The Reprehensible Clintons

Let’s be honest here. The American people should feel nothing but contempt for the Clintons and for the moral reprobates who supported them — and who still do. They have no love for our nation.

hillbill

Bill and Hillary Clinton are what racists would call "white trash." Even with university degrees and ill-gotten estates and wealth, they are the essence of a stereotypical, vulgar, lower social class — they exude a degraded morality and standard of living.

It is therefore disheartening to see that a certain segment of the electorate is still so uninformed and accepting in the immorality of its leaders and politicians. What is worse, these two vile people are still in the spotlight years after deceiving an innocent public with their reign of lying, cheating, and contemptible behavior.

Harry Stein is a contributing editor of City Journal and the author of No Matter What… They’ll Call This Book Racist (out in paperback as Why We Won’t Talk Honestly About Race). Mr. Stein is a liberal man writing for a liberal magazine, and yet I encourage you to read his thoughts. They may shock you:

How the Clintons Changed America

Sex, culture, and the presidency

by Harry Stein

Ruth Marcus, the reliably liberal Washington Post columnist, wrote a piece the other day that came close to being brave. Given the source, for much of the paper’s readership its very headline was surely a stunner:

TRUMP IS RIGHT: BILL CLINTON’S SORDID SEXUAL HISTORY IS FAIR GAME. Yes, Marcus noted, Trump may be everything progressives say he is, "racist, sexist, narcissist, for starters… But he has a point about Clinton playing the ‘woman’s card,’ and about the male behavior that’s more concerning: her husband’s… (I)n the larger scheme of things, Bill Clinton’s conduct toward women is far worse than any of the offensive things that Trump has said… Trump has smeared women because of their looks, Clinton has preyed on them, and in a workplace setting where he was by far the superior." "Ordinarily," she added, "I would argue that the sins of the husband should not be visited on the wife… But Hillary Clinton has made two moves that lead me, gulp, to agree with Trump on the ‘fair game’ front. She is (smartly) using her husband as a campaign surrogate, and simultaneously (correctly) calling Trump sexist."

What’s the problem with such a piece? It is at its essence a dodge, an attempt to avoid a far more serious indictment by copping to a lesser charge. In fact, Bill Clinton was not just a"America pre-Sexgate was a very different country from the one we live in today, immeasurably more innocent and less jaded" workplace harasser, or even a serial adulterer; he was, and remains, someone credibly accused of sexual assault. And what goes unmentioned — for this obviously could be catastrophic for Hillary’s campaign — is that she has been his willing cohort, the energetic enabler who sought to destroy his accusers to protect their joint political and financial interests.

In this regard, the piece is emblematic of what the Clintons have done to their fellow liberals and Democrats, in the media and beyond, over the past couple of decades — they turned them into serial equivocators and liars. Never mind that progressives continue to see (and often define) themselves as morally and ethically superior: in the fight to save Bill Clinton’s presidency there could be no adherence to larger truths, or moral consistency, or commitment to time-tested standards; all were sacrificed in defense of Clinton’s political survival.

Indeed, in key ways, America pre-Sexgate was a very different country from the one we live in today, immeasurably more innocent and less jaded; still respectful of values now widely seen as antique. This is why, in bien pensant quarters, the lead story in the Washington Post of January 21, 1998 — CLINTON ACCUSED OF URGING AIDE TO LIE — produced a tidal wave of angst and disorientation not unlike that brought on by a sudden presidential death. In that different moral universe, there was every reason to believe Clinton’s presidency was finished. Even more calamitous than the allegation of presidential perjury was what the president had lied about: "Starr Probes Whether President Told Woman to Deny Alleged Affair to Jones’ Lawyers," as the Post’s subhed had it.

Every sentient being in America would soon know that the "woman" in question was White House intern Monica Lewinsky, who might have been more appropriately termed a girl. She’d been just 21 when the soon-to-be-exposed liaison began, with a childish, wide-eyed crush on her boss. Little wonder that the news hit especially hard in the nation’s news rooms, longtime hotbeds of Clinton support. The press had excelled at covering up/rationalizing Clinton’s indiscretions since his appearance on the national scene (most notably the one involving longtime Arkansas squeeze Gennifer Flowers). But this was different."God knows the media had done its best to bury the story… First surfacing several days earlier on a fledgling blog by an unknown Matt Drudge on a still-new Internet." Not even proudly enlightened progressives could in good conscience see this as anything but sexual exploitation. In any case, and perhaps more to the point, they realized that the vast majority of Americans out there — the hicks in flyover country — would see it that way. Hopelessly naive in that peculiarly American way, ordinary citizens actually expected more of their president.

God knows the media had done its best to bury the story. In fact, it had first surfaced several days earlier, on a fledgling "blog" run by the unknown Matt Drudge on the still-new Internet. Drudge hadn’t reported the details of the story itself, only that Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff had the story but the magazine was refusing to run it. Newsweek’s publishing partner, the Post, was forced to acknowledge the story’s existence. Once it broke, even outlets that otherwise reflexively rallied behind a beleaguered liberal leader quickly took up what amounted to a death watch. "Did the president encourage a former intern to lie about their alleged affair?" demanded the Miami Herald in an editorial the day after the Washington Post report. "If that assertion is proved true by credible evidence, then the president would have suborned perjury and obstructed justice—both felonies. Strong censure, including possibly an effort to impeach him, would be likely." ZIPPERGATE COULD BE END FOR CLINTON PRESIDENCY, ran a headline in the liberal Cleveland Plain Dealer the next day. "I would probably guess that what Congress would do is find ‘urging perjury’ to be an impeachable offense," echoed Geraldine Ferraro, as the first female candidate for vice president, a full-fledged Democrat — and feminist—heroine.

"Among the president’s loyalists, there is bitterness," observed the Washington Post in a piece on the Left’s angst. "Especially betrayed are the baby boomers: They all want 21-year-old interns, too, but they know not to touch them… At liberal institutions, a pall set in. At People for the American Way, workers got an e-mail from the boss instructing them not to contribute to the rumor-mongering, and the honchos were talking about scrapping a planned radio campaign in support of the president’s push to get his judicial nominees confirmed by Congress. For Washington veterans, there was a familiar feeling about this day, a stomach-flipping sense of deja vu, a realization that even in this era of cheap scandals and easy outrage, some events have the power to halt a nation in its tracks."

Not even The New York Times could summon up so much as tepid support for the beleaguered president, noting that while "there is a general reluctance to have the private life of any President become a matter of public inquiry" and that Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, "has a vendetta against" Clinton, "this Administration repeatedly forces its supporters to choose between loyalty and respect for the law… Mr. Clinton has denied the charges, and on the surface they seem so tawdry, the alleged impropriety so avoidable by a mature leader, that it is hard to comprehend their potential impact."

Of course, Clinton did deny the charges, in those early days lying and spinning ferociously, the desperation evident in his look and timbre; driven by both the desertion of his allies and growing signs of cratering public support. According to a USA/CNN poll taken late that first week, "An overwhelming majority, 72%, say they would find it relevant to his performance as president if Clinton participated in an effort to obstruct justice by urging her to lie under oath. Nearly as many, 67%, say it would be relevant if Clinton lied under oath about the affair." Insisting to PBS that he "did not ask anyone to tell anything other than the truth," and "there is no improper relationship," Clinton appeared a trapped and doomed man. A few days later, on January 27,"How did he in fact survive? More than anything, it had to do with the identities of those who rallied to his defense — above all, his wife." he dug himself in even deeper when he infamously declared, jabbing a finger toward the camera: "I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people."

How did he in fact survive? More than anything, it had to do with the identities of those who rallied to his defense — above all, his wife. It was the very next morning, January 28, that Hillary appeared on NBC’s Today, expressing absolute faith in her husband’s credibility and blaming the crisis on a "vast right-wing conspiracy," led by Starr. As David Maraniss characterized her appearance in the Washington Post, "she assumed a familiar and crucial role as Bill Clinton’s first defender. She said she knew him better than anyone in the world, still loved him, and fully believed his denial of allegations that he had entered into a sexual relationship with a White House intern and had urged the young woman to lie about it… Her words at once established a clear line of counterattack for Clinton’s loyalists… The decision to transform Clinton’s public defense into a rhetorical war with Starr and the political right wing was made at the White House in a series of meetings over the past four days, according to several administration sources. In every discussion in which she participated, the first lady was a leading advocate of an aggressive strategy attacking Starr, but it was not until her remarks yesterday morning that they realized that counter-attacking was their most effective choice, and that she was their most effective weapon."

It’s now clear that from the earliest days of Bill’s public career, it had been Hillary taking the lead in tamping down the "bimbo eruptions," as Clinton insiders termed them, which threatened their joint enterprise. According to Flowers, whose revelation of her 12-year affair with Clinton led to a sympathetic interview with both Clintons on 60 Minutes in which they asserted the strength of their marriage, the notion Hillary didn’t know about the affair is beyond ludicrous. "I think she has always known everything about him," concurs Juanita Broaddrick, the Little Rock nursing home executive who charged Clinton raped her 1978. In an interview with Aaron Klein, she recalled being told personally by Hillary in 1978 to keep quiet about the episode. "I think they have this evil compact between the two of them that they each know what the other does and overlook it. And go right on. And cover one for the other." "She enabled his behavior," says alleged Clinton sexual assault victim Kathleen Willey flatly. "It’s as simple as that."

The Clintons have systematically attempted to blacken the accusers’ names and otherwise destroy their credibility. Yet, at the height of the 1998 crisis, Hillary’s pose as the aggrieved yet forgiving wife allowed the Clinton partisans, starting with those in the media, to push the line that this was a private matter, unworthy of the attention it was receiving. After all, if his wife didn’t care, why should anyone else? The other pivotal point came on March 22, when America’s leading feminist gave Clinton a total pass. In a New York Times op-ed, Gloria Steinem declared that while he "may be a candidate for sex addiction therapy, the President is not guilty of sexual harassment." Why not? Because his accusers—she mentioned only Paula Jones (to whom he had exposed himself and to whom he would pay an $850,000 out-of-court settlement) and Kathleen Willey (whom he had groped when she was reeling from the suicide of her husband)—were "supporters" from whom he eventually "took ‘no’ for an answer." (Broaddrick, whose contemporaneous corroborating testimony in support of her rape allegation lent vast credibility to the charge, had not yet come forward publicly—but to this day there is no record of Steinem or any other leading figure in the sisterhood supporting her, either.) In any case, wrote Steinem, what ultimately mattered most were the president’s policy positions — especially his solid support for abortion.

As Clinton’s prospects for survival brightened, his Democratic colleagues likewise rallied to his support, even as many privately expressed deep contempt for his behavior. Indeed, it was already becoming clear that the Clinton’s scorched-earth campaign for survival would impose steep and long-lasting costs on the quality of the nation’s civic life. It is no accident that the campaign’s rallying cry, "Let’s Move On," would be the genesis of MoveOn.org, which continues today aggressively to push the Left’s agenda and eviscerate those on the other side.

There were other costs, too. Here are just a handful of the jokes which became ubiquitous on late-night TV, circa 1998:

Q: What is Bill’s definition of safe sex?
A: When Hillary is out of town.

Q: What is the difference between Clinton and the Titanic?
A: Only 200 women went down on the Titanic.

Q: How does Bill keep Monica Lewinsky away from the White House?
A: He keeps offering to send Ted Kennedy over to give her a ride.

Q: How can a woman tell she’s just had sex with Bill Clinton?
A: She’s got French fries in her hair, and Vernon Jordan is handing her a job application.

Little wonder that through it all—from the initial word of the president’s affair with Lewinsky to the revelations about cigars and the semen on the blue dress—there were reports on the difficulties American parents were having trying to explain to their young children things they wished they didn’t have to. Nor, from this distance, is there much doubt that those times had a deep and lasting impact on American mores. Is it coincidence that millions of Millennials maintain, along with the president of their formative years, that fellatio does not actually constitute sex? If America has indeed lost much of its former innocence, who can doubt that the 42nd president accelerated the process?

We will of course hear little of that during the upcoming campaign, at least from the liberal media. Stalwart as they were in serving as Barack Obama’s Praetorian Guard in 2008—effectively scuttling their candidates’ decades-long relationships with his racist, America-hating minister and an American terrorist as campaign issues—they may be faced with an even more difficult task this time. "Things aren’t looking good for Hillary," joked Jay Leno in 1998. "Like a lot of women in Washington, I think she’s just starting to realize she may have slept with Bill Clinton for nothing." But Hillary has always gotten plenty from her husband, and bereft of accomplishments of her own, she is now more dependent on his record, and his fabled charisma, than ever before. That will not be easy to square, however, with the fact that she is running, above all, as a bearer of two X chromosomes, someone who is actually on the record proclaiming that "Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported."

Already, prompted by GOP front-runner Donald Trump’s aggressively bringing the subject to the fore, the media obfuscation and minimizing have begun in earnest. For all its seeming candor, Ruth Marcus’s piece was part of that effort. So, too, was CNN’s Don Lemon’s declaration that Hillary was not responsible for Bill’s misbehavior and that the matter had already been fully "litigated," before cutting off conservative commentator Kurt Schlichter’s mic when he refused to drop the subject. So, too, was Today’s Savannah Guthrie’s delicate reference to Bill Clinton’s "alleged" affair with Monica Lewinsky. Perhaps most egregiously, the International Business Times’s Abigail Abrams made a heroic attempt to distinguish the ex-president’s behavior from that of the disgraced and newly indicted Bill Cosby. "Unlike Cosby," Abrams wrote, "Bill Clinton’s most well-known extramarital activities were consensual."

It’s not the reality of Clintonian sexual misconduct that will be at issue in this election, nor Hillary’s role in savaging Bill’s accusers, nor even the remarkable lengths to which the press will go to protect them both. All of that has by now been established beyond question, for those willing to see. The real issue in this election is how much of this history the American people will be willing to ignore, shrug off, or decide doesn’t matter. The real question will be how much the Clintons have changed America.

In closing, this from a woman whose life was impacted by the Clinton lies: "It’s gratifying to watch Trump’s relentless and appropriate response to Hillary’s playing the woman card. His spotlight on the media’s complicit silence on such frightening felonious behavior is a beacon for those of us in flyover country who are filled with disgust for that corrupt, nefarious pair. And good for Harry Stein for making the case that the long term effects of such behavior have contributed to the declining moral fabric of a nation. What a low point raising middle schoolers when President Clinton was being serviced in the White House by a GIRL not much older than they were.

Such gutter behavior invaded the psyche of a generation, and took the country to a deep dark place it had never been before and from which it has never recovered. How liberal democrats can wrap themselves in such smug moral superiority while overlooking the smutty and sordid criminality in their leaders is a source of great wonder. The shame of it all is that decades later these people are still around and are revered in certain circles. Well hopefully what goes around comes around. I Would love to be a fly on the wall when Chelsea has to explain to her teens grandaddy’s HISTORIC indiscretions."

It is the truth that matters.

God Preserve the United States of America.

Share

Resisting the Ruling Class

"To learn who rules over you, find out whom you are not allowed to criticize." — Voltaire

new-rulers.jpg

In 2010, Dr. Angelo M. Codevilla published a lengthy essay in the July issue of The American Spectator entitled America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution (his essay was also posted as a series here at the B2J). To many republic-loving Americans, this author included, his work was as eye-opening as it was painful to even consider.

Dr. Codevilla is Professor Emeritus of International Relations at Boston University, Vice Chairman of the U.S. Army War College Board of Visitors, former U.S. Foreign Service Officer, and a Senior Fellow at The Claremont Institute. In his article (and books), Codevilla details how the elite have advanced in power and station as the nation has declined — and what is now brewing as a result.

Those Americans who have been paying attention to such things as the years have passed by recognize that both political parties of the ruling class share a piece of the action, regardless of which ideology controls the power at any given moment. The truth is, there is collusion between the establishment wing of the Republican Party and the social fascists of the Democrat Party, and it’s routinely illustrated in Washington, D.C. Both factions of America’s ruling class speak the same language and prefer the same bureaucratic tastes, habits, tools, and rewards. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.

Read more

Share

The Legions

My son gave me a book as a birthday gift this weekend which dealt with a once-great republic, what helped make it so, and how it was ultimately lost. History does indeed repeat.

legion.jpg

This might be a good time for every American to remember that just six or seven years ago, the armed forces of the United States of America were well-staffed, well-equipped, well-trained, and well-supported. But that, as they say, is no longer the case. Why does it matter?

Let us be content with the fact that before Rome’s ruling class hijacked representative government, she was a thriving republic. I know, I know… we have all heard this so often throughout our lives (at least those of us old enough to have benefited from proper independent public schools and not the propagandized government schools of the last four decades). I am certainly not comparing the decline of Rome with our present-day decline of the American Republic — the former took centuries whereas our home-grown social fascists have worked their malevolence in just a few decades.

In his book Legions of Rome, Steven Dando Collins succeeded in doing what no other author has ever attempted to do: provide a complete history of every Imperial Roman legion. But he also clearly illustrated the critical links between Rome’s strong military and her greatness, as well as what ultimately happened once the quality of the legions and legionary leadership declined.

Read more

Share

The Clintons and Criminal Enterprise

The Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation is a textbook case on how you hide foreign money sent to you and repackage it to be used for your own purposes, all tax free. Virginia’s former governor Bob McDonnell was sent to prison for far less — and unlike Mrs. Clinton he didn’t place U.S. security at risk.

billhill.jpg

As detailed this April by American Thinker’s Thomas Lifson, when you put together all the revelations about the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates that have cascaded our way (and continue to arrive), one explanation makes sense. It was a money-laundering scheme.

National Journal’s Ron Fournier is curious as well: "Follow the money." That apocryphal phrase, attributed to Watergate whistle-blower "Deep Throat," explains why the biggest threat to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential dreams is not her emails. It’s her family foundation. That’s where the money is: corporate money, foreign money, gobs of money sloshing around a vanity charity that could be renamed "Clinton Conflicts of Interest Foundation."

But what about all those emails? Hillary Clinton’s secret communications cache is a bombshell deserving of full disclosure because of her assault on government transparency and electronic security. But its greatest relevancy is what the emails might reveal about any nexus between Clinton’s work at State and donations to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation from U.S. corporations and foreign nations.

One of Bill Clinton’s longest-serving advisers, a person who had worked directly for the foundation, told Fournier the "longtime whispers of pay-to-play are going to become shouts." This person, a Clinton loyalist and credible source, has no evidence of wrongdoing but said the media’s suspicions are warranted. "The emails are a related but secondary scandal," the source said. "Follow the foundation money."

How does the Clinton scam work? In a nutshell, like this:

  • Collect millions of dollars in foreign money, dump it into a foreign charity;
  • Pretend that the law prohibits you from ever disclosing the identities of those foreign donors to the foreign charity;
  • Have the foreign charity bundle all the cash and send it to the Clinton Foundation;
  • When the time comes — whether it be a Clinton Foundation conference or a lavish Clinton Foundation trip overseas — make sure those individuals get some me-time with the Clintons.

There’s a bit more to it than that but you get the gist. You should peruse this better, more concise summary of how the Clinton Foundation works as a tax-free international money laundering scheme. Bill and Mrs. Clinton, if we keep the pressure on to find the truth, will eventually be proven to be the greatest perpetrators of political criminal enterprise in U.S. history.

God Preserve the United States of America.

Share

I’m 63 and I’m Tired

I know, I know, another email… My brother-in-law emailed the following letter to me about the destruction of America and her allies by the Obama regime. It doesn’t matter if it’s email fodder or not when it’s true — and this should be required reading for every man, woman, and child in the English-speaking world.

anger.jpg

The following text is attributed to U.S. Marine Corps veteran and former Massachusetts state senator Robert A. Hall. A few years ago, he condemned the ideas and policies of Obama and the "Latte Liberals" who voted for him (even the leftist Snopes authenticated):

I’m 63. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I’ve worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven’t called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn’t inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there’s no retirement in sight, and I’m tired. Very tired.

I’m tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don’t have my work ethic. I’m tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.

I’m tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to “keep people in their homes.” Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I’m willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their own money.

Read more

Share