Monday, January 11, 2016

BILLARY and HILLARY CLINTON: America's No. One Rapist Couple

Nothing to Do with Sex

The leftist establishment media and other appendages of the Democratic Party have become the counterattack regarding the Clinton scandals.  It is all about "sex," these flacks of leftism tell us.  If Bill had dalliances, well, many men do, and who are we to judge them?

The odious behavior of Bill and Hillary, however, is not about "sex" at all.
Juanita Broaddrick has made a credible charge of brutal, violent rape against Arkansas attorney general Bill Clinton and an equally credible charge that Hillary knew what her husband had done to Broaddrick and treated the rape as unimportant.  Broaddrick worked in a nursing home, and state regulations and policy were important to her, which is why she was at the hotel when Bill raped her. 

Rape is not "sex," as feminists have told us for the last fifty years.  Rape is about violence and humiliation.  What makes this even worse, for honest feminists, is that Broaddrick was in a vulnerable position.  Attorney General Bill Clinton had a power position, and he was using it against her flagrantly.

Paula Jones has made a credible charge of Governor Clinton using his position as governor of Arkansas when Jones was a lowly Arkansas state employee to crudely and luridly push unwelcome sexual advances on her.  Hillary embraced Anita Hill, who made a less credible charge against Clarence Thomas.  Was this allegation about sex or about perceived abuse of power? 

Kathleen Wiley was volunteer working for Clinton.  The day her husband committed suicide, when Wiley was frightened and desperate, Wiley says President Clinton groped her breasts and forced himself, against her wishes, on her. 

Elizabeth Gracen, a former Miss America who had consensual sex with Bill in 1983, suddenly found herself harassed and intimidated and in 1998 said of this thuggish behavior, "This last year has been very, very frightening" and that she was "physically scared" by investigators from the Clinton White House.  

These is a pattern to these stories.  Bill Clinton used his power position to either force himself upon women or terrify them into keeping quiet about what he had done, or both.  There is another aspect to all this: Hillary surely knew what had happened to these women and put personal ambition above any true concern for protecting women from violence and bullying by men in power.  That is one aspect of the so-called Clinton sex scandals.

But there is another aspect to what happened.  Bill Clinton lied about what he had done.  If there is a campaign ad that any Republican ought to use against Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton, it should be this:  President Clinton, angrily and emphatically, denying that he had sex with Monica Lewinsky.  Bill is scowling.  He is indignant.  And he is lying, through his teeth, to the American people.  It was his lying that was the crime.

And it was her facilitating Bill's lying that is her crime.  Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton famously condemned those who accused her husband of having sex with an intern as part of a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy."  She, of course, was lying through her teeth, just as Bill was lying through his teeth.  Mrs. Clinton was all too familiar with her husband's philandering. 

This lying to the American people, even more than Bill's terrorizing women and Hillary helping him in that, is the story.  The Clintons lie all the time, whenever they think that they can get away with it.  Mrs. Clinton tells us that she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary, even though he climbed Mt. Everest after she was born.  She tells Americans that she was just incredibly astute in making cattle futures investments, even though the odds were so wildly against her story as to be utterly unbelievable.

Bill was found in contempt of court for lying.  He was disbarred for lying.  He was impeached for lying.  The Clintons lie all the time about almost everything.  The string of lies Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton has told America and Congress regarding Benghazi and her email server is part of this pattern of lying, lying, lying, and then, well, lying. 

Such absolute dishonesty, such total mendacity, such utter separation from truth in every honorable sense of the word disqualifies anyone, no matter what, from any office of trust in American government.  It has nothing to do with sex, except insofar as the Clintons both lied about Bill's pathological predatory sexual behavior.  It is all about their lying.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

The Clinton Standard: Third World Corruption

It is most likely liberal philosophy that is causing our political leaders -- excepting Donald Trump -- to refuse to defend the country against literal Islam. The refusal of our government to see the plain truth of the matter -- that we are under attack -- beggars understanding.
But this flight from reality and from past American practice raises another possibility: are our leaders, or an important number of them, being bought off by our enemies? In the past, this would have been an absurd question, a calumny. But not today given practice in office that is -- apparently -- accepted as the new normal by the political elite.
Look at one example: Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. Bill and Hillary Clinton have released their joint tax returns from 2001 to 2014. “Gross Income” is the top line on a return: income before any adjustments. Table 1 shows the gross income for Bill and Hillary Clinton by year from 2001 to 2014:
Table I
Bill and Hillary Clinton
Gross Income (before taxes)
Personal, not Foundation
(in $ millions)
$ 16.2
$   9.6
$   8.0
$ 20.3
$ 18.1
$ 16.1
$ 21.2
$   5.6
$ 10.2
$ 13.2
$ 14.9
$ 20.0
$ 27.1
Total as
$  85.4
$ 28.3
Total Overall
The shaded area is the period during which Hillary was Secretary of State: 2009 -- 2013. During this period, she and her husband took in $85.4 million, let’s call it $85 million, in gross income. Quite a haul! Just so there is no confusion, this is the personal income of Bill and Hillary. It is unrelated to Clinton Foundation finances, which are a different topic.
As can be seen from Table 1, this was not out of line with the income enjoyed by the Secretary and her husband for the period shown, i.e., both before and after her tenure as Secretary of State. But the practice heretofore in the Republic has been that people put their private wealth in a blind trust upon entering public office, thus removing their private affairs from the public trust on which they are embarking.  Never, prior to Hillary’s tenure, had it been acceptable to continue to earn outside income while in public office.
Of course, there is a cut-out with the Clintons of which we are all aware. Hillary didn’t accept the checks; they were paid to Bill for speeches he gave. This is a transparent dodge and represents a fairly recent method of corruption: the spouse industry. Any person in high office could arrange for his or her spouse to undertake some activity -- say painting -- which could then allegedly be so highly valued by petitioners to that office that there was a constant demand for them at very high prices. Or more obviously, the wife of the Senate Majority Leader could serve as a top lobbyist earning millions of dollars while her husband runs the Senate. As a famous poet has said, “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way [that] wind blows.”
We have never before seen Clinton levels of corruption in the history of the country. And it is very dangerous, well beyond the details of this particular episode. Because it brings third-world corruption into our system of government. Why is a large segment of the world, the third world, so poor? Because the ruling elites in those countries accumulate power and then sell that power to the highest bidder.
This theft from the commonweal prevents the starved private sector from accumulating the capital necessary for high-wage employment. Result? Devastating poverty at the bottom and lack of social cohesion at the top.
This is the state-of-play the Clintons are bringing to America. This is a historic turning point, not a unique episode, not a detail, not a minor event. It is a cataclysm.
How are the hearings for the next Secretary of State going to go (no matter who is president)?
Mr./Ms. nominee, how much do you and your spouse expect to make out of being Secretary of State? Secretary Clinton made $85 million. What are your ambitions in this regard?”
This is not an extreme example, a ridiculous example, it is a question that needs to be asked so that we in the country know where we stand. So that, for instance, troops who are ordered to take the hill understand the provenance of the policy they are carrying out.
Also, now that, apparently, the activities of the Clintons are considered acceptable and thus are a precedent, what about the other cabinet offices? How much do we expect the Secretary of Defense and spouse to clear during his/her tenure? In many ways, that would be an even more valuable office to petitioners than SecState. And so on through the cabinet.
And why exclude the presidency itself? Presumably the Clintons expect to continue their dog-and-pony routine if Hillary gets the top job. Think what that would be worth. Ten times the SecState? We’ll find out.
Let’s return to the question that opened this piece: what is going on in Washington? Nobody in power in Washington has called or is calling Hillary on her accumulation of wealth while in office. What does that tell you? Forget politics. Is nobody in office in Washington scandalized by the highest administrative official in the government selling the office? Is this because it has become a standard practice in other offices as well, including elective ones?
The end state:
·      acquire power;
·      sell it;
·      make a fortune.
Pretty cool. The only problem is that it ruins the country. It abrogates the trust the public must have that its high officials are acting in its interest. If those officials come to see that trust as a con, then the future of the country is in peril.
Adam Smith observed, “There is a lot of ruin in a nation.” So we don’t see it yet. But by the time we do see it, when, as one example, the military ceases to have belief in a mission because the officials assigning the mission have manifestly divided loyalties, the country will be in mortal danger.
What is going on in Washington? Has it accepted the “Clinton standard” for sale of high public office?
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

No comments: