I don't usually print "Clinton stuff." But Steffan has made some connections others haven't. And he writes with such passion.
Pundits often proclaim that the first 100 days of an administration foretells its character and what will be its accomplishments. Many might wonder why the very pro-Clinton press has said little about William the Fourth's first 2,400 hours in the First Chair of the republic.
When his presidency was less than two months old, his forty days of rain began. On February 26, 1993, the World Trade Center in New York was bombed. While this could be considered an inheritance from George the Second, it set the stage for precariously tense relationships with most Arab countries. Of course, nobody really worried about the Muslim might, because there has always been little of it. Times they are a changing, however, as the indignant Arabs protest the bombings and inhumane siege of Iraq. A strange friend has appeared on the scene that has greatly bolstered the Muslim military force. A very hungry, demoralized, and angered bear, which is in no way a military weakling, has sounded the alarm. Russia has formed a most improbable union of defense against what it sees as further American aggression toward Iraq, re-uniting Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia in a common cause to ward off perceived imperialistic moves by the Commonwealth of Britain and the USA.
Clinton has done nothing to dissuade the Russians from their position. He arrogantly bombed Afghanistan, Sudan, and continues daily to bomb Iraq to divert attention from sexual scandals and a House impeachment vote. And, after an acquittal from the Senate, which implicitly declared that sexual harassment, prostitution and perjury were no longer crimes, he continues to display delusions of grandeur. This military midget who uses the Hollywood satire of "Wag the Dog" as his field manual, has shown his previous bombings were but the penultimate of his insanity. Strangely, he has also convinced our allies to support his crazy ventures. Through his damsel of death, Madeline Albright, and with the support of NATO, he's threatening to bomb the daylights out of Kosovo if the fighting doesn't stop there!
And, all of these conflicts were being set up as early as February 26, 1993, less than 40 days into his reign! Clinton is well on his way to commencing a terrible world war. Perhaps that is what he has sought all along. Violence surrounds his person.
Lest we forget the theme of this essay from such digression, two days after the Trade Center bombing, four federal agents were killed as they attempted to storm the Branch Davidians' community in Waco, Texas. Whether they were killed from inside by a frightened few who were defending themselves against the combined force of the U.S. military, federal and state police, or the federal agents were assassinated by government-issued bullets and Clinton's agents, we'll not know, because the site was burned to the ground and evidence of the crimes was destroyed.
But, it should not be forgotten, that before the Waco massacre, on March 12, 1993, Clinton appointed Janet Reno as the first woman Attorney General, and showed how committed he was to female causes. Then, on day 90 of his presidency, just 2,160 hours into the highest office in the land, Clinton's storm troopers struck as they butchered, blasted and baked more than 80 Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas.
Inside the buildings that were razed and turned into pyres by Delta Force and company, were many women and at least 17 of their children. About a third of these victims were black, about a third of them were British. Did England condemn the murders? Did the black community? No, Clinton had forged alliances with both, so that they wouldn't squawk at the demonic killings. And, Clinton even had his flunky, Janet Reno take full responsibility for what has been referred to as a "mistake."
Oddly, when the Oklahoma Federal Building was bombed, Clinton called the perpetrators of that event depraved killers. He felt the pain of the Oklahoma group, but, in Waco, he caused the pain. Clinton has perfected two-faced lies and phony contriteness.
Before Clinton finished, America had succumbed to 100 days of gore.
I doubted that anything Clinton could ever do would top my disgust with him for Waco. A government-paid prostitute like Monica in the Oval Office wasn't even close. His affront to Paula Jones displayed his character, but didn't so sicken me as Waco. Many claim that I can't declare that he attempted to rape Paula Jones or that he was a John for Monica because he was never convicted, and that in America there is a presumption of innocence.
Being a criminal defense attorney, I would be among the last to take away a right as precious as a "presumption of innocence" from an accused, if there were such a thing. However, in America, there is no such presumption, but only the illusion of it. A person charged with a serious crime is usually held in jail. How could you ever hold anyone who is presumed innocent? It's as absurd as is Clinton's unmitigated support coming from the feminists as he is shown to be a masher of the lowest sort.
My disgust with Clinton culminated when I listened to Juanita Broaddrick give her account of a thoroughly disgusting rape by then Attorney-General Bill Clinton. I have been through many court matters dealing with sexual misconduct, have heard a great deal of lies from "victims" and "defendants" as they testified. I know that our criminal justice system is a playground of perjury where the best liar wins; it is a slime-pit of injustice frequented by some of the most depraved members of our society.
The "justice" system has no chance to do the right thing. Jurors are told lies by the lawyers during the selection process, as both prosecution and defense claim they want a fair and impartial jury. Any fool can see through this. The lawyers want the most biased jurors possible, so they can win. Justice loses, but the lawyers care not.
And, the judge sits in his or her high chair as the lawyers lie to the jurors, and smiles, and blesses the canards. He or she also sanctions the farce as witnesses line up and lie to the jurors. And, when the case is concluded, the judge lies to the same jury by telling them that it is mandatory for them to apply whatever law the judge thinks is proper for the case, when the judge knows full well that all his instructions are advisory only. Jurors must volunteer to follow them. Jurors have the right to nullify any law! Including perjury and obstruction of justice, as our Senate has recently proven. Judicial lies about jury power can't help but remind one of the "voluntary" nature of the income tax; the remarkable similarity between the two fraudulent systems is easily explained when one realizes that the same evil mind designed and supports the lies about taxes and the lies to juries.
So, why should I care about the "legal" illusion of a presumption of innocence? I'm convinced Clinton is a despicable masher, and, as I will attempt to show, also a misogynist and a brutal rapist. Of course, the president is free to sue me in one of his "civil" courts to prove me guilty of libel because of my low opinion of him. Just in case he misses that I am begging him to cast me into that briar patch, I hereby declare that the taking of depositions taken in such a case would be a divine treat for me.
Why do I think that Broaddrick is telling the truth? Very simple. I've listened to many victims of alleged assaults, both in and out of court. I'm biased against the victims because I am defense attorney, so, I'm harder to convince of a rape than most. Yet, this woman showed no signs of coaching. Her story rings of truth. Why? Because she did not even know what date this horrid event occurred on!
Were she a liar, she could have found this out without very much investigation. She didn't do the investigation, because she knew the truth and didn't need to bolster her story. Also, she may never consulted even a tyro of a lawyer before going public, because when asked how she felt about Clinton, she said, in a most na´ve fashion, that she couldn't say it on television. Then, she relented and exclaimed that her hatred for him knew no bounds. No lawyer would ever have allowed her to say that. It's devastating to her case, in court, because it gives the defenders of this "president" the motive of hatred to work to death, as the presidential attorney are so prone to do. Still, she said it, and demonstrated either her refusal to follow legal advice, or, perhaps, her refusal to seek it. People telling the truth do not need lawyers to advise them. Our corrupt system crushes almost anyone who tells the truth anyway.
What happens when a weaker woman who is attacked by a person who is as physically large as Bill Clinton? She can give in, or she can fight and scream. As big as he is, unless the woman has special training or is armed with a weapon, the struggle is generally a lost cause. But, piercing screams can come from even the most petite of frames. So, how are the screams halted by the attacker? By smothering the woman's mouth with sickening kisses, and, if that tactic fails, biting the lips. Broaddrick's lip was bitten so hard that even her assailant noticed as he walked out of the hotel room. Again, showing Broaddrick was not only raped, but viciously assaulted by the beast who leads our country.
I rarely go to court anymore because the system of "justice" so repulses me, but, being a defense attorney, I have in the past hired many experts to testify in cases such as these. And these experts, whether they be sexual-abuse counselors or psychiatrists in the field, will testify to nearly anything that aids the party who pays them. They should be barred from spreading their useless lies to the juries, but, we have a system for injustice, not one for finding truth.
Regardless of how rotten it is for experts to testify for fees that really amount to bribes, if I presented the facts surrounding this president, without divulging his identity, not even the most defense-oriented psychiatrist would come to his aid. Every sexual counselor, including those who are very defense prone, would be demanding that this unrepentant Mr. Hyde be incarcerated to ensure the safety of all women in the community.
As I began, I stated that I didn't think anything that Clinton did would more offend me than the massacre at Waco. How wrong I was. The man should have resigned for committing perjury and abusing his office, but he didn't. The Senate then protected the perjuring masher. It's time for the people to act because the system has failed.
Everyone, with any sense of decency, should scream until Bill Clinton or one of his flunkies silences them by biting off their lips or rips out their tongues; this abusive RAPIST must go.
(c) 1999 by Steffan Bertsch
| The Lodge
| Claire's Books
| CW Essays
| CW Sillies
| Patricia Neill
| Bookstore | Reviews | Literature | Sound-Off Archive | Den | Links |
If you find anything awry at this site,
please contact the Web Tender.