In this day and age, we never run short of examples of media or overall Leftist hypocrisy. However, this case is one that particularly grinds my gears because it is a story relating to sexual assault, pedophilia and protecting the elites who often act as though they are above the law (and in some cases, unfortunately, are above the law, at least the law of Man).
Back when then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was facing an onslaught of ever-crazier stories of sexual assault, rape and misconduct, ABC News was one of the main headliners of these stories, running multiple reports of these allegations, including the most bombastic one: Julie Swetnick’s. If you remember, her story included multiple parties that she had attended some 30 or 40 years prior where in each and every one, she alleges there were “rape trains” occurring but ultimately could not remember if Kavanaugh was one of the guys who allegedly participated in it.
I said that that one was likely the single craziest one and least credible one of them all (few, if any, were credible, with Ford’s being the most likely to have been credible and even then, there were many question marks about her testimony), and yet, ABC News ran with the story as though it was 100% credible and as though there was sufficient evidence in the story to run it.
Keep that last point in mind, as it will be important later on.
In any case, that is what the fake news organization, ABC News, attempted to do to Kavanaugh: smear him with any and all allegations of heinous acts of rape and sexual misconduct. And yet, according to a recent bombshell video from Project Veritas, the same people who pushed for the crazy and unverified allegations against Kavanaugh decided not to report on the heinous, more credible, and more provable actions of now-deceased Democrat mega-donor Jeffrey Epstein.
In a leaked video, ABC News anchor Amy Robach said the following on a hot mic:
“I’ve had the story for three years. I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts (one of Epstein’s alleged victims and accusers). We would not put it on the air. First of all, I was told ‘Who’s Jeffrey Epstein?’, ‘No one knows who that is,’, ‘This is a stupid story.’ Then the (Royal) Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew (who was implicated in the Epstein story) and threatened us a million different ways. We were so afraid we wouldn’t be able to interview Kate and Will, that also quashed the story. And then Alan Dershowitz was also implicated in it because of the planes. [Roberts] told me everything. She had pictures, she had everything. She was in hiding for 12 years, we convinced her to come out. We convinced her to talk to us. It was unbelievable what we had, (Bill) Clinton, we had everything.”
“I tried for three years to get it on to no avail and now it’s all coming out and it’s like these new relevant revelations and I freaking had all of it. I’m so pissed right now, like every day I get more and more pissed because I’m like, oh my God, what we had was unreal. Other women backing it up. Brad Edwards, the attorney (for the alleged victims), three years ago saying like, ‘there will come a day [when] we will realize Jeffrey was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known.’ I had it all three years ago.”
Of course, this bombshell of a leaked video had to be addressed by both Amy and her employer, ABC News, particularly because of how bad this makes them look as a news organization. This is extremely similar to the NBC News story where they had the opportunity to report on Harvey Weinstein’s rapes and sexual assaults but chose to bury the story.
In any case, here is Amy Robach’s statement regarding the leaked footage and what she said on the hot mic:
“As a journalist, as the Epstein story continued to unfold last summer, I was caught in a private moment of frustration. I was upset that an important interview I had conducted with Virginia Roberts didn’t air because we could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC’s editorial standards about her allegations. My comments about Prince Andrew and her allegation that she had seen Bill Clinton on Epstein’s private islands were in reference to what Virginia Roberts said in that interview in 2015. I was referencing her allegations – not what ABC News had verified through our reporting. The interview itself, while I was disappointed it didn’t air, didn’t meet our standards. In the years since no one ever told me or the team to stop reporting on Jeffrey Epstein, and we have continued to aggressively pursue this important story.”
And here’s ABC News’ statement reflecting something similar to Robach’s:
“At the time, not all of our reporting met our standards to air, but we have never stopped investigating the story. Ever since we’ve had a team on this investigation and substantial resources dedicated to it. That work had led to a two-hour documentary and 6-part podcast that will air in the new year.”
One key element in both statements is the allegation that ABC News has any sort of editorial standards. I, presently, cannot find any corroborating evidence of such an allegation, given what they considered to be “news-worthy” enough for these people to run.
Again, they ran the extremely poor and hilariously bad allegation from JULIE SWETNICK. She alleged something insane, where she expected people to believe she would go to a party held by the same high schoolers (she was in college) around ten different times, knowing after the first experience that “rape trains” would occur and STILL went. And ALL OF THAT just to eventually reveal that she wasn’t even sure whether or not Kavanaugh, the subject in question and the one being marred as a serial rapist and sexual abuser, actually participated in any of the sexual assaults or rapes that allegedly occurred at those parties.
Not only was her testimony extremely suspicious and completely incredible (as in, not credible at all), but she ultimately couldn’t even really allege much about THE GUY THESE PEOPLE WERE TRYING TO PAINT AS A RAPIST DEMON and they STILL ran her story as though she were sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the whole world needed to hear her story, despite the fact that Swetnick had no corroborating evidence to anything she was alleging.
The statement from Robach even sounds almost like she had a gun to her head from her employers if she didn’t try and correct the record or issue some sort of clarification that would save ABC News’ face to some degree. It sounds extremely forced and for good reason: ABC News wishes they could bury this story like they did the Epstein one.
The Epstein story, having heavily implicated both Prince Andrew and former President Bill Clinton (Clinton had traveled in Epstein’s private jets and the pilot logs frequently note that underage girls would accompany him and Epstein, painting Clinton as even more of a sexual assaulter and demon than he already was due to the Broaddrick, Lewisnky and Paula Jones scandals), would’ve hurt the Democrats, particularly then-hopeful Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton.
Yet another story implicating Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct would’ve only piled on more to Hillary’s inability to be an electable candidate. The e-mails and the already-known sexual assault allegations made against Bill were bad enough, the last thing the Democrat Party needed was yet another story where “the comeback kid” (a nickname that now sounds so horrible when you think about it) likely could have raped not only more women, but underage girls.
This is the utterly despicable hypocrisy the Left-wing media possesses. If a prominent right-winger gets accused of sexual misconduct, it is treated as fact despite all the lacking evidence and even despite any semblance of credibility. Kavanaugh has been forever marred as a rapist and sexual assaulter by these people. His reputation has been eternally tarnished.
But if a prominent left-winger gets accused of sexual misconduct, no matter the available evidence or the credibility of the accusation, the story gets buried, ignored and the left-winger continues to be paraded around as a “woke” character who is of great moral standing.
Beyond the fact that this is horrendously hypocritical, what’s even worse is the fact that this only puts sexual assault victims and future victims at risk. Real stories will go unreported because of the fake ones that gain national attention and get recognized as fake and young girls are led to believe that these Democrats are good and kind-hearted people, eager to help you with anything you need and can be wholly trusted regarding anything.
It puts young girls at risk of being raped and their testimony shut down. It covers for sexual assaulters and rapists and leaves vulnerable girls at risk of it happening to them in the future. Let’s not forget that the Katie Hill story was covered like the Clinton impeachment story was: that it was just about sex. It wasn’t just about sex. It was about having sex with a subordinate, which goes against House ethics rules, and about sexually abusing the subordinate and pimping her out to the representative’s husband. There were PHOTOGRAPHS of this occurring and the media treated Katie Hill like SHE was the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Meanwhile, no attention is paid to how her victims feel about the entire fiasco, no attention is paid to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton (and others) because the allegations made are against the people these Leftists in the media support and favor.
ABC News should feel utterly ashamed at what they are doing and what they have done, but we know good and well that they have no shame to feel. They’ll sweep this whole ordeal under the rug and go on to continue to report highly incredible allegations against right-wingers where they might pop up and continue to report on how “screwed” Trump is due to the impeachment scam.
These people make me sick.
“He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.”
Over the weekend, former President Bill Clinton spoke with correspondent Mo Rocca on “CBS Sunday Morning” and author James Patterson, who appeared on the show to promote his book “The President Is Missing”.
Here is how the exchange went:
Rocca: “President Trump – this is just factual – is fond of personal insults. I mean, he still refers to Mrs. Clinton as ‘Crooked Hillary’ in tweets.”
Patterson: “It’s been effective for him. It’s unbelievable that he became president. But he figured some things out. And I think most people do not like these tweets. They just wish it wouldn’t go that way.”
Clinton: “I don’t like all this. I couldn’t be elected anything now ‘cause I just don’t like embarrassing people. My mother would have whipped me for five days in a row when I was a little boy if I spent all my time badmouthing people like this.”
Oh, boy, do they give me a lot of ammunition here. Let’s start with Rocca’s comments.
Of course he still refers to her as “Crooked Hillary”. SHE’S STILL CROOKED! Back in 2014, PolitiFact wrote a story about Bill and Hillary’s financial troubles after they left the White House. Looking through the Clinton’s 2000 Senate financial disclosure forum, they noted that the Clinton’s highest “possible assets totaled about $1.8 million, while their lowest possible debts were nearly $2.3 million. The most optimistic scenario left them in a hole of about $500,000.”
Of course, PolitiFact is MSM, so there is little reason to trust anything they say, but let’s go with these numbers anyway.
According to PolitiFact, by the time the Clintons left the White House, they were $500,000 in the red. Pretty terrible for anyone regardless of occupation. Of course, there are other things to factor in, but I won’t get into insane amounts of detail regarding this. The point is that the Clintons’ net worth was next to nothing by the time they left the White House.
Today, according to a Bankrate article published in June of 2017, Bill Clinton’s net worth stands at $80 million, with Hillary’s net worth standing at $45 million, combining for $125 million. And according to a Forbes article from 2016, Bill and Hillary “made $240 million in the last 15 years” before taxes.
You don’t go from nearly dead broke to worth hundreds of millions of dollars in less than 20 years without some crookedness when you're just a politician who produces NOTHING of real market value. Sure, speaking fees, books and other things factor in, but so do things like selling 20% of our nation’s Uranium supply to the Russians, siphoning some of the billions of dollars sent to people in Haiti through the Clinton Foundation and accepting huge donations from Saudi Arabia.
It’s for these reasons, and more, that people, including and especially Trump, call Hillary Clinton “Crooked Hillary”. Frankly, the same nickname could be given to Bill if he didn’t have different and more prominent skeletons in his closet, which we will get to briefly.
Next, let’s look at Patterson’s comments. He mentions that Trump figured some things out in order to win. I thought the narrative was that he cheated and colluded with Russia. Under that premise, what does he have to figure out? How to keep it quiet? How to make it seem as legitimate as possible? Give me a break.
And regarding the President’s tweets, I am very much aware that there are people out there who do not like the tweets… those people are called liberals. All jokes aside, despite the fact that there are some Trump supporters who aren’t too fond of his tweets, I can be certain that most Trump supporters don’t mind them one bit. While I don’t have any stats or figures to support the claim, I have seen a lot of people on Twitter supporting the President’s comments and how often he makes them.
People love the fact that he is a non-stop fighter. That he doesn’t give an inch to his opposition. More often than not, these “personal attacks” are attacks that call people out as precisely what or who they are. It’s labeling these people, it’s a Leftist tactic and it’s a tactic that works. Democrats do this constantly in regards to Republicans. They label Trump “Hitler”, a “Fascist” and a “Nazi” (not that it’s worked as much as they’d hope). They labeled Mitt Romney as, in essence, a “dog killer”, a “greedy Wall Street guy” (which I now agree with), and such.
It’s a tactic that they constantly use, but it’s a tactic that no Republican tends to use. Republicans want to engage in civil discourse and debate ideas. Democrats can’t do either, so they label Republicans as “rotten” and worse. Trump, however, is capable of doing all three. He calls people out for what they are (Crooked Hillary, Lyin’ Ted, Low-Energy Jeb, Crazy Bernie, etc.), engages in civil discourse and debates ideas. It’s not something the Left is prepared for, so they claim that most people don’t like it.
Well, personally, I love it when he goes to the jugular against his opponents. Too often, Republicans choose to take “the high road”. Well, that road often leads to significant loss, if not insignificant victory. They either lose elections or don’t do much when they win them. Trump, in contrast to many Republicans, doesn’t just play defense. He almost always plays offense because the Left is never used to playing defense, so it’s easy to crush them.
I hope he continues to be as tough as he has been.
Finally, we reach Clinton’s comments, which are honestly laughable.
He doesn’t like embarrassing people? So I guess he didn’t feel good with embarrassing Juanita Broaddrick after he raped her, which is a very embarrassing and scarring event. I guess he felt sorry for groping Kathleen Willey without consent and embarrassing her. I guess he apologized for embarrassing Paula Jones after he exposed himself to her. And I guess he didn’t feel good about embarrassing Monica Lewinsky after he used his power as President to sexually harass her.
Don’t give me that bull, Bill. That’s all the Left can hope to do now. With the plummeting unemployment rates, rising wages, booming economy, possibilities for peace with North Korea on the horizon, the deportation of illegals, obliteration of ISIS and overall restoration of America’s prowess in the world, humiliating individual opponents is the only hope Democrats have at even believing there is going to be a “blue wave”.
It’s been deemed the Democrats’ last remaining hope for the future. The Russia narrative has only served to hurt them, not Trump, and has solidified Trump’s relationship with his base. Not to mention Spygate only puts the spotlight on the Deep State’s corruption of attempting to cheat in the 2016 election and destroy Trump. And in California, people have seemingly grown tired of living in a dystopia brought about by endless socialism, if the ballot measures to divide the state are anything to go by.
All the Left has now is humiliation. That, and perhaps fooling enough people into believing Trump is a bad President, which is another narrative that is easy to destroy. If they have the opportunity, they will humiliate as many Republicans and conservatives as they possibly can. That’s just something they love to do.
1 Peter 5:8
“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”
Over the year and a half since Trump’s 2016 election victory over Hillary Clinton, the former First Lady has blamed multiple entities for her loss including: James Comey, the FBI, Russian bots, Wikileaks, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Facebook, Twitter, the vast right-wing conspiracy, sexism, white women, women who vote for whom their husbands vote for and many, many other people.
This time, however, it’s her husband Bill that is pointing the finger at an entity. And somehow, it may be even more ridiculous than all the others.
Bill Clinton blames THE NEW YORK TIMES for Hillary’s loss.
Now, you may be thinking that it shouldn’t be insanely surprising. After all, Hillary has already thrown a lot of Leftist entities under the bus. But it’s not just who Bill blames, but also in the way he blames them.
He doesn’t just blame The NYT for not praising Hillary enough or support her enough. Rather, he ACCUSES The New York Times of WORKING WITH TRUMP!
Let me give you some necessary information. Amy Chozick, a reporter for The New York Times, has a new book called: “Chasing Hillary: Ten Years, Two Presidential Campaigns, and One Intact Glass Ceiling.”
Ignoring the eye-rolling part about the glass ceiling, let’s look at what Amy has to say.
“After the election, Bill would spread a more absurd Times conspiracy: The publisher had struck a deal with Trump that we’d destroy Hillary on her emails to help him get elected, if he kept driving traffic and boosting the company’s stock price.”
Yep, according to Bill, the NYT was working in cahoots with the Trump campaign to destroy Hillary.
Here are some of NYT’s articles pre- and post-election: “Hillary Clinton, a Woman Dogged by Men’s Misdeeds,” published on Nov. 10, 2016. “Hillary Clinton Will Not Be Manterrupted,” published Sept. 27, 2016. “How Hillary Clinton Became A Hawk,” whatever that means, published on April 21, 2016. “Some Donald Trump Voters Warn of Revolution if Hillary Clinton Wins,” published Oct. 27, 2016.
The New York Times is as pro-Hillary and anti-Trump as you can get. So for Bill to be accusing them of making some sort of deal with Trump to beat Hillary is ridiculous.
If you still aren’t convinced that the NYT is very anti-Trump, here are some articles about Trump himself: “Donald Trump, Manly He-Man,” mocks the NYT on Feb. 27, 2018. “Donald Trump Sure Has a Problem With Democracy,” ironically mentions the NYT on March 6th, 2018. “’I Voted for Donald Trump, and I Regret It’”, claims the NYT with people who most certainly did not vote for Trump.
And let’s not forget the fact that Trump has repeatedly called them “the failing New York Times”.
Now, aside from detailing Bill’s absurd claims, Chozick’s book also gives us some great insights into the Hillary campaign and the mood during and after the election.
The Daily Beast shares: “On the night of the election, Chozick describes a dejected Clinton when she was told by campaign staffers that it was over.”
“’Of all the Brooklyn aides, Jen Palmieri had the most pleasant bedside manner,’ Chozick writes. ‘That made her the designated deliverer of bad news to Hillary. But not this time. She told Robby there was no way she was going to tell Hillary she couldn’t win. That’s when Robby, drained and deflated, watching the results with his team in a room down the hall from Hillary’s suite, labored into the hallway of the Peninsula to break the news. Hillary didn’t seem all that surprised. ‘I knew it. I knew this would happen to me…’ Hillary said, now within a couple of inches of his face. ‘They were never going to let me be president.’”
While that doesn’t necessarily relate to Bill’s accusation, it’s a neat little insight into the Hillary campaign’s mood upon realizing there was no chance Hillary could beat Trump and Hillary’s personal mood about receiving the news.
Frankly, it’s pretty overdramatic, as emotional and crushing as it would feel to lose a national election. “They were never going to let me be president”? As though she deserved it? I can see why she would think that. After all, she chose to remain with her predator of a husband to keep the Party unified, and chose to support the up-and-coming hot shot of a candidate that beat her when she had the best chance to become President back in 2008.
She’s the most cheated on woman in America, so it’s easy to see why she thought she deserved to be President. However, for every reason she thinks she should’ve been President, there are a million more reasons that she shouldn’t be. That’s a concept that most people in America have agreed upon, given the results of the election.
Thankfully, she isn’t President and will almost certainly never become President.
Now, returning to Bill, it’s rather hilarious to see him put the blame on a pro-Hillary entity, particularly accusing them of working with Trump.
It really depicts the desperation of the Hillary campaign, or at least of Bill Clinton. Beyond that, I think it really depicts just how broken and shocked they were to see Trump win. Next to no one, other than maybe Trump himself, expected Trump to win.
We have seen the effect it has had on Hillary’s mind and we now also see the kind of effect it has had on Bill. The Left’s patented victim mentality is at full display with Bill accusing the NYT of being almost directly against them.
“But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear.”
Keeping in the seemingly new trend of pointing the finger at Bill Clinton for his misdeeds, New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg writes that she believes at least one of the women accusing Clinton of rape: Juanita Broaddrick.
In an article surprisingly titled: “I Believe Juanita”, Goldberg says that out of all of the women accusing Clinton of rape, Juanita Broaddrick is the one who “haunts” her.
To give you some context for this article, Goldberg is a Leftist (you kinda have to be to work at the New York Times), so for her to write an article about believing one of the accusers of Bill Clinton is eye-widening. Even more so when you recall that she’s not the only person distancing herself from Bill now.
If you remember, yesterday I wrote an article about David Brooks placing the blame on Bill Clinton for today’s “sexual misconduct” environment. And now, yet another NYT columnist targets Bill Clinton as well? That’s very strange.
Of course, that’s not to say she is flat-out turning on the Left. Even though she’s writing about believing Juanita Broaddrick’s allegation, she also mentions that, during the 2016 Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton was the one who “had to pay the political price for Bill’s misdeeds, as they were trotted out to deflect attention from Trump’s well-documented transgressions.”
As you can see, she’s still as ignorant as any other Leftist out there. “Well-documented transgressions?” What well-documented transgressions? You mean the Access Hollywood tape? If I recall, the tape was about him TALKING about powerful people getting away with sexual misconduct. And while that’s not something I liked hearing Trump say, that’s still NOWHERE NEAR AS BAD AS WHAT LEFTISTS HAVE BEEN DOING FOR DECADES!
So as you can see, the Left still wants to pretend Trump is a sexual predator even though he’s done nothing to earn such a disgraceful title.
Regardless, that’s a point that will continue to be made over and over again in other articles. For now, I want to focus on the more “positive” side, if you will, of the article.
Perhaps the most important paragraph in the article is the following: “Of the Clinton accusers, the one who haunts me is Broaddrick. The story she tells about Clinton recalls those who’ve heard about Weinstein. She claimed they had plans to meet in a hotel coffee shop, but at the last minute he asked to come up to her hotel room instead, where he raped her. Five witnesses said she confided in them about the assault right after it happened. It’s true that she denied the rape in an affidavit to Paula Jones’s lawyers, before changing her story when talking to federal investigators. But her explanation, that she didn’t want to go public but couldn’t lie to the FBI, makes sense. Put simply, I believe her.”
That last sentence is the big shocker. For decades, Bill Clinton was excused for his sexual assaults on multiple women. His wife, Hillary, as well as other Democrats and members of the media would do all they could to at the very least bury the story. Of course, that didn’t work too much, but it worked enough.
It didn’t work too much in that the stories are still talked about today (even by Leftists who bring them up), but it worked enough that Bill was never really punished for it. He was somewhat put to shame (mostly on camera), but other than that, nothing else happened. He’s still walking free.
I also read a story about Ted Cruz pulling his support for Roy Moore, saying: “As it stands, I can’t urge the people of Alabama to support a campaign in the face of these charges without serious, persuasive demonstration that the charges are not true.”, adding: “Both last week and this week, there are serious charges of criminal conduct that if true, not only make him unfit to serve in the Senate but merit criminal prosecution.”
Not a single piece of evidence has surfaced other than multiple Democrat women accusing Moore and yet, he is closer to going to jail than Bill ever has been?
I had little respect for Ted Cruz before today, mainly because of the primaries, but whatever little amount of respect I had for the guy is utterly gone. He sounds like a Leftist now. Funny enough, he sounds more Leftist than the New York Times writer in her article. Funny, right?
Regardless, my point is that Moore is merely being accused of rape and sexual misconduct with minors and he’s closer to being put in jail, even though there’s no evidence, than Clinton.
Just think about everything the Clintons have done. It’s not just the rape allegations on Bill, it’s EVERYTHING! Uranium One, the Russian dossier, the private server holding highly sensitive information, the Clinton Foundation receiving large sums of money from foreign countries, the threats to women who accuse Bill of rape. Monica Lewinsky's blue dress stained with Bill's DNA. THE CLINTONS ARE WALKING CRIMINALS! And they’re walking free.
Worst of all, they’re not even close to facing jail-time. Jeff Sessions’s only accomplishment so far is his part in the undoing of DACA. That’s it. He’s recused himself from the Russia probe. Even HE has sided against Moore. And he’s just now CONSIDERING launching a special counsel to investigate the Clinton Foundation.
That’s something that should’ve been launched as soon as he was appointed Attorney General. I have no idea why he’s waited until NOW to at least consider investigating the Clintons.
Regardless, we’ve gone on quite the tangent and I’d like to return to the main topic. I can safely say that 2017 has been a strange year so far. What with Harvey Weinstein being exposed, as well as plenty of other Hollywood elites, as being sexual predators; the media being out on a witch hunt since before the year started, looking for Russian collusion and finding nothing. This year was one of the Left’s worst.
The election of Trump stunned them and they’re still recovering. And things simply don’t seem to be going well for the Left in any way. They’re losing significant election after significant election; significant Democrat after significant Democrat is being accused of sexual harassment in the least and assault at the most; and I’ve lost count now on how many Leftist media writers have turned on Democrats to an extent, or at least have told the truth, such as in the case of Trump still beating Hillary if the elections were held today.
And even though the media pretends things are horrible within the GOP (and they’re right to a certain extent), they can’t really ignore the fact that things are far worse for the Democrat Party. Yes, the Republican Establishment hates Trump with all their beings, but the Republican base is unified with Trump. I can’t say the same of the Democrats.
Regardless, I’ll end this article with this: the Clintons have been walking free for far too long. I just hope that Sessions pulls the trigger on the investigation on the Foundation and winds up sending them both to prison.
“But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.”
Last week, in an interview with Charlie Rose, New York Times columnist David Brooks “argued that tolerating former President Bill Clinton’s behavior had a hand in creating an environment where sexual misconduct was given a pass.”, according to Breirbart.
There’s roughly two things I have to say about this: 1) No, duh! And 2) I’m surprised that he’s saying this.
As a reminder, David Brooks is the guy that said that Trump had three options: “… decide if he prefers to resign, be impeached, or get assassinated.”
So you can see why I’m somewhat perplexed at this MSM columnist’s decision to place some of the blame on Bill Clinton. For the longest time, Bill Clinton has been a sexual predator, and for just as long, he’s been given a pass from the Left and the Mainstream Media.
And yet, a member of the Mainstream Media put some of the blame on Bill Clinton for the sexual harassment environment we live in? That’s honestly shocking. What is not shocking, however, is when he also brings up the allegations made against Trump and Roy Moore.
“He then cited Republicans tolerating what President Trump and Alabama Republican Senate candidate Judge Roy Moore are accused of and argued partisanship is idolized,” according to Breitbart.
But here's the thing: We simply don’t believe the allegations. And wanna know why? Because they’re so obviously fake, they’re hilarious.
This is a point I made in my previous article about Roy Moore: Three weeks before the Presidential election, Trump was accused of sexually harassing and assaulting multiple women. Today, a month before the Alabama special election, Roy Moore is being accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a minor. In other words, they’re accusing him of being a pedophile.
And we know that the allegations made against both of these Republicans are entirely fake. So to compare these two to the likes of Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein is ridiculous.
At the worst, Trump has TALKED about the issue, as recorded on the Access Hollywood tape. But again, that’s at the worst. At HIS worst. At Weinstein and Clinton’s worst, they’ve FOREVER SCARRED MULTIPLE WOMEN!
Regardless, Brooks continues: “The uncomfortable thing for a lot of progressives, frankly, is how much did the Clinton thing create this whole environment? How much did tolerance of Bill Clinton create the environment in which the rest of this was given permission?”
He’s worried about what’s uncomfortable for progressives? THEY’RE THE ONES DOING THESE THINGS! The uncomfortable thing for a lot of progressives is not how much Clinton’s case created the environment. The uncomfortable thing for them is the worry of whether or not THEY’D GET AWAY WITH IT NOW!
Now, I’ll be somewhat fair and say that it’s not all Bill Clinton’s fault. IT’S A LOT OF DEMOCRATS’ FAULT!
Before Clinton was even talked about, there was another Democrat legacy in the news: the Kennedy’s. While I can’t quite recall any “sexual assault” cases, I know that the Kennedy’s had extramarital affair problems.
JFK and Bobby Kennedy had both been accused of sleeping with Marilyn Monroe. Ted Kennedy, JFK’s brother, was most likely also cheating on his wife at the time of the 1969 Chappaquiddick incident.
For those who don’t know, let me set the stage up for this case. According to Wikipedia: “… [Ted] Kennedy was at Chappaquiddick Island… hosting a party that he gave for the Boiler Room Girls, a group of young women who had worked on his brother Robert’s ill-fated presidential campaign the year before. Kennedy left the party with one of the women… he attempted to cross the Dike Bridge… Kennedy lost control of his vehicle and crashed in the... tidal channel on Chappaquiddick Island. Kennedy escaped the overturned vehicle… dove below the surface seven or eight times, vainly attempting to reach and rescue [the girl]… He swam to shore and left the scene… He contacted authorities the next morning, but [the girl’s] body had already been discovered.”
That’s a lot of information to take in, so I’ll summarize. Ted Kennedy threw a party for young single women on Chappaquiddick Island, which is on the eastern end of Martha’s Vineyard. Ted Kennedy owned a home in Martha’s Vineyard. If he wanted to throw a party, why not do it at his home? Is it because his wife was there? Not to mention the Boiler Room Girls consisted of 6 women. In total, 6 SINGLE women and 6 MARRIED Democrat men attended the 'party'. Not much of a party, right? And to top it off, Kennedy left the party with one of them.
Now, I ask you, does that not sound like he was looking to cheat? The Kennedy’s are notorious for their affairs and this doesn’t exactly sound like Ted Kennedy was looking to be a Good Samaritan.
Now, there’s a difference between sexual assault and cheating. But my point is that the Kennedy’s have a decent hand in the way our culture is today. Bill Clinton does as well.
When you see another person being accused of sexual harassment or assault, most of the time they’re either elected Democrats such as Anthony Weiner and Bill Clinton, or are Democrat Hollywood celebrities such as Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, George Takei, Charlie Sheen and a myriad of other people.
And whenever a Republican is accused of it, it’s usually b.s. Look at Trump, for example. He was accused of assault THREE WEEKS before the election. And the claims turned out to be b.s. Look at Roy Moore. He was accused of pedophilia ONE MONTH before the state election. And it’s b.s. as well.
What I’m saying is that, looking at the Left, sexual harassment, assault and lust altogether seems to be all they’re about. For people who claim to be “fighting for women’s rights”, they sure don’t respect the fairer sex.
They claim to fight for a woman’s “right” to kill her own baby, and it’s not shocking. Of course they would fight for that. If abortion were illegal, they might be a bit more hesitant to assault a woman. They don’t want to have to pay for child support, or at least go to court over it.
They want to abuse women without repercussions, so they claim to be in favor of their “reproductive rights”.
David Brooks is right to place some of the blame on Bill Clinton. He’s shown Democrats that they can do whatever they want to women and the media will be on their side. But to say that Trump and Moore (or any other conservative) have a hand in this as well is utter nonsense.
The Democrat Party is the party of sexual assault. The party of lust. The party of sin. The party of evil.
I’ve made this point before, but I’ll say it again here: The Left is the second worst thing to happen to women, second only to the rise of Islam. And even then, it’s a rather close race.
“’There is no peace,’ says the Lord, ‘for the wicked.’”
Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a T.V. writer, author and filmmaker wrote a story on Hollywood Reporter about the sexual harassment in Hollywood. In her story: “Lessons from Witnessing Four Decades of Harassment in Hollywood”, Linda details stories she’s heard from other women in Hollywood about the sexual harassment history of Hollywood, as well as recounting some of her own. And boy, does she tear into Hollywood.
She begins: “I always knew I wanted to be a writer… my first three mentors were Hollywood giants Norman Lear, James L. Brooks and Larry Gelbart… It wasn’t until a few years later that I began to experience sexual harassment – the producer’s hand rubbing my back inside my blouse during meetings; the studio exec who, on my first day, encouraged me to wear a bikini to work… I didn’t know then that this is a man’s town, based mostly on male friendships. Forget those iconic letters that make up the Hollywood sign. It would be much more fitting if there was a giant penis casting a shadow over all the women who tirelessly endeavor to rise above this unpoliced playground for men.”
Now, this article is insanely long, so I will forgo a good chunk of it. What’s important to know is that Linda herself has been victim to sexual harassment at the hands of Hollywood people. She also tells the stories of other women who have been victims of sexual harassment. “I remember the revered star of a classic TV crime drama telling me a story about the president of her network. During her show’s final season, this actress was invited to his executive dining room for lunch. When she began to pitch her next series, he told her she was now way too old for his network. She started to cry and got up to go. He stood up, too, took her by the shoulders and said, ‘I’m sorry. I can’t let you leave like this’. She softened, almost forgiving him. Then he shoved his tongue down her throat.”
And that’s just one horrifying story of sexual harassment (or abuse, given the ending). She then tells the story of the people in a sitcom demanding that the “youngest, best-looking women show up for work at the crack of dawn wearing tight, revealing shorts.” And that once they discovered that one of the young women was utterly afraid of guns, they “forced her to purchase one and shoot a raccoon that lived on the stage.” And that when Linda called ABC to file a complaint, she discovered that while the producer had lost his job, the star of the show was left “unscathed”.
She then goes on to talk about gender inequality and ageism in the entertainment business. That by the time a male Hollywood star retires, roughly 3 generations of female actresses would have played his wife. (It’s important to note she uses Michael Douglas (aged 74) as an example of a male Hollywood star and Blythe Danner, who’s 74, Gwyneth Paltrow, who’s 45, and Apple Martin, who’s… wait for it… 13, oh, and Paltrow’s daughter.)
She also mentions a point I also agree with. “The over-sexualization, humiliation and brutalization of women on television and in movies remains rampant.” I certainly agree that women have been disgustingly over-sexualized in nearly every adult movie, humiliating them and making them look as though they are nothing more than pieces of meat to use for sex.
She then goes on to mention that she’d think that with all the “rampant misogyny”, Hollywood would “take on the issue of social justice for women – the same way it has embraced the cause of the African-American, Jewish (yeah, ok), and LGBTQ communities. But so far... just the sad sound of crickets.”
Sadly, since it’s basically a rule that Leftists must rip on Trump if they’re talking about politics, she also goes out of her way to call HIM a sexual predator. When she attacks the excuses people (usually Leftists) give for people like Harvey Weinstein, such as “they’re really not bad people, just ill”, she says the following: “Truthfully, I would’ve preferred the simple and more honest explanation given by our president, Donald J. Trump. ‘Grab ‘em by the p***y… When you’re a star, you can do anything.’ Thank you, Donald. I believe you’re the only sexual predator, to date, who’s told the truth.”
Yep, she just couldn’t resist trying to attack an innocent man when talking about the very guilty people of Hollywood. She’s a Leftist, after all.
And perhaps the best part of the story is when she talks about a personal friend of hers: “… I will be the first to admit that clearly delineated moral choices can still be painfully complex where friendship is involved. One of the best friends I will ever have and a man I love dearly, former President Bill Clinton, has certainly taxed my feminist conscience, but always without diminishing my affection. I even helped write his apology to the nation for his own sexual misconduct… and believe to this day it was based on something that was none of our business.”
I honestly think that, with those lines alone, she killed the point of her own story. How can you claim to be against sexual harassment when you still think highly of an ADMITTED sexual predator? And how can she say she believes it was based on something that was none of their business while at the same time saying that women should speak out against those who harass them? Isn’t it Weinstein’s business who he rapes, by that logic?
She does say that some may find it hypocritical (because it is), but that that doesn’t matter because she warned people against “allowing Harvey Weinstein to host political fundraisers.” THAT is the excuse she gives. She’s not even denying that she’s being hypocritical, she just switches back to talking about how she tried to warn people about Weinstein.
Aside from the obvious hypocrisy of her article, there is one thing she forgot to mention: Hollywood is entirely LEFTIST! She knows very well that Hollywood is Leftist, and yet, she fails to see wherein the problem lies. It’s not the fact that Hollywood is owned by men. It’s the fact that Hollywood is owned by LEFTISTS! Leftists who, for THIRTY YEARS, knew about Weinstein’s behavior. And that includes Leftist women. Leftists who have no moral conscience, only a script for what to say when politics is involved. They know they have to side with political correctness, social justice, and the Left.
But by doing that, they ignore morality. I’ve said before, the Left is without morals. You can’t honestly expect Leftist men to be morally sound about anything. Weinstein isn’t the first, nor will he be the last, Leftist in Hollywood to rape and sexually assault and harass women. And Linda shouldn’t be one more of the people within Hollywood who fails to realize where the problem stems. It’s not an issue of gender, it’s an issue of MORALITY!
There’s a reason Lust is one of the 7 Deadly Sins. It’s one of the most disgusting things for God to witness in the world He’s created. And Hollywood is chockfull of it. From the over-sexualization of women (and men) that even LINDA points out, to all the corruption and sinfulness of studio execs and stars, to the Harvey Weinsteins of the industry, Hollywood is inundated in lust. But that problem doesn’t come from men. That problem comes from the HEART of those men.
Hollywood is a great example of what happens when God is not allowed in your city. I say great as opposed to “perfect” because it’s not the perfect example. Nazi Germany would be the perfect example. Soviet Russia would be the perfect example. Hollywood is not quite at those levels because, as rotten as California’s local politicians are, they don’t rule the country. If left on their own, they would descend into Communism. Its celebrities would want to flee the country and demand that the new country be like California.
But that’s beside the point. The point is that Hollywood is a terrible place for women not because of gender inequality, but because of the sinful hearts of those with power. Hollywood is horrible because it’s Leftist. And Hollywood is Leftist because it’s horrible.
“In their own eyes they flatter themselves too much to detect or hate their sin.”
Free speech is a beautiful thing, isn’t it? We are all free to speak our minds and have others disagree and speak their own minds. Likewise, we are free to say stupid things and have people make fun of us for it. That last part couldn’t be more true for former First Lady and 2016 Democrat Party nominee Hillary Clinton.
Over the past couple of weeks, the biggest story on the news has been the Harvey Weinstein sexual assault scandal that is plaguing the hearts and minds of every Leftist in America. As a part of their defense mechanisms, the Left is trying to make this story about Trump, going back to a tactic that didn’t work near the end of the 2016 Presidential campaign, and that is to call him a sexual assaulter.
Of course, we know that’s not true, but how often do facts actually matter to the Left? In an interview with Andrew Marr of BBC One, Hillary feinted shock and disgust at one of her Party’s best friends. “I was shocked and appalled because I’ve known him through politics, as many Democrats have, he’s been a supporter.”, Clinton said in the interview.
Eventually, she tried to turn this onto Trump, calling him a sexual assaulter. “But it’s important that we not just focus on him and whatever consequences flow from these stories… After all, we have someone admitting to be a sexual assaulter in the Oval Office.”, Clinton said.
Really now? An admitted sexual assaulter? He hasn’t admitted to anything BECAUSE HE HASN’T DONE ANYTHING! The most he’s ever done is TALKED about it the way guys talk in a locker room, as I’m sure you may remember from the Access Hollywood tapes. Beyond that, it’s only been Democrat-payed women coming forward three weeks before the election claiming that Trump did stuff to them, even though nothing ever happened.
So she’s lying about Trump admitting it, because HE NEVER DID ANYTHING TO ADMIT TO!
Now, Andrew Marr, to his credit, brought up the fact that it takes courage for women to come forward and told Hillary that, in her book, she dismissed the three women that came forward to accuse her husband of what they did to them, and asked if it was the right thing to do. And Hillary’s response? “Well, yes, because that had all been litigated. That was the subject of a huge investigation… that was clearly in the past.”
Really? It’s in the past? So if Trump talking about it in the past matters, why doesn’t it matter if her husband ACTUALLY SEXUALLY ASSAULTED WOMEN?! That’s simply more Leftist hypocrisy right there.
But let’s ignore the hypocrisy right now. So, she says that it’s ok because it was in the past? Women that have been raped should get over it then? “Well, it was clearly in the past” is that what she’ll say to someone that was raped, say, 10 years ago? That since it was in the past, that she should get over it?
You know what else is in the past? 9/11. Should we get over that too? Should we forgive the evil terrorists that attacked us because it was 16 years ago? Should Jewish people get over the Holocaust and forgive Hitler, the leader of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, for killing 6 million Jews? Should gay people forgive the ISIS terrorist that shot up a night club in Orlando because that was over a year ago, therefore in the past?
Saying “it’s in the past” is an insanely pathetic, poor, and frankly offensive excuse, given the subject matter. She’s basically telling the women her husband has assaulted (or any woman that’s ever been assaulted) to just get over it. Some champion of women she is. She defends and stays married to her sexual assaulter of a husband, she’s good friends with a pathetic and disgusting Hollywood mogul and she tries to spin the focus on someone who is the furthest thing from a disgusting creep as you can find in the recent years in the White House.
Sometimes, it’s just easy to bring up the point that Leftism and liberalism are among the worst things for women in the world. The fact that Hillary attacked the women that were brave enough to stand up to the most powerful man in the country at the time, the fact that she’s essentially defending Weinstein now, and the fact that she’s trying to accuse Trump of doing things he never did tells you just how little she thinks of women. And she expected them to vote for her? Don’t make me laugh!
Like I said earlier, I love freedom of speech. It allows ignorant Leftists to spout out ridiculous things that can so easily be refuted and/or made fun of. While sexual assault is no laughing matter, her pitiful attempts at defending her husband and pinning this on Trump is hilarious.
It’s clear to me that Hillary Clinton is one of the biggest enemies for women everywhere. Thankfully, she’s now largely irrelevant within her own sexual-assault-defending Party.
1 Timothy 3:11
“In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.”
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...