Connect with us


Bill Clinton: a man you can trust?



Bill Clinton, 42nd President of the United States. Elephont in the room: does he plan to be President again?

Without a doubt, Bill Clinton is an exceptional speaker – convincing and charming – a devastating combination. But can he be trusted?

Bill Clinton as courtroom witness

Once again I find myself falling back on my courtroom experiences. I know firsthand that lawyers and witnesses can make a compelling case for just about anything and having you believing wholeheartedly that they are telling the truth. Again, relying on courtroom experience, I can also tell you that when searching for the truth it is wise to look at the past of the person who has been so convincing. If this person is a witness, the courtroom term is “impeaching” the witness. The opposition does this by catching them in lies, which assaults their credibility.

“Impeachment” is an interesting term to use when discussing Bill Clinton, for obvious reasons. Whether this man is giving a convention speech or telling Congress and the country that he did not have sex with that woman – Monica Lewinsky, we would be wise to apply the courtroom standard to his words. The talking heads have done a good job of fact checking some of his more poignant remarks, and as was the case in the past, they are woefully inaccurate.

Can you believe Bill Clinton today?

Bill Clinton, 42nd President of the United States

Bill Clinton as President. Photo: Bob McNeely, The White House.

So the question now is – will countless Americans believe his remarks that he skillfully punctuates with his index finger wagging to emphasize, or will they remember that this particularly charming man is a bona fide liar extraordinaire? My guess is that those who have been enchanted by the Liar in Chief will accept Clinton’s remarks as inspirational. Liars can be inspirational as well as convincing – just as the father of all liars was when he led a revolt that recruited one-third of heaven. The good news is that some of us recognize liars for what they are. Hopefully there are enough of us voting in the November election.

[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378, 1936488299″ /]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Website | + posts

RoseAnn Salanitri is a published author and Acquisition Editor for the New Jersey Family Policy Council. She is a community activist who has founded the Sussex County Tea Party in her home state and launched a recall movement against Senator Robert Menendez. RoseAnn is also the founder of Veritas Christian Academy, as well as co-founder of Creation Science Alive, and a national creation science speaker.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Well, he did turn Reagan and Bush Sr.’s big deficit into a surplus.
For any fiscal conservative, you would think he’s the man to count on.


The surplus didnt just immediately appear after the introduction of GOP-backed legislation. There were very steady reductions in the deficit from 1992 to 2000 (

The Republicans also introduced the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (aka the repeal of Glass-Steagall), allowing for the consolidation of different types of banks and creating a major cause for the financial crisis of 2008. The Democrats also supported this in droves, so they’re guilty as well.


The Community Reinvestment Act caused the surplus? Or the recession?

There isnt really too much of a connection with either being how that act was passed in 1977. Please explain.

Its pretty clear to most economists that allowing banks to gamble with FDIC-insured money (the thing that Glass-Steagal prevented) was a major contributor of the recession.


I find it interesting that you are so certain in your analysis of a subject regularly debated by economists. I’d like to read more on the subject, could you provide me a paper or two about how the CRA lead to the housing crash?

And the banks wouldn’t have lent that money if they actually had a risk rather than having all of their money backed by the FDIC.


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x