WASHINGTON -- We've all been wondering what explanation could be bold enough, brazen enough, majestic enough to get Bill Clinton off the hook.
The President's more thoughtful defenders know it will be hard purifying all those damning facts.
"Maybe there'll be a simple, innocent explanation," the White House spokesman, Mike McCurry, mused to Roger Simon of The Chicago Tribune. "I don't think so, because I think we would have offered that up already."
And former White House chief of staff Leon Panetta said on ABC's "This Week": "At some point, he's got to tell the American people the truth of what was behind this relationship. Obviously, there was something more here."
Like Ann-Margret in "The Cincinnati Kid," using her nail file to saw down jigsaw puzzle pieces to make them fit, White House aides are jamming messy Monica facts into a plausible picture.
Before we get the Official Explanation, there will be trial balloons.
Mr. Clinton and his aides might try a Sex Addiction Defense. Except that Dick Morris got there first.
They could use a Twinkie Defense. Bill and Monica were both junk food addicts. She could have been sending over a lot of Ho-Hos and Ding-Dongs in those courier packages. The President who grew up wearing Big Boy jeans and the girl who was too tubby to be in the high school "in" crowd could have been swept away on a Slurpee sugar high, comforting each other for their body image disorders.
The one White House aides have been quietly testing out on reporters is the Troubled Girl Defense: The Great Feeler of All Pain, who also bears the scars of a turbulent upbringing, was just being kind to Ms. Lewinsky because she was a child of a difficult divorce. Because Bernard Lewinsky's parents were German Jews who escaped to El Salvador, the White House even speculated about family Holocaust scars.
The Troubled Girl Defense could segue into the Troubled Slut Defense. White House aides note that her friends say Monica arrived in Washington like a heat-seeking missile to seduce the President.
But there's a flaw. If Monica was fragile and/or a stalker, why did the American representative to the U.N. and the most powerful lawyer in Washington serve as her personal headhunters?
Of course, if evidence emerges that the mentor and his ward did have sexual encounters, Mr. Clinton would look horribly callous for exploiting the damaged young thing in a relationship that was lopsided in every way. It's the sort of outrage that would make feminists go berserk, if there were any feminists left.
But the White House can avoid that trap. It can opt for the sublimely simple Tom Jones Defense:
The President is a chick magnet. It's not his fault he's irresistible.
It was floated on "Meet the Press" by Gene Lyons of The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, a reliable apologist for the Clintons through every scandal. "If you take someone like the President, who a lot of women would find attractive if he came to fix their garbage disposal, and you . . . make him the President of the United States, the alpha male of the United States of America, and you sexualize his image with a lot of smears and false accusations so that people think he's Tom Jones or Rod Stewart, then a certain irreducible number of women are going to act batty around him."
Mr. Lyons has a point. Larissa MacFarquhar wrote a batty talker in The New Yorker asserting that Ms. Lewinsky was not a victim because she got to have sex "with a man who is (a) the President and (b) a babe." And even the hard-boiled, ultra-urbane editor of that same journal of ideas was so dazzled by his raw appeal at the Tony Blair dinner that she took leave of her senses, describing the President as "A man in a dinner jacket with more heat than any star in the room (or, for that matter, at the multiplex)." In her "Fax from Washington," Tina Brown sounded like a Tom Jones groupie ready to throw her room key onto the stage.
Myself, I see Mr. Clinton more as Conrad Birdie. But with his animal magnetism running so strong, perhaps I better steer clear of the White House. I might lose my clarity of thought and forget what I already know: His explanations will never fit together, even with a nail file.
Bill Seeks to Take 100,000 IRS Agents Off the Street Representatives Steve Largent (R-OK) and Bill Paxon (R-NY) have unveiled a plan that could take more than 100,000 IRS agents off the streets and out of our neighborhoods. The plan, the Tax Code Termination Act (H.R. 3097), would sunset the IRS Code on December 31, 2001. The bill, which already has some 114 co-sponsors, is being offered to curb abuses and waste by the IRS. The current IRS code is over 3,458 pages in length, twice the length of the Bible, and requires over 110,000 employees to administer and police at an annual cost of $9.8 billion. With so many people policing the tax collection system, with little accountability, it's no wonder so many people now fear the IRS. The current IRS code is also incredibly inefficient. Its been estimated that taxpayers spend 5 billion hours each year and some $225 billion preparing their tax returns. "The Tax Code Termination Act eliminates the questions of 'if' and 'when' we end the current tax code," said Representative Largent.
"It sets a date certain for the enactment of a new tax system, one that I hope will be simpler, fairer and applies one rate, one time, to all taxpayers." For more, contact Steve Peterson at Congressman Largent's office @ 202/225-2211.
Boasting that the federal government is the smallest it has been in 35 years, President Clinton used his State of the Union address to call for a new wave of government spending on everything from subsidized baby-sitting to an expansion of the Medicare system. The Cato Institute's Steve Moore estimates that the President's complete package of new spending, if approved, would cost at least $200 billion over five years.
Perhaps such a high level of new spending could be justified in the minds of many Americans if the President's claim about the size of government was correct. It's not. Federal expenditures -- one of the best measure of the size of government -- have increased from $106.8 billion in 1962 to more than $1.6 trillion in 1997, a close to 14-fold increase. Even as a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures have risen from 18.8% of GDP in 1962 to 20.1% of GDP in 1997. The best the President can claim is that the size of government is the smallest it's been since 1974. That was the last time federal spending as a percentage of GDP fell below 20.1%, at 18.7%. But even this modest achievement appears to have more to do with the end of the Cold War than any budgetary discipline exhibited by either the President or Congress. While defense spending declined from 9.3% of GDP in 1962 to 3.3% of GDP in 1997, all other spending skyrocketed from 9.5% to 17% of GDP during the same period. Now that the defense budget has been pared to the bone, the total size of government can be expected to rise.
And they're planning to squander another $180,000 of taxpayers' money this year so Washington politicians and their staffs can continue to get cheap, convenient haircuts at an exclusive, cash-hemorrhaging Senate barber shop, the Libertarian Party said today.
"It's the ultimate bad hair day for U.S. taxpayers," said Steve Dasbach, the party's national chairman. "Senators get their hair cut -- but taxpayers get sheared."
That's why the Libertarian Party has issued a challenge to the U.S. Senate, said Dasbach: If you're really serious about curbing federal spending, start by privatizing the Senate Barber Shop & Beauty Salon, located in Room B-68 of the Senate's Russell Office Building on Capitol Hill.
"Give this outrageous perk a buzz-cut...don't just take a little off the side and top," he said.
The tax-funded barber shop is especially embarrassing, said Dasbach, because there's no shortage of non-tax-funded alternatives in our nation's capital.
"A quick scan of the local yellow pages reveals that there are 218 barber shops and 633 beauty salons in the Washington DC-metro area," he said. "You'd think that even a U.S. Senator, in order to save $1.8 million of taxpayers' money, could manage to find his way to one of those 851 privately owned barbershops and beauty salons."
Wait a second: How in the world can anyone -- even the U.S. Senate -- lose $1.8 million on haircuts?
The same way the federal government loses money on nearly everything, said Dasbach: A lot of practice, large staffs, and high salaries.
Practice: The Senate Barber Shop & Beauty Salon has been losing money steadily for almost 30 years -- since the 1970s, according to Senate documents.
Large staff: The Senate clip joint employs seven barbers, five hair stylists, two manicurists, one shoeshine attendant, and two receptionists -- all for 100 U.S. Senators and their staffs.
High salaries: One Senate barber earns a whopping $62,000 a year; the receptionist gets $47,000; and even the shoe-shine attendant is paid $27,400. On top of that, as federal employees, they also qualify for generous federal health care benefits and retirement plans.
There is some good news for taxpayers: Because of minor reforms passed last year, the Senate barber shop is expected to lose "only" $180,000 this year -- compared to the $360,000 it lost in 1997. In face of public criticism, the Senate agreed to consolidate its barber shop and beauty salon into one facility, and slightly reduce the staff.
But that's a trivial "reform" compared to the U.S. House, which privatized its barber shop in 1995 and turned an operation that was losing $100,000 a year into a profit-making private business, said Dasbach.
Now, the Senate should follow the lead of the House, he said.
"The U.S. Senate should be concerned about trimming the size of government -- not trimming their tax-subsidized hair," said Dasbach. "For the sake of taxpayers, it's time to end the big hair deficit."
We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, delusional liberal, commie, pinko bedwetters.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of Non-Rights.
BILL OF NON-RIGHTS
ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone - not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the World is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in health care.
ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VII: You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend a lot of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.
ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times; but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness - which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
The various opinion polls are yielding some particularly troubling numbers lately. Friends, foes and everyday onlookers of the presidency are vigorously discussing their thoughts and feelings concerning the Clinton sex scandal, and there seems to be no shortage of opinions. Yet the polls appear to indicate that the public at large hold quite conflicting and puzzling notions about the entire matter.
Although a majority of Americans believe President Clinton had a sexual affair with a White House intern, his job approval ratings are at an all time high. Moreover, the polls show that most people in our country would not require this particular President to resign over his behavior. However, the polls also indicate that if the President actually lied about having the affair, he should resign after all.
When it comes to evaluating President Clinton on a personal basis, a survey about presidential ethical standards last year found him to have only slightly higher marks than Richard Nixon. Clinton's personal numbers have not risen with his high job approval ratings.
In addition, the polls reflect that overwhelming numbers of Americans think that the Lewinsky story is getting far too much coverage. People say that they want more news about the U.S. standoff with Iraq. Nevertheless, the very public who is complaining about saturation coverage is at the same time devouring every tidbit of information as fast as possible.
During the scandal's peak, the major cable news networks doubled their usual ratings. Sunday public affairs programs such as "Fox News Sunday" have scored their largest audiences in history. National news periodicals have had record increases in circulation. Are these occurrences really representative of the opinions of the same American people? The contradiction in numbers has pundits searching for logical explanations.
Some of the apparent inconsistencies may be the result of the abrupt intrusion that this story has had upon all of our lives. Public opinion is still in the process of germinating. Many individuals have not had the time to think things through to a satisfactory conclusion.
Pollsters acknowledge that when sampling a population an anomaly often occurs which may offer some insight into analyzing inconsistencies in surveys. Sometimes if people are not sure what to think, they are tempted to respond with what they believe they should be thinking. Obviously in the end this can distort the results significantly.
Maybe this phenomenon should be called "opinion poll correctness."
Most people are hesitant to confess that they do indeed slow down to look at a gruesome automobile accident on the highway. Conceivably the public does not want to admit that they possess such tendencies.
In another revealing example, hardly anyone watches professional wrestling according to the polls. Yet professional wrestling rivals other mainstream sports in the revenue it generates for live and pay-per-view events.
Similarly if surveys are to be believed, the pornography business should be a tiny and inconsequential fringe industry. The reality is quite the opposite. The purveyors of obscenity have larger operations than the legitimate entertainment industry, and revenues from these enterprises are estimated at over eight billion dollars.
People still hold great affection for the office of the presidency, and they believe it is a symbol of stability for the country. Very few genuinely desire to see a presidency fall. Most are clinging to wishful thinking, hoping that the allegations are false for the sake of the nation if not for the presidency itself.
Only time will tell the real meaning behind the revelations in the polls. Meanwhile we must pray that the numbers do not reflect what many fear most-that the remnant of moral bedrock in the United States, the same foundation that sustains civilization, has eroded so completely that only an empty chasm remains.
When was the last time the United States went to war? That's not exactly an easy question to answer. If, however, the Consitution is in fact the law of the land, the answer is December 8, 1941. You see, the Consitution says that only the Congress has the power to declare war on another nation. That would seem to mean that without such a declaration, there is no war. Some kept this pretense the first time the United States went to war after World War II. Some called the Korean War a "police action." Vietnam, though there was again no declaration of war, was known as a war.
Since Vietnam U.S. soldiers have shot at soldiers from other countries, and been shot at, in Libya, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, and Iraq. And it appears we're going to non-war again in Iraq sometime soon. Where, to quote Mr. Dole, is the outrage? How is it that the Constitution can be so brazenly ignored?
Some argue that in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles, that the requirement for a Congressional declaration is outdated. In none of the above "non-wars" however, have such missiles constituted a threat to American safety. And even if such were the case, why not change the Constitution to reflect the current situation?
Others suggest that we have no need for this old rule since we now have the "War Powers Act" which gives congressional approval for the President to use the military freely within a certain time frame. But that's not at all the same thing. The Constitution no where gives the Congress the right to shirk their role as declarers of war.
Still others try to argue that the United Nations security council now serves that role. Again though, the Constitution says nothing about giving them this role. Neither does it say that a sufficient number of handshakes with Madelaine Albright shall be a substitute for Congressional action.
And still some go on insisting that these conflicts aren't wars. With the U.S.S. Nimitz in the Suez Canal, with 3,000 ground troops being sent to join the 1,500 already in Kuwait, with Stealth bombers lined up and ready to go, this is nonsense. When soldiers shoot at each other, whether they're in a foxhole, or in a room full of computers, or 35,000 feet in the air, that's war.
The only explanation I can think of is that no one really knows what the Constitution says. And while I'm not surprised that government school products would be ignorant (how can they know the Constitution when they can't read it?), what frightens me is that each and every soldier, from the buck private loading the cargo planes, to the lieutenants fresh out of ROTC, to the Commander-in-Chief, all of them have taken a solemn oath to uphold and protect the Constitution.
These United States are no longer operating under the Constitution. We, like those great nations which have come and gone before us, have sunk to the level of empire. And you, friend, are no free man or woman, but just another subject. Remember that as you wave that flag in honor of the bombing heroes.
To subscribe to the Weekly Update, put out weekly by Michigan Militia Corps 5th Division command, simply send a message to majordom@lists.cns.net with the phrase "subscribe militia" in the BODY of the message. The Weekly Update is archived at the Michigan Militia Corps web page at: http://militia.gen.mi.us