|
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." 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, |
|
|