Most polarized partisans see only one conspiracy at a time, either left or right wing. I believe there is enough circumstantial evidence out there, to speculate about or characterize them both. One side may be better at doing it, than the other. One side may have more actual numbers of people and/or money involved. I may not be talking about a smoke filled room full of people ( well, maybe not no smokey these days ) plotting some insidious march of choreographed actions. We can leave the to the Whitehouse.

LEFT?

Since I heard Hillary Clinton blame all her husband's problems on some imagined right wing conspiracy, it started to make me think about just the opposite. I think this was quite perceptive of me, considering the track record of the first family in the area of truthfulness. In the weeks that followed in 1998, the left wing conspiracy finally exited the confines of the Whitehouse and reared it's ugly head, to blantantly smear Republicans in their personal sexual conduct. Don't get me wrong here, as the conspiracy does originate from the Whitehouse. That is why I characterize the LEFT WING conspiracy as an OCTOPUSS. This octopuss has it's head in the Oval Office and its tentacles stretching out into the media and the private lives of individual citizens. It's targets are numerous and it's tactics are less than ethical.

The left wing conspiracy began with the current inhabitants of the Whitehouse using the Department of Justice organ, the FBI, to acquire files on Republicans and possible Democrat perceived enemies. It may have really begun as an answer to media questions during the first Clinton presidential campaign. As the President was accused of actual criminal wrong doings back in Arkansas and an investigation opened, the left wing conspiracy left it's Whitehouse nest and flew to Little Rock, in search of some citizens to intimidate. These citizens were possible witnesses against the Clinton family. When the plot thickened with the Paula Jones lawsuit, the Whitehouse then released it's dogs on any woman who had sex with Bill Clinton, in an effort to shut them up. After the President screwed up and was caught lying under oath, the focus shifted to smearing the members of the Republican party as punishment for allowing the truth to come out ( it was also a great time to use information from those precious stolen FBI files ). As the evidence against Clinton grew more obvious, the attacks on the personal lives of Republican legislators grew more disgusting, as Hillary's desire for revenge grew more vicious. The perverted philanderer in the Whitehouse finally turned to a pornographic magazine, to do it's bidding? Hustler magazine actually has offered a million dollars to any individual(s) who can come forward with sexual trash on Republican legislators. Funny, I never saw National Review or any other conservative magazine make such an offer! When will it all end?

TENTACLE ONE = The Whitehouse press office. TENTACLE TWO = James Carville and Larry Flynt. TENTACLE THREE = A group of dedicated Democrat private investigators, including some used by the National Enquirer ( Jack Paladino, Terry Lenzner, etc. ). They are used to dig up dirt and cover up the use of the appropriated FBI files. TENTACLE FOUR = Salon Magazine, et al. who publish the slime on Clinton's enemies. TENTACLE FIVE = Geraldo Rivera and other ultra loyal DNC love it or leave it types in the media, willing to act as welcome mouth pieces for the release of dubious material from the Whitehouse. TENTACLE SIX = Unwitting liberal partners in conspiracy from the media like Eleanor Clift, Tom Brokaw, and numerous Hollywood celebrities. TENTACLE SEVEN = Far left wing newspapers like the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. TENTACLE EIGHT = Lawyers that will sacrifice their integrity and principles over money or power, like Greg " Lie deny and stick to it " Craig and David " Darth Vader " Kendall ( whose law firm actively represents the National Enquirer ).

RIGHT?

Having watched too much Geraldo Rivera, I picked up the simplistic and emotional way liberals try to make such a big thing about the supposed right wing conspiracy. Well, the actual right wing conspiracy does not have a specific head and many targets ( arms ). It works more in private, and it's singular target is William Jefferson Clinton. Clinton has now been impeached, so I characterize the RIGHT WING conspiracy as a SNAKE. It had been laying in waiting, and now it has struck.

The right wing conspiracy does tend to use the legal system a bit more than it's counter part. As a matter of fact, the radical left loves to villify and accuse Kenneth Starr, a duly appointed officer of the court, for being a member of this imaginary entity. Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch files lawsuits in an effort to get to the truth, but Democrats say it is all a right wing plan ( they didn't notice that Klayman has targetted politicians of both parties ). Judicial Watch is joined by the Landmark Legal Foundation and the Rutherford Institute, in being accused by liberals as part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Then there is Lucianne Goldberg and Linda Tripp, what a pair. The left wants to find some national conspiracy here, but I only find the possibility of a conspiracy to make a book deal! It seems like every author who writes a book critical to the President is accused of being a member of this fictitious group of conspirators. I would describe the vast right wing conspiracy more as a loose confederation of people who object to the policy and conduct of Bill Clinton. There is no connection between Bob Barr, Paula Jones and Billy Dale, for instance. Liberals will point to talk radio as part of the right wing conspiracy. Rush Limbaugh et al. voice their opinions and have guests like Larry Nickels or Gary Aldrich, people who have been direct witnesses to questionable conduct. This is perhaps the only section of the ' conspiracy ' that may be correctly characterized as such, though callers receive no money for their participation.

The HEAD of the SNAKE is BLIND LADY JUSTICE. The BODY is made up of those PEOPLE who have had their LIVES DESTROYED by Bill Clinton, and the media organs with the courage to help them get their messages out for the American people to see?

Hey, I can't help it that there are so many people who have been harmed by the current Whitehouse left wing conspiracy, that when you look at them all, they look like an army. I also can't help that their urge for self preservation has brought them together and out into the open ( the open used to be a safe place to hide ). Ken Starr was doing his official duty. It is Larry Flynt, Geraldo Rivera, Salon Magazine and others, who are throwing their principles in the gutter with continued disclosures of the personal lives of innocents associated with the process. These people seem to think that showing the past sexual indiscressions of Republican legislators, somehow makes Clinton's lies under oath okay? I think it may go a little deeper than that, like maybe just pure revenge? As pornographic material publisher Larry Flynt said, with a big smile on his face, " Desperate times, take desperate measures ". That just about sums up the Democrat mindset.

HALT?

At Thanksgiving or Easter, a few years back, I had a political arguement with a very liberal Democrat Hollywood producer type I know. I said I didn't vote for Bill Clinton because he was too liberal and he was just masquerading as a centrist new Democrat. Instead of giving me a response to my questions of Clinton's relativism in pretending to be a moderate, she merely said, " I really hate Ronald Reagan ". Where did that come from? I then told her I respected George Bush and his actions in Iraq. She responded with, " I hate George Bush ". This is when I realized that I was getting nowhere in talking to her logically. I was tempted to say how much I disliked Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, and then illustrate why with some reasons, but I knew she would just use this against me the next time our paths crossed. Does this make us both parts of some imagined conspiracy? Forget I was trying to argue some facts which may be open to interpretation, and she responded with pure emotion. The answer is no. She seems to to be indicative of the way a majority of liberals base their views on emotion and party affiliation above all else, instead of looking at the politician him/herself ( see how politically correct I can be? ), in a purely objective and informative manner.

If one believes that there are two conspiracies at either end of the political spectrum, you are open to make your own mind up concerning their motives. I believe the right wing conspiracy wants to find more information to give the legal system, in investigating the possible crimes of the President. The left wing conspiracy is simply attacking the innocent messengers, with the release of embarassing information from their past personal lives to the public, in an effort to scare them away or into being silent. The Republicans have proven their altruistic moral metal, with actions like resignation or full genuine public apology and confession ( something your average Democrat just seems unable to do ). The Democrats have proven the void in their system of moral values, by attempting to exact revenge on the families of the innocents, in a Jihad-like manner!

- Bongo ( Merry X-mas, radicals. )