Impeachment Must Not Fail

October 9, 1998

Dear Senator Grassley;

The impeachment and removal from office of President William Jefferson Clinton is unequivocally warranted. However, the most valid grounds for that course of action have been compromised by the Starr report, which has inadvertently thrust the focus of debate upon the vicissitudes of human sexuality. The president, in his sociopathic intuition for triangulation, has orchestrated a coalescence of counterculture icons - sexual freedom and sexual harrassment - that serve to confuse the public perception of the grievous constitutional issues at hand.

Both Liberal and Conservative groups are polarized by issues essentially based in gender role revisionism and sexual "liberation" - for which allegations of "sexual harrassment" have become the great equalizer.

The Liberal left polarity:

Radical gender-feminist groups, largely comprised of the homosexual/lesbian lobby want to preserve abortion "rights" in ostensive service of the notion of "sexual/gender liberation"; and have wickedly succeeded in stigmatizing most men as potential, if not actual, rapists, batterers and pedophiles.

Moderate equity-feminists want to preserve their perceived gains in employment equity.

Liberal counterculturists judge morality by what a person says, not how they live their life.

The Conservative right polarity:

Christian conservative groups are almost exclusively focused on the pro-life "choice", in abeyance of the more sustainable notion of the traditional family, and the carnage of the tragedy of Fatherlessness.

White males are bridling with the loss of equity in service of affirmative action, which has become a liberal vehicle of anti-white-male bigotry. These traditional males are distressed at the loss of the gender role dimensions of honor, chivalry, and duty.

In Starr, the primary issues that are of constitutional consequence have been lost against a volatile cultural background of sexual freedom and gender issues, while the questions of pagan socialism versus moral capitalism, the rule of law, and character, have been obfuscated by the polarities which Clinton has triangulated in his favor.

The central issue which implicitly sustains the equivocal results of public opinion polls is sexual harrassment. For the counterculture and feminists, sexual harrassment has become both weapon and albatross. For the conservative, traditional culture, sexual harrassment is a hypocrisy that has grown beyond reasonable, tolerable bounds. Both are numbed to yet another case of sexual transgression - whether alleged or real.

In abridging and twisting the "is" of "sexual relations" - a non-sequitur in the counterculture, while simultaneously twisting himself into the role of the victim of a "vicious" sexual harrassment pogrom by Ken Starr, the president has bridged the culture chasm - eliciting the support, if not passive acquiescence, of both camps, in an area where the obfuscation of clear moral boundaries is greatest.

Indirect support for this notion comes recently from radio commentator Paul Harvey. He reminds us that three prominent female legislators, rode to office on the coattails of the Anita Hill / Clarence Thomas debacle. Yet today, all three are in trouble in their respective re-election campaigns: Barbara Boxer, Carole Mosley-Braun, and Patty Murray. In essence, the lack of enthusiastic support for their campaigns is reflected in the fact that their only ideological identity is the one-string guitar of sexual harrassment.

Camille Paglia is more direct in assessing the Starr report's misdirection: "And let's not forget the ultimate source of Starr's partisan orgy: liberal Democratic feminists who hung Clarence Thomas out to dry in the trumped-up Anita Hill controversy in 1991. In their ruthless pro-choice zeal, they were the ones who dragged porn films and pubic hairs into the political discourse. They were the poisonous mothers of today's sexual witch-hunts. It's X-rated poetic justice: The Starr report is rampant Republican revenge for Thomas' outrageous "high-tech lynching."

The Starr report, for all of its underlying constitutional issues, and compelling evidence of character flaws, has been compromised as nothing more than Hill-Thomas revisited. As such, it is the perfect vehicle for exploiting the notion of "fairness" - with both ideological polarities joined beneath its banner. It is a critical necessity that this impeachment inquiry move beyond a reconvening of the Hill-Thomas debacle. The Republican Congress has a duty to make that happen.

The impeachment inquiry and subsequent trial in the senate will fail unless other issues of consequence can be brought to bear to expose William Jefferson Clinton for the craven sociopath that he is. As Shelby Steele put it in a recent Wall Street Journal Article "... what makes him especially dangerous for the country is all the artful statecraft he brings to the betrayal of responsibility." But even more ominously, the Republican majority is about to allow itself to become complicit in making some classes of felonious perjury permissible for the American presidency. The corruption of the Clinton administration requires impeachment, and removal - unequivocally - not just a Republican "Gotcha!" for Hill-Thomas.

Charlie Reese, of the Orlando Sentinel, recently opined, "I would remind you that the brilliant and learned soldier-scholar Sir John Glubb wrote in a monograph that one of the characteristics of the impending fall of a nation or empire is the rise of feminism." One might add that the concommitant losses of honor, chivalry, duty and Fatherhood cannot occur in a vacuum, unless it is a vacuum of masculine acquiescence which permits it.

Gordon B. Hinckley, President of the Mormon Church (LDS), in a speech entitled "America Needs Heroes in Public Life," admonished the U.S. Conference of Mayors: "I conclude by repeating that I believe that only to the degree that we reform young lives will we reform our society. And that reformation must occur with a return to the teaching of values in our schools, and in putting a good father who will stand beside a good mother in a home where virtue, honesty, integrity, and a reliance upon God will be taught by example as well as by precept. I believe there is no simpler thing we can do, none less costly, none greater and none more fruitful of good."
[In 1996 there were 7,874,000 fatherless families with children under 18 in the United States. This represents 23% of all families with children under 18. At present, more than 40% of America's children will not sleep in their biological father's home tonight.]

To this end, LDS has issued a "proclamation to the world" on family, stating in part: "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. ... Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

This past summer, politicians in the United Kingdom warned: "A whole generation of children" are suffering in school as men lose their self-esteem in an increasingly "matriarchal family".

Pope John Paul II in his 16th Papal Encyclical challenges clergy and laity to return to the fundamentals of truth, and the belief that there are sustainable, immutable values: "People can even run from the truth as soon as they glimpse it because they are afraid of its demands. Yet, for all that they may evade it, the truth still influences life. Life in fact can never be grounded upon doubt, uncertainty or deceit; such an existence would be threatened constantly by fear and anxiety." Fatherhood and Truth and moral leadership are inextricably essential to restoring and preserving American society and a constitutional republic.

Who in the Congress will be the first states-man to stand before the American people and say that he will no longer suffer the radical, immoral, feminist portrayal of manhood and Fatherhood as perverted and destructive?

Who will stand and say that while Bill Clinton may be the quintessential male of the Friedans and Irelands, he will never be son to the Fathers of the Constitution?

Who will stand and say that a man of dignity and character may not cravenly exploit the language of the law merely to justify his own unlawful and aberrant behavior.

Who is the man that will stand and protect his children and their mothers from the tyranny of evil in service of achieving or maintaining personal or political power, at the expense of freedom based on personal responsibility?

Who will stand and say that they represent and speak for the majority of men who are men of honor, of duty, of service to country and who wish to be valued Fathers to their children?

Who is the man that will stand and demand that America declare peace on Fathers: that we immediately cease the criminalization of Fatherhood through the imposition of child support orders designed for failure and ultimately debtors prison; that we enforce laws against false allegations of abuse or visitation denial by recreant spouses.

Who is the states-man who will speak for the true "feminists" of America - women who believe that they share an honorable place beside their men, and before their children, and expect much more of them than what they have seen in Bill Clinton - those in majority who see him as a wicked insult to their country, their beliefs and values?

Who will speak, finally, for the whole of Truth?

Sincerely,

Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D.
President
DA*DI

ENCLOSURES:

  • The Family: A Proclamation to the World
  • America Needs Heroes in Public Life
  • U.K. Politicians Back Traditional Family
  • "The Abusive Hegemonic White Male"
  • Paglia on the Clintons
  • The Mean Machine
  • A Strange Word ("duty")
  • Majoring in "Weirdness"

    Back to DA*DI's Home Page
  • home marriage & family moms, dads, kids current affairs