By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources
September 28, 1998
Apparently word went out last week to the Clinton troops to try to defend Clinton by announcing a "Christian coup" that plans to "take over the government." Obviously they hope to convince America that lying under oath about sex is not an impeachable offense. The very idea, according to Alan Dershowitz on the Geraldo Rivera show, as he attacked the Rev. Jerry Falwell, is proof of a "Christian coup" that plans "to take over the U.S. Government by impeaching Clinton or forcing him to resign "merely for lying." According to Dershowitz, the sinister "Christian coup" is based on what he considers the perfectly outrageous notion that "lying about sex" an "impeachable offense."
The message here is that any of you out there who are asking for resignation or impeachment of Bill Clinton, are part of "Christian coup" that is trying to "take over" America.
Makes one wonder if Bill Clinton was part of some "Christian coup" back in 1974 when he was saying that lying - not under oath - just lying to the media was definitely an impeachable offense. In a report in the Arkansas Gazette of August 6, 1974, Bill Clinton, candidate for the House of Representatives and University of Arkansas law professor, was very much of the opinion that lying was an impeachable offense. Clinton was running against incumbent Rep. John Paul Hammerschmidt who had questioned whether President Nixon admitting he had lied about the Watergate Burglary was an impeachable offense.
Nixon found out about the Watergate break-six days after it happened, but claimed for months that he did not know about it. The charge was NEVER that Nixon had planned or had known about the plan to place a listening device in the Democratic headquarters. The issue was when he found out and, having found out, having covered it up. Lying to protect a covert operation was considered un-American among those in the Democrat controlled Congress in both the Nixon, Reagan and Bush Administrations.
In the midst of the charges and counter charges, an election was held in which 61% of the voters voted for Nixon. Clinton is quoted as saying that Hammerschmidt "is wrong in opposing President Nixon's resignation and is wrong in questioning whether the president has committed an impeachable offense."
Hammerschmidt opposed Nixon's resignation. Clinton was trying to get elected to Congress by using Hammerschmidt's Republican views on impeachment as a political issue. (Candidates who wonder about using the impeachment issue may be interested to know that Clinton, a total unknown 28 year old law professor, came within 6000 votes of the 172,627 votes cast of beating the well-liked veteran incumbent Hammerschmidt.) After Nixon confessed he had lied about his role in the cover-up, and apologized, Hammerschmidt said, "We need to do our duty as quickly as possible. We should have done it a year ago." Confession not only didn't help Nixon, it turned some Republicans like Hammerschmidt against him for the first time.
Clinton attacked Hammerschmidt saying, "I don't see how in the world he can say that when a year ago he was saying we should forget about it and he voted against giving funds for the House Judiciary Committee staff."
He advocated Nixon's resignation over impeachment saying, "I think it's plain that the president should resign and spare the country the agony of this impeachment and removal proceeding," Clinton said. "I think the country could be spared a lot of agony and the government could worry about inflation and a lot of other problems if he'd go on and resign."
The Arkansas Gazette stated, "Clinton, a law professor at the University of Arkansas, said there was "no question that an admission of making false statements to government officials and interfering with the FBI and the CIA is an impeachable offense."
Clinton, who told the paper he was "campaigning hard across the Third Congressional District" charged that Hammerschmidt's statement "puts him out of step with all the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee who voted against impeachment" before the Monday revelations and now are "calling for resignation because of clear and direct evidence of an impeachable offense," Clinton said.
The Arkansas Gazette is no longer in print, having closed October 18, 1991, its assets were acquired by the Arkansas Democrat, which began publishing the next day as the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. For complete 1974 article go to: Representative Is "Out of Step," Clinton Charges
It must be noted that Richard Nixon was not lying under oath. He was lying basically to the media before an election, covering up what he considered to be a national security operation gone awry as a group of younger aides tried to carry out his directive to find out how national security information was being leaked to the media. What the "plumbers" had concluded was that the leaks were somehow connected to the Democratic Party, and placed a bug in the DNC headquarters. Were the national security leaks really connected to the Democratic Party? What has happened recently makes me wonder. When Richard Nixon was first elected in 1969 I was an activist in the Democratic Party. I had seen enough to realize one day, at a meeting of the County Central Committee, as I looked around at the people in the room, that there was no one in the room I would feel the family silver would be safe with. Lying to get elected was considered just good politicking.
The whole thing creates an interesting philosophical talking point. Let us suppose that the bug in the DNC had been placed in 1995 or 1996 and provided tapes of John Huang making deals with Asian contacts to provide access to Bill Clinton if they contributed a certain sum of money. All the circumstantial evidence certainly indicates that was going on. Who would Alan Dershowitz believe should be jailed? John Huang, Bill Clinton (or Al Gore), or those bugging Democrat headquarters?
Certainly the Democrats to this day claim that the "burglary" in which the "plumbers" placed a recording device in DNC headquarters is the worst crime of any ever committed. And, we are hearing from Bill Clinton and his ardent supporters that any of you who believe Bill Clinton should be impeached or forced to resign for lying under oath, obstructing justice and abuse of power are extremist nuts trying to overthrow the government. They believe their "program" REQUIRES Bill Clinton's survival.
Eleanor Smeal, former head of the National Organization for Women, and now head of the Feminist Majority, said concerning Clinton last week, "We deplore his misconduct but also understand the hypocrisy of his opponents. We have years of progress at stake if the President is hounded out of office, but worse yet we risk the ushering into power of a puritanical or fundamentalist sex police who speaks of freedom but who allows government to destroy the right to privacy."
So, what we have is six years of media manipulation in which any opposed to the Clinton agenda - i.e. homosexuals in the military, international abortion on demand at American taxpayer expense, opposition to nationalizing health care, etc. - are part of this attempted overthrow of America by a Christian Coup who oppose these issues.
The issues are boiling down to an polarization in our politics which I suspect many Democrats are going to find increasingly uncomfortable. The groups are controlling the airwaves in their support of Bill Clinton are feminists, the left wing tax-and spend crowd, and the blacks who want to continue their victim status which has allowed them access to public funds for housing, welfare, etc. Will the Irish Catholics of Boston, who battled successfully in the Supreme Court to prohibit homosexuals from taking over the St. Patrick's Day Parade a few years ago now fight for a president who has lied under oath, has made the Oval Office into brothel and the American presidency the laughing stock of the world, rush to his defense?
This is what the "policies" of Bill Clinton have brought us to. They have not brought prosperity. In April of 1993, even Clinton himself admitted that the statistics showed that the bottom of the "90's recession" had taken place in 1992 and the figures showed an upturn in the economy in 1991 - two years before he took office. He had been in office three months - yet basically took credit for that 2 year upturn, which he had labeled as the "worst recession since the 1930s during the 1992 campaign. The deregulation and business restructuring that took place in the 1980s under Ronald Reagan have borne much fruit - during these first six years of the Clinton Administration. Clinton was unable to actually implement much of his program - nationalizing health care, for example.
As you listen to the constant barrage of intemperate attacks on Kenneth Starr, Henry Hyde and others involved in trying to cope with the information coming to the Congress through the Starr report or reports, try to figure out, if you can, exactly what policy or policies would suffer if Bill Clinton was not in the White House.
What Clinton has proved is the importance of the House of Representatives. In the past four years, the real policy creation has taken place primarily in the House. Every citizen concerned about the Clinton situation should study the candidates in the Congressional elections for their state. The only way to do that is to read their stand on issues in their Web Sites - which they are explaining it in their own words.
To find the web sites for your state go to: November Election - State Candidates
It's not likely that you will hear much in the news about the good people running for office. Increasingly, goodness is not considered a worthy subject of newspaper or TV reporting. And, you sure can't believe the political attack ads or people like Alan Dershowitz . If you are concerned about the condition of the country, you have a month to educate yourself about the candidates running for office - and make sure that you get out to vote in November.
To comment: mmostert@originalscources.com