Thursday, October 8, 1998
People ignore real reasons Clinton should be impeached
PRESIDENT: Bad policies, not sexual exploits, prove Bill
shouldn’t keep office
By Justin Sobodash
Recent news of a presidential blowjob has swept the country.
According to the media, the people are outraged, distraught and
disillusioned that their president cheated on his wife and then
lied to the American people about it – at least that’s how the
media and Congress (even dinosaur liberals like Senator Patrick
Daniel Moynihan and Joseph Liederman) would tell it. The elitists
are terribly worried that the people are going to see them as
liars.
They must presume that most American people think that
upstanding people go into government. While most Americans aren’t
libertarians, I suspect that few people have all that much faith or
trust in government. It seems a dirty but necessary business.
As for the fellatio itself, that’s easy. I suspect that most
Americans are pro -blowjob. Fellatio is good for the country. As a
homosexual man, I both give and receive fellatio. I can testify
that the act is redeeming for my mental state, increases my heart
rate and can be used to spread love (or at least false affection)
throughout American society. Oral sex is good for America and
everyone should participate as his or her gender and sexual
orientation dictates.
The constitution allows impeachment and conviction of the
President for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors." He didn’t have this fellatio performed in Virginia
or some other backwards state with sodomy laws still on the books
(yes, breeders, they apply to you, too!), so I’d say Bill is
home-free on that count.
On a much more serious note, however, I think that Bill has gone
against the spirit of the Constitution enough to warrant
impeachment.
The U.S. Constitution is a document meant to limit the power of
the federal (and later state) governments to intrude on individual
rights. It enshrines the basic, classic, liberal idea that each of
us is entitled to as much property as we can acquire through
voluntary exchange (through the commerce clause and the protection
of property rights in the Fourteenth Amendment), that we are
entitled to privacy and security in our persons, homes and effects
(as the Supreme Court found in Griswold and subsequent cases), and
that we are entitled to defend ourselves (Second Amendment). It
embodies the idea that government exists to secure the blessings of
liberty.
Bill Clinton has gone against the First Amendment by signing the
Communications Indecency Act, which would have silenced the
(thankfully) anarchic Internet while it was still struggling
through infancy.
He has repeatedly sought to restrict the use, sale and ownership
of semi-automatic weapons, which kill fewer people in a year than
baseball bats. He also tried to put an end to the only type of
protection that many poor people can afford: cheap handguns.
(Incidentally, the Department of Justice estimates that roughly
three-fourths of the guns owned by criminals are either stolen when
people have their house robbed or bought on the black market.
Clearly the effectiveness of laws falls far short of their
intent.)
Why, then are we banning guns? As the Jews for the Preservation
of Firearm Ownership said, "Only tyrants and criminals fear an
armed citizenry."
The U.S. Constitution protects our rights over our bodies,
according to the Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade. Yet the
drug war runs rampant in our lives with "random" roadside searches,
cups full of our own urine, schools with drug-sniffing dogs, metal
detectors, locker searches, asset forfeiture and the nullification
of jury nullification. Prohibition of drugs causes the same things
that alcohol prohibition did: rampant crime, overdoses and unsafe
drugs, prison crowding, prejudicial enforcement of laws, drive-by
shootings and pervasive organized crime. Instead of giving up on a
failed, immoral, counterproductive war, we cracked down on civil
liberties more.
And the great inhaler steps up the efforts.
The great inhaler is still puffing harder than the Bruin Libs
ever did at Hempfest, I’m sure. The Democrats are supposed to at
least believe in equality before the law, and yet Bill has gone
against the spirit of the Equal Protection Clause with the "don’t
ask, don’t tell" policy toward gays in the military, not to mention
the signing of the Defense of Marriage Act.
And some of my gay friends wonder why I’m no Democrat.
Bill’s policies are based on a fundamentally immoral,
unconstitutional, un-American set of values: the community before
the individual, the censoring of what some people might say because
it offends the majority, punishing all drug users instead of people
who hurt other people while on drugs, and asking gays, lesbians and
bisexuals to wait until "society creates" our rights (which are in
fact our truly inherent rights to be treated equally by a
government that demands taxes and other tributes from us).
Consider his other un-American values: telling a gun owner that
they are not entitled to try to protect themselves from a criminal
(probably looking for drug money) because others have not had the
same success. He also told doctors that it is their duty to offer
medicine to those who need it. (All the while our government is
making health care more expensive through copious regulation.)
It is no wonder, in the present political climate that we have a
liar and a crook for a president, and that there are scarcely any
honest people in government. American government is presently based
on the idea that people should be allowed to take from one another
on the basis of need, with impunity.
The idea of giving a person his or her due, for hard work and
honesty, is thought of as ridiculous. Society has rights, yet the
individual doesn’t. (I really don’t know what this thing is that
has one desire, one purpose, one set of values. Ask Stacy Lee. It
has something to do with the type of love that murderers such as
Mao, Che and Uncle Joe were so fond of).
Why bother with holding people personally accountable? Why
trouble ourselves with what one person has done? One person’s
idiocy is our entire problem.
Don’t give blowjobs a bad name, America. Clinton is right in
saying that we have to move on and address more fundamental
problems, such as he. This whole affair just gives another meaning
to the term "phallic symbol."
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]