By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources
October 13, 1998
The tightrope act of the Democrats between now and the election is based approximately on the following positions:
What Bill Clinton did was improper. 1.
However, it is not an impeachable offense. 2.
Therefore let's put a time limit on the Congressional investigation and not permit Kenneth Starr to come up with anything else. 3.
These three positions are the key parts of a well thought-out plan to prevent the American people from voting in November for more Republicans in Congress who might give Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott veto proof majorities which could override the Clintons' liberal agenda.
Position 1 is based primarily on 1960s feminist free sex doctrines that were succinctly described by Joyce Cowley in The International Socialist Review in 1955 in describing the goals of the suffragettes: "None of the women in this movement was exclusively preoccupied with sex equality and women's problems. They were, as I said, invariably abolitionists and frequently advocated a great man other reforms - the Utopian variety of socialism, trade unions, atheism, temperance, free love, birth control and easier divorce. Many of these causes were not too popular in the early part of the last century, and this accounts to some extent for the common opinion that these women were freaks and probably immoral."
By the late 1950s it was clear that abortion was a needed part of the implementation of the feminist agenda, if they were to achieve the free love part of the program. Both Hillary and Bill Clinton are obvious adherents to all parts of the radical feminist agenda, which holds that anything of a sexual nature is a "right" and therefore cannot be "wrong." Foolish politically, or unwise and therefore dumb or improper, but not immoral. Neither of the Clintons believe that anything they do sexually is morally wrong. Labeling any sexual behavior "immoral" would be a violation of their core beliefs.
That leads to position #2 - since his behavior with Monica Lewinsky is no big deal, it is therefore not impeachable. This is the core of the President's defense. Clinton attorney, David Kendall wrote in his Initial White House Rebuttal to the Starr Report, "In English practice, the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" had been applied to various offenses, the common elements of which were their severity and the fact that the wrongdoing was directed against the state. The English cases included misappropriation of public funds, interfering in elections, accepting bribes, neglect of duty, and various forms of corruption. Ibid. These offenses all affected the discharge of public duties by public officials. In short, under the English practice, "the critical element of injury in an impeachable offense was injury to the state."
In a monarchy the people and their injuries were of little consequence. Only injuries involving the "State" - which was in effect embodied in the King, were considered important. This concept, of course, was what allowed Henry the Eighth to behead wives he was tired of when he wanted sex with someone else. He was never deposed for his "sexual" liaisons - since he was the "State" and he was not injured.
Kendall does, however, quote the Constitution:
ARTICLE II, SECTION 4: *
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. *
He knows full well that even the King can be ousted for "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors" against the STATE. Based on what we know so far about such issues as Campaign Finance of the Clinton-Gore fund raising in 1996, there may very well be flagrant bribery and treason charges in the wings. If Starr is able to do with some of those 90+ disappearing witnesses what he finally succeeded in doing with Monica Lewinsky, in collecting irrefutable evidence, it would destroy not only the Clintons, but the entire Democratic Party.
Kendall must have seen enough by now that he believes his case for Clinton is lost if Starr continues his relentless search for detailed evidence that he has shown he is capable of. The next three weeks, therefore, could get pretty messy. It not only could include cooking up a war in the Balkans, it will cook up racial unrest at home, if possible. In Clinton's speech at a fund-raiser last week, he was quoted as saying:
Your presence here gives us a chance to let America take a different course. And what I want you to think about is how all this business that we're debating now fits into the larger challenges facing America. I have now been President six years. I spent a lot of time working on problems like the awful killings in Bosnia; dealing with the leaders of Central Africa, where somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million people were hacked to death in the Rwandan Civil War, because they were of different tribes; working trying to end the old wars that date back 30 years in the modern era, and hundreds of years in history, in Ireland, the land of my forbearers; working in the Middle East.
And the thing that strikes me about all these conflicts is how much they have in common with racial and religious and political hatreds that we see in America. You know, if you look at lot of this politics, it's just downright hatred. And you almost want to say, hey, we should get a life, things are going pretty good for us, we should be grateful that we're Americans. And all these other people that share this country with us, they must not be so bad because we must be doing something right. And, besides, our whole creed says that if we all show up and work hard and pay our taxes and do the right things, we should be able to share this land together.
What's the point I'm trying to make? If you look at every major conflict we face, it is essentially being driven by people who feel compelled to define themselves by what they are against, rather than by what they're for; and who seek conquest over reconciliation; and who see the future as a zero sum gain, where in order for me to win somebody else has got to lose, in order for me to grow my economy, I've got to destroy the environment. There's no way that we can harmonize a common future. And I have to tell you, based on six years of hard -- sometimes brutal -- daily experience, I think that's wrong.
And that I stand here tonight more idealistic about the prospect and, indeed, the necessity of bringing out the best in people than I was on the day I took the Oath of Office in January of 1993. And that in the end what really differentiates the two philosophies and certainly the strategies of the parties today is that. I'm not trying to fight a win/lose game with the Republicans in Washington for who stands where on the totem pole in this town. It is a very greasy totem pole.
What I'm trying to do is to find a way in which we can work together with integrity, air our differences with integrity and come to some resolution that will reconcile us, one to the other, so we can build a common home and a common future. In other words, if we want to be a good influence in the rest of the world we have to do good here at home. And if we really want to live in a global economy in which we are all increasingly interdependent and we expect America to do well in that kind of economy, we have to do right here at home. I believe that. You may think it sounds naïve and Pollyanna -- I can tell you it is based on hour after hour after hour of hard, cold experience in the cauldron that I have lived in for six years.
So I'm asking you not just to give your money. I'm asking you to be part of doing something that I think is pretty important. Our crowd is about to defy history. Our crowd is about to show that they don't want to be manipulated. Our crowd is about to say, we've seen the last six years and we like it and we want an America that's coming together, not coming apart; we want an America that's committed to forward progress, not partisan fights; where politics is an instrument to advance people's lives, not to keep some people down to lift some up.
And I swear to you what is right to do is what will work out best for America. We are moving into a world that is smaller and smaller and faster and faster. No one is smart enough to figure out how to solve every problem overnight. The only way we're going to survive and do well is if we never, ever, ever forget that we have to find a way for all of our partners on this little planet to win together.
That's what I tried to do with America. With all the successes I've had -- I could stand up here and list all these statistics -- the truth is, I have not yet succeeded in convincing the American people to vote -- to vote -- for reconciliation, for a common future, for a common home, for an end to Washington centered destructive politics. And maybe it is the irony of this terribly painful moment, which I regret very much putting you all through, that we are being given yet one more chance to affirm our better selves. But I'm telling you, based on my experience, the right thing to do is the right thing to do.
Thank you and God bless you. (Applause.)
So, there you have it. If you think sodomy in the Oval office is immoral and destructive, you are basically on the same level as those who hacked Tutu women and babies to death in Rwanda. Those Hutu hackers have as much right to their opinion as you do, y'know.
"Doing good" in the Clinton agenda, is the socialist agenda outlined by Joyce Cowley. It is not at all the same as "being good" - like in being honest, caring, compassionate and moral.
The choice on November 3rd is between Clinton's socialist platform of "doing good" and the vision of our founding fathers of "being good."
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com