FREE REPUBLIC EXCLUSIVES DOCUMENT CLINTON RAPES / FINGER HILLARY CLINTON

IMHO the single most damning piece of evidence on the public record against the Clinton reign of terror comes via Gennifer Flowers. Flowers put her tapes on the public record for her safety as much as for profit. She had reasons to fear for her safety. When Clinton's crowd suspected that Flowers might go public, they sent some investigators to her apartmenent where she was living with a roommate. Flowers was not home but they talked to her roommate. But they asked a question which was intended as a chilling threat. They asked,"Is the Gennifer the kind of girl who might commit suicide?".

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.

Mia - thanks for keeping the clinton crimes active. I believe it's vital that this be done since I'm seeing more and more of the clinton people creeping back out of their holes and spewing their lies on TV. Case in point - CNN's new Cross Fire with Begala and Carville. While I admit I can not stand to watch one of their shows, I have happened to flick by a couple of times. And each time I've gotten just a sound bite of either Begala or Carville slamming Bush with the old hate-baiting spew. Now we hear that Phil Donahue will be a host on MSNBC. If anyone heard his wild-eyed rantings after 9/11 - we should be truely afraid - he's a nut case. It's apparent to me that the media and cable - other than FoxNews are starting to build their liberal ranters again. Why would this be since FoxNews is leading in the ratings? Are they getting set to support the BEAST when she throws her hat in the Presidental ring? We should be very afraid.

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.

Slow learners? Why? cause this garbage isn't in the main stream media? could you get any more insane? I mean seriously none of this matters and you know it.. all you clinton haters can't let go... it's like you people are the sad type that sits around the house all day after you got ditched on prom night.... Your post just clarify's that point I was making earlier.. thanks!

Uh.. actually it was none of Linda's business first off to go poking her nose around.. two if that's your whole basis for this scandal then why not lock up 70% of america.. that's cause 7 out of 10 of you people have had at least one divorce.. and i bet a good portion of you people also have cheated at least on a b/f or g/f in the past so don't go all high and mighty with me. Believe there is alot worse things(China) this man did you could bring to light if you want to see him in jail. It truly is sad when people become so hateful they would rake someone's personal life over the coals like a bad tabloid when not a single one of us would dare want to put our personal lives on center stage.

Peter Paul Almond Joy®
Nutrition
Facts

Amount/serving

%DV**

Amount/serving

%DV**

Total spin 14443g

2%

Total DISINFORMATION 1907895g

4%

Sat. Balkanization 9654g

3%

Total HATE 966695g

2%

Delusion 65675mg

1%

Total REVISIONISM 8666765g

5%

*Accurate information

*Daily Value of these nutrients in a typical LEFTIST DIET is ZERO.

Serving Size
1 package - 1.76oz

Calories 240
Empty Calories 240

**

Percent daily Values (DV)
are baed on a typical LEFTIST DIET of spin, Balkanization and delusion

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."

Andrew Sullivan: America's left surrenders itself to the giant sulk

The Sunday Times (U.K.)

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."
Clinton blames America

IT IS OBVIOUS

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.
JOE KLEIN STRIKES OUT. . . AGAIN

JOE KLEIN UNDERMINES OWN THESIS
Admits to Hannity: "clinton was weak on terrorism"

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).
But only in a deluded liberal's mind could such an utter failure as a president be considered a successful president...
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.

it won't s-p-i-n
They ARE space aliens
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}
_{Q ERTY3} ^{zipper-hoisted}
clinton zipper vitiated by obvious spilth
_{Humpty Dummies}
Q ERTY6 _{utter failure} ^{4th-Estate Malfeasance} (DEATH BY MISREPORT)
_{rodham-clinton} ^{reality-check}BUMP!

RAPE is not a personal act. Get real.

That wasn't very nice to go filling my "new posts to you" screen with all that.. I'm disappointed.

Nor do you have any proof he did it.. if you did.. he would be in jail... it's ok.. calm down. I didn't try and marginalize rape.. if you want to make that part of arguement go right ahead but you aren't making a better case for yourself by doing so.

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:

It IS possible to prove by induction (and to confirm using FBI profiling of the POWER ASSERTIVE serial rapist) that the degenerate is a sexual predator and rapist.
There IS evidence that clinton raped Broaddrick. There ARE multiple witnesses to whom Broaddrick contemporaneously and independently and consistently told the story of her rape by clinton. There IS a witness to Broaddrick's injuries, shock and torn clothes, who saw all this evidence within minutes of the rape.
Evidence that clinton raped Broaddrick (and others) exists. It is (was?) in the Ford Building. Ask the Congressmen who courageously confronted it (and the Senators who assiduously avoided it).

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.

Bill Clinton, Jack Rabbit
(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.


NYTimes
January 15, 2000

What Provokes a Rapist to Rape?
Scientists Debate Notion of an Evolutionary Drive


By ERICA GOODE

Rape is primarily a crime of violence and power, not sex. Or so a generation
of social scientists and feminist scholars have argued.

But in a forthcoming book, two evolutionary scientists say this view is born
of ideology, not science, and is "based on empirically erroneous, even
mythological, ideas about human development, behavior and psychology."

In fact, they assert in "A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of
Sexual Coercion," that rape "is in its very essence a sexual act" and that
the practice may have evolved because it confers an evolutionary advantage <snip>

"Evolutionary Psychology" has recently been vigorously promoted in a controversial book called A Natural History of Rape. According to this view, the growing incidence of rape (both female and male) in our society--like all other sinful sexual practices (sinful, that is, in the Biblical sense)--is understandable in terms of the widespread acceptance of evolutionism. After all, if as noted above, it is a natural evolutionary drive for males to "produce as many offspring as possible" with "as many females as possible," then when this instinct is thwarted by a reluctant female, or a disapproving society, men must resort to rape. Even homosexual rape is supposed to have an evolutionary rationale in terms of struggle and dominance.

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?

Since such behavior is part of our evolutionary genetics, they argue that we must not legislate against it, even though it is producing too much population. The remedy, they say, is not to return to Biblical morality, but to promote "safe sex" and abortion (perhaps also infanticide and euthanasia), and even homosexuality. These practices are said to be common in the animal world, so are part of acceptable evolutionary philosophy.

Washington Times, March 1999, p. 5.

the contingency principle

by Mia T

A trait or strategy that is successful at one time may be unsuccessful at another. Evolution is not progress. Populations are simply adapting to their current surroundings. Populations do not necessarily become better in any absolute sense over time.

Take RAPE. It may have been an evolutionary imperative for Homo erectus in the Pleistocene Epoch, but one can hardly argue that it is adaptive behavior for Homo sapiens in the year 2000, Boy Rapist-President notwithstanding.

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.

Any organism's success depends on the behavior of its contemporaries. (If you doubt this, just ask David Schippers.) For most traits or behaviors, there is likely no optimal design or strategy, only contingent ones.

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

Is it possible that a women could drive a man to rape? I mean there are certain, ahem, duties of marriage that, if not attended to, could , well, you know.

*********" News/Activism ^ | FREE REPUBLIC EXCLUSIVES DOCUMENT CLINTON RAPES / FINGER HILLARY CLINTON ^"***********************************

Had to read this title a couple times ..................

Mia-thanks so much for your work. Our country will need to see justice-if only to fully comprehend how and why this came to pass-where the Constitutional chink is that has been wedged open. The REALLY interesting part of this story is-what forces have successfully stood in the way so far? and who do THEY really represent?

Mia,he WILL live a long time and there are MANY more horrible things to be revealed.Don't even think of letting up either! Thanks for listing this book too,it's one I missed!"Christopher Hitchens, NO ONE LEFT TO LIE TO"---I wonder what the possible release date is,for all that 'Unseen Evidence' (by both 'Dems and 'Pubs) in the Ford Building?THAT is what I want to know.Someone,Somewhere knows what has happened to this evidence,if anything.Is it still just taking up space?God I hope so.

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.)

Well, with the help of the 100 corrupt and cowardly cullions, clinton
walked. The senators' justification for their acquittal votes requires
the suspension of rational thought (and, in the curious case of Arlen
Specter, national jurisdiction).

--Musings: Senatorial Courtesy Perverted, Mia T

THE OTHER NIXON

by Mia T

Hypocrisy abounds in this Age of clinton, a Postmodern Oz rife with constitutional deconstruction and semantic subversion, a virtual surreality polymarked by presidential alleles peccantly misplaced or, in the case of Jefferson, posthumously misappropriated.

Shameless pharisees in stark relief crowd the Capitol frieze:

Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Bryan, Byrd, Cohen, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Gore, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Moynihan, Reid, Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer.

These are the 28 sitting Democratic senators, the current Vice President and Secretary of Defense -- clinton defenders all -- who, in 1989, voted to oust U.S. District Judge Walter Nixon for making "false or misleading statements to a grand jury."

In 1989 each and every one of these men insisted that perjury was an impeachable offense.
(What a difference a decade and a decadent Democrat make.)

Senator Herb Kohl (November 7, 1989):
"But Judge Nixon took an oath to tell the truth and the whole truth. As a grand jury witness, it was not for him to decide what would be material. That was for the grand jury to decide. Of all people, Federal Judge Walter Nixon certainly knew this.

"So I am going to vote 'guilty' on articles one and two. Judge Nixon lied to the grand jury. He misled the grand jury. These acts are indisputably criminal and warrant impeachment."

Senator Tom Daschle (November 3, 1989):
"This morning we impeached a judge from Mississippi for failing to tell the truth. Those decisions are always very difficult and certainly, in this case, it came after a great deal of concern and thoughtful analysis of the facts."

Congressman Charles Schumer (May 10, 1989):
"Perjury, of course, is a very difficult, difficult thing to decide; but as we looked and examined all of the records and in fact found many things that were not in the record it became very clear to us that this impeachment was meritorious."

Senator Carl Levin (November 3, 1989):
"The record amply supports the finding in the criminal trial that Judge Nixon's statements to the grand jury were false and misleading and constituted perjury. Those are the statements cited in articles I and II, and it is on those articles that I vote to convict Judge Nixon and remove him from office."

* * * * *

"The hypocrite's crime is that he bears false witness against himself," observed the philosopher Hannah Arendt. "What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core."

If hypocrisy is the vice of vices, then perjury is the crime of crimes, for
perjury provides the necessary cover for all other crimes.

David Lowenthal, professor emeritus of political science at Boston College makes the novel and compelling argument that perjury is "bribery consummate, using false words instead of money or other things of value to pervert the course of justice" and, thus, perjury is a constitutionally enumerated high crime.

The Democrats' defense of clinton's perjury -- and their own hypocrisy -- is
three-pronged.

ONE:

clinton's perjuries were "just about sex" and therefore "do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense."

This argument is spurious. The courts make no distinction between perjuries. Perjury is perjury. Perjury attacks the very essence of democracy. Perjury is bribery consummate.

Moreover, (the clinton spinners notwithstanding), clinton's perjury was not "just about sex." clinton's perjury was about clinton denying a citizen justice by lying in a civil rights-sexual harassment case about his sexual history with subordinates.

TWO:

Presidents and judges are held to different standards under the Constitution.

Because the Constitution stipulates that federal judges, who are appointed for life, "shall hold their offices during good behavior,'' and because there is no similar language concerning the popularly elected, term-limited president, it must have been perfectly agreeable to the Framers, so the (implicit) argument goes, to have a perjurious, justice-obstructing reprobate as president.

clinton's defenders ignore Federalist No. 57, and Hillary Rodham's constitutional treatise on impeachable acts -- written in 1974 when she wanted to impeach a president; both mention "bad conduct" as grounds for impeachment.

"Impeachment," wrote Rodham, "did not have to be for criminal offenses -- but only for a 'course of conduct' that suggested an abuse of power or a disregard for the office of the President of the United States...A person's 'course of conduct' while not particularly criminal could be of such a nature that it destroys trust, discourages allegiance, and demands action by the Congress...The office of the President is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States."

Hamilton (or Madison) discussed the importance of wisdom and virtue in Federalist 57. "The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust."

(Contrast this with clinton, who recklessly, reflexively and feloniously subordinates the common good to his personal appetites.)

Because the Framers did not anticipate the demagogic efficiency of the electronic bully pulpit, they ruled out the possibility of an MTV mis-leader (and impeachment-thwarter!) like clinton. In Federalist No. 64, John Jay said: "There is reason to presume" the president would fall only to those "who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue." He
imagined that the electorate would not "be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle."

(If the clinton debacle teaches us anything, it is this: If we are to retain our democracy in this age of the electronic demagogue, we must recalibrate the constitutional balance of power.)

THREE:

The president can be prosecuted for his alleged felonies after he leaves office.
(Nota bene ROBERT RAY.)

This clinton-created censure contrivance -- borne out of what I have come to call the "Lieberman Paradigm" (clinton is an unfit president; therefore clinton must remain president) -- is nothing less than a postmodern deconstruction in which the Oval Office would serve for two years as a holding cell for the perjurer-obstructor.

Such indecorous, dual-purpose architectonics not only threatens the delicate
constitutional framework -- it disturbs the cultural aesthetic. The senators must, therefore, roundly reject this elliptic scheme.
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.

The only way they can win is to convince people that we're space aliens.

--bill clinton

June 9, 1999

Peggy Noonan's excellent piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal is really the story of the death of democracy. At its core it is the description of the human double helix gone terribly awry, of a denatured protein grotesquely twisted, of two mutant, tangled strands of DNA, the basest imaginable of base pairs linked permanently, as firmly as guanine to cytosine, bill inexorably to hillary and conversely, doing what they do best, and doing it relentlessly.

Killing.
Killing insidiously.
Killing as they pose and pander and feel our pain.

My only complaint is with Peggy Noonan's title.
The Mad Boomer, doesn't begin to capture candidate clinton considered separately or even taken as the self-anointed "twofer," permanently conjoined at that cavity conspicuously empty except for ego, that place where brain and soul and guts and heart normally reside.

This is not to say that she -- that they -- are not both quite mad and of that self-indulgent, arrogantly, ignorantly solipsistic age sandwiched flatly between yesterday's innocence and tomorrow's insouciance. Rather, it is that their madness and their boomerism don't even begin to explain their noxious influence: The cloying, internally inconsistent clinton calculus. The unspoken clinton threats. They permeate the atmosphere like a coiling miasma, choking off all freedom.

Even in New York.
Especially in New York.
When she wrote "The New Colossus," Emma Lazarus hardly had in mind this pair of mutant, deadly, twisted aliens.

So forget Arkansas-Illinois carpetbaggery and standard issue muckraking. The clintons are aliens of quite another sort. They are extrinsic, not of this world. They are inhuman. They are dehumanizing.

You may recall that the first act of this story of two degenerates maintained by iterating idiots, farce of farce ad infinitum, was generated quite by accident by iterated AlGoreRhythm, who, it should be noted, is now himself the object of iterated calculation by said degenerates who want iteration 2004 all for themselves.

And thus the odd bit of bloody Gore in Act II: The ugly sight of a corrupt, bottom-heavy hillary self-impaled on the horns of a Treason-Dilemma- masquerading-as-a-Third-Term-Dilemma-masquerading-as-a-Senate-stampede, for example, or bill's recent unsolicited, underwhelming Times interview on the Gore candidacy.

Act I was called "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover." Ostensibly the tale of the wife of a bloodthirsty crime boss who finds romance with a bland bookseller between courses at her husband's restaurant, it was in fact the Thyestean and moveable -- yet unmoving -- feast of hillary clinton at her husband's sham restitution. (Note the reciprocity. The sham restitution in Act II is all hillary's.)

Food, color coding, sex, murder, torture and cannibalism were the exotic (if mostly horizontal) fare in this beautifully filmed but brutally uncompromising modern memoir which passed as ancient fable about nouveau riche rapacity.
Not for the faint at heart, Purple Hearts or queazy stomachs, this depiction of the gross debasement of America was heavily peppered with irony and dark humor throughout.

Although she baked no cookies, didn't do illicit land or cattle deals and stood by no man, hillary clinton starred in the triple role of the Cook, the Thief and his Wife. Her lover was played at once vaporously and in workmanlike fashion by the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt, with Janet Reno, between her stints rendering intermittent injustice for the Husband, as the reliable stand-in. Sidney Blumenthal was the stand-in for the Cook and Craig Livingstone the stand-in for the Thief. The last-minute addition of Christopher Hitchens as the snitch was a stroke of absolute genius notwithstanding its cerebral accident, its predictable-if-perfect pitch and its facile alliteration.

Although Act I had no rating, the new clinton soccer-mom directive will require a photo ID for any viewer without independent proof of illegal alien DNC or DNA sequencing.

In Act II, rabid anti-clinton voters, roughly 33% of the U.S. populace according to as-yet-unpodded pollsters, become increasingly aware that they are disappearing in droves and being replaced by alien pod replicas which have their physical attributes but lack all anti-clinton affect.

If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.

INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS

"...i'm just going with the bandwagon syndrome.. the more that come out to say he did something the more it goes to show that most of them are lying through their teeth.. why come out now?.. It started with one and snowballed.. why??? because they feared death before?.. hell that's bs and we all know it.. the first one to come out to the media would have been automatically immune.. death at that point would have aroused everyone's attention."

Excuse me, but............are you on drugs???? Or maybe...........have you been sleeping for the past 9 years???

Don't ever stop advocating for accountability by the serial rapists who once inhabited OUR White House.

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!!!

Thanks for your work.

Well now, let us review a few facts. Linda Tripp was a permament (not political) member of the White House staff. She did not have to go poking her nose into anything. When she was questioned about the Travel Office firings etc she told the truth and the Clinton slime machine went after her with their usual tactics.

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,

Bravo! BUMP