Ah, that red necked neighbor of mine. "I saw that 60 Minute Willey thing," he said, slugging down a beer. "I think she wanted it back then with the President. She wanted it. She gave him her phone number. She's been sitting on the story for years, and suddenly she sees all the other women in the news, smells the money, and says to herself, 'I think I'll get some of that for myself.'" And of course by the way Rush Limbaugh had to parry on Monday with a public he noted to be "In denial," the shock everyone expected by the Willey exposure is indeed somewhat lackluster. But then what the hell. We've all grown ups now, sophisticated and continental. We've all been to sensitivity training, and individuals acting out felatio or sodomy, even committing an unwanted grope or two, are just regular people with "alternative lifestyles." And the notion is backed up by some of the best in the press.

Before the 60 Minute piece was aired on 3/15/98, Meet the Press interviewed Mr. progressive media himself, Mike Wallace. He predicted that the Clinton scandals will simply go away. After discussing the Willey piece, Wallace flat out said Clinton would remain in office, that the 60 Minute spot would not really be enough to take him down. Wallace went on to assault our moral sensibilities a little bit further by praising the series he's doing on sex programs in the universities. Here he raved about the gay and lesbian studies classes, noted how comfortable he was with it all, and pointed out that Gramscian revisionist historians on the popular left have pegged Abraham Lincoln as very likely bi-sexual. So there you have the take from the fourth estate and the programmers who brought America Kathleen Willey in living color. Don't be so shocked about a sexually wayward president, even a sociopathic one, because after all, Lincoln was sleeping with men.

Next, on Hardball, Chris Mathews worked to try and give the allegations some credibility, while one of his guests, Ronn Owens of KABC Radio in LA, a Hollywood Clinton apologist, gave us this picture from the media left. He simply grinned, "So the President's a horndog! Is anyone surprised at this?" He went on to remind us that everyone has known about William Jefferson Clinton's sex life forever, that the latest efforts were rehashing popular knowledge. Well, there's some truth in that. At least SOME of us have known for quite some time now. Owens scoffed at the possibility of impeachment. You never know. The left may still have the "sexual addiction" trump up their sleeve, prescribing a week or so at Betty Ford's clinic for recovering libidos. He's the victim, you know. Ladies can't leave him alone.

But as far as I'm concerned, the clincher was the guest on Hardball Saturday evening. Mathews interviewed the infamous knighted Sir Henry Kissinger, one of the men between the Winsor/Rothschild combine (the ANGLO in Anglo/American) and the Rockefeller/Morgan combine (the AMERICAN in Anglo/American). You know, the Ph.D. who speaks about foreign policy as a man who comprehends just how low prices are at the gas pumps, and that the aborted Gulf War II may have been a moment of disappointment, but not as yet a Clinton write-off? The guy who's equally greeted at both the CFR and the RIIA? His take on the Clinton revelations was that the rest of the world, being somewhat less prurient than America, can't see what the big deal is about sex, even in the White House. He blew the whole thing off. He did note that he was not commenting on the possible perjury charges, and that was a entirely separate matter. But also very difficult to prove. Now if he had gurgled like running water through gravel that, "Uhhhhhhh...Dat man has done a terrible ting," we would have cause to believe Clinton's handlers are about to cut their losses. But he didn't. So we might conclude that they haven't thrown in the towel. Still, there is some possibility that Kissinger and his superiors aren't really up on the exposure of the Willey angle yet, and have not really checked in with Ken Starr's evidence list. I'm sure they are all somewhat personally peeved at Mr. Bill because you and I can still buy a gallon of regular for about a buck. So he still depends on them to keep the propaganda engines running full time to pump out the slimy sewage that seems to just drip from his character.

Denial herself is the brutal, silent. black leather-clad dominatrix of the entire affair. It would seem she is an indifferent whore, much to the tragic sadness of those throughout the ages who insist on getting involved with her. Personal life and sexual activities are private, and the job of the president is public. Ne'er again the twain shall meet. What have the Clinton years brought us, that even Mike Wallace can shrug off behavior that just a few years ago would have shocked even a seasoned sailor? Well, consider some of the changes the Gramscian liberals ideologies born under the progressive baby boomers that supported the Clinton White House.

Bill Clinton's appointee to the position of Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders, earned the title "the Condom Queen," when the New York Times Magazine for January 30, 1994 reported that she had a floral arrangement proudly displayed on her desk made of condoms. Until her dismissal late in 1994, she advocated distributing condoms to young people to slow teen pregnancy and the spread of AIDS. However, a 1992 minority report of the House Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, notes that "condoms do not change the behavior which puts teens at risk, [but] the evidence shows that when condoms are used by teen-agers the failure rate is higher than in the general population-as high as 30%." Well, they're going to do it anyway. So what's the big deal? Condom use will still protect them from aids, won't it?. Well not quite. Clearly, this statistic also means a potential AIDS transmission rate for youthful condom users that's 30% above users in the general population. As far as prevention of pregnancy, the widespread use of condoms also fails. The statistical average for teen pregnancy actually increases by 20% for those who are given condoms.

In New York City, only 100 illegitimate babies were delivered and handed over to orphanages in 1943. Today, virtually thousands of babies are literally abandoned in New York City every year. In 1943, only 3% of all children born in New York were illegitimate. Women simply avoided illegitimate pregnancy even though technically effective birth control was far less advanced or available than it is at present, and abortion was not legal. Doi! What a novel concept!

Presently, more than 47% of births are illegitimate in New York, and in the Nation's Capital, Washington DC, the rate of illegitimacy is more than 68%! Even in the rural state of Montana where the number of deer exceeds the number of humans, the rate of illegitimacy has risen to almost 20%. That's nearly 700% more than the huge, highly populated, culturally progressive New York City in 1943! The overall national average is said to be approaching 31%. 

The situation has grown so bleak that even Newsweek Magazine, a publication which has been seen by many to have aided the sexual revolution and the excesses of the entertainment industry, began calling for reform. Jonathan Alter, writing in an article titled "The Name of the Game is Shame" for the December 12, 1994 issue, called these statistics on unwed pregnancy 'bone chilling.' He said, "Every threat to the fabric of this country...from poverty to crime to homelessness...is connected to out-of-wedlock teen pregnancy. This scourge was not caused by economics. Calcutta's subsist in wretched poverty but largely intact. It was caused by American cultural changes in the last two decades...aided by an irresponsible entertainment industry...that has lifted the stigma off both black and white communities. When the moral judgment of society is restored...in law and in everyday life...the numbers can be reduced over time." But moral social judgment is exactly what the cultural elite wishes to avoid. Even the common sense approach of 'judging the behavior, but not the individual' is too much for them. They want free love, free education, free homes, free medical care, and a free lunch too.

In 1994 a program called "True Love Waits" was initiated by the Southern Baptists. Over 200,000 teen-agers signed pledge cards promising to abstain from sexual activity until marriage. The cards were placed in plastic holders and stuck into the ground on the Capitol Mall in Washing. Dr. Elders, Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala, and President Clinton all declined to meet with the young people during their visit. Instead, Dr. Elders spoke publicly about the virtues of masturbation. The Clinton administration was so uncomfortable with abstinence as an ameliorate response to illegitimacy, rampant disease, and social collapse, that they ignored a bloc of nearly a quarter million potential voters who had traveled all the way to Washington to meet them, and the surrounding positive publicity. Talk about being out of touch.

Louisiana State Judge Frank Thaxton ruled that teaching abstinence to public school students is illegal, claiming it constituted the establishment of religion. The ruling blocked two abstinence-based programs in Shreveport. Planned Parenthood filed the suits against the programs that resulted in Thaxton's decision. Still steeped in denial, in 1995 Liberal Democrats urged new laws giving unwed 'domestic partners' the same benefits as married couples, which would clearly further accelerate the deterioration and security of the traditional family structure. Then in rhetorical support of the 'family,' they attempted to re-define the term 'family' itself to suit their own notions. It defies them that all the couple need do is engage in a simple civil ceremony uniting them under law to accomplish the same. This in spite of the fact that even notable liberals like Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan have gone on record to tell us that there would be far less poverty in America if the traditional family structure had not been so severely damaged.

Thanks to the cultural elite, in many higher circles for some time now it's been considered not only acceptable, but outright chic to have children out of wedlock. Many film stars have made it fashionable, and while few remember the negative public reaction to Ida Lupino's decision to have an illegitimate child back in the 1950's, many may recall the more recent Dan Quail Vs Murphy Brown debate. The fact that credible authorities testifying before Congress noted that unless a single mother earns more than $50,000 per year, her children will be significantly more deprived than those growing up with both a mother and father, somehow just hasn't reached liberal ears. For many women's groups, out of wedlock single parenthood is heralded as a breakthrough from dependency on a dominating husband and the excesses of a patriarchal society. The cultural elite would have us believe that we are now freed from the confines and restrictions of abstinence or committed marriage to a new joy in a life of free, casual sex. The fact that such behavior has produced virulent antibiotic resistant strains of venereal disease, much less the rise of Aids or other lesser known but potentially more communicable and devastating 'exotic' social diseases, doesn't seem to cause anyone to really question the prudence of their intimate social behavior. Meanwhile, like 'useful idiots,' the media enjoys this new freedom by instructing us in the new relative morality, selling us plenty of uncommitted, irresponsible sex. Ah but private life is merely private life. And public life has a life of its own.

At the House Ways and Means hearings on Welfare Reform in January of 1995, representatives queried Bill Bennett about the geometric explosion of dependent illegitimacy. Liberal welfare programs were cited as a prime factor in motivating unmarried women to have children. Furthermore, they noted that the trend was global. It seems that there is no corner, niche, or stronghold of the Republic, indeed the entire planet, that hasn't been reached by the liberal induced trend of illegitimacy. Has anyone noted the rise of MTV, with the largest audience in the world, reaching more young individuals in more countries than any other television program? Even those who are by no means prudish about sex would likely take pause at these interconnected influences and the potential causal relationships they imply.

Late in 1994, one of the paragons of the cultural elite, Time Magazine, ran a cover article suggesting that monogamy was inherently not the natural state of human sexual relations. The implication is that adultery is unavoidable, and probably desirable. The notion of any traditional cultural values that suggest discriminating methods of forgoing these possible natural urges to seed the herd, or seek and seduce the dominant male of our group, is ignored. It's even become the catch word excuse for Clinton's misdeeds. Yeah, yeah. We all know he's the national alpha male. 

The idea of our mate being our self selected best and most trusted friend is concluded to be passé. After all, in the most cynical sense, who would want a marriage to someone who would be there with us if we were ill, injured, or even dying? Why bother to cultivate loyal support from a mate, when after all, their inner instinct motivates them to betray us? The elitist, liberal disinformation virtually ignores a study revealed that 90% of American adults spend most of their time in a male-female pair bond. Why do these poor souls bother? In the liberal eye, broken marriages, adultery, and alternative relationships is viewed as the norm. Dependent relationships are considered dysfunctional. They insisted we were better off depending on a relationship with the much more stable and trustworthy institutions of the state. Interestingly, so did Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. 

In the meantime, the Gramscian assault continues on our children, and under Clinton crossed over all reasonable boundaries of common sense. Just after taking office, Attorney General Janet Reno said, "I would like to use the law of this land to do everything I possibly can to protect America's children from abuse and violence." Then, as if actually guided by the Gramscian mentality, she unilaterally and effectively softened child pornography laws. This allowed a much greater range of legal protection for those who engage in the commercial manufacture and distribution of pornography portraying children. She and her solicitor general, Drew Days, took the position that obscene material depicting children could not be prosecuted unless the boys and girls were shown behaving in a 'lascivious' manner. Camera angles, narration, and the behavior of others in the films could be as suggestive and filthy as possible, provided the child's behavior was not interpreted as seductive. The House of Representatives voted 425-3 and the Senate voted 100-0 to condemn her action as outrageous! In spite of such political pressure, she refused to back off or modified her decision, nor did the president required her to do so, even when the appeal was made to him. Apparently, in spite of their eloquent rhetoric, neither Reno or the president are much interested in what you or your representatives think of her actions. This stand off lasted for twelve months. Finally, after only two days into the Republican electoral victory in November of 1994, she apparently experienced an attitude adjustment. She overruled her solicitor general and returned to the traditional view of child pornography.

Furthermore, the Clinton appointee to the U.S. Supreme court, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, sailed through confirmation hearings, even though Neo-Conservatives testified on C-SPAN coverage that she had written in favor of lowering the age of consent to twelve! If this were to become law, it may be good news for pedophiles. But few parents would be pleased to hear their twelve year old daughter announce that she was leaving home to become a groupie concubine hell bent on performing oral sex with all the members of the Marilyn Manson band, or a Gangsta Rap group signed to Death Row Records.

Then not to be outdone, ultra-liberal Dr. Mary Calderone, a founding member of America's most influential sex education 'clearinghouse,' the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States, or SIECUS, had a word of her own to contribute. During a conference of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex, she condoned pedophilia with the comment, "I have a question that is almost the reverse of what we've been talking about [which was pedophilia, or child molestation]. What do we know about situations in which young children and older people have had a sexual relationship of one kind or another that has been pleasant, and the child feels good about it because it's warm and seductive and tender? If the child really enjoys this, it may be the only time the child ever gets a loving touch..." Well there you are. Better a child be seduced by a "warm caring adult" than be protected by law from molestation and never know the "pleasant loving touch" of Dr. Calderone!

Even the incest taboo has finally been overturned by the liberal social engineers, and we are now urged to revise our attitudes toward the same. SIECUS has launched a pro-incest campaign, and their 1992 publications catalog listed pro-incest studies. Author Claire Chambers wrote in her book, The SIECUS Circle, "the SIECUS program of sex education [was] a carbon copy of the Swedish program, as adopted by UNESCO." Heralded as an icon of social and sexual tolerance, the ultra-liberal Swedish government was reported by one source to have legalized father-daughter incest as a means of 'democratizing' the family. Liberals will now have us believe that incest democratizes the family! If this report is true, it would seem the cutting edge of Liberal Democracy and Gramscian moral relativism in action.

The North American Man/Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA, a national organization of those openly calling for legalizing sex between adult men and boys, participated in the Washington DC march supporting the Clinton administration's liberal view toward alternative, non traditional sexual practices They marched in the streets of the Nation's Capital publicly advocating their position during the Clinton inauguration. Incredibly, according to Human Events' Capital Briefs, September 29, 1995, the New York Department of State approved NAMBLA as a legitimate, tax-exempt, non-profit organization. This technically qualifies them for tax-payer funded grants to further their cause. So whether effected tax payers agree with men having sex with young boys or not, they are now required by law to participate in supporting a group whose publicly stated primary goal is to legalize such activities. Incredibly, under the modern American system of silent collectivism, we are now forced to pay to make it possible for child molesters to seduce our own children!

Meanwhile, anyone objecting to such radical cultural changes in our society is quickly labeled 'repressive' and intolerant by those who desperately seek to justify their own sheer brand of extreme carnal addiction. The president of NAMBLA, Peter Melzer, just happened to be a Bronx High School physics teacher. Concerned parents pressured the New York Board of Education, which concluded that it was undesirable for Melzer to teach children because of his pedophilic activism. Yet the ACLU and the New York Times promptly came to Melzer's defense! In perfect Gramscian knee jerk response, and behind quaint rose-colored glasses, pop-culture always immediately falls in behind each new wave of 'liberation,' even if it includes incest or pedophilia. If you think that this means little to you, think again. Historically, from the practices described above, it is only one short step further for a culture to condone selective genocide, politicide, or infanticide. Of course, it will not be described as such, but rather veiled behind some Politically Correct curtain of 'compassion,' enforced by the state, and all the while silently orchestrated by an autocratic ruling elite disposing of enemies and unwanted classes of people.

Everyone want's to be free, but recent thrusts would appear to be pushing the envelope beyond the very brink of sanity. All this is by no means over, and such changes are very likely only the beginning of a very long slide into complete decay. The liberal ACLU's "Policy 4" urges the repeal of all laws against pornography, including all forms of child pornography. We have opened a Pandora's Box, to be sure. Remember the expression from the liberal 1960's, "If it feels good do it?" Adjusting ourselves to each new successive change in attitude, we try to avoid ridicule for being repressive, placing ourselves in what appears to us to be the middle as a political and cultural centrist. If child abuse is a problem, the liberal solution is not to challenge the individual to rethink behavior, but to form new, Politically Correct definitions of what constitutes abuse, or use it as an excuse to remove the child into the care of the state. Teaching your children to reconsider their sexual behavior or follow the Ten Commandments of the Jews has been redefined by many in the pop-culture as abusive parental behavior! They are calling for laws allowing the arrest of the 'offending' parent, and removal of the child into state care where they can learn to freely suck and fuck all they want. A DuPage County, Illinois divorce court judge ordered a father not to discuss spiritual matters with his children during visitations periods. Judge G. J. Bakalis granted the father four hours a month with his children, but ordered that, "During such periods of visitation, the children are not to be subjected to any form of religious instruction, or church activities." Meanwhile, committing incest with our daughters, or committing sodomy with young boys, are now not only acceptable, but considered 'acts of love' by the Gramscian far left!

As otherwise decent and reasonable people, many liberals have been seduced into mistaking license for liberty. To feel free, each successive generation seems to find the need to engage in behavior that will shock the generation before it. They clearly have plenty of support by extremely high powered liberal groups around the globe to this end. Our culture is dominated by those that would have severely shocked our grandparents, even our parents. What shall we expect from our children and grandchildren in the new world we are creating? Nine year olds are being graphically taught the mechanics of sodomy in American public schools, and we are told to accept it as the norm, as if scientific observation confirmed that every animal in nature engaged in same sex anal intercourse as often as vaginal coitus. As we have noted, father-daughter incest was recently legalized in Sweden. Robert Mapplethorpe made a splash on the American cultural scene by giving us such thrilling little gems as a photograph of a man with a bullwhip stuck up his anus and calling it art. You may not care so much about it, but even if you do, its too bad, because you had to pay for part of it anyway. Mapplethorpe commissioned this artistic rectum wrecker with money from the National Endowment for the Arts, which is at least partly tax payer funded. For the contemporary left, your children are too innocent, your life is too long, and your wallet is too heavy for their interpretation of culture.

As the cultural view of good taste looses all notion of 'good' and sinks deeper into the gutter, it's difficult to comprehend where the potential bottom of this decline will be. In the Alexandria Quartet, Lawrence Durrell described a fictional scene where a high ranking World War II Middle Eastern dignitary enjoys sex with a convulsing woman, while his aids choke her to death. So called 'snuff films' made a brief appearance in the United States, where unsuspecting women who thought they were being paid to engage in pornographic sex were brutally beaten, tortured, and then murdered on film as part of the sexual encounter. It was reported that some had their breasts cut away while they were still alive. We're not talking about a Hollywood make believe portrayal of the murder, but an actual killing, producing the physical death of the actress being filmed. Snuff films quickly found a small but significant audience among a diverse cross section of American life. Fortunately when this trend hit the market, it was apparently going just a bit too far, and commercial films depicting actual murder are illegal...at least for the time being. However, without the slightest hesitation, we still explore the extreme of the permissive. If you want, you can buy film of a woman having sexual intercourse with a Great Dane at many 'adult' entertainment outlets on main street America for the equivalent of just a few hours of minimum wage earnings. In some parts of the world child prostitution is prosperous. This includes the use of young boys for purposes of sodomy, and fathers selling their daughters into sexual bondage to brothels in parts of Asia. Meanwhile, there are those who are calling for relaxation of laws that might ultimately allow some of these practices to at least be possible right here in America.

Members of NAMBLA marched in the streets of Washington, cheering on the liberal Clinton administration, asking that sex between adult men and young boys be legalized. SIECUS called for legal re-evaluation of all Western moral views, including the taboo against incest, in association with UNESCO and other UN offshoot organizations. Janet Reno reduced penalties for child pornographers. The ACLU promised to liberate us from our libidos by calling for an end to laws against child pornography. Clinton appointed a supreme court justice that has advocated the age of consent be lowered to twelve. Liberals on the prestigious Sex Information and Education Council tell us that sexual pedophilia might be the only avenue of tenderness for many young boys and girls, and question the wisdom of any opposition to it. On the other hand, it's now considered an act of child abuse by many liberals in popular culture if you advise your children to abstain from sex until marriage, or to at least consider choices in sexual preference on the basis of religion or faith. Teaching abstinence is declared illegal. Parents are forbidden by law to teach religious values to their children. And the president acts out our new value system right in our White House. And we no longer care.

As our own mad Politically Correct trend continues to progress, where do you really suppose the bottom of this pit of shocking behavior will actually be for us? Where will it be in another fifty years? After the fall of the Republican period of Senatorial represented government, classical Roman Emperors sank so far as to force impoverished new mothers to allow their toothless, innocent, helpless suckling infants to perform felatio on them. It was an elitist trend. There are radical Neo-Malthusians on the fringe of our culture today that openly endorse the idea of suicide, sodomy, even cannibalism and human sacrifice, as practical means of population control. The question is, are you really so anti-traditional, progressive, hip and cool, that you are ready to see if you and your children will survive the impact of the fall into this Gramscian abyss? Whether you like it or not, whether you're ready for it or not, whether you support it or not, it is the cultural reality of our age, and there will be no escaping whatever ultimate consequences emerge from these trends. Under the Clinton administration, you're now even forced to pay for it.

For nothing seems to phase the public these days. A wayward sexually predatory president is now just everyday business in America. We've got to hand it to them. The Gramscian progressive left has done a fantastic job of destroying the morality of America. So much so that almost nothing a liberal supporter in the White House might do seems to choke or gag the public at large. The most recent revelations about Bill Clinton have left us once again a house divided. Even the exposing media is laughing it off as just so much nonsense. Buddy got castrated and the White House has yet another eunuch running around without the apparatus necessary to take this culturally depraved presidency to task.

There is a riddle about the Great Wall of China. It's a true story. After building a 1500 mile wall to keep the barbarians out of Imperial China, the nation was almost immediately invaded. The invading force did not go around the wall. They did not break through the wall. They did not break down the gates. They did not climb over the wall? So how the hell did they get in?

While the Imperial efforts concentrated on building the wall of defense, the nation's enemies sent ideological spies into China. These spies spent their time and effort working to destroying the moral values of the Chinese youth. When the invading army finally arrived, the spies simply bribed the gate guards, and the invaders marched in almost unopposed.

So my take is to wait and see how people react over the next few weeks or so. The elites don't seem to have completely given up on Chubba-Bubba, their Builderberger Boy President, at least as yet. We'll have to see what reaction the public finally has. Remember, it's still a "he said/she said" game. If justice where a sure thing, O.J. would probably be playing golf on a putting machine in a prison cell. Without proof, the corporate crypto-marxists will play the cultural board game of "Hypocrisy" as they always have. And that is with great skill. So it's probably best to remember that in war, which this in fact truly is, to never underestimate our enemy. Regroup, fax those congress critters, and check your ammunition for the next round.

And oh, just in case, if things turn our way, consider being nice to the person on your left. Don't gloat. Sympathize with how badly they must feel about having been ripped off by the cultural elites. Tell them it's understandable because the deception was played out with great criminal skill. Anyone could have been taken in. They'll feel more comfortable if they ever do have to come over to your side in all this. The flip side of the Clinton body count is that Clinton bodies count. Hell may have no fury like the wrath of a woman scorned, but a reformed liberal can be one pissed off monster on the battlefield. Dig one a foxhole and offer some refuge.