Close Encounter with Bill and Hillary Clinton

by Jonas E. Alexis & Dolly Kyle

Dolly Kyle graduated from Southern Methodist University School of Law and practiced real estate law in Texas, where she was named a fellow of the Texas Bar Foundation for outstanding contributions to the administration of justice. That honor was limited to one-third of 1 percent of Texas lawyers.

Dolly was the founder and executive director of Lawyers for Affordable Housing which provided pro bono legal services for low-income homeowners and for non-profit housing groups such as Habitat for Humanity. She was also a founding member of the Dallas Affordable Housing Partnership and Dallas City Homes. She is currently turning some of her housing experiences in Dallas into her fourth novel. Kyle’s father was a marine veteran who died when she was eleven years old.

Alexis: I first read about you in the Daily Mail and Slate.[1] Then I read the declaration you wrote about Bill Clinton in the Washington Post, which was published way back in 1998.[2]

From reading your book, it is pretty obvious to me that your concern is genuine. The fact that you met Bill when you were just eleven years old (he was twelve) and the fact that the relationship lasted for more than two decades obviously exclude the possibility that you were in that relationship because Bill had political power. You are also a lawyer. So, for people who haven’t read the book and don’t know about some of the facts that you presented, can you convince them that you do not have ulterior motives?

Kyle: First, the Daily Mail and Slate articles are not completely accurate. If you want more accurate introductions about me, go to WND/WorldNetDaily for the articles written there by Joseph Farah and/or Kevin Deanna. Second, my Declaration that is posted online contains only eight paragraphs of the original 15. All the good stuff is missing.

Third, as Mark Twain said, “it is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” I probably cannot convince Clinton supporters to open their minds long enough to look at the truth about these so-far-successful criminals. I would say that people should read the FOREWORD to my book HILLARY THE OTHER WOMAN. It was written by David P. Schippers, who was the chief investigative counsel for the Clinton impeachment.[3]

Schippers is considered one of the most honorable men in this country and the truths of his statements have never been challenged. See what he has to say about me. Take a free “Look inside” the book at Amazon.com, and read the FOREWORD. If that has no effect, then that reader is probably beyond hope. Fourth, I have challenged Billy and Hillary and everyone else on the planet to find one sentence in my book that is not true. Not gonna happen!

Alexis: You argue that Bill is a sociopath and performed oral sex in the White House. You write, “Imagine how you might feel if someone you loved turned out to be a sick, sociopathic criminal.”[4] You also say: “Most people find it intellectually difficult to believe that all this happened and no one reported it at the time.” Describe what you mean by that and give us some convincing evidence and examples.

Kyle: I said that Billy Clinton is an untreated sex addict and nothing he does would surprise me. It does make me sick to my stomach to think that the little boy I cared about turned out to be a sociopathic rapist and serial abuser of women. It’s all in the book HILLARY THE OTHER WOMAN, which I am not going to rewrite here. Chapter 47 is titled “MEDIA MAGIC” or how to make a story disappear. The mainstream media is still doing today what they were doing 20 years ago to defend the Clintons and to hide their crimes from the general public.

Alexis: You say you were raped in 1964, but you didn’t describe the events leading up to that tragedy. Can you expand on that? You also say that you “should have filed criminal charges against the rapist.” Why didn’t you?

Kyle: No, I am not going to describe the events leading up to my being drugged and raped in 1964 by one of Billy Clinton’s friends. The details were not relevant when I told Billy about the rape in 1977 and the details were not relevant when I told my best friend about it in 1987; the details are still not relevant today.

What is relevant is that I knew the futility of reporting a rape in 1964. Unfortunately, rape victims still are reluctant to report a rape because of what the rape victim will have to endure in order to prosecute the case. Look at what Juanita Broaddrick endured after being raped by Arkansas Attorney General William J. Clinton in 1978. As Juanita famously tweeted in January of 2016, “It never goes away.”

Alexis: You say that Hillary attacked the women who had been raped by Bill. You also charge that she attacked you. How?

Kyle: Hillary used different tactics for different women. She hired private detectives to get the scoop on women starting way back in the 1980s; Billy’s victims were subsequently threatened and intimidated in various ways over the years. Hillary’s sniveling sycophant Sidney Blumenthal planted false stories about me in national publications because they knew they needed to destroy my credibility. Since I was an esteemed lawyer and clearly not a bimbo (as they falsely characterized others), they had to attack my reputation. I am guessing that your readers never heard about the RICO lawsuit I filed in response to all that.

Alexis: You write in the book that Bill didn’t finish his three-year study at Oxford because he had raped at least one woman there. You also say that as soon as Bill began to teach at the University of Arkansas School of Law, he started “‘coming on to’ and even assaulting some of the female law students who were in his classes.” Evidence for both claims?

Kyle: I do not believe that I used the word “because” in relation to Billy’s raping a woman at Oxford and his leaving without getting a degree. I did not personally say these things occur, and I relied on consistent reports from multiple credible witnesses. Not surprisingly, they still do not wish to be identified.

Alexis: Here’s what you wrote: “I did not know until a couple of decades later that Billy Clinton had raped at least one woman while he was at Oxford, which explains why he left after two years and did not finish the three-year program there. I understand why his victim did not press the issue. Billy was not arrested, not tried, and not convicted of that rape in England, so he had no trouble getting into law school at Yale. Yes, it made me nauseous–physically sick to my stomach–to learn about Billy’s rapes, especially after what had happened to me.” That’s quite close to saying “because.”

Kyle: I am quite literal and I generally remember what I write. I did not think I used the word “because” and I did not. Yes, the meaning is very similar. There were other factors that I do not care to divulge, so I will leave it as written. The word “because” seems slightly stronger to me and I did not choose to use it; I don’t mind if you interpret and use it, but don’t put quotes around it, please.

Alexis: Let me ask you a related question. It seems to me that there is a double standard in the media. The New York Times, the Daily Beast, and much of the media have gone to great lengths writing ridiculous things such as Donald Trump has a long history of mistreating women, even though those stories turned out to be bogus.[5]

For example, the Daily Beast put out an article citing Trump’s former wife, Ivana, and saying that she was raped, even though she herself admitted that it was not in the “criminal sense.”[6] I am really confused here. How can a woman be raped in a non-criminal way? And why aren’t those scumbags using the same standard on Bill and Hillary? This was one of the questions or issues that Roger Stone raised in his book,[7] and I think it demands an answer. Can you address this for us?

Kyle: If you will take a look at various online sources that examine the publications by mainstream media in both print and television, you will see that the mainstream media leans significantly to the left. That is the beginning of the bias toward the Clintons and away from the truth. Investigative journalism seems to be a dying art, and demand for the truth is no longer generally popular.

Finally, those journalists who, through bias or ignorance or laziness, began reporting about the Clintons in a favorable light are now probably embarrassed to look at what they have done and to make corrections… even if their higher-ups would allow it. Again, look at chapter 47 in HILLARY THE OTHER WOMAN for specific details.

Alexis: I stopped using the “left” and the “right” categories a long time ago because on many occasions the so-called “left” and “right” follow the same ideological pattern. For example, it wasn’t the “left” that spearheaded the war in Iraq at all. As Thomas Friedman of the New York Times himself told Haaretz back in 2003, the plan for war in Iraq

“was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Elliott Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history. They believe that the right political idea entails a fusion of morality and force, human rights and grit. The philosophical underpinnings of the Washington neoconservatives are the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Edmund Burke.”^[8]

William Kristol, the man who is now having nightmare because Donald Trump is a potential candidate, the man who said that Obama is “a born-again Neocon,” and the man whose father bragged about being a Trotskyite,

“is believed to exercise considerable influence on the president [George W. Bush], Vice President Richard Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; he is also perceived as having been instrumental in getting Washington to launch this all-out campaign against Baghdad…because what happened on September 11, 2001, Kristol says, is that the Americans looked around and saw that the world is not what they thought it was. The world is a dangerous place. Therefore the Americans looked for a doctrine that would enable them to cope with this dangerous world. And the only doctrine they found was the neoconservative one.”^[9]

It is this Neoconservative doctrine that led America into the war in Iraq—a doctrine that, in the end, proved to be detrimental to the nation at large.^[10] The Neocons have never taken full responsibility for the debacle they created at all. In fact, Jonah Goldberg wrote in the LA Times that the war in Iraq was “a worthy mistake.”^[11] Goldberg never told his readers how a six-trillion dollar war can be “worthy.”^[12] Tony Blair reluctantly admitted that the war in Iraq probably created a Frankensteinian monster known as ISIS,^[13] but Blair is in the minority.

So, the “left” and “right” terminologies are basically meaningless when it comes to examining wicked ideologies. Neocon Ben Shapiro and Pamela Geller are other examples of this. Geller and Shapiro style themselves as a “conservatives” in America, fighting against the so-called “left.” But Shapiro supported the Pussy Riot in Russia,^[14] a Trotskyite group that ended producing pornography at the Moscow Zoological Museum. And Geller ended up giving two thumbs up to Femen,^[15] another subversive group. One member of the Pussy Riot ended up performing a sex act with a frozen chicken at a supermarket.

I have repeatedly argued that politicians must submit their appetite to practical reason, which is our only defense against tyranny, oppression, and covert operation. What’s your take here?

Kyle: I do not care to answer this question. We can split hairs all day long about left and right; my readers know what I mean by those terms, and I presume that your readers will be intrigued with your elaboration.

Alexis: There is a final issue that I would like you to address. Bill should certainly be held accountable for his immoral acts. But what about academic circles that support his acts? What about books by evolutionary psychologists and biologists which promiscuously and incoherently advance the thesis that rape has a biological basis? Should we let them off the hook? If I were Bill, I would carry with me a copy of Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer’s A Natural History of Rape: Biological Basis for Sexual Coercion, published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Thornhill and Palmer argue that people who have “relevant background in evolutionary biology,” like they do, will come to the conclusion that there is a biological basis for rape. Thornhill and Palmer inveigh against those who don’t know the “scientific” literature this way:

“We find that the majority of the researchers on whose theories today’s attempts to solve the problem of rape are based remain uninformed about the most powerful scientific theory concerning living things: the theory of evolution by Darwinian selection. As a result, many of the social scientists’ proposals for dealing with rape are based on assumptions about human behavior that have been without theoretical justification since 1859, when Charles Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species was published.”^[16]

In other words, if those researchers study Darwin’s theory long enough and think through these issues seriously, they would come to the conclusion that there is a Darwinian explanation for rape. Thornhill and Palmer admit in the introduction of the work: “We realize that our approach and our frankness will trouble some social scientists, including some serious and well-intentioned rape researchers.”^[17] Then they move to the inexorable truth:

“The social science theory of rape is based on empirically erroneous, even mythological, ideas about human development, behavior, and psychology. It contradicts fundamental knowledge about evolution. It fails to yield a coherent, consistent, progressive body of knowledge. The literature it has produced is largely political rather than scientific…

“Most people don’t know much about why humans have the desires, emotions, and values that they have, including those that cause rape. This is because most people lack any understanding of the ultimate (that is, evolutionary) causes of why humans are the way they are. This lack of understanding has severely limited people’s knowledge of the exact proximate (immediate) causes of rape, thus limiting the ability of concerned people to change the behavior.

“For 25 years, attempts to prevent rape have not only failed to be informed by an evolutionary approach; they have been based on explanations designed to make ideological statements rather than to be consistent with scientific knowledge of human behavior.

“One cannot understand evolutionary explanations of rape, much less evaluate them, without a solid grasp of evolutionary theory. Failure to appreciate this point has caused much valuable time to be wasted on misplaced attacks on evolutionary explanations.”^[18]

On a Darwinian basis, there is no rational justification for condemning rape. If “’good’ traits are those that promote an individual’s reproductive interests,” then “A trait that increases this ability is ‘good’ in terms of natural selection even though one might consider it undesirable in moral terms.”^[19]

So, rape can be undesirable from a moral point of view, but it might be advantageous and therefore preferable from an evolutionary perspective. After all, Darwin advanced the notion of “survival of the fittest” in his Descent of Man. If the rapists are the “fittest,” then it follows that they will survive by sexually terrorizing their victims.

In addition, if we are going to condemn Bill’s immoral acts, shouldn’t we condemn people like Wilhelm Reich as well? Reich, as we recall, was the revolutionary who taught that one must never suppress his or her sexual impulses and submit them to what Immanuel Kant would call practical reason. Reich said: “Sexual inhibition prevents the average adolescent from thinking and feeling in a rational way.”[20] Reich continued,

“If one succeeds in getting rid of the childhood fear of masturbation and as a result thereof genitality demands gratification, then intellectual insight and sexual gratification are wont and prevail.”[21]

The logic is pretty simple. According to Reich, one cannot gain intellectual insight without being sexually promiscuous and even perverse. In fact, Reich taught that “childhood masturbation” is “a bourgeois invention.”[22]

Wilhelm Reich, who was a student of Sigmund Freud, died in 1957. Yet his legacy lives on. He is a cultural phenomenon.[23] As the Guardian put it, Reich was “the man who invented free love,”[24] and people like Norman Mailer, J.D. Salinger, Saul Bellow, Paul Goodman, Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, Dwight Macdonald and William S. Burroughs have all been influenced by Reich’s “orgone.”[25] Mailer himself said of one of Reich’s books,

“The Function of the Orgasm was like a Pandora’s box to me. It opened a great deal because I had – to speak personally – I’d been struck with an itch in my own orgasm. So much was good in it; so much was not good in it. And his notion that the orgasm in a certain sense was the essence of the character, which came out and was expressed in the orgasm, gave me much food for thought over the years.

“What was important to me was the force, and clarity and power of [Reich’s] early works, and the daring. And also the fact that I think in a basic sense that he was right.”[26]

We should also add that Reich invented the phrase “the sexual revolution.” Christopher Turner of the Guardian writes,

“In 1947, after Harper’s magazine introduced Reich to mainstream Americans as the leader of ‘a new cult of sex and anarchy’ that was blooming along the west coast, where Henry Miller and other bohemians lived in shacks along the Pacific, the Food and Drug Administration began investigating Reich for making fraudulent claims about the orgone energy accumulator.”[27]

Once again, if people going to condemn Bill, who is arguably following the principles upon which the sexual revolution was based, shouldn’t they condemn people like Reich as well? Can you address those issues as well?

Kyle: There is also a biological imperative to kill one’s rivals, which is why civilized nations have enacted laws against committing murder. For the sake of argument, let us assume that rape is a biological imperative. So what? Rape is also a defined crime in these United States of America. Billy Clinton is a rapist and therefore a criminal; Hillary Clinton, by threatening his victims, has acted as an accessory after-the-fact, making her a criminal as well. The statute of limitations has run on the Clinton rapes that I know about, but I wonder if the statute of limitations has run on Billy’s sex crimes with underage girls on Orgy Island. I wonder if any of those underage girls are still around to tell the stories.

Alexis: My point is that if the act is biological, then it seems obvious that it will happen anyway. In other words, we should blame Clinton’s genes, not Clinton himself. And the same people who keep saying that behavior is genetic also declare that free will is an illusion. Again, I agree completely that Clinton is guilty as charged, and he ought to be held accountable for his immoral act. But he is not the only criminal in town. We also ought to go after the criminals who articulated those immoral behaviors on college campuses as well.

Clinton used his political power to commit sexual acts. And David Petraeus also used his political power to betray the American people as well. He gave classified documents to his mistress, Paula Broadwell, and no Neocon has ever said a damn thing about this. In fact, the Neocons all came in to rescue him from political oblivion. Sure, Petraeus is probably not rapist, but the point is that both Clinton and Petraeus were acting upon an immoral principle. Response?

Kyle: My previous response was sufficient for me. I have a more succinct style than you do and I’m satisfied with what I wrote.

Citations

• [1] “EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton once called disabled children at an Easter egg hunt ‘f***ing ree-tards’ and referred to Jews as ‘stupid k***s’ while Bill called Jesse Jackson a ‘damned n****r,’ claims Bill’s former lover,” Daily Mail, June 17, 2016; Blake Wilson, “The Truth About Hillary?,” Slate, June 22, 2005.
• [2] “Declaration of Dolly Kyle Browning,” Washington Post, March 13, 1998.
• [3] David P. Schippers and Alan P. Henry, Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2001).
• [4] Dolly Kyle, Hillary the Other Woman: A Political Memoir (Washington: WNB Books, 2016), kindle edition.
• [5] See for example “Woman in NYT piece about Trump’s mistreatment of women fires back,” USA Today, May 16, 2016.
• [6] Tim Mak, “Ex-Wife: Donald Trump Made Me Feel ‘Violated’ During Sex,” Daily Beast, July 28, 2015.
• [7] Roger Stone and Robert Morrow, The Clintons’ War on Women (New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2015).
• [8] Ari Shavit, “White Man’s Burden,” Haaretz, April 4, 2003.
• [9] Ibid.
• [10] See for example Andrew J. Bacevich, Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2013); Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Paul R. Pillar, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011); John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007); John J. Mearsheimer, Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); John M. Schuessler, Deceit on the Road to War: Presidents, Politics, and American Democracy (New York: Cornell University Press, 2015).
• [11] Jonah Goldberg, “Iraq Was a Worthy Mistake,” LA Times, October 19, 2006.
• [12] Ernesto Londono, “Study: Iraq, Afghan war costs to top $4 trillion,” Washington Post, March 28, 2013; Bob Dreyfuss, The $6 Trillion Wars,” The Nation, March 29, 2013; “Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson Institute Study,” Huffington Post, May 14, 2013; Mark Thompson, “The $5 Trillion War on Terror,” Time, June 29, 2011; “Iraq war cost: $6 trillion. What else could have been done?,” LA Times, March 18, 2013.
• [13] Robert E. Shapiro, “Was the Iraq War a mistake?,” Chicago Tribune, January 15, 2016.
• [14] Ben Shapiro, “Will Hollywood Riot for Pussy Riot?,” FrontPage Magazine, August 20, 2012.
• [15] Pamela Geller, “Muslimah Misogyny: ‘Muslim Women Against Femen,’” PamelaGeller.com, April 7, 2013.
• [16] Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000), xi-xii.
• [17] Ibid., xii.
• [18] Ibid., xiii, 2.
• [19] Ibid., 5.
• [20] Quoted in E. Michael Jones, The Catholic Church and the Cultural Revolution (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2016), kindle edition.
• [21] Ibid.
• [22] Ibid.
• [23] For an excellent examination on this, see E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000).
• [24] Christopher Turner, “Wilhelm Reich: the man who invented free love,” Guardian, July 8, 2011.
• [25] Ibid.
• [26] Ibid.
• [27] Ibid.

Jonas E. Alexis, Senior Editor

Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the book, Kevin MacDonald’s Metaphysical Failure: A Philosophical, Historical, and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and Identity Politics. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.

• Read the Latest Posts from Jonas >>>
• Read Jonas’ Archives (2004-2015) >>>