|Other Voices||Links||The List|
Some points and counterpoints to the whole notion that the president's sex life is somehow significant. An OpEd piece I had in the Bangor Daily News in early February 1998
Some reflections on Kenneth Starr's Whitewater Investigation, and some interesting background on this Independent Counsel. Includes some updated information, and a new, slightly larger survey.
This is an informal list of people willing to publically support President Clinton. You can both view the list, and add your own name through this link. I understand that putting your name down on a list can be intimidating, or maybe even just a hassle that you don't think you can waste time on - but a stand needs to be made somewhere, and this can be one leg of that stand. If you've got a group of people that would like to sign, but don't have time to visit, just send me the list via email. Thanks!
Actually, no. I don't claim that President Clinton is guiltless. Anyone that has attained a significant national position is going to have committed some unsavory acts. However, there has been ample focus on the president's shortcomings over the last half decade - as this area grows, you'll find that I've interspersed links to areas covering the background of some of these instances. It is time, however, to shift focus. My primary focus on these pages is to show that this whole affair is a politically motivated attempt to topple a popularly elected Democratic president. Political partisanship is nothing unusual, but this investigation has gone way beyond justification and in many instances enters the realm of criminal activities itself. So yes, President Clinton doesn't fly with the angels, but I certainly wouldn't direct any prayers towards the individuals in the opposing camp. Spend two days researching any president or politician and you'll find examples of activities that make William J. Clinton look like a rank amateur at this whole intrigue business.
As you read this, congress is paying attention to activists on both sides of this issue. They will be making momentous decisions based upon the views of these activists. Conversely, they're paying very little attention to polls reflecting the views of everyday Americans. Know why? Because less than 20% of the eligible voters participated in the primaries. Whatever our party affiliation, or feelings on this particular issue, we need to register, and most importantly, vote. I don't want less than one-fifth of the American voting age populous deciding what is right for this country, even if the elections turn out favorably to my point of view. I'm registered. I'm voting. I hope that you will too.
Salon Magazine released a
story detailing House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde's five
year adulterous affair with the former Cherie Snodgrass. Republicans
immediately demanded that the FBI investigate the source of the story,
claiming that it was put out by the White House. Republicans, who are
willing to dig into the president's private life in the most
excruciating detail all of a sudden feel that there is a major threat
to the foundations of the nation when people start concentrating on their background.
Representative Helen Chenowith (R-Idaho), champion of "Family Values" (and a host of slightly more offbeat causes) somehow feels that her adulterous affair with Vernon Ravenscroft, and her promiscuity as a timber lobbyist are somehow unrelated to her belief that '...personal conduct does count.' Her point is that she was single at the time, that she was not in public office, and that she didn't lie about it. In fact, she did lie about it, to Ken Olsen, of the Spokane, Washington Spokesman-Review in 1995.
Hey! More "Family Values" folks! It's Newt! Remember how he doesn't consider adulterous felatio as being sex? How about the touching scene where he tells his first wife (whom he never mentions in his official biography) that he is divorcing her, as she is lying in a hospital bed with ovarian cancer.
Then we have Dan Burton (R-Indiana), that stalwart proponent of decency and family values who likes to call the President of the United States a "Scumbag". Danny's sexual exploits are legendary around Indiana, and he has an illegitimate son that he supports financially, but has no physical contact with (ah yes, good old Republican "Family Values" displayed yet again). Yet he somehow blames the White House for exposing this information to the American public (sorry Dan, (Oh, I'm sorry - you deserve more respect than that - I meant "Representative Danny-boy") it was an independent newspaper in your own state).
The examples could go on (isn't that a newsflash); I'm afraid if we were to investigate, and kick out, every politician in Washington that was involved in this type of affair that Washington would end up having approximately the population of Ken Starr's hometown of Thalia, Texas. So now we have the Republicans wanting to waste more of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars calling out the FBI for yet another investigation. This is priceless. Its a classic example of the mentality of the people involved in this witch-hunt. Too bad it poses such an overt threat to our First Amendment rights. I'll have details on all of these items, and more, as soon as I can get them up.
Dear Congress. I feel for you. I understand that it's difficult to get anything accomplished besides defeating the tobacco bill and generating anti-environmental legislation while you're rooting on the witch-hunt. Yet every once in a while you happen to remember that your constituency elected you to accomplish something more meaningful than drooling in anticipation of the upcoming spectacle. How can one possibly fit such boring chores into an otherwise thrilling legislative session? Heck, just the self-righteous moral posturing, furious attempts to cover up your own indiscretions, and fighting to get in a newsbite takes up most of the time you have available after planning your post-impeachment party. I may have a potential solution. --- Just slightly used (one administration only) - available - experienced - and discrete! Your "Great Communicator" trusted the advice of this person, after all. Think about it, it's the perfect opportunity to look like you're actually earning your money. Compared to the mystifying and harebrained activities you've perpetrated on the nation, any strange ideas generated by your little helper will appear positively mundane. Yes, it's a brilliant idea - Ronnie's astrologer probably has more experience shaping US policy than many of you will ever have, or want, or should have been entrusted to try to attain in the first place.
Guess who filed a legal brief for the Reagan Justice Department claiming that the Office of the Independent Counsel was unconstitutional? Know what he claimed? That it gave too much power to one unaccountable person. Apparently Kenneth Starr decided that since he couldn't convince anyone with his legal brief, that he'd just have to show us with first-hand experience.
Imagine that you were the Republican leadership discussing matters with your fellow conservative and christian honchos in the early '90's and through today. You've managed to bring about the most conservative atmosphere that Americans have seen in decades. Suddenly you are faced with a Democratic presidential candidate who is more centerist than any other in recent memory. Horribly enough, not only is this candidate elected despite your efforts to smear him, you find that mainstream America, Republicans and Democrats alike, support his policy and administration. While you should be happy to have a Democratic president that echoes what you purport to be your views, you're not, simply because you are worried that your base is going to erode. So what do you do? You launch a campaign against this man, using whatever resources are available to come across something that might possibly be used against him. Will it work, or will there be a backlash? We'll see in a little over two weeks.
What a topsy-turvy situation. Let's just take me for example. Here you have someone that the anti-Clinton people like to call a "perverted Democrat". Someone that apparently doesn't understand the concept of individual morality. I've made a personal decision that the protection of our Freedoms, rights, and responsibilities is the significant point in all of this. Even so, I've conscientiously tried to be truthful in everything I put up here, and to avoid any personal attacks on people that hold a viewpoint that differs from mine (with the exception of some public figures, and a little fun in my poll). Compare this to some of my anti-Clinton visitors (the majority of whom are fine, decent people, who simply have a different opinion). If the threats, disgustingly vile language, attempted Trojan Horses (kind of silly, and a waste, since I have indications all over my site that I don't use Windows ®, but I'm very familiar with my sector editors after 21 years with computers) are any indication of the moral character of the people proclaiming individual morality to be paramount, this country is in serious trouble if their ilk get the upper hand. Do I feel it is their right to voice their opinions? Yes. Does it indicate any morality I want to be associated with? No. For the anti-Clinton viewers that like to stop in, here is my position on morality:
Morality is a fine and wonderful concept, and a concept that I hold close to my heart. However, morality is an individual matter, not subject to revocation on the whim of some politician in Washington. Our freedoms, rights and responsibilities are, on the other hand, hard-earned and easily lost. They are the result of generations of experience groping its way towards a better future. They're fragile - once they've been shattered, no amount of gentle teaching by a childs parents is going to unshatter them. This is why I fight.
The anti-Clinton crowd is crowing over the fact that on our websites, we do not deny Clinton's guilt. Actually, we do deny it on many of the sites, but let's just pretend for a moment that we don't. Why would that be? Here's my take on it:
Kenneth Starr and his cronies can come up with documented proof that William Jefferson Clinton was personally responsible for the Bubonic Plague, the Massacre of the Seventh Cavalry, The Great Depression, The Holocaust, and the AIDS pandemic through non-consensual anal sex with a pack of monkeys, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference at this point. Why? Because in the course of their vendetta, the Independent Counsel and his fellows committed documented criminal activities against individual American citizens, and the American public as a whole. This investigation is (or should be) null-and-void.
Of course, if another investigation were to bring up the proof of the preceding items, I would, naturally, pay heed <cough>
What a strange, seemingly self-contradictory statement. Just what you'd expect of a "Liberaloon" perverted Democrat, right? Just bear with me for a few minutes though. Everyone knows what is said in the Independent Counsel's report. Do we, however, know what really happened - especially since we're familiar with all of the prosecutorial excesses employed? What is missing from the picture presented to the world? Well, for one thing, none of the witnesses were cross-examined. Is this significant? Consider the following hypothetical situation wherein a Bemused Clinton Hater visits my website to gather background data to post an article in alt.impeach.clinton.or-suffer-the-wrath-of-my-vengeful-god-you-perverts showing how stupid and ill-informed I am. Questioning BCH is the Witch Hunter General who could care less about the fate of some lowly peon, even one that agrees with him - he just has his own agenda to pursue.
WHG: Mr. BCH - do you admit that on the night of October 29th 1998, you visited a known pro-Clinton site? A site that subversively attempts to demean the efforts of this investigation. A site that openly admits to the world that it is willing to support that festering wound upon humanity that these good offices are trying to free the world of?
BCH: Well, yes, but I----
WHG: Just answer the question Mr. BCH. Did you or did you not visit a known subversive site that readily proclaims its intention of supporting the scum-of-the-earth in their reprehensible attempt to fight the will of all right-minded people who by their very nature bask in the reflected glory of the Almighty One? Yes or No?
BCH: Yes. I mean, I did, but I was only go----
WHG: ANSWER THE QUESTION Mr. BCH YES or NO! Did you visit that site? I remind you of the criminal incidents we've already uncovered in your past!
Proud to be
Copyright © 1998
Last Updated 17 October, 98
|The author is a member of|