. The sorry history of the clintons is replete with numerous counterexamples of demonstrated clinton crimes and NO jail for the clintons. And as I stated previously:
That the clintons are run-of-the-mill rapists is not beyond the ken of thoughtful liberals like Susan Brownmiller (of Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape fame) and Christopher Hitchens. |
(Irreverent Opinion) by Susan Brownmiller Nothing sickens me more than the specter of famous-name feminists jumping to the defense of President Clinton whenever a new story emerges about his sexual habits. I voted for the lyin', cheatin, cutie pie twice, in line with the "lesser evil" theory of electoral politics, and I'm not sorry I did, but you won't catch me apologizing for him in public. On the other hand, I haven't been screaming for his resignation, either. Let's face it: the amiable rake with the wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am compulsions has shadow-boxed feminists into a corner. It's time for my sisters who sold their souls to the Democratic Party to fall on their swords and admit they've been mightily bamboozled, rather than pooh-pooh each fresh accusation. The cost of defending our prez has become entirely too high. It's turned into a repudiation of everything we've said for years about rape and sexual harassment. It's placed us in the disgusting, anti-feminist position of blaming the victim. It's ceded the moral high ground to cynical right-wingers who gleefully employ our rhetoric for their own nefarious ends. And it's prevented us from reminding the public that the charismatic liar with the crooked finger and lopsided grin has failed us on the important issues over and over. Let's get real. So what if he had a long, secret affair with Gennifer Flowers? What's evil is that he lied about it to save his political skin. So what if he let California bunny Monica Lewinsky snap her thongs and go down on him in the Oval Office? Not for a minute did I consider this tawdry, catch-as-catch-can diddling a case of sexual harassment, but I was flabbergasted that he tried to get away with another Big Lie. I am one of the few feminists I know who believed Paula Jones from the git-go. I believed Kathleen Willey and I believe Juanita Brodderick. Each of these women strikes me as a credible witness. Taken as a whole, we see a jack rabbit who grabs any nearby woman for a moment of relaxation. I do see fine distinctions between the Jones, Willey, and Brodderick stories. I've always suspected that he got his signals crossed with Jones; the scenario that makes the most sense is that he stupidly mistook her for a professional prostitute. And evidently he mistook the distraught Willey for a willing and eager Monica type. But Brodderick's story cannot be explained away. Yet you should hear some of my feminist sisters saying lame things like "She shouldn't have let him into her hotel room." She shouldn't have? Well, in retrospect I guess she shouldn't have, but remember, the venue was his suggestion. Brodderick thought the meeting was arranged to discuss nursing home regulations. Men take meetings in their hotel rooms all the time. Why should Brodderick have suspected that the earnest young pol was going to jump her the minute the door was closed? Okay, we have to concede that women still can't claim the privileges that men take for granted, like take a meeting in a hotel room without worrying whether it looks like an open invitation to rape or seduction, but feminists should not be blaming Brodderick for Bill Clinton's egregious misreading of her intentions. Rapists always say, "Gee, I thought that's what she wanted." It's endlessly fascinating to speculate about the Clintons' loveless, sexless marriage, and to ponder the terms of the unholy bargain that brought them to the top of the heap, but the real mystery is how the charmer managed to convince vast numbers of people he's the living embodiment of all the serious concerns articulated by women and blacks without doing damn much of anything at all. So he plays golf with Vernon Jordan and chose Betty Currie as his personal secretary-- we're supposed to consider this a sign of progress? In truth, he blithely used these loyal intimates to carry out his procurements, and then, when things started to blow, he used them again in a pathetic attempt to cover his tracks. Yes, Clinton has appointed more women to big jobs than any other president in history and that's nothing to snivel at, but rather than view a handful of high-profile women as some sort of blessed gift from on high, I see the appointments as one small result of thirty years of feminist agitation. Yes, he's held the line on abortion, but any Democratic president would have done the same thing. Now let's look at a few examples of how Clinton let us down so swiftly we could only gasp: signing the oppressive welfare bill, dropping Lani Guinier like a hot potato, firing the remarkable Jocelyn Elders for daring to mention masturbation (how's that for hypocrisy?), endorsing the Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy for the military, letting Janet Reno get away with the inferno at Waco, vetoing the needle-exchange legislation, ordering air strikes on two small, troubled countries to show he's the Free World's great macho leader. On balance, his record is atrocious.
Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer. A Natural History of Rape (Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1999). Thornhill and Palmer are professors at the University of New Mexico and the University of Colorado, respectively. See also an interview with Thornhill by David Concar in New Scientist 164 (February 19, 2000): 45-46. Biologists suggest President Clinton has followed the genetic program handed down by human evolution: have as much sex with as many females as possible in the Darwinian quest for hereditary survival. Michael Ruse (probably Canada's leading Darwinian philosopher) and Richard Dawkins (certainly England's most articulate evolutionist, as promotes this concept. "What Darwin says is that the most dominant male gets the first crack at the women," said Michael Ruse, . . . Darwinism has argued that survival is the main goal of organisms, and part of that quest is to produce as many offspring as possible. This evolution-driven impulse is working against the current concern of liberalism about the supposed population explosion and also over the AIDS epidemic generated by such sexual promiscuity. Nevertheless, these evolution-based lusts are quite natural, they say. The Times article then quotes from an article by Richard Dawkins in the London Observer, as follows: We lust because our ancestors' lust just helped pass their lustful genes on to us--What else does a man become a great chieftain for? Washington Times, March 1999, p. 5.
This contingency principle was demonstrated experimentally with a yeast culture that was maintained for many generations. Occasionally, a mutant strain would arise that increased reproductive success. These mutant strains would crowd out the formerly dominant strains. Samples of the most successful strains from the culture were taken across time. In later competition experiments, each strain would outcompete the immediately previously dominant type in a culture. However, some earlier isolates could outcompete strains that arose late in the experiment. (Would that we could put clinton in the Jefferson petri dish.) Competitive ability of a strain was always better than its previous type, but competitiveness in a general sense was not increasing. On April 25, 1978, in the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock, Ark., a nursing-home supervisor named Juanita Broaddrick was, she says, bitten and raped by the attorney general of Arkansas. As Joe Eszterhas describes it in ''American Rhapsody'': ''Finished, he got off the bed and put his pants back on. She was in shock, sobbing. He went to the door. He put his sunglasses on. He turned back and he looked at her. 'You better put some ice on that,' he said, and was gone.'' The alleged perp is now the president of these United States, and it's pretty clear that Joe Eszterhas thinks the story is true. (He says Broaddrick was ''as believable as anyone I'd ever seen on television,'' which is high praise in his idiom.) But, as he adds: ''It didn't matter. We were a tired people, tired of pornographic imagery on the evening news, tired of feeling we were mired in filth. This was the worst . . . and we didn't want to hear it.'' It all depends, here, on what the meaning of ''we'' is. For a start, who is Joe Eszterhas and how come he's our moral tutor in this fear-and-loathing tour of the Clinton sex scandals? If you've ever left a movie theater muttering to yourself, ''How'd that sucker ever get made?'' then you are probably familiar with Eszterhas's work. (I speak of ''Sliver,'' ''Showgirls,'' ''Jade'' and other insults.) Then again, if you've ever left a movie theater having had a slightly better time than you expected (''Music Box,'' ''F.I.S.T.''), then you have this hard-driving screenwriter to thank. Admit it, though, you probably know him from ''Basic Instinct.'' But since Hollywood's studio leadership has always been a reliable part of the pro-Clinton phalanx, you won't be seeing much of the Starr report on the silver screen. So when Eszterhas found himself consumed by the need to make sense of it all, his only recourse was a fact-based, ranting, rocking-and-rolling screed with none of the full-frontal scissored out. The ''we,'' it turns out, is the Who -- at least in the sense of ''My Generation.'' Eszterhas feels betrayed by Clinton, precisely because he once believed in him. Believed in him, that is, as the dope-smoking, draft-dodging adulterer of Mary Matalin's encapsulation. The boy-prince of the Rolling Stone set. ''One of us,'' in Jann Wenner's own unashamed words. So this is a long yell of protest from a professional hedonist who, faced with the ugliness of professionalized hedonism in the White House, doesn't care for the refraction of the mirror ... There are two or three chapters that rise above this, however, and that illustrate Eszterhas's hit-or-miss talent. He has acquired a real feel for the vulnerable, endearing, needy, hopeless character of Monica Lewinsky; the fat girl who was used and abused and who was only a fleck of evidence away from being denounced as a stalker and a mythomane. He fashions a near-brilliant evocation of the qualities of Vernon Jordan, the stoic and phlegmatic ally who knew exactly what he was doing, and who did it for a friend whose moral character was infinitely inferior to his own. And he is extremely funny about the shrink defenses that the first lady and other amateurs have proposed: ''A modern president, Bill Clinton was allegedly the victim of incest, pedophilia, child abuse, erotomania, sexual addiction, gambling addiction, alcohol addiction, rage addiction, wife beating, husband beating, grandfather beating, low self-esteem, jealousy and poverty. . . . There he was on television, this victim in chief, asking to be forgiven for something he wouldn't admit to having done.'' Finally -- and I curse myself for not noticing this at the time -- Eszterhas grabs the ironic coincidence of Richard Nixon's Monica. That's Monica Crowley, the trusting young intern and amanuensis who shared so much private time with the sage of Saddle River, N.J., and won his lonely, self-pitying and self-aggrandizing confidences only to make a book out of them. But at least Tricky Dick never told her that she might also share his life after Pat was gone... The book begins with a puzzle: How did the flower children fall for such a self-evident thug and opportunist? And it offers a possible hypothetical answer, which is that ''the Night Creature'' -- Nixon -- and his heirs and assigns could not ever possibly be allowed to be right about anything. When Eszterhas writes about Nixon, and his admirers like Lucianne Goldberg, he hits an overdrive button and summons the bat cave of purest evil. He hasn't read as much recent history as he thinks he has, or he would know that his forebears were mesmerized in precisely the same way to believe that Alger Hiss was framed. Thus does Nixon inherit an undeserved and posthumous victory. If by chance we ever elect a bent and unscrupulous Republican president, he or she will have a whole new thesaurus of excuses, public and ''private,'' with which to fend off impeachment. These ''bipartisan'' excuses will have been partly furnished by the ''nonjudgmental'' love generation. If Eszterhas had had the guts to face this fact, he could have written a book more like ''F.I.S.T.'' instead of ''Sliver.'' Meanwhile, and almost but not quite unbelievably, we await the president's comment on Juanita Broaddrick's allegation. Christopher Hitchens (on American Rhapsody), Basic Instinct
Had to read this title a couple times ..................
BUMP! Power corrupts ,,,and power corrupts the impotent absolutely. (Those who can't, become politicians,) Notwithstanding its purported advantage in process, we must get rid of the professional politician. (The clinton legacy will be one of corrupted impotence mutated. The impotent, arrogant, not-so-swift clintons never understood the importance of nuance in their grasp for power.) |
THE OTHER NIXON In this postmodern Age of clinton, we may, from time to time, selectively stomach corruption. But we must never abide ugliness. Never.
The clinton legacy will be one of corrupted impotence mutated. The impotent, arrogant, not-so-swift clintons never understood the importance of nuance in their grasp for power. |
|
Excuse me, but............are you on drugs???? Or maybe...........have you been sleeping for the past 9 years???
Their Crime Machine is very much still at work. The plans for expanding their power are very much IN ACTION.
The war on terror and the terrible tensions in the Middle East serve two purposes for THE CLINTON / DNC CRIMINALS:
1. They distract the President and his Justice Department from ever having the time (even if they develop the inclination) to go after any of the needed criminal investigations against the Clinton Crime Mafia.
2. They also distract him and the Republican party and the American people from the full campaign effort needed to stop the crime machine's power expansion and voter fraud plans now in the works....or so they think. So, while his administration fights to defend this country and route out terrorists wherever they hide and the nations which harbor them -- and while many Americans - though back at "life as usual" - are quite aware of potential further terrorist attacks at home - it is the PARTY OF RAPISTS which is hard at work - sort of under the radar - to put as many Clintonistas into positions of power as possible in 2002 - along with the ultimate goal of taking over the Congress and keeping the Senate.
THEY HAVE THE MONEY FROM EVERY ENEMY OF THIS COUNTRY NO DOUBT FLOWING INTO THEIR OFF SHORE COFFERS.
That's why ads are running NOW for their Clintonista candidates (like Bowles in NC). They have so much money from their Hollywood supporters and their criminal supporters and their Chinese, Palistinian, and Islamic supporters - that the stupid campaign finance rules are just that - STUPID - to them.
The only thing I would add to anything you post, MiaT is this. Not only was Hillary Clinton a co-rapist. SO WAS THE ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. IT IS THE PARTY THAT SUPPORTS RAPISTS. We must make that point at every turn. Without the "Party's" support for the rapists, he/she could NOT POSSIBLY have remained in power!!!! period!!!
The Clintonoids hate her because she used the same weapon they tried to use on her. She just went to the top shelf, went nuclear and beat them at their own game.
The fact that she taped Lewinsky was an attempt to assemble a defensive posture for herself as the Clintons via Sid Blumenthal and others came after her. Tripp was the one who advised Lewinsky to hang on to the blue dress.
There is an argument that saving that dress saved Lewinsky's life as she was being slimed as a "stalker" and a deviant by Blumenthal prior to the revelation of the dress' existence.
You preach about letting all of this go, but what you do not get is that this is but one more element that comprises a pattern of behavior, a level of activity, a fundamental and sinister corruption and absolute dishonesty that pervaded the Clinton White House, the Clintons, their various imps, demons, hangers-on and other familiars, and does to this day.
To let any part of their corrupt activities "go", is to begin the absolution process for everything else; secrets to China, illegal campaign cash, lives and reputations destroyed, the very safety and security of the United States imperiled.
I do not find that acceptable.
The Clintons are the embodyment of everything that plagues my generation; venal, damnably dishonest, self absorbed, indifferent to honor, history, or basic decency. Their self rightous prattle, their faux elitist, intellectually dishonest,behaviour fouls everything they touch.
Let it go? I think not.
Regards,
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.