What Bill Clinton and Paula Jones Affair Means

Paula Jones may have been a victim, but at least she needs to be brave enough to expose the sex industry, her own system, and say quite frankly that she has been duped by it.


Paula Jones

…by Jonas E. Alexis


In 1994, a woman by the name of Paula Jones accused then Governor Bill Clinton of dropping his pants and underwear, exposing “his penis (which was erect),” and asking her to “kiss it” in a hotel room in Little Rock, Arkansas.[1] Jones, the Daily Mail has reported,

“told her sisters and mother about the incident but took no further action. It wasn’t until two years later, in 1993, when former Clinton bodyguards spoke in a magazine interview about escorting a woman called ‘Paula’ to his room in May 1991 that she was advised to go public.”[2]

There is much evidence which seems to suggest that there is some truth to this.[3] In fact, Clinton agreed “to pay her $850,000” to drop the case.[4] Previously, Clinton “asked that the civil suit be put off until he left the White House but in January 1997 an appeals court ruled the trial should go ahead.”[5]

Things got settled then. People moved on. Mrs. Jones started to live a quiet life, and things got quiet for a while.

More than twenty years later, Mrs. Jones is back in the spotlight. She has recently left her obscure life and come out and declared that Hillary Clinton should not be running for president because

“There is no way that she did not know what was going on, that women were being abused and accosted by her husband. They have both lied…Who would want Bill Clinton back a second time, doing the same stuff he was doing before, philandering with women? They have both lied.

“He does not have a right to be in the White House to serve the people the way he treated women, sexually harassing women. There were many women that came out and spoke out about what he did to them. He does not have a place in the White House to serve the American people.”[6]

Fair enough. But let us take the issue to the next realm. Why did Jones agree to go to meet Clinton in a hotel room alone back then? What was really in her mind? To be quite blunt, if Mrs. Jones was really against what happened, why did she agree to prostrate before pornographic magazines such as Penthouse after the Clinton debacle? Does she mean to tell us that Clinton was wrong but her graphic work at Penthouse was right? Does she mean to tell us that she wasn’t she titillating Clinton then? Who is she really fooling here?

jones5Furthermore, if Clinton was wrong, why doesn’t Mrs. Jones confront Penthouse as well for what Madonna would have called driving men to their death?

You see, Mrs. Jones is trying to have her cake and eat it too. She appeals to the moral law when it suits her, but denies the moral law when it goes against her sex project.

There is also some evidence which indicates that Mrs. Jones was comfortably happy with Clinton. At one point, she would go to the gubernatorial office and “‘asked whether Mr. Clinton was in and, if not, when he would return,’ and praised him as ‘such a gentle person.’”[7]

“Much of the new evidence undermining Ms Jones comes from Daniel Traylor, the Little Rock lawyer who first represented her (and who quit the case in late June). Mr Traylor says that, during the four months in which he originally represented her, Ms Jones never mentioned the ‘distinguishing characteristics in [Mr] Clinton’s genital area’ that formed part of the complaint she filed, with the help of two new lawyers, in May 1994.

“Mr Traylor also says that Pamela Blackard, a witness who told journalists that Ms Jones had returned ‘shaking’ from Mr Clinton’s hotel room, had told him that Ms Jones’s account of what happened was in fact much less dramatic—and that Ms Jones had added the most lurid details several days later. Mr Traylor also claims that, in early 1994, Ms Jones and her husband received a payment of $1,000 from a right-wing film maker.”[8]

So, money was still an issue after all.

Mrs. Jones has just taught us once again that you cannot play dice with the moral law and come out safe. You cannot dress like sluts and whores and then pretend that you don’t know why or how you got raped.

Jones incited Clinton with pornographic pictures and Clinton acted upon those sexual titillations. If we follow the logic of the sexual freedom which the sex industry and the Dreadful Few have forced upon us all, Clinton was actually right! Clinton, as E. Michael Jones later wrote, “had become the paradigm of Enlightenment man,”[9] which is to say that he went by the definition that the Enlightenment and its intellectual children have forced upon the West.

Paula Jones

Paula Jones

In short, the sex industry and the capitalist regime tell us that pornography means freedom,[10] but the same system violates its own principles by punishing its own children when they get involved in pornography. This internal contradiction is certainly unlivable. However, it is quite rampant, most specifically in the sex industry. As E. Michael Jones put it then:

“Shortly after Monica Lewinsky became a political liability, the same crowd that frothed at the mouth during the Clarence Thomas hearings about women’s rights and sexual harassment were now calling Miss Lewinsky, from behind the veil of anonymity, ‘a little nutty and a little slutty.’

“As in the case of abortion—and l’affaire Lewinsky coincided uncannily with the twenty-fifth anniversary of Roe v. Wade—the lesson was all too obvious for those with eyes to see: the lusts of the powerful were more important than the lives of the weak. Monica Lewinsky was just a twenty-four-year-old late-term fetus thrown onto the garbage heap of sexual convenience, as the feminists looked the other way once again, because her case did not fit into their agenda.

“The talking-class feminists found that Clinton put them in an especially uncomfortable position. Columnist Ellen Goodman struggled valiantly with the fact that her favorite politician was engaged in behavior that would be grounds for lynching if perpetrated by someone at the other end of the political spectrum, and came up with the notion that Americans had become more ‘morally sophisticated’ since the Clarence Thomas hearings. What she meant to say was that they had stopped trying to believe that there should be some congruity between a person’s public and private life.”[11]

Jones concluded,

“The lesson here is clear. The talking class had adopted sexual liberation as its moral code. What they probably didn’t understand at the time is that once they adopted it as their code of behavior, they condemned themselves to promote that behavior in others even more influential than themselves, lest in condemning it, they leave themselves open to blackmail or charges of hypocrisy.”[12]

Mrs. Jones may have been a victim, but at least she needs to be brave enough to expose the sex industry, her own system, and say quite frankly that she has been duped by it. Until she does that, then there is no way that we can take her case seriously. Mrs. Jones says of Clinton, “He should be a man. I am sure it would have been a different story if he had just told the truth.”[13]

Once again, this is fair enough. But will Mrs. Jones be a decent woman and tell the truth about Penthouse and the pornographic industry?

The answer seems to be no.

“Active on social media, Jones enjoys posting sefies and having maintained the looks and figure that earned her a nude photo spread, she laps up compliments from friends.”[14]

[1] Paul Thompson, “EXCLUSIVE: ‘Don’t let Bill back in the White House, he abused women and he’ll do it again.’ Paula Jones warns against voting for Hillary – because she also lied about sex case which almost cost him presidency,” Daily Mail, May 28, 2015.

[2] Ibid.

[3] See for example Daniel Klaidman, “Clinton V. Paula Jones,” Newsweek, January 12, 1997.

[4] Peter Baker, “Clinton Settles Paula Jones Lawsuit for $850,000,” Washington Post, November 14, 1998.

[5] Thompson, “EXCLUSIVE: ‘Don’t let Bill back in the White House, he abused women and he’ll do it again.’ Paula Jones warns against voting for Hillary – because she also lied about sex case which almost cost him presidency,” Daily Mail, May 28, 2015.

[6] Quoted in Paul Thompson, “EXCLUSIVE: ‘Don’t let Bill back in the White House, he abused women and he’ll do it again.’ Paula Jones warns against voting for Hillary – because she also lied about sex case which almost cost him presidency,” Daily Mail, May 28, 2015.

[7] Cited in “Taylor-Made: The Paula Jones Affair,” The Economist, July 3, 1997.

[8] Ibid.

[9] E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000), 601.

[10] Ibid., 587-588.

[11] Ibid., 602.

[12] Ibid., 603.

[13] Thompson, “EXCLUSIVE: ‘Don’t let Bill back in the White House, he abused women and he’ll do it again.’ Paula Jones warns against voting for Hillary – because she also lied about sex case which almost cost him presidency,” Daily Mail, May 28, 2015.

[14] Ibid.

Related Posts:

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on May 30, 2015, With 13444 Reads Filed under Government & Politics, Of Interest. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

15 Responses to "What Bill Clinton and Paula Jones Affair Means"

  1. Chandler  June 4, 2015 at 4:26 pm

    Yeah but why screw the country and the citizens? He could mount Paula, Jennifer, Monica, others, all he wanted. Why did he mount us? I never liked this W.C. Fields look alike. Never trusted him. Bush/Clinton/Bush/Oblunder have had a lot of screwing with us, y’know, “We the People…” None of us got to be in Playboy and tell our story.

  2. Curmudgeon  June 1, 2015 at 9:23 am

    Sorry Jonas, you are offside on this one.
    How people, male or female, dress is a form of advertising. Sometimes that advertising is overt and says ‘Look at me’ and sometimes it is subtle and says ‘Try to find me’. In either case, it does not say ‘You can do what you want to me’, as actions beyond looking require consent.

    That Paula Jones peeled for Penthouse is her choice, whether she was paid or did it for free is irrelevant. As for @John’s allegation that she was promiscuous in high school, the only relevance is that, if true, there was consent. Her story about Clinton is a statement about no consent.

    Even if Paula Jones were a prostitute and of lower moral character, her opinion that Bill shouldn’t be back in the White House is sound.

  3. Snoop Dough  May 31, 2015 at 12:41 pm

    Yes, Sir, they have always expolited our sexual tendencies, I must thank you, for you have directed me in the right direction, simple words, our divine drive without covetousness, which is idolatry, thanks, the gates of heaven await you, man of honor!

  4. Not Clueless  May 30, 2015 at 7:16 pm

    Lewinsky was hardly a sweet innocent young thing. Don’t know what the requirements are for one to be a WH intern, but it would seem appropriate vetting for her did not occur – and I was flabbergasted that Bill could be that stupid/reckless esp after the Gennifer Flowers fiasco. Of course, I was still extremely naive then re all these political charades – and it is all just ‘history’s actors’ continuously pulling the wool over our eyes. Bill succeeded in getting done precisely what was intended for him to do (Glass-Steagall repeal for one) & the sex show was just that – a show to keep the masses distracted from what was really going on. Note that Daddy Bush & Bill are the best of buddies – cause they’re both players on the same team!

    I could care less about Slick Willie or Paula Jones – Hillary’s done such an outstanding job of revealing her true character & affiliations that she should crash & burn strictly on her own (de)merit(s)!

  5. Worker Bee  May 30, 2015 at 2:06 pm

    “You cannot dress like sluts and whores and then pretend that you don’t know why or how you got raped.”

    Are we really still at this point, where assault is justified on such grounds?

    Now where the feminists have gone wrong is to propose that when women dress that way, men should internally view them the same as if they were wearing clothes considered proper for working in a bank, or that if a woman dresses that way for one man and goes out in public, all other men should not look below her neckline.

    • Jonas E. Alexis  May 30, 2015 at 4:55 pm

      Worker Bee and Paul,

      If you are offended by the use of the words “sluts” and “whores,” let us go to some definitions:

      Whore: “A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain. To accept payment in exchange for sexual relations.Debase oneself by doing something for unworthy motives, typically to make money.”
      Slut: “A woman who has many casual sexual partners. A person considered to be sexually promiscuous.”
      You don’t think this is a description of what Paula Jones was doing when she was working for Penthouse? Did you know that she unambiguously declared that money was her motive when she took those pictures for Penthouse?

    • Not Clueless  May 30, 2015 at 7:40 pm

      Jonas – You are totally ignoring your connecting what could be taken as the attire of a whore or slut w/ justifiable rape!

      Some time ago I watched a TCM movie starring Grace Kelly & Frank Sinatra – well into the plot Grace’s character who was about to be married, has a night out w/ Frank’s character resulting in her passing out & Frank depositing her into her bedrm/bed. Long story short, Frank declares that it’s an unwritten law that a man NEVER takes advantage of a woman under such circumstances – her virtue was completely intact even if appearances would have indicated otherwise. Boy – what an old-fashioned notion, huh?!!

      But, according to you, females wearing alluring attire have no excuse should anyone decide that that’s an open invitation to sexually assault them! It sounds like you have fallen for the Dreadful Few’s BS as much as anyone! Your credibility continues to fall.

    • Worker Bee  May 30, 2015 at 9:03 pm

      Not Clueless makes the point in his/her first sentence.

      We can consider the woman to socially inappropriate, we can shun, we can refuse to hire her for a job, etc. due to the way she dresses without being morally wrong.

      But no matter how she dresses, it cannot be a moral excuse for physical assault.

    • Not Clueless  May 30, 2015 at 10:23 pm

      Jonas – You really might benefit from reading this article:
      The Duggars: How Fundamentalism’s Teachings on Sexuality Create Predatory Behavior

      I’ve heard the Amish have similar problems w/ younger female siblings being abused by older brothers. Certainly, these very unrealistic sexual attitudes advocated by fundamentalist religious adherents are not in anyone’s best interest – and the above referenced article goes a long way in examining the inherent problems that just such sexual repression creates for what otherwise would have been normal adolescents.

      How far is such a mindset from extreme Islam in which females must cover themselves head to foot least any patch of skin/hair incite a male into sexual hysteria/assault? The whole patriarchal paradigm – the heart & soul of the Abrahamic religions – reeks of female suppression/control – and the continued all but free pass for rapists/child molesters in our society bears this out.

    • Not Clueless  May 30, 2015 at 10:45 pm

      “The Methodist Church in Britain (MCB) published a damning report from an independent inquiry on Thursday, which found nearly 2,000 incidents of physical and sexual abuse going back as far as 1950.”

      Gosh, are we starting to see a pattern here . . .

  6. frog  May 30, 2015 at 12:27 pm

    I was under the impression that M Lewinsky( a jew) was placed in the White house to snare Clinton because Clinton was pressurizing Israel to withdraw from the ‘Occupied Territories
    Can any one enlighten me on this?’

    • ManCavePatriot  May 30, 2015 at 6:37 pm

      She was TOTALLY Mossad implant. Her mother remarried a businessman involved in local newspapers, Strauss, on the east coast. There are no innocent bystanders in this story, just scumbags doing what they do, including Queen Hillary.

    • Not Clueless  May 30, 2015 at 7:59 pm

      @ Toby
      Surely you haven’t forgotten about Linda Tripp?!!! And Lewinski had already established her proclivity for intimate relationships w/ married men.

      Players all w/ the American public conned & duped into believing the fiction so convincingly portrayed.

  7. Paul  May 30, 2015 at 10:31 am


    Your use of the words “sluts and whores” at least a second time when I’ve read your articles… Your reference to “dressing” like one when using those words… Makes me firmly consider you a chauvinist and oppressive of women.

    And I despise the women’s lib movement. And I agree that entire thing is to separate a mother from her husband and children. And my wife stays at home with my children while I earn the money. We’re old fashioned.

    But I’ll be damned if I’ll be okay with someone like you calling my wife and/or daughters a “slut” or a “whore” because of how they choose to dress.

    Go back to your cave, and get off VT. The other points in your article, while good up until I read your irritating statement, were completely overshadowed by your oppressive attitude.


  8. maggie  May 30, 2015 at 9:38 am

    Distraction- sex always being a favorite device to divert focus away from the real acts perpetrated by the…folks…in government. Paula gets the spotlight again…that- no matter which one
    of the many errant pricks we are offered in the elections.
    Everyone complains about the masses but at least we can agree they have all learned to hate and spot the re-runs… Ok well some of em anyhow

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

From Veterans Today Network