Let me start by saying that this annex is in no way connected to the
Clinton Library. Such an arrangement would certainly be mutually unsatisfactory.
Like its namesake, our VRWC Clinton Liebury Annex is a work in progress, and
is still under construction. It's dedicated to preserving the memories of Billary
Clinton with the objective of preventing anything like this from ever
happening again. Unlike its namesake, none of the donors to this facility got a pardon.
Yes, I said "Billary". The charming couple told us during Bill's 1992 campaign that, if we elected Bill, we'd get them both. Of all of Bill's campaign promises, why did he have to keep that one? You'd think we'd be grateful. After all (as you'll see during your tour), Hillary is the founder of the VRWC.
There are thousands of Clinton bashing pages on the web, and any decent search engine will reveal more than you could possibly want to look at. There are so many topics that it's hard to know what to include and what to leave out.
So, I have chosen to present three items here. One is important to all VRWC members, and the other two are chosen because, in my opinion, they best bring home the nature of this man's administration.
|The Founding Moment of the VRWC|
There is indeed a VRWC, and it owes its existence to the charming lady on the left.
You see, it was originally a red herring, a decoy, a device to distract attention
from her husband's scandals.
How else can I put this? Hillary made it up. Until she mentioned it, the VRWC didn't exist.
The first any of us heard of it was in Hillary's public statement. And boy, were we ever mad! Imagine how upset we were to hear about the existence of a right wing group, dedicated to the destruction of the Clintons. Why didn't we know about this? Who dropped the ball here? Worse, when we tried to join, we found out that there was no such thing. By that time, we were so motivated to join that we weren't about to take "no" for an answer. There was just no way we could let a fine idea like that die. So we formed it, and have been proud members ever since.
And that's what happened. Conservatives are individualists, and tend not to be
"joiners". Much of the left's success over the past 50 years or so can be credited
to that simple fact. Sure, individuals among us might get together to support some
particular policy position or another. But that was about the best we ever did in
response to the left, which explains why the left usually won out. Leftist public
policy advocacy groups support each other. It's this kind of "You scratch my back,
I'll scratch yours" that has been successful in advancing the left's world view.
Say what you will about Hillary, she's a world class organizer. It took her particular skills to get conservatives to start doing what the left has been doing for over a century: band together in common cause to advance our world view. She was quite successful, as the results from the 2000 election should tell you. The demographics said that about a third of the country was conservative. This was the "Republican base". But, by subordinating our internal differences in the name of advancing our world view, we managed to pull half the vote. Not bad. Thanks, Hillary. We might have done it without you, but the fact is that your input was instrumental to our success.
Several people I've talked to simply won't believe this. I swear to you, it's the absolute truth. But, because I don't expect people to take my word for it, here are quoted sources which support my position:
...first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday firmly denied allegations that her husband had an affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Mrs. Clinton blamed the sex allegations on a "a vast right-wing conspiracy" against President Clinton...
WASHINGTON (CNN) January 27, 1998
"Look at the very people who are involved in this. They have popped up in other settings. The great story here for anybody willing to find it, write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."
|Back to top|
|Bill's Moment of Truth|
The left desperately wants us to believe that the Monica Lewinsky business was
"about sex". It wasn't. It was about lying. The charges on which Bill Clinton
were impeached were charges of lying and obstruction, not of having sex. The charges
to which Bill Clinton copped a plea during his otherwise graceful exit from office
are charges of lying. Of course, Bill even lies about lying. He now maintains
that while some of his statements were "factually incorrect", he didn't lie.
The left argues that Bill Clinton "lied about sex", and then contends that he had no choice but to do so, having been maneuvered into that position by none other than your friendly neighborhood Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. But he did have a choice. Like any other person testifying under oath, Bill Clinton was under no obligation to incriminate himself. He had two legal options. One was to tell the truth, to admit what had happened. The other was to invoke his 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination. As a lawyer, he knew this. What he chose to do was lie under oath. It was his choice. He's not a victim here.
For those of you with short memories, we have a little movie of Bill Clinton lying right to your face. It's his famous "...I never had sex with that woman..." speech. Click here to view it. (You may need Windows Media Player to view this. If you don't have it, you can click here to get it.)
The movie is about 1.4 megabytes. If you don't feel like waiting for that to download, or you can't play the movie, click on the picture of Bill giving us the finger to see that sequence (about 200K).
I've got to hand it to Bill, though. He's undoubtedly one of the finest politicians of the 20th century. His skill at manipulating the public is right up there with Hitler and Goebbels. Not only can he flat lie to people's faces, he can actually get them to go along with the notion that he had no choice, that it's all someone else's doing, and that the shadowy forces of evil are the real enemy. This is the classic the devil made me do it excuse, the type of thing that nobody would accept from their children. But Bill convinced a large percentage of the nation to accept it from their President.
I'm a parent of 3, now a grandparent. From my perspective, Bill's certainly at fault here. But he could never have gotten away with this sort of stuff had he not had a good deal of help. His party, the media, the Republicans who decided to "go along to get along", and the public all "enabled" this behavior. And all of those parties bear some responsibility for the results.
|Back to top|
|Elian Takes a Trip|
Decent people might differ as to whether Elian should have been given over to the
custody of his father or not. There are powerful arguments on both sides of that
But nobody in his right mind can justify this scene. This is police state stuff, pure, simple, and brutal. It's a stark reminder that all government ultimately draws its authority from its ability to use overwhelming force against the people it was created to serve. You are looking at the open invasion of the private home of a citizen charged with no crime. There was no evidence that anybody in the home was armed, nor was there any evidence that the child was being held against his will. Indeed, a look at the child's face will tell you that he doesn't seem to appreciate being "rescued" in this manner.
So the government flexed its police muscles to break into a private home, threaten the residents, and abduct one of them without consent or due process. The initial reaction to this was one of dismay, from both the left and the right. To hear Tom DeLay and Alan Dershowitz in agreement about this surprised a lot of people. There was a widespread consensus that the government's actions in this particular incident ignored due process to the point of nullification. If the government is free to ignore due process on the basis of the opinion of one or two individuals who happen to hold some particular offices, then due process doesn't exist unless those individual office holders deign to recognize it.
But what surprised me was that these outcries resulted in no action. Indeed, they vanished from the press within a few days of the event. The entire matter was covered over with the flimsiest of excuses and allowed to drop.
And yet the initial objections remain valid. There are people of all political persuasions who advocate for change by demanding that their particular public policy preferences be enacted into law, usually Federal law. This scene is the what those people are ultimately advocating - the use of force, the government's police power, to compel compliance.
I don't see that the objections raised were ever actually addressed. They were dismissed, swept under the rug, and forgotten. I think it's sobering, even frightening.
|Back to top|