Book Review: The Death of American Virtue - Clinton vs. Starr

The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr – by Ken Cormley

As a social studies teacher during the Clinton administration, I had assured my students that it would take the United States 100 years to recover from Clinton's presidency – if it ever did.

Ken Cormley's book on the evolution of scandal into scandal with its eventual climax in the impeachment proceedings has been universally (as far as I can tell) praised as being an even-handed work of scholarship. Cormley is a Constitutional Law scholar and dean at the Duquesne University Law School, and his account of this David vs. Goliath (hint: David is Ken Starr, for illustrative purposes) struggle is indeed one of the finest works of historical inquiry that I have read. And as a former social studies teacher, I have read a lot of history. It is intricately sourced and indeed, even-handed, yet reads like the finest of novels.

As one would expect from a work praised for its lack of bias, the book reflects real world realities starkly. We know who is wearing the white hats and the black hats in this story, just as anyone whose conscience has not been perversely twisted during the actual Clinton scandals. Bill Clinton is a vile, monstrous, deceiver – a man of few principles and zero conscience. What you will learn, perhaps for the first time by reading Cormley's book, is that Clinton is also a world-class coward. Ken Starr, however, is a man of impeccable character, respected as a man of integrity by everyone who was not a defendant in this case, including Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno (pp. 340ff). While Starr occasionally appears (and admits to being) somewhat befuddled by the prosecutorial task of following allegations, he is clearly a man of honesty and honor whose shortcomings are entirely human and do not affect the final outcome of the investigatory task. Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, and others, are proven repeatedly to be the liars that we all knew that they were back in the day.

Having said all that, I would say that reading Cormley's book has significantly changed my mind about a few things.

First of all, back in the day I considered it to be axiomatic that Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, et al., were obviously telling the truth about being sexually harassed, raped, and what have you, by Bill Cinton. Upon reading Cormley's book (did I mention that it has been praised for being even-handed?), I am convinced that they were not, in fact, telling the truth.

Paula Jones repeatedly expressed a desire to have her case concluded with a fair settlement just so that she could “have her life back.” Her advisors, including (but not limited to) conservative activist Susan Carpenter-Macmillan and Jones' own ex-husband, continually twisted her arm to keep the ball rolling. Had Jones actually been harassed in the way that she described, I cannot imagine her being willing to dismiss her allegations upon payment of funds to a charity, especially when the allegations of Clinton's alleged character as a rapist began to be published abroad. Further, Jones repeatedly assured various characters, including her own lawyers, that she would do certain things (settle the case) and wouldn't do certain things (pose naked in a porno spread), and reneged on those commitments. Finally, in one of the most outrageous lies ever known to man, Jones maintained to her lawyers once the said buff pictures had indeed been published that she was unaware that she was being photographed. *Ahem.* Anyone who has seen any of those pictures knows that Ms. Jones was quite aware that she was being photographed. Jones is an unstable liar, and her allegations against Clinton should be discounted accordingly.

Willey's case is, if anything, even more cut-and-dried than Jones.' Willey alleged that Clinton accosted her when she came to seek a political job from him, pinning her against the wall, biting her lip, and aggressively fondling her breasts. However, on the very date on which Willey suggests that this occurred to her, Linda Tripp maintains that she saw Willey coming out of Clinton's office appearing in an almost dreamy state, relaxed and happy – certainly not distraught in any way. Additionally, Willey's friend, Julie Hiatt Steele, denied that she had ever maintained that Clinton had misbehaved with reference to her. Willey, in fact, confessed to being behind closed doors with Clinton and willingly kissing and mutually groping him.

In short, by all evidence that exists beyond mere prejudice, it appears that these two women (and a host of others, whom I will ignore in the interests of brevity) were mere opportunists who sought to gain something – whether a Penthouse spread or a job – by the filing of false allegations against the president.

The hypocrisy which congeals around these allegations, which were simultaneously widely considered to be false among the intelligentsia and yet widely circulated by that same intelligentsia, is astounding. Ben Bradlee, editor of the Washington Post and the boss of Mike Isikoff, who broke the Lewinsky story among the “respectable” [sic] media, admitted that, while a great fan of JFK (whose credentials as a “girler” were impeccable), it was necessary to pursue and publish similar allegations against Clinton: “[Clinton] made the news.... I mean, we didn't take up with Monica Lewinsky.... Where do I draw the line? I draw the line at truth.”

Ahhhh, but there is the rub. Any time Bill Clinton is involved, the lines between truth and falsehood become marvelously blurred, don't they?

While it is true that Clinton is among that vilest of the class of human beings – those who treat their marriage vows as if they were clauses in a contract riddled with exceptions – and is singularly the most perverse and shameful politician to have ever inhabited the national stage (BHO44 notwithstanding), and while it is true that Clinton had (shall we say?), an extremely full social calendar, while broadcasting abroad the truth that Clinton was a devilish adulterer whose compulsion apparently exceeded that of one Tiger Woods, the press simultaneously broadcast the known falsehoods of the myriad of empty pockets, heads, and lives who swarmed around the Starr investigation like sharks around chum, seeking Warhol's proverbial 15. In short, the truth that Clinton was (and still is) an adulterer is not an excuse for knowingly accusing him of nonconsensual antics – including rape (Exodus 20:16).

But when lies are being tossed around, Bill Clinton is in his element. He is not just a Master of the Lie, in fact he is The Ringmaster of the Lie. Kevin Ohlson, a Justice Department appointee under Clinton, expressed fear when Janet Reno recommended handing off the Lewinsky matter to the Office of Independent Counsel (and by the way, contrary to the insane warblings of the Clinton administration, the investigation into the Lewinsky matter had nothing to do with sex – it was rather an investigation into obstruction of justice and the possibility of bribery being passed through Vernon Jordan in the form of a jobs-for-silence conspiracy): “Oh my God, this could lead to the president's resignation... out of sheer and utter embarrassment” (343). Of course, Ohlson can be forgiven for the unprovable assumption that Bill Clinton possesses enough conscience to feel embarrassment about anything. It is a common trait among sociopaths, of course, that they display no capacity for shame....

And so the false allegations against Clinton produced, not the truth, but rather an engorgement on falsehood that resembled, spiritually, the chaos present whenever my mother-in-law and a buffet are in the same room. Clinton was more than happy to engage in denials of the truth (one of which had his law license permanently revoked in Arkansas), character assassination (“Drag $100 through a trailer park and who knows what you'll come up with?”), and a scorched-earth policy of mudslinging (as successive Republican Speakers of the House resigned under the assault emanating from the Clinton White House through model citizen and *Hustler* publisher, Larry Flynt). Because Bill Clinton is a liar deep in his soul, he is in his element when the lies are flying fast and furious. And if winning counts, then he won. But if someday one is held to account for *how* one wins, there may be a somewhat different verdict before a slightly more majestic bar than the impeachment panel rightly convened against him.

So yes, it is quite an even-handed treatment of a chaotic period of American history. Cromley's objective treatment show Bill Clinton to be the vile criminal that he actually is in real life – a man so alienated from truth that he is destined to be remembered primarily for lies. Both the lies that he himself told, and the slanders that were proffered against him.

What has not been discussed in Cormley's book, or any other, of course, because the topic is expressly *verboten* among polite society (luckily, I do not consider myself to be polite at all), is the nexus between the Clinton scandals and feminist doctrine.

First, one may justly wonder, though Ben Bradlee seemed not to do so, why it is that the philandering of JFK, FDR, and (possibly) other presidents were largely covered up by the media, while Clinton's were declared, as it were, from the housetops. Now, liberals have their own explanation as to why this occurred (a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” but then paranoia is a natural aspect of the mental disorder known as liberalism), but liberals are always wrong, and have been proven so by history. So what is the real reason?

One word: court. Court documents. OK, that's really two words.

Marcia Lewinsky, Monica's mom, essentially paints her daughter as the victim of a perjury trap, noting that EVERYBODY'S first reaction when caught in adultery – even when you have got “the goods” on them – is to deny it. She makes the point that Paula Jones' public display was voluntary (though Jones herself would deny this, saying that she was thrust into the spotlight by *The American Spectator*): “Just because Paula Jones may have thought it was her right to make a public spectacle... I think Monica [similarly] thought it was her right to keep it private. And not to tell anyone about it, and to deny it, which is exactly what she did” (p. 399).

And I would agree, except for one thing: feminists generally, and Bill Clinton specifically, not Paula Jones, long ago made the decision for all of us that sex was going to be a public matter to be wielded like a weapon whenever it stood to benefit a woman to do so (and with so-called “rape shield laws,” feminists similarly established that feminism is not really about equality, but about enacting a series of double standards, when they also devised evidentiary standards in legal cases which kept relevant information about a so-called “victim's” past out of evidence, thereby reducing all rape, domestic violence, child abuse, and sexual harassment claims to “he said/she said” status).

In 1994, Bill Clinton signed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as a sop to the feminist movement without whose devotion he would not have been elected (and, as subsequent events would confirm, as a sop to his wife as well). VAWA contained several provisions that were designed to promote the filing of false charges by women against men:

• VAWA removed the possibility of perjury charges for any testimony that a woman makes in a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) hearing.

• VAWA lowered the standard of evidence for obtaining a DVPO from the “likelihood of imminent harm” standard, which has been the standard for obtaining restraining orders in English Common Law since prior to the establishment of the American experiment, to the much more mushy “subjective fear of the woman.” In practical terms, this means that traditionally, in order to get a restraining order, a person had to prove that absent such an order, there was an imminent probability of harm. Under VAWA, however, any woman willing to manufacture false allegations (and nearly all DVPO proceedings are merely a convenient venue for the airing of generic grievances which have nothing to do with “violence” - it is estimated that false DVPO proceedings drain the economy of $20 billion annually, see http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-False-DV-Allegations-Cost-20-Billion.pdf), against a man need only convince a judge that she possesses fear of that man (and not even that such fear is justified!) in order to be granted a restraining order. Obviously, it is exceedingly rare for a requested DVPO to not be granted, on even the flimsiest of evidence. I have seen DVPOs granted by courts because the husband was an evangelical Christian or, in one case, because a husband canceled an insurance policy – which caused his wife to very dramatically intone in her testimony, “I just don't know who he is anymore. That is not the kind of thing he would do. I feel naked and exposed – I am SO SCARED.” Subjective fear of the woman requirement satisfied: DVPO granted.

• VAWA further continues to corrupt the judicial system by controlling the continuing education classes taken by judges and attorneys on the topic of “domestic violence.” Of course, all such continuing ed courses are taught either by doctrinaire feminists, who view the breakup of the family as a part of their ongoing political project, or by representatives of women's shelters, whose funding depends on an ever-expanding definition of and finding of “domestic violence.” Lawyers and judges at the district court level, where these matters tend to be disposed of, are now thoroughly brainwashed by feminist dogma, which has no relation to facts.

Clinton had, then, as one of his first major triumphs of policy, signed into law a piece of legislation that was designed to produce false allegations. It has done so in spades. This is entirely consistent with everything that we know about Bill Clinton, because the one reality that history will inevitably connect with his name is "liar." A man who lies as much as Bill Clinton always has, would certainly be a man whose alienation from truth is so complete as to desire to encourage lying in the general populace.

Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones were hardly the first females to use... uhhhhh... "creative" interpretations of sex to accomplish their purposes, whatever they were. In the book of Genesis, we see that false allegations are second only to seduction in the female weaponry utilized in the war against men (Genesis 39:7-20).

But the United States, under the tutelage of Bill Clinton, the notorious liar, and consequent to the Violence against Women Act, is the first society in all of human history to actively encourage these false allegations. Bill Clinton signed VAWA with the full knowledge that false allegations would ensue, that innocent men would be separated from their children (at least) and unjustly convicted of crimes (at worst), and that the American family would experience incomprehensible carnage. And that is exactly what has happened.

The purely karmic reality, however, is that Clinton was one of the very first to suffer under this regime.

God does exist.

And He has quite a sense of humor.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, there is nothing funny about the carnage that has been wreaked on the American family by Bill Clinton's signing of VAWA. It will, indeed, be 100 years before America recovers from the Clinton administration.

If it ever does.

Tactics of Women's Shelters 3

In one DVPO (Domestic Violence Protective Order) proceeding, a woman alleged that her husband had beaten her severely in a Sadomasochistic event, and alleged that he had beaten her so severely that he had left bruises in the area of her buttocks.

What she did not know was that her husband had her credit card statement for a card that was only in her name and had been utilized at sex shops while he was out of the country. He testified that he had noticed bruises on her buttocks area numerous times and his wife had told him she had "fallen down the stairs." She admitted to having told her friends the same thing.

Despite her own admission of lying in court, the credit card statement showing that she had been frequenting sex shops while he was out of the country, her admission that on one of those occasions she had purchased "an S&M kit," and the husband's allegations that she was coming home with bruises in her buttocks area, the DVPO was continued.

This should indicate everything that you need to know about "Domestic Violence" in the modern family court system - it is not a concept that responds well to evidence. Because, as stated previously, "Domestic Violence" is to law what the "widget" is to economics - it is anything that you want it to be. The continuation of a DVPO and the consequent criminal and civil penalties that almost necessarily follow is not dependent upon evidence, but rather is based upon the "subjective fear of the woman." Therefore, what you will hear in a DVPO proceeding is not truth, but rather a template. This is a key issue that men must recognize in order to protect themselves.

By a template, I mean that what is needed to find liability of "Domestic Violence" is not evidence of violence, but rather to show that a man acts in such a way as to fit the neurotic, fear-fueled, hate-charged stereotypes pushed by feminists. Many men, once served with a notice of hearing for "domestic violence" have the attitude - "I have never hit my wife or even so much as pushed or grabbed her. She is not going to be able to produce any evidence in court. I don't even need a lawyer."

This ignores two basic facts: 1) The Domestic Violence Industry is fueled by perjury. 2) "Domestic Violence" has nothing to do with any act of "violence" that the average person would recognize. In fact, in my experience there are three issues that are normally at the center of a DVPO hearing: a man is mean, a man is negligent, or, by far the most popular, a man is controlling.

And here are a few of the specific, often used strategies encouraged, taught, and practiced by women's shelters that help women catch their men in acts of "domestic violence"....

First, be aware of any sudden changes in sexual preference on the part of your wife (I will use "wife" throughout, recognizing that by far, most of the perjury associated with allegations of Domestic Violence seem strangely coordinated with alimony, divorce, and custody proceedings, but keep in mind that any "intimate partner" could file such spurious charges). A woman who suddenly develops an interest in S&M, and insists that you participate with her, could be up to something.

Victoria, because she could not simply "leave" her husband without risking the disapproval of her strict Baptist and Catholic family members, tried to lure her husband into inflicting bruises on her through S&M "play" and based a DVPO allegation on that. Charlotte says that she was encouraged to agree to watch pornography with her husband, and then claim in court that she was "made to watch pornography." In any DVPO hearing, being "made to" do thus and so is a recurring theme. Though such allegations never survive the first question (i.e., "HOW did he MAKE you...?"), it is part of conjuring up the appropriate template for a judge to base his decision on: women are helpless victims and men are cruel, dangerous ogres.

Some women have been encouraged to engage in whatever sexual interests they may have - orgies, threesomes, gloryholes, porn, even sex toys (one woman claimed that her purchase of a vibrator was evidence of her husband's "abuse") - then claim in court that their husband "pimped them out" or "forced them to have sex with women."

Men should be very careful about 180-degree turns on the part of their wives. Since a marriage that is on the rocks almost always has sexual problems that are central to the conflict, men may misinterpret their wives' new sexual "openness" as a sign that their marriage problems are on the way to being solved. It may be just as likely that you are being set up. Beware! Make sure that your marriage is on a firm footing long before you delve into new sexual horizons with your wife.

Secondly, women are encouraged to get evidence of a controlling, cruel, or negligent husband recorded either on paper or on tape. When you are having marital problems, do not write anything about your marriage and do not sign any documents authored by your wife!

Victoria was committing adultery with a married father of three when her husband found out and insisted that it stop. Weeks of conflict ensued. One night, she "repented" to her husband, asked his forgiveness, and said she wanted to start anew on a "second marriage." She had him draw up a marriage contract for the "second marriage" stating all the things that they both agreed she had done wrong and stating the resolutions for change that she was willing to make. She then signed the document and posted it on the refrigerator. In the DVPO hearing, the central piece of evidence was the marriage contract, which, of course, Victoria alleged that her husband had "forced her to sign."

This desire for written evidence goes both ways. Angie G. says that she was encouraged to get her husband to write her cards and letters confessing to her any time he had committed some sin against her. This all, of course, became evidence. A boxful of evidence.

Another common tactic is taping. Be careful when your wife is wearing bulky clothing indoors when it doesn't seem indicated. She could be hiding a hand-held tape recorder in a large pocket or inside a sweatshirt. Women are taught to stand in doorjambs and talk across the room to their husband so that he cannot see the tape recorder in their hand. They are taught to place the recorder behind a cushion or pillow and record while they sit.

Beware of any conversation that starts with a series of naked allegations, for which a woman seems to simply be seeking your response. If you hear this, you are likely being taped for some legal proceeding! Look for conversations structured like this:

She: I want to talk to you.
He: OK.
She: You beat me.
He: Huh?
She: You beat me and you are an adulterer and you are controlling and you always hated my family.
He: I beat you?

Note how this conversation can be twisted to be used in court. He is so flabbergasted by the false allegation that he beat his wife that he cannot even respond. But the final question, "I beat you?", can be twisted into an admission, on the theory that, if you did not beat your wife, you would flatly deny such. If that doesn't fly, the attorney can allege, "Well, you didn't deny adultery or being controlling or hating her family, did you?"

And these types of subjective, neurotic, adolescent offenses are all that is necessary to fit one into the radical feminist template of a "domestic abuser."

Beware of conversations that simply come out of left field, and again, are phrased as naked allegations. Imagine a guy at work with his instant messenger turned on, and his wife pops up with an instant message:

She: You love my blow jobs.
He: Hey baby, how are you? Yep, your blow jobs are GREAT.
She: You want my blow jobs all the time.
He: You know it.

In court, this becomes, "He makes me give him blow jobs all the time. We can't even have normal sex. He doesn't care about my pleasure at all. I hate giving blow jobs." Remember, most instant messengers have a record conversation feature.

If a woman knows a long-standing marriage boundary, look for her to start violating it and assume that she has a tape recorder so that she can record her response. If you have asked her time and again to let her watch your favorite sports team in silence, or not to cook fish, or to not wake you during a nap, etc., women are taught to start violating these boundaries of consideration with impunity and to record the result.

One man had a study in which he did extra work at home. He had asked his wife not to bother him for anything unless it was very important while he was working. One day, she walked in, wearing shorts and a sweatshirt. Under the sweatshirt was a tape recorder.

She: I want to talk to you.
He: I am working, is it really important?
She: No. I just want to talk to you.
He: What is it?
She: I don't know. I just want to talk. What do you want to talk about?

Now, look at the position this man is in, who does not know that he is being recorded. His mind is focused on something important for work, and perhaps for years it has been a known boundary in his home that he is not disturbed while he works. His wife has honored this boundary. Her behavior has become peculiar of late - she is gone a lot (committing adultery or attending "Community Support" meetings at the local women's shelter) and seems to be picking a fight with him all the time. She has become uncivil, and has crossed every boundary of simple respect that the two of them have established. He is exasperated.

If he yells at her, it is evidence that he is mean. Anything he says beyond "Get out!" is probably also abusive.

If he calmly reminds her of the fact that he is working and, absent a compelling emergency, he is not to be bothered, he is controlling.

If he ignores her, he is negligent, distant, and does not regard her "feelings."

And remember, above I stated that in the 100+ DVPO hearings that I have witnessed, the issues are normally that the husband is cruel, negligent, or controlling.

Women's shelters encourage women to keep logs of any and all physical contact between themselves and their spouse. Angie G. says, "They didn't really encourage me to lie as much as they encouraged everyone to put everything that happened in the worst light possible."

One of the most effective means of getting a man to "get physical," giving birth to some event that can be presented in the "worst light possible," is for a woman to start feigning psychological problems or otherwise acting out.

One woman would scream and yell at her husband while her tape recorder was on, hoping that he would yell back. When he didn't, but rather approached her quietly and knelt on the floor attempting to embrace her, she kicked him and yelled, "Get off me!" In court, she was kicking him because he was "wrestling her and would not let her go." She, of course, was merely "defending herself." Without video, it is difficult to argue with that kind of story.

One woman would act out by screaming, yelling, and hopping in the middle of the floor while spinning around. Her husband, obviously, thought she was having a mental breakdown. He offered to "get her some psychological help" but she constantly refused because it might threaten her professional career. She would talk to people who were not there, talk to the dead, and zone out in public. Eventually, he became so unnerved by her screaming, waving her arms, and rotating in the floor that he started wrapping her up in a bear hug when it would happen, to keep her from falling and hitting her head on a coffee table or squashing the dog.

Of course, in court, he was "squeezing the breath out of me and wouldn't let me go." He was "trying to kill me."

Admissions of wrongdoing are calculated to provoke an angry, and perhaps physical, response. Women's shelter counselors urge the women who attend "Community Meetings" that they must "live their own lives," "live authentically," "expect your spouse to authenticate your feelings and needs," and other Oprahized claptrap.

What this means is this: tell your husband about the affair and tape the result. If he doesn't respond in a way that is helpful to you, keep talking about it and taping it until he does.

Women's shelter counselors have suggested to some women that they convince an especially attractive friend to flirt with their husband prior to the filing of a DVPO. The results are, of course, admissible in court, and this works especially well to nullify evidence of adultery on the wife's part.

And all women's shelters have a bevy of attorneys and private investigators that can be contacted, so traditional black ops tactics such as bugs, videotaping, tracking by P.I.'s, and general harassment tactics are always possible.

A couple of my favorite tactics under this "traditional black ops" category are these:

A woman admits to her husband that she is cheating on him. She tells him, over a period of weeks, "I am going to X on Thursday. You are not invited." "I am going to Y on Friday. You are not invited." Eventually, he realizes something is up and decides to follow her and catch her with her boyfriend. Of course, he does not realize that a P.I. has been hired to follow him following his wife. In court, this is evidence that he is "controlling," though apparently he is not "controlling" enough to stop his wife from committing adultery.

A man slapped with a DVPO hires an attorney. The attorney begins to delay the hearing, knowing that speed is his enemy (it does take time for lies to start to unravel, so don't get upset when your attorney starts to file continuances and generally tries to gum up the works before your DVPO hearing). In the time between the filing and the month or two that an attorney may be able to delay the hearing, the man who has been falsely accused begins to receive three or four telephone calls per night. Every time he picks up the phone, there is nobody there, but rather a robocaller then dials someone else's number. After the 15th time the poor sap is fussed out by a total stranger for "calling in the middle of the night," and after the fifth straight night without a full night's sleep, he is willing to do most anything - including just give her the assets in return for her dropping the DVPO.

An attorney or police agency obtains a warrant to track your cell phone signal as a way of making sure that you are not "stalking" your wife, since you, as an accused domestic abuser, are also a potential murderer. Now, don't be ridiculous - neither your wife nor her attorney (and probably not the judge either) actually believe that you are a threat to her - they just want to know where you are going and what you are doing on the chance that it may help their property division or alimony case! You are not informed that your cell signal is being used to keep tabs on your location. When you show up for your hearing, you are asked, "Have you ever been to a strip club?" "Who lives at 123 Main Street? You've been spending a lot of time there, haven't you?"

And remember, the attorneys that are accessed through a women's shelter are generally not paid by their clients (i.e., your wife). They are paid by block grants to "Community Organizations (women's shelters) from the federal government under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). So don't think that the same cost restraints that you face with your attorney will be faced by your wife. There are plenty of cases of attorneys still performing pro bono work for a woman that contacted them through a women's shelter even two years or more after the DVPO hearing. Free.

These are but a few of the tactics routinely encouraged or made available at women's shelters. Do you see now why the tactics of women's shelters are not admissible in court in my state?

When you see inexplicable behavior on the part of your wife, whether it looks like anything recounted here or not, protect yourself. The perjury-driven Domestic Violence Industry may be setting you up.

View a four-part video series on Women's Shelters at Opposing Feminism.