Lewinsky not as innocent as she claims

With the #metoo movement in full swing, Monica Lewinsky is trying to take advantage of it. In an article in Vanity Fair magazine, she makes all kinds of accusations against Bill Clinton, basically stating that he took advantage of her. That is not quite the truth, however.

According to a news article in The New York Daily News in 1998, her former lover said that she was a “sex crazed maniac”. who was going to Washington to put on her “presidential knee pads” (NY Daily News January 29, 1998).

She went there for a reason, a selfish reason at that. She certainly was not the innocent little girl that she is attempting to portray herself to be in the Vanity Fair article.


Gun rights, like others, are not unlimited

Question for the gun lobby: Why does common sense help us interpret the First Amendment but not the Second? Under the First Amendment, we can criticize the president, but common sense says we cannot shout “fire” in a crowded theater, even though speech is involved in both situations. Similarly, we can preach the gospel from whatever text we choose, but common sense does not allow us to sacrifice live animals on altars, even if both can be called religious practice. But where is common sense when we interpret that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms means anyone can bring any weapon, including an AR-15, anywhere? Such an interpretation is not in the actual words of the Second Amendment, nor in its historical origins. Final question: If we can carry weapons anywhere, why doesn’t the gun lobby advocate for allowing guns in courtrooms and airplanes?