This is a ten page letter to Ex-Governor Clinton that I wrote at the end of the year as a freshman. I started writing it in school in history class, and filled up 8 pages front and back. That night I went home and typed it all up and added more stuff, and it was 10 full pages typed. I then lost it on the computer and in 1997 re-entered it while I was busy at "work."

For the humor-impaired, it is part satire, while also demanding an explaination for certain grievances and making several points contrary to Clinton.

June 1993

EX- Governor William Jefferson Clinton
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. EX-Governor-

As a Republican and a concerned citizen, and also a Freshman at Chantilly High School, I would like to express my views on your performance from governorship until presidency, including the time during the 1970s when you dodged the draft and burned the American flag, a symbol of our men fallen in action.

I would like to know why you feel compelled to lie about everything you do, your book, Putting People First, (especially people named Gennifer), is a crock. (Enclosed is a copy of only a small fraction of the blatant mistruths.) You raise a good point in your book (page 197) that you grew up poor and you learned not to blame others and to work hard and make sacrifices. Yet you try to drive a wedge between the wealthy and the middle class and create monumentous class envy in this country, unparalleled in American history. Class envy, a technique dating back to the time of Karl Marx, is used only to further YOUR cause while hurting the American morale and economy. Furthermore, you blame Reagan for "the worst economic record in 50 years" (page 5), despite that Reagan's policies created 19 million new jobs, 96 straight months of economic growth, an increase in housing starts, increase in factory orders, increase in personal income, and many more benefits, and at the same time, Reagan cut taxes! The poorest 20% of Americans paid 540% less in taxes after Reagan's plan went in to effect, the 2nd lowest 20% paid 37.8% less, the middle 20% paid 21.5% less, the 2nd highest 20% paid 20.9% less, while the richest 20% paid only 9.3% less and the richest 1% only paid 7.9% less in taxes after Reagan's plan was in effect (source: US Bureau of the Census). Clearly, the lower income brackets had their taxes reduced the MOST while the top income brackets had their taxes reduced the least. These facts clearly disprove your statement that the middle class "paid higher taxes to a government that gave them little in return" (page 3 P.P.F.).

At the same time Reagan was cutting taxes in the early 80s, the Democrats in the Congress demanded that Reagan raise taxes, but he refused and America saw 96 straight months of economic growth. Mr. Clinton, name me one country that has taxed itself into prosperity. . . you can't because it cannot be done! Growth and prosperity come when taxes are cut and government size is reduced, and not when a politician says that he will cut them.

On page 136 of P.P.F. you blame the Bush administration for indecisiveness on foreign policy. My first thought when I read that was "what hypocrisy!" What about YOUR bumbling in Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, North Korea?? When Bush was President, we knew out mission in Somalia, but when you were elected (by only 43%, the lowest in recorded popular vote history) our mission there became blurred and unclear, and several Americans unfortunately lost their lives because of YOUR indecisiveness. Stop the hypocrisy.

What do you think a "fair share" of taxes is? At the end of the eighties the top 1% if Americans paid 25% of all federal income taxes, a 40% increase in revenue from the Carter period. Meanwhile, the bottom 60% paid only 11% of all federal taxes in 1990, which was 20% less in revenue than in 1980. So, to simplify that for your Yale brain, the rich paid more while the poorer paid less! And taxes went down!! And you say that they are wrong for earning money and wanting to punish their successes, while at the same time you made a lot of money (I will get to that later). You don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to realize that if you raise taxes on those who earn "more than $200,00" they aren't going to invest and spend, they're going to put their money in tax shelters, like they were during the 70% marginal tax rates of the Carter years. Increasing the amount of "contributions" will merely increase the will not to contribute. They won't invest and spend, stupid!

You claim to be a "new government" and criticize that "during the 1980s the White House staff routinely took taxpayers on for a ride to play golf or bid on rare stamps" (page 24 P.P.F.) Well I for one remember David Watkins (Fmr. White House director of administration) and two of his buddies who took a trip to the Holly Hills Country Club costing the American people thousands of dollars, more hypocrisy. And what about Rostenkowski? He is definitely the postage stamp king. Stop lying.

You stated in your book that you supported Bush during the Persian Gulf War, yeah, after you saw his approval rating soar to over 90% not to mention it was an overwhelming success. A quick glance to the Congressional Record will show that EX-senator Gore voted against involvement in the Persian Gulf and as a Governor you opposed American involvement in a "war over oil." Well, the Persian Gulf War was clear and decisive foreign policy; we knew the mission and we got it done, unlike your failed and flip-flopping policy. At current count, you have changed the Haiti policy 6 times! Stop the hypocrisy.

However, I do support you (or you support Republicans) on your view on NAFTA. I feel it necessary to remind you that NAFTA was a Reagan idea, pressed by Bush, and you would have never have passed it without the support of Republicans. What angers me is your trading in other nations. Again, in your book you say ". . . the Bush administration erred by extending Most Favored Nation trade status to the People's Republic of China. . . we should not reward China with improved trade status when it. . . has failed to make progress on human rights. . ." (page 157 P.P.F.) But again, as I recall, on the last week of May 1993 you restored MFN to China and said that the American policy should not be tied to the way China treats its people. Stop the hypocrisy.

One of your bad policies that effects me deeply is that of your Vietnam policy. In you r book, Putting People First, on page 163 you state that a Clinton administration will "make resolution of the POW/ MIA a national priority by insisting on a full accounting of all POWs and MIAs before normalizing relations with Vietnam," but again, just this year (1994) you normalized relations without a full accounting. What you say is not what you do, just like it explains in The Agenda, you just "tell the people what they want to hear." By restoring trade relations you merely strengthened your disregard for the 58,000 brave Americans who lost their lives and the many others who fought bravely, you coward. You spit on the graves of those still missing and condemned their bodies to be forever Missing In Action. Please, stop the lying.

Two other of your policies that I have trouble with are your view on handguns and abortions. These tow policies might sound completely different but hey are very alike. You called the Brady Bill a bill that would stop crime, but as anyone who knows anything about crime knows, it will not stop crime, It is merely symbolic to show that "you care." As the statistics show, after one month if the Brady 12 states only caught 20 criminals! 20 criminals down, over a million to go! Beyond that, New York and California already have 14 and 21 say waiting period and look at crime there, You demanded a five day waiting period on guns to check backgrounds and allow people to "cool down," HOWEVER, you have criticized Republicans for wanting parental notification and a waiting period and in your book on page 170 you clearly state that you will "oppose any federal attempt to limit access through mandatory waiting periods or parental or spousal consent requirements." In laymen's terms you support abortion on demand. I want to know why is it that you deem it necessary to make law abiding citizens wait at least five days to buy a means of home protection (or sporting pleasure), but an actual murder and the brutal slaughtering of defenseless, unborn babies should be allowed anytime, without a waiting period for the mother to consider her options, before terminating a life. Just think what would have happened if your mother chose not to have YOU because it was not "convenient" for her and on the spur of the moment she aborted YOU?! Your conflicting views on self-protection and actual murder define further your hypocrisy.

As to you originally blasting Dan Quayle (on his "Murphy Brown" speech) with your liberal buddies, I say what was wrong with his speech? Nothing, as you said when you quickly changed your view. Well when I hear about you having State Troopers offer government jobs to women in exchange for them giving you sexual favors. Not to mention the 12 year Gennifer Flowers affair and the Paula Jones incident, etc. Even your own brother got into the act by not marrying his girlfriend until after she was 7 months pregnant!

Another clear fact of your hypocrisy are your Whitewater and other financial dealings. You have constantly blasted the rich as "greedy," not mentioning yourself. The way I have deduced, you realized that you could not defeat Bush on the economic record of the 1980s, so you went after the mentality. The mentality in which people tried to better themselves and make some savings for their children's future. In criticizing the eighties you always seem to leave out all of the hard working people who have earned their wealth through their own success. During the Whitewater escapade, you used money from a federally backed savings and loan and a fund set-up for lower income Arkansans who want to buy their own home and used it to invest very little in Whitewater Development, yet you were granted an equal partnership. When it ended you lost $69,000, then you said you lost $38,000 then you said you lost less than that but didn't know how much. We'll just have to wait for Fiske's report.

Another fact that catches me as odd is when during a press conference you said that you were reading your mother's memoirs and then you remembered that you lent her $20,000, but you forgot you lent it to her until (as previously mentioned) you were "conveniently" reading her memoirs. What is really odd is that your net worth at the time was under $40,000. Now, if I was earning, say just $1000 a year, I would certainly remember lending my mom $500- half my net worth. Furthermore, if a President forgets lending his mother over half of his net worth, how are we supposed to be expected to think he will know where our deficit spending is going?

This brings me to yet another point. During your first state of the union address in 1994, you claimed that the passage of your economic plan was responsible for an increase in housing starts, decrease in unemployment, mild economic growth, and countless other facts. HOWEVER, your plan had only been implemented for less than TWO WEEKS, which is no way enough time for the things to occur that you claim credit for.

During the latter half of the Bush administration, the United States and the world experienced a global recession. Near the end of 1992, before you were elected, the United States started to rebound. Knowing that the economy was starting to kick up again you and your campaign were forced to start a massive propaganda blitz to convince the people that things were worse and would get worse if Bush were re-elected. Again, you tried to drive a wedge between the middle class and the wealthy. Now, your so called economic recovery plan is virtually the same thing as the 1990 budget deal that Bush was forced to sign. Yet you call it "new governmental reform." I can only assume that Gore has worked his way onto the economics team and now he is recycling plans.

Now comes Hillary and the hypocrisy in her cattle futures. As stated previously, you went after the mentality of the 1980s, calling all of those people who made money the evil and greedy rich. In your book you say that "never again should Washington reward those who speculate in paper" (page 8). Well, a cattle future is piece of paper, hypocrisy #1, Further, when Hillary made her $100,000 someone had to lose that money, thus no benefit was made for the American people as a whole. The making of that money itself was unprecedented as well as unconventional, not to mention impossible. The blatant hypocrisy is that she went in the market to make money for herself, and then you criticize others for doing the same. Here is my view (the right view) of what Hillary did: Tyson Foods wanted to get chummy with the new governor in order to get lax regulations. A lawyer at Tyson, familiar with cattle futures proposed a plan, all technically legal. It was purposely through Hillary so that it would not be directly connected to the governor. I doubt that Hillary even put up the initial $1000, but after that the lawyer set up an account "straddling" system, whereby he plays both sides of the market. In one account he bets that the price will increase and in the other account he bets that it will fall. Whichever account wins money he calls that Hillary's, and whenever an account loses money, he calls it a business loss, which is of course tax deductible. As revealed tax documents have shown at the time Hillary made her 10,000% profit, the man who was giving her expert advice LOST three MILLION dollars! Explain that!

During the height of the Whitewater coverage, Hillary announced that she stopped trading cattle futures when Chelsea was born, but later it was revealed that she traded more than six months after Chelsea was born. Why would she lie about something like that, unless she was covering something up.

Other things that are suspicious about your wife's dealings are the following: After you were elected Attorney General of Arkansas in 1977, you moved to Arkansas. In that same year Hillary was given a job at the Rose Law Firm for $40000, considerably more than you were making. After you were elected governor in 1978, Hillary made full partner. Making full partner in only two years is nearly impossible, as most people in law can tell you. In 1985, according to Jim McDougal, you told him that your family needed cash, and you asked Madison Guaranty to put Hillary on a retainer, which he did at $2000 a month. Hillary then represents McDougal's business interests before a state bank regulator, appointed by you, clearly a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Then, in another conflict of interest, Hillary represented the FSLIC in a case involving a failed Illinois thrift. Next in 1989, Hillary is appointed to the board of TCBY Enterprises (based in Little Rock), and TCBY just happened to be one of the largest contributors to your campaign. In 1990, Hillary joined the board of LaFarge Corporation, a French company highly criticized for its toxic waste disposal contracts. After that, LaFarge was not charged as heavily for breaking environmental laws.

At this time, Hillary was making more than $60,000 from companies that had interest in Arkansas. She was also making $150,000 from the Rose law firm. Meanwhile, you were only making $35,000. So in effect, companies with interest in gaining influence in the Governor's office were paying Hillary, your wife, over $210,000 (plus the $100,000 from cattle futures). In 1992, after you were nominated for President, Hillary conveniently "quit" all corporate boards. Most likely she was asked to quit because the companies could no longer use her as a voice in the governor's ear.

Once in Washington, Hillary began her Health-care crusade by highly criticizing insurance and drug companies. However, before she began, Value Partners (her investment fund), started to sell short (betting the priced will fall) in pharmaceuticals. After this, you announced that you were putting all of your investments in a blind trust. (Hillary's role source: Newsweek, March 14, 1990.)

Now about Vince Foster, the late White House attorney, and personal attorney for you. T first I had doubts about if his death was a suicide, however, now I am partly convinced that it was a suicide, I do still harbor some doubts to whether or not he committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park. I mean, get serious, I have lived here over ten years and I have never heard of Fort Marcy Park, and a guy who just moves here decides to end his life there? I don't think so. If, however, the body was placed there it would make more sense because the investigation would be turned over to the Park Police, who are greatly under-qualified to handle a homicide. I believe that Foster committed suicide in his office at the White House and you and your staff figured that a dead body in the White House would distract the American people and Congress from getting your health-care and other plans implemented. Your staff then closed his office to all investigators, removed his body and removed incriminating files, and then ordered the Rose law firm to shred documents (as verified by two Rose employees). You then denied that files were removed, until you finally caved in and told the truth (some of it).

In your book, Putting People First, you greatly distort and give misleading information about your record in Arkansas. On page 176 it states "Clinton has shown real leadership against real odds." REAL ODDS? It's Arkansas, give me a break! The following are four completely misleading facts: On page 178 you state that "Arkansas boasts. . . the highest high school graduation rate in the region." Well, it just happens to be 47th in the United States, which means the region is three states that in laymen's terms, are really stupid. Also on page 178: "Clinton has cut the state's infant mortality rate almost in half since 1978," that's nice but the overall death rate was the 3rd highest in the union. Furthermore, infant mortality rate has decreased because the number of abortions skyrocketed to over 20,000 a year or an abortion every 26 minutes. The lies continue from page 178 to 179 with "Clinton has launched a major effort to curb teen pregnancy," yet Arkansas has the 2nd highest percentage of births to teenage mothers, so I guess your "major effort" has moved Arkansas from dead last to second to last. You also say that "Clinton has guided into law a Health Care Access Law and a law that will make basic coverage available for all Arkansans." However, Arkansas has the 13th highest percentage of population NOT covered by Health Insurance; and in a state by state evaluation of each state's overall health care Arkansas ranked DEAD LAST!! All of the above are actual quotations from YOUR book, and were not altered in any way. Stop lying, Mr. Clinton.

Some other facts about your state from State Rankings 1993, by Morgan Quintno are: Arkansas has the 5th highest poverty rate in the US (18.4% of the population); the 48th lowest median household income ($23,435); the 46th lowest average annual pay ($19,008); and the 3rd highest percentage of housing units without a telephone (9.75%); one of the most amusing facts is that Arkansas was the 40th most livable state in 1993 (while you were Governor) and when you left, it shot up five slots and became the 35th most livable state! Not to mention the fact that Arkansas had the highest divorce rate (7.8 per 1000), and now you say you want to do to us what you did for Arkansas, Well, I am one person who says NO!

You have constantly blasted Reagan for the national debt and often over inflate and misstate the facts. Well, the deficit increase was due to unchecked growth in the entitlement programs, which the Democrat controlled Congress would not cut. In fact the deficit was reduced at several different times during the Reagan administration: In 1983 the deficit was $208 billion, in 1984 it was $185 billion, a DECREASE of $23 billion. Then in 1986 it was $221 billion and the following year (1987) it was $150 billion, a $71 billion reduction! In 1988 the deficit was $155 billion and then in 1989 it was $152 billion, a $3 billion reduction! The deficit only started to skyrocket after Bush was forced to sign the 1990 budget deal that the Democrats wrote up, purposely designed to destroy his Presidency, not to mention the economy of the United States.

I feel it necessary to remind you that you and Reich were most insistent that Congress pass the economic stimulus package or the "cities would burn" and the economy would never recover. Your plan would have added over $40 billion to the deficit, but the Republicans said NO and were able to stop it; which saved the American people $40 billion, but have you ever given credit to them? No. As history has shown, the economy naturally rebounded despite not having your important stimulus.

The following are verified quotations from you that were reprinted in See, I Told You So, by Rush Limbaugh:

Need I remind you that in March of 1992 you said: "We need to provide a tax credit of up to $800 per child to ease the burden on working families," of course as the truth finally came out you forced hard-working families to choose between the credit or a tax break (a tax cut that never cam). In September of 1992 you said: "We should cut middle class taxes immediately by 10 percent," which of course never happened. Before you were elected in May of 1992 you said "I don't like to use the word sacrifice," then after you were inaugurated in January of 1993 you said: "It will not be easy, it will require sacrifice." On January 25, 1992 you said: "The health care task force has just met." Then in March of 1993, one of your lawyers said that "The health care task force has never met." Stop lying. In February of 1993 you said "I'm sure- after almost five weeks in office- that there are more (budget) cuts coming," but the following day Stephanopolus said "The President has no specific cuts in mind and no schedule for making them.: Stop lying.

In September of 1992 you said "We don't need to tamper with Social Security," yet after you were elected in your state of the union address in January 1993, you said: "the budget plan does ask older Americans with higher incomes who do not rely on Social Security get by to "contribute" more. Stop lying.

On June 6, 1993 you said "I have confirmed that I intend to present to the leadership of Congress a plan of action for the first one hundred days of the next Presidency," and on Good Morning America on June 23, 1992 you said, "If I'm elected I'll have the bills ready the day after I'm inaugurated. I'll send them to Congress and we'll have a hundred-day period." Then, in June 1992, you said: "My first one hundred days will be the most productive in modern history" and finally, after you were elected Dee Dee Myers, on January 12, 1993 said: "People of the press are expecting to have some 100-day program. We never had one." And as history has shown, you DID NOT have one. Stop lying.

On January 14, 1993, you said "Everybody heard those conversations was astonished that such a conclusion could be drawn. Nobody asked me about normalization" while denying that you had made conciliatory remarks to Saddam Hussein. But the next day, Stephanopolus said "The President inadvertently forgot that he was asked and regrets denying that it was asked," after the New York Times printed transcripts from the meeting that revealed YOU had specifically asked about "normal relations" and "normalization," not once, but FIVE TIMES! Stop lying.

Now I would like to discuss your and the Democrats in Congress' "reduction" and "cuts" in the deficit. First of all, I think I should point out that the Budget Reform Act of 1979 allowed Congress to increase each budget item by 10 to 12 percent. They just assume that they will spend 10 to 12 percent more next year than the current one. However, they may discover that a certain budget item needs only to be increased 8 percent, then they proudly announce they have reduced spending by 4 percent, even though the deficit continues to grow. It is the same thing that the SALT I and SALT II treaty agreements did. They only cut the RATE of INCREASE, not the total number (only after START, by Reagan, were the actual numbers reduced). Budget "cuts" put simply by the following example: In January you decide to buy a sports car that costs $100,000. In April you rethink it and decide to buy an ordinary car for $20,000. Then you saved yourself $80,000, even though you are SPENDING $20,000.

I have just one piece of advice for you, and that it to "STOP LYING." I truly understand why your home state newspaper gave you the nickname: "Slick Willie." In my opinion, you have truly mastered the art of rhetoric. Unfortunately, you have used your skill to lie and deceive. Your abilities to delude the press and most of the American people are truly unparalleled in American history. I can only deduce that you got this trait from your 2nd father, a used car salesman. You have managed to dell America what some thought was a Corvette, but it turned out to be a beat-up Pinto, and we can't return it for four years!

I do truly wish that you would stop distorting Reagan's record. As anyone who reads real facts and the truth can see, the eighties were a prosperous time. America was proud of itself and morale was up. The economy was booming, communism fell, we saw the first reduction in the amount of strategic arms controlled by the US and USSR, and at the same time ALL taxes fell dramatically.

Not only were Reagan's policies great, the man himself was a true American hero, and represents the American dream. He grew up in poverty in a small town in the Midwest, attended a small college, and worked his way up to a star of the silver screen, Governor of California (a REAL state) and finally to the Presidency. Please stop bashing and personally attacking such a beloved man of the American people.

As of writing this letter, there are still over tow and a half years of your Presidency, and I am sure there are more lies and deception ahead. One of my hopes is that a Dole/ Powell ticket will be voted into power in 1996, and they might be able to unravel some of your drastic and sinister plans.

In conclusion, I would like to ask you, once again, to stop lying about and distorting the Reagan record. Also, you and your administration should change your mottoes. "What can we get away with today" and "How can we fool them today" are not what America needs. I know Ronald Reagan, he's a role model to me, and Mr. Clinton, you are no Ronald Reagan. As the book The Agenda describes, you are definitely no Reagan. First of all, Bush would never have said "Get with the goddamn program" to Reagan like Gore said to you. Reagan would never have answered which type of underwear he wears, Reagan would never let his wife boss him around and make decisions and give her power, because she was not elected, just like Hillary wasn't. Reagan was elected (twice, by 51% and 59%, not to mention his victory over Mondale was the largest margin of victory in recorded history) and he did an excellent job and helped this country . You, on the other hand, were elected by a mere 43% and let your wife make all the decisions. Get with the program, stop lying, and stop deceiving,

Maybe someday you will learn, maybe not. I just hope that your indecisiveness and lies do not hurt the long-term future of the Greatest Country of the Face of the Earth, THE UNITES STATES OF AMERICA. God bless America and Dole/ Powell '96.

Conservatively yours,

Master Jonathan

TOP of PAGE

My MAIN Page

For YOUR OWN FREE Home Page, visit: