Martha, Bill: Both Are Guilty Of Breaking Ninth Commandment
By Gregory J. Rummo (03/09/04)
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” - Sir Walter Scott
THE IRONY OF Martha Stewart’s four convictions is that she was found guilty of trying to cover up a crime for which she was never charged.
The charges she was convicted of were conspiracy, two counts of making false statements and obstructing justice. Not included was the charge of insider trading—selling her shares of ImClone based on information that was not at the time known to the general public.
If this all has a familiar ring to it, let me help you with your recollections.
Another recent luminary, Bill Clinton, was also charged with four offenses in the cover-up of his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. It’s been almost six years so I have included them below to help refresh your memory. As you read through them, realize that the actual “crime”—the president’s Oval Office extra-curriculars—were not included.
“On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.”
As Martha Stewart’s case was not about insider trading, neither was Bill Clinton’s impeachment about sex.
Both are very public figures who were entrusted with positions of high responsibility. Both similarly abused their power. Yet only one it seems will actually be made to pay for her disregard of the law.
And the reason for that is interesting. A non-partisan jury of Martha’s peers was apparently more interested in seeing justice served than the partisan Democrats in the Senate who instead chose to ignore the seriousness of similar charges against then President Clinton.
But there is even a greater, overarching irony here.
When you distill down the charges against both Stewart and Clinton, they amount to one thing—lying.
It doesn’t matter if it was under oath (perjury) or in cahoots with others (conspiracy) or in making misleading statements or refusing to give evidence (obstruction of justice). It is deceit—plain and simple—and a violation of Old Testament Mosaic Law: “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.”
Doesn’t this strike anyone as an amazing charge to level at an alleged perpetrator in a country where half of the courts officially want the Ten Commandments to go away from public view?
Herein lies our confusion whether Martha Stewart (or Bill Clinton for that matter) were really deserving of prosecution: Both were tried ostensibly for breaking the Ninth Commandment.
Our nation is ruled by an Oligarchy of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Judges, legislating from the bench one day and enforcing the very laws they wish to do away with the next. Such is the inevitable result when a nation originally founded on God’s Laws decides to forge its own way. We now find ourselves in much the same situation as did the Nation of Israel during the period of Judges when “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”
But it wasn’t always that way in America.
David Barton, author and recognized authority in American history, particularly concerning the Colonial, Revolutionary, and Federal Eras explains: “In the American republic, the principles which did not change and which were certain and universal in their operation upon all the members of the community were the principles of Biblical natural law. In fact, so firmly were these principles ensconced in the American republic that early law books taught that government was free to set its own policy only if God had not ruled in an area.”
“For example, Blackstone's Commentaries explained: ‘To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine. . . . If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it we are bound to transgress that human law. . .’”
If “Biblical natural law” were followed in the United States, there would be no question of the guilt of both Bill Clinton and Martha Stewart. But in a nation that has learned to accept lying as a way of life—from the kitchen to the White House—the moral fog in which we now find ourselves shows no sign of lifting any time soon.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Gregory J. Rummo
