Anti-Catholics and Elitist Bigotry

By PATRICK J. BUCHANAN

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/

October 14, 2016

John Podesta, Mrs. Clinton's campaign chairman, on the campaign plane last month. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times

Will Hillary Clinton clean out the nest of anti-Catholic bigots in her inner circle? Or is anti-Catholicism acceptable in her crowd?

In a 2011 email on which Clinton campaign chief John Podesta was copied, John Halpin, a fellow at the Center for American Progress, which Podesta founded, trashed Rupert Murdoch for raising his kids in a misogynist religion.

The most “powerful elements” in the conservative movement are Catholic, railed Halpin: “It’s an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backward gender relations.”

Clinton spokesperson Jennifer Palmieri agreed: “I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they become evangelical.”

“Excellent point,” replied Halpin. “They can throw around ‘Thomistic’ thought and ‘subsidiarity’ and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they are talking about.”

What the pair is mocking here are both the faith decisions of the Murdoch family and traditional Catholic beliefs and social teaching.

This is a pristine example of the anti-Catholicism that historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. called “the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people.”

In another email in this latest document dump from WikiLeaks, writes Ben Wolfgang of the Washington Times, Podesta and Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, mocked the Miss America pageant, because so many finalists are Southern girls and young women.

Said Podesta, “Do you think it’s weird that of the 15 finalists in the Miss America, 10 came from the 11 states of the CSA?”

The CSA would be the Confederate States of America.

“Not at all,” says Tanden, “I would imagine the only people who watch it are from the confederacy and by now they know that so they’ve rigged the thing in their honor.”

In another email, Podesta himself uses the sort of language liberals once said disqualified Nixon from staying on as president—regarding former Gov. Bill Richardson. Podesta refers to him and other Hispanics whom he is trying to court for Clinton as “needy Latinos.”

What these emails reveal is the sneering contempt of liberal elites for Catholics, Evangelical Christians, Southerners, and even Hispanics loyal to them. And the contents of these emails correlate with the revealed bigotries of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

In September, Clinton told a gathering of rich contributors at a gay rights fundraiser in New York City: “you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’ Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it.”

Responding to the cheers and laughter, Clinton went on, “Now, some of those folks—they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”

What Clinton said to the LGBT partisans echoed what Obama told rich contributors in San Francisco in 2008, who wondered why he was not doing better in Pennsylvania.

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and … the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. … And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Obama was saying that when small-town Pennsylvanians fall behind, they blame others and revert to their bibles, bigotries, and guns.

Yet Obama has never explained what caused him to sit content for 20 years—and be married and have his daughters baptized—in the church of a ranting racist like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who, at the time of 9/11, roared from his pulpit, “God damn America!”

What so attracted Barack Obama to the Reverend Wright’s bigotry?

These latest emails confirm what we already knew.

Our elites, who are forever charging others with “racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia,” are steeped in their own bigotries—toward Southerners, conservatives, Middle Americans, Evangelical Christians, and traditionalist Catholics—the “irredeemables.”

Though the election is still a month off, the campaign of 2016 has already done irreparable damage to the American establishment.

Its roots in the nation it purports to lead have been attenuated if not severed. It has shown the world a portrait of American democracy at its apex that approaches the repellent.

Through the savagery of its attacks on those who have risen up against it, the establishment has stripped itself of all claim to be the moral leader of American society. Its moral authority is gone.

Even if Clinton wins, it can no longer credibly speak for America.

As for the national press corps—the Fourth Estate—it has been compromised, its credibility crippled, as some of the greatest of the press institutions have nakedly shilled for the regime candidate, while others have been exposed as propagandists or corrupt collaborators posturing as objective reporters.

What institution in America today, besides the military, enjoys national respect? And if people do not respect the regime, if they believe it acts in its own cold interest rather than the nation’s, why should they respect or follow its leadership?

We have entered uncharted waters.

Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.

SAUDI ARABIA AND QATAR BANKROLL ISIS — AND THE CLINTON FOUNDATION

How Hillary welcomed money from those she knew to be funding jihadist killers.

Joseph Klein

http://www.frontpagemag.com/

October 13, 2016

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah meets U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the Royal Palace in Riyadh February 15, 2010. REUTERS/Saudi Press Agency/

WikiLeaks released an August 2014 e-mail from Hillary Clinton to John Podesta, who currently serves as her campaign chairman, stating that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been “providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.” Evidently President Obama has not heeded Hillary’s concern, or chose to ignore it. In December 2014, Obama praised Saudi Arabia’s significant role in helping to fight ISIL (also known as ISIS and the Islamic State) during a meeting in Washington with the Kingdom’s Minister of Interior Prince Mohammed Bin Naif Bin Abdulaziz.  And at a meeting he hosted with Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, the Emir of Qatar, at the White House in February 2015, Obama said, "Qatar is a strong partner in our coalition to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL."

Putting aside Obama’s state of denial, which has characterized his whole approach in dealing with the Middle East mess he helped to create, the information in Hillary’s e-mail is not particularly surprising. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been playing us for years, pretending to be allies in countering terrorism while actually helping to advance the terrorists’ jihadist agenda. For starters, Saudi Arabian government front groups and individuals linked to the government have been implicated in possible involvement with the al Qaeda 9/11 attacks on our homeland. A member of the Qatari royal family, Abdallah bin Khalid al-Thani who headed Qatar’s ministry of Interior until 2013, is said by American intelligence services to have tipped off the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed back in 1996 when he was already under indictment on terrorist charges, as FBI agents were closing in on Mohammed while he was in Qatar. In addition, ABC reported, based on statements from U.S. intelligence officials, that “bin Laden himself visited Abdallah bin Khalid al-Thani in Qatar between the years of 1996 and 2000.” Both countries’ funding of ISIS and al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq are just a continuation of this long pattern.

What makes Hillary’s e-mail noteworthy is the irony that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and groups aligned with them, have not only been major funders of ISIS and other jihadist organizations, as she indicated, but they also have been big funders of the Clinton Foundation for years. Hillary has had no trouble taking money for her foundation from regimes that fund terrorists, oppress women, execute or imprison gays and apostates, and severely punish the exercise of free speech.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation through June 2016, according to the Clinton Foundation’s own website (which only reports in ranges of total contributions). Wealthy individuals with close ties to the Saudi royal family have donated millions more. For example, Nasser al-Rashid, a multibillionaire adviser to the Saudi royal family, has donated between $1 million and $5 million.

A group calling itself Friends of Saudi Arabia also contributed between $1 million and $5 million. The National Review described the group as “a thinly veiled public-relations organ of the repressive Saudi regime.” National Review quoted a critique of Friends of Saudi Arabia by Ali Alyami, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia: “These are Saudi apologists. The country depends on propaganda. . . . When I saw the name ‘Friends of Saudi Arabia,’ I knew exactly what they were going to do and who was paying them. I just wrote them off.”  

Although the Friends of Saudi Arabia group was trying to create a false positive image to American audiences of conditions for women in Saudi Arabia, which in fact are amongst the most repressive in the world,  Hillary Clinton did not write the Saudi propaganda group off as long as the money kept flowing into her foundation’s coffers. As Alyami observed, “Our government and our people are for sale, and the Saudis know how to buy.” 

The State of Qatar and a government-run World Cup Qatar host committee have also contributed to the Clinton Foundation. The State of Qatar gave between $1million and $5million to the Clinton Foundation. Qatar’s World Cup host committee, known as the Supreme Committee for Qatar 2022, donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the foundation. The Supreme Committee for Qatar 2022 is an extension of Qatar’s government. Its Board of Directors is headed by Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani and consists of other high-level government officials such as the prime minister. 

It has been all about pay-for-play, buying access and favors during Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State and looking forward to more of the same during her possible presidency.

In a letter from Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, to Attorney General Loretta Lynch dated August 15. 2016, Grassley noted that prior to Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, “Qatar was the recipient of approximately $271 million in military related export deals.  During her tenure, Qatar was the recipient of approximately $4.3 billion – a 1,482% increase.” Saudi Arabia received a 97% increase in such export deals during her tenure. 

With Hillary Clinton as president, we may hear some tougher talk than we have heard from President Obama criticizing Saudi Arabia and Qatar for their support of jihadist groups and their funding of the spread of jihadist ideology. However, it will be just words, since Hillary will not want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs for her foundation.

 Tags: Hillary Clinton, ISIS, Qatar, Saudi Arabia

MASSIVE FLOOD OF NEW IMMIGRANTS FROM MUSLIM NATIONS

What could possibly go wrong? Let’s let Hillary tell us.

Robert Spencer

http://www.frontpagemag.com/

October 12, 2016

Syrian migrants join thousands waiting for travel documents to be issued at a Serbian processing facility Friday in Preshevo, Serbia. WIN MCNAMEE, GETTY IMAGES

The Washington Examiner reported last week that “at 42.4 million, there are now more immigrants, legal and illegal, in America than ever before, fueled by a massive flood from Muslim nations….And while the doors remain open on the U.S.-Mexico border, the biggest percentage increases in immigration are all from largely Muslim nations.” What could possibly go wrong? Hillary Clinton knows, as she revealed in a 2013 email that makes her current public position on immigration absolutely inexplicable.

The Examiner added that according to Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler of the Center for Immigration Studies: “The sending countries with the largest percentage increases in immigrants living in the United States from 2010 to 2014 were Saudi Arabia (up 93 percent), Bangladesh (up 37 percent), Iraq (up 36 percent), Egypt (up 25 percent), and Pakistan, India, and Ethiopia (each up 24 percent).”

Hillary Clinton, despite her determination to increase the number of Syrian refugees entering the United States by 550%, knows very well the risks involved in this massive influx of Muslim immigrants, and in her scheme to increase their number even more. The Daily Caller reported Monday that “in a private 2013 speech, Hillary Clinton worried about the risk of ‘jihadists’ entering Jordan with ‘legitimate refugees’ because ‘they can’t possibly vet all those refugees.’”

Clinton said in a speech before the Jewish United Fund Of Metropolitan Chicago: “So I think you’re right to have gone to the places that you visited because there’s a discussion going on now across the region to try to see where there might be common ground to deal with the threat posed by extremism, and particularly with Syria, which has everyone quite worried, Jordan because it’s on their border and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees and they can’t possibly vet all those refugees. So they don’t know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees. Turkey for the same reason.”

Clinton vowed during her second presidential debate with Donald Trump: “I will not let anyone into our country that I think poses a risk to us.” So she apparently believes that while Jordan and Turkey cannot vet the refugees and winnow out the jihadis from among peaceful Muslims, the United States government under a Hillary Clinton administration will be able to do so.

This is an extraordinary claim: two Muslim nations are unable to distinguish jihadis from peaceful Muslims, but a non-Muslim nation will be able to do so? Hillary Clinton could only advance such a proposition in a world in which non-Muslim spokesmen such as John Kerry, David Cameron and Pope Francis pronounce confidently and authoritatively on the nature of Islam, blithely contradicting Islamic law and theological consensus, as well as the closely-argued Qur’anic exegeses of numerous jihad leaders, in telling us that Islam is a religion of peace that rejects every form of violence. Clinton herself has declared: “Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Since she is so sure that she knows all about Islam and Muslims, Clinton is doubtless sure that she will be able to ensure that U.S. immigration and refugee authorities “will not let anyone into our country that I think poses a risk to us.” Yet when she makes statements so divorced from reality as her claim that Muslims “have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism,” she doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that those whom she thinks pose a risk to us will be those who actually do pose a risk to us.

Even worse, when as far back as three years ago, she indicated that she had some idea of the difficulty even for Muslim countries to vet the refugees properly, her advocacy of a steep increase in Muslim immigration is, at very least, astonishingly irresponsible. Her position appears to be based on a toxic combination of willful ignorance and hubris – toxic not for her presidential chances, but for the possibility that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be anything other than an unmitigated disaster for the United States.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

 Tags: Hillary Clinton, Immigration, national security

Mills captures Flynn’s characters perfectly

By Elise Cooper

http://www.militarypress.com/

October 7, 2016

“Order To Kill” by Kyle Mills is a vintage Vince Flynn book. It is a reminder of the early Rapp novels with Mitch going full circle between his personal and professional life. Readers who enjoyed the character and plot lines will think of “Transfer Of Power” and “Consent To Kill.” Kyle has done a top-notch job of blending the beloved characters of Irene Kennedy and Mitch Rapp with a high adventure, action packed plot.

This book brings back former Navy SEAL Scott Coleman, who is working with Mitch to find Pakistani nukes so they do not fall into terrorists’ hands. As the story progresses, it becomes abundantly clear that Russia’s president, Maxim Vladimirovich Krupin, is working with ISIS terrorists to destabilize the oil resources in the Middle East. The only way to find the culprits and stop these catastrophic consequences is for Mitch to pose as an American ISIS recruit in Iraq, while trying to find and eliminate his Russian nemesis, Grisha Azarov.

Kyle Mills has come into his own. He expands the setting, introduces new characters, and yet is able to stay true to the characters and details created by Vince Flynn. Readers will now see Rapp as someone who realizes he is comfortable with his professional life and can possibly have a personal life as well.

Irene Kennedy continues to be an imperative player in the story in the role of the CIA Director, Mitch’s confidante and the person who is able to connect the dots. She is important in being the focal point for understanding the issues presented in the book. Mitch depends on her to make the hard decisions.

There is a scene in “Order To Kill” where Mitch is confronted with eliminating someone. As in “Consent To Kill,” he walks away from that desire. It is almost as if readers will close their eyes and think of the line Mitch says in the former novel, “Because I’m not a coward. Because… I don’t blow up houses and kill innocents and bystanders.”

“Transfer Of Power” propelled Mitch to the beloved character he is today. In that book there were a number of scenes with him rescuing Anna. In Kyle’s latest book he introduces the character Laleh. The scenes between Mitch and Laleh will once again show how Mitch is a true hero, getting angry when a woman is mistreated while attempting to rescue her. But these scenes are also heart breaking because it shows how ISIS captures women, makes them become sex-slaves, and the desperation faced by these women because there is no way out.

Fans of the legendary Vince Flynn were unsure if Kyle Mills could fill his shoes with the well-developed characters and plots. They loved and hated the month of October. Loved it because a new Mitch Rapp novel came out and hated it because they would have to wait another year for the next one. With “Order To Kill,” readers will get those same feelings. It appears the torch has been passed to Kyle Mills.

See the Q/A Below:

Elise Cooper: Where did you get the idea for this story?

Kyle Mills: My favorite Vince Flynn book, “Consent To Kill,” was the inspiration. In that book Mitch re-found his humanity. I am trying to bring Mitch around to that viewpoint, where he desires a personal life. As a sustainable character Mitch could not stay frustrated and angry, as he was in the last few books. His new attitude, “I have to move on with my life.”

EC: Claudia was married to the man who killed Vince’s wife, Anna. How important is her role in this book?

KM: I wanted to resurrect her as well as other characters. There were all these unresolved ideas in the past books: what ever happened to Claudia, Donatella Rhan or Greta; where are the notes Mitch made before being injured? I hope to continue including Claudia in the books, since she is not the goody good character like Anna. Plus she could be involved in some operations because of her experience.

EC: What do you see as Irene Kennedy’s role in future books?

KM: I see Irene as a pivotal piece in everything that happens in the books, even if sometimes she does not get as much ink as Mitch. I always think of her as the puppet master. By her own admission she is not involved but watches and waits until it becomes necessary for her to be involved.

EC: Your story is very realistic. It is almost like you can pick the U.S. enemy of the week?

KM: There is a lot to draw upon for U.S. thriller writers. The chessboard is getting very complicated. In this book I had Russia using ISIS as well as the dangers of the countries with nuclear arsenals. Putin uses them for his own purposes, and Pakistan is an unstable country, a failed state.

EC: What did you want readers to understand about Russia?

KM: I always found Russia to be very interesting. I liked the complexity of Cold War thriller books, having been a fan of Tom Clancy and Robert Ludlum. The description in the book of how Krupin came to power comes straight out of how Putin came to power. In many ways Russia is a collapsing country with an economy smaller than Italy’s. The minute he does not help the Oligarchs he is in trouble and can find a bullet in his head. I want to show that the U.S. cannot be one dimensional in confronting its enemies that include Jihadists, Russia, North Korea, and China. Russia is seen as a one-man show, where Krupin (Putin) is more concerned about his own power and influence, using the Oligarchs as a crime syndicate organization. I want to demonstrate the desperation of Krupin, how Russia is the poster child for income inequality, and is ridden with drugs.

EC: Vince always had comments on the Saudis participating in terrorism. You appear to be continuing this arc?

KM: Yes, that is why I put in the book quote, “Abdullah was extremely conservative in his religious beliefs… He despised Christians in general and American Christians in particular.” Vince always spoke of the Saudi money and influence in his books. I want to continue with that, and to strike a balance between fun, satisfying, and realistic.

EC: Can you give a heads up about your next book?

KM: I like resurrecting the old characters because I have a long history with them as a fan. The next book brings back Donatella and the FBI Agent Joe Wilson. Mitch will be doing some things against the Saudis and all the politicians want hands off. He will be more a lone wolf. Grisha Azarov, Mitch’s Russian nemesis, will return because he is really popular with the readers.

Trumped-Up Outrage

By Heather Mac Donald

http://www.city-journal.org/

October 9, 2016

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a town hall-style forum, Thursday, Oct. 6, 2016, in Sandown, N.H. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty)

Democrats and their media allies, joined by many Republicans, are calling on Donald Trump to withdraw from the presidential race after a newly released, decade-old tape of a frat-house-level conversation between Trump and television host Billy Bush in 2005, in which Trump boasted of his heavy-handed pursuit of females. Trump describes trying unsuccessfully to seduce a married woman by taking her furniture shopping, speaking in the crudest terms. He brags that because he was a star he could “grab [females] by the pussy” and claims to Bush that he starts kissing beautiful women “like a magnet. Just kiss.  I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it.  You can do anything.”  Bush eggs him on:  “Whatever you want!” (Bush being a more admiring confidante than Leporello to Don Giovanni).

The response has been swift and apocalyptic. Hillary Clinton tweeted: “This is horrific. We cannot allow this man to become president.” Vice Presidential candidate Tim Kaine told reporters: “It makes me sick to my stomach.” Slate’s science editor wrote that “I feel sicker after seeing it than I can remember feeling in a while.” Another Slate columnist writes that Trump and Bush “can’t see their female colleagues as anything but collections of fuckable or unfuckable body parts. They exhibit a complete disregard for women’s humanity, agency, and internal lives.”

Now why might it be that men regard women as sex objects? Surely the ravenous purchase by females of stiletto heels, push-up bras, butt-hugging mini-skirts, plunging necklines, false eyelashes, hair extensions, breast implants, butt implants, lip implants, and mascara, rouge, and lipstick to the tune of billions a year has nothing to do with it. Females would never ever exploit their sexuality to seek attention from men. Bush and Trump, driving to the set of Days of Our Lives on a studio bus, comment on the legs of actress Arianne Zucker who is coming to meet them: “Oh, nice legs, huh?” Trump says. “Your girl’s hot as shit, in the purple,” Bush says. How surprising that Trump and Bush noticed Zucker’s legs! As documented in the video, she is wearing a skimpy purple dress, with an extremely short hem cut on the bias, a low neckline and fully exposed back. She is in high heels to accentuate her bare legs. The ratio of exposed skin between Zucker, on the one hand, and Trump and Bush, on the other, is perhaps 100 to one. But all that bare flesh must simply be because Zucker has a high metabolism and gets exceedingly warm; she would never want to broadcast her sexuality to men or have men notice her. The fact that she swishes her hips when she walks must just be a quirk of anatomy.

When Trump and Bush emerge from the bus, they are the embodiment of jocular decorum—this too counts against them in the eyes of the feminist brigades. Writes Slate’s Susan Matthews: “As if public Donald Trump wasn’t bad enough, this video reminds us that there’s an aspect of the man that’s even worse than what he shows to the public. You see it in the transformation Trump and his conversation partner Billy Bush undergo when they exit the bus and move from [what they assumed was] a private sphere into a public one. They are still committing acts of sexual harassment and abusing their power when they ask the actress who greets them to give each of them a hug. But they’re buttoning up—they know the tone of the conversation they had on the bus cannot be repeated in anything close to a public sphere.” Isn’t this a good thing that Trump in this case at least has obeyed the rules of public behavior? Matthews, we are to believe, would never say anything in private that she would not repeat in the public sphere.

If any of these newfound exponents of female modesty felt any comparable nausea at the blatant display of female sexuality and, dare I say it, “pussy,” in Beyoncé’s acclaimed rock video “Formation,” say, they kept it to themselves. Beyoncé and her female chorus line rhythmically thrust their butts, crotches, and breasts to the camera, while Beyoncé brags of her sexual prowess:

Paparazzi, catch my fly, and my cocky fresh
I’m so reckless when I rock my Givenchy dress (stylin’)
Oh yeah, baby, oh yeah I, ohhhhh, oh, yes, I like that
I did not come to play with you hoes, haha
I came to slay, bitch
When he fuck me good I take his ass to Red Lobster, cause I slay
If he hit it right, I might take him on a flight on my chopper, cause I slay
Drop him off at the mall, let him buy some J’s, let him shop up, cause I slay
I might get your song played on the radio station, cause I slay

Sounds like a sexual quid pro quo, ripe for a harassment lawsuit. The “Formation” video, which inspired Beyoncé’s Super Bowl halftime performance in January (to another universal swoon from the entertainment industry), also shows a very young girl engaging in some precocious twerking, a grotesque travesty of childhood. No objections to that destruction of the innocence of childhood from the DNC.

President Obama has singled out Beyoncé for praise, and the singer is a big Hillary Clinton supporter, to not a word of protest from Clinton regarding her status as a role model for young girls. Bill Clinton met with Beyoncé and her husband, rapper Jay Z, in September. If Bill or Hillary thinks the lyrics of Jay Z’s “Big Pimpin‘” “horrific,” in Hillary’s words, they are not letting on:

You know I thug em, fuck em, love em, leave em
Cause I don’t fuckin need em
Take em out the hood, keep em lookin good
But I don’t fuckin feed em
First time they fuss I’m breezin
Talkin bout, “What’s the reasons?”
I’m a pimp in every sense of the word, bitch
Better trust than believe em
In the cut where I keep em
til I need a nut, til I need to beat the guts
Then it’s, beep beep and I’m pickin em up
Let em play with the dick in the truck
Many chicks wanna put Jigga fist in cuffs
Divorce him and split his bucks
Just because you got good head, I’m a break bread
so you can be livin it up? Shit I
parts with nothin, y’all be frontin
Me give my heart to a woman?
Not for nothin, never happen.

The Washington Post primly headlined its scoop on Trump’s bus conversation with Bush: “Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005.” The New York Times’ follow-up story also labelled Trump’s remarks “lewd.” If either of those paper’s critics have ever objected to such lewdness in popular culture, it has escaped attention. Have they objected to college campus sex weeks, which routinely invite porn stars to offer how-to demonstrations on S & M sex? Do they squirm with discomfort when campus administrators pass out tips on the use of sex toys to achieve better orgasms? Not on the record, at least.

Other Hillary Clinton supporters have hardly been shy about exploiting sex to get ahead. Clinton fan Amy Schumer admits: “I have used sex as a marketing tool and it has worked. I mean, my TV show is called Inside Amy Schumer.” This blushing Victorian violet explains: “My whole life I found friends that are just like me, young girls that were just like me, like we were all whores.” During a lace-clad photo shoot for Marie Claire that of course had nothing to do with projecting sexuality, Schumer joked about her sexual exploits: “My best friend would describe me as loyal . . . to the boyfriend I stole from her.” She confesses to a “weakness for orgasms.” Democratic National Convention star, Hillary fan, and pseudo-campus rape victim Lena Dunham has not exactly set herself up as a model of sexual prudence, either, nor has she shrunk from using her promiscuity as a selling point in the entertainment market.

The sudden onset of Victorian vapors among the liberal intelligentsia and political class at the revelation of Trump’s locker-room talk is part and parcel of the Left’s hypocrisy when it comes to feminism and sexual liberation. A routine objection to Trump is that he makes, in the words of the New York Times, “gutter attacks on women.” But why should women be exempt from Trump’s gutter attacks on anyone he wants to humiliate? Trump’s gratuitous nastiness to men and women alike, kicking  people when they are down, unfits him to serve as the premier civic role model for the nation’s children. But the feminists can’t have it both ways: declaring that women should be equal to men in all things and then still demand a chivalric deference to female’s delicate sensibilities. Either women are the same as men or they’re not. It is particularly galling to see the selective resurrection of Victorian values from the same crowd that has been pushing transgender locker rooms on the world, in an effort to destroy the last shred of girls’ innate sexual modesty.

This opportunistic, on-again, off-again appearance of traditional sexual values characterizes the campus-rape myth as well. Needless to say, actual sexual assault is both criminal and intolerable. But college co-eds insist on the prerogative of maximal promiscuity at the same time that they revert to the role of helpless damsel in distress, when, after drinking themselves blotto to lower their sexual inhibitions, they regret a boozy hook-up and declare themselves raped. The logic is always that the male was responsible for the female’s well-being; the female cannot help drinking herself to a reckless state. It is for the chivalric male to look out for her.

Following the release of the studio bus tape, Trump said in his defense that Bill Clinton “has said far worse to me on the golf course.” That may be the most credible thing that Trump has ever uttered. But both Republicans and Democrats are fatally compromised in their responses to the Trump tapes, deliberately released right before the make-or-break second presidential debate. Republicans, having flogged the Bill Clinton sex scandals way past any possible point of relevance, are now not well positioned to dismiss these comments (nor are they trying to), though there is a huge difference between the reality TV star Trump bragging about his libido on a studio bus and Bill Clinton exploiting the power of the presidency to seduce a young intern. But Democrats are the most shameless in their outrage over the Trump braggadocio, having dismissed Bill Clinton’s White House and gubernatorial escapades for years, and standing as the party of maximal sexual liberation, unlike the Republicans. The New York Times rejects the relevance of Clinton’s predatory White House behavior on the ground that “Mr. Clinton is not running for president.” But the Times did not find Clinton’s behavior significant when Clinton was in office, either.

Ideally, no man would ever paw a female or push himself on her. The default norm of sexual modesty, coupled with the chivalric ideal that gentlemen should treat females like ladies, used to be the most effective defense against such high-testosterone behavior. Feminism, however, has declared both modesty and chivalry sexist, leaving females to improvise a response to the inevitable excesses of the male sex drive, when they are not trying to leverage it to their own advantage.

The only good thing to come out of this tacky episode may be the jettisoning of the ongoing resurrection of the tired Clinton White House escapades by Trump and his supporters. Otherwise, it stands merely as a reminder of how enduring the stance of offended female virtue is, even in the age of crude sexual exhibitionism.

Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and the author of the New York Times bestseller The War on Cops.

Trump Will Win the National Battle for Legitimacy

BY DAVID P. GOLDMAN

https://pjmedia.com/

October 9, 2016

(Credit: Bloomberg/Andrew Harrer)

The referee should have stopped it in the tenth. Punching at will, Donald Trump said, "Hillary used the power of her office to make $250 million. Why not put some money in? You made a lot of it while you were secretary of State? Why aren't you putting money into your own campaign? Just curious." Reeling and against the ropes, Clinton gasped that she supported ... the Second Amendment. It was a brilliant rhetorical device: under the rubric of campaign financing, Trump slipped in an allegation that Clinton corruptly enriched herself by using the power of her office for personal gain--and Clinton didn't even respond. That's a win by a knockout.

That's the decisive issue of the campaign: the corrupt machinations of a ruling elite that considers itself above the law, and the rage of the American people against the oligarchical ruling class that has pulled the ladder up behind it. Trump's bombshell below Clinton's waterline came at the end of the debate, well prepared by jabs at Clinton's erased emails and Bill's rapes. Trump used the "J" word--that is, jail. That was perhaps the evening's most important moment. This is not an election fought over competing policies but a struggle for legitimacy. A very large portion of the electorate (how large a portion we will discover next month) believes that its government is no longer legitimate, and that it has become the instrument of an entrenched rent-seeking oligarchy.

By and large, I agree with this reading. "America's economy is corrupt, cartelized and anti-competitive," I wrote in August. It is typical of rent-seeking that Lockheed Martin's stock price has tripled during the past three years, and payment to its top management team has risen from $12 million a year to over $60 million a year, while Lockheed Martin's F-35 languishes in cost overruns and deployment delays. Produce a lemon and get rich: that's Washington. It is not a trivial matter, or unrepresentative of our national condition, that the FBI director who declined to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for mishandling of classified material just returned to government from a stint at Lockheed Martin, where he was paid $6 million for a single year's service. I don't know whether FBI Director Comey is corrupt. But it looks and smells terrible.

That's why it was so important for Trump to talk about jail time for his opponent. If things had not gotten to the point where former top officials well might belong in jail, Trump wouldn't be there in the first place. The Republican voters chose a reckless, independently wealthy, vulgar, rough-edged outsider precisely because they believe that the system is corrupt. They are right to so believe; if the voters knew a tenth of what I know about it, they would march on Washington with pitchforks.

The whole weekend news cycle centered around Trump's potty-mouth tape, which will count for exactly nothing in the final tally. No-one who has followed Donald Trump in public media for the past thirty years expected anything less from the great vulgarian. We are stuck with Trump precisely because the Republican establishment imploded over Iraq and the economy.

I assumed that Trump's diffidence during the first debate amounted to profiling his opponent. No-one would remember what was said in the first debate come the general election, and Trump appeared to be probing and watching Clinton's responses. This time he has bloodied her. Whether there is more to come--a thermonuclear revelation of some kind--I have no idea. But given Trump's experience in the entertainment business, we can assume that the really nasty stuff will come out later.

Whoever wins, a very large part of the electorate--perhaps more than a third--will believe that the government lacks legitimacy. We have not had circumstances like this since the Civil War. If Trump loses, his voters will blame a corrupt oligarchy and its allied media for electing a criminal to the White House; if Clinton loses, the minority constituencies of the Democratic Party will respond as if the Klu Klux Klan had taken over Washington. There has never been anything like this in the past century and a half of American history, and it is thankless to predict the outcome. Nonetheless I will: Trump will crush it. Clinton, the major media, the pollsters, and the mainstream Republican Party have badly misread the insurrectionist mood of the electorate.

TRUMP MAKES THE CASE FOR JAILING HILLARY

The White House or the big house.

Daniel Greenfield

http://www.frontpagemag.com/

October 10, 2016

Credit: AP / John Locher)

At the lowest point in the second presidential debate Hillary Clinton tried to blame her compulsive lying on Abraham Lincoln. Not the real Lincoln, but the fictional version depicted in the Spielberg movie.

“She lied. Now she's blaming the lie on the late great Abraham Lincoln,” Trump said in exasperation. “Honest Abe never lied.”

The only thing Hillary and Lincoln have in common is Illinois.

If Hillary had been looking for wisdom from Lincoln, she might have started with the famous quote often attributed to him. “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” It’s been a while since Hillary has been able to fool anybody.

The majority of the country holds an unfavorable view of her. Even in a blue state like California, 53 percent of the voters have an unfavorable view of the woman they are most likely going to end up voting for. It’s not just that Hillary is a liar and a crook. Plenty of politicians are. It’s that her dishonesty and corruption are so blatant as to be insulting to the intelligence of even the dimmest voter.

Hillary’s lies come apart within 5 minutes of being told. And yet nothing is ever her fault. Previously she had blamed her rogue email operation on Colin Powell. Now she decided to blame her lies on Lincoln.

By the second debate, the topic was no longer who should be president, but who should be in jail. Both candidates were clear that their opponent was utterly unfit to hold office.

Trump was the clearest of all about it. “Because you'd be in jail,” he said. “If I win, I'm going to instruct the attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation,” he promised.

Jail is where Hillary belongs. Her stained sheet of crimes goes back quite a few decades by now.

And her campaign has done more to demonstrate the widespread networks of establishment corruption than a thousand investigations could have ever managed to do. From the Clinton Foundation to the media, her base of support is as rotten as she is. And just as ruthless and determined.

There she was stumbling around on stage, haggard and still laughing her horrifying brittle laugh and reciting canned applause lines in the hope that someone would cheer. And to complete the pairing, Martha Raddatz was there as her doppelganger, berating Trump the way that Hillary would have liked to if she weren’t still delusional enough to think someone out there might still be fooled by her current act.

That’s why the Clinton campaign and its extensive network of media allies want to make the campaign about anything and everything but Hillary. Including an old tape. “What we all saw and heard on Friday was Donald talking about women. What he thinks about women. What he does to women,” Hillary hectored.

We all know what her husband thinks about women and does to women. We also know what Hillary did to her husband’s victims. They appeared together with Trump at a press conference before the debate.

We also know what Hillary Clinton did to Kathy Shelton, a 12-year-old girl who had been raped and beaten into a coma by her client. Hillary accused that child of fantasizing and making it all up.

There is a tape of Hillary laughing about the case.  

But we also know, in the macro, what Hillary and her allies have done to America. And what they intend to do to it. They were outraged when Trump talked about illegal alien rapists. But how many women were sexually assaulted and even murdered by the “undocumented” migrants whom Hillary and her political party shelter in sanctuary cities and want to protect with a national amnesty?

How many will be assaulted by the Syrian Muslim migrants whom Hillary wants to bring to America, the way that thousands of women in Germany have been assaulted by the violent Muslim mobs?

Trump made the case at the debate that Hillary isn’t just a bad person, but that her policies will destroy this country. “To solve the problem, you have to be able to state what the problem is or at least say the name. She won't say the name,” he said of Islamic terrorism.

“Obamacare is a disaster, you know it, we all know it,” he said, plainly and definitively.

He ridiculed Hillary’s classified email pretenses, “She didn't know what the letter C meant on a document.” He dismissed her lies about trying to protect emails about yoga classes and her daughter’s wedding.

And most of all he made it obvious that the media was in Hillary’s corner. Once again the moderators debated him. Once again they repeatedly interrupted him and bent the rules in Hillary’s favor.

Hillary is convinced that rigging the debates will help her. But she’s forgotten that the biggest reason she is disliked is because she is the privileged beneficiary of a rigged system. Americans have a soft spot for rogue corrupt politicians. But they loathe and abhor corrupt insiders who brandish their fake virtue.

The people around Hillary have convinced her that she can only win by making her opponent as unlikable as possible while striving for a false cheerfulness about the whole thing. But all this does, as it did at the debate, is remind everyone of why they hate her.

Hillary is here because of a combination of her last name and dirty deals. In better times, the people might be more tolerant of such corruption. But when millions are out of work and see no hope in the future, there is much less tolerance for a politician who represents the rigged insider game.

The same reasons that explain why Hillary was on stage also explain why she isn’t in prison. And no one is fooled by any of it. That is why Hillary Clinton is loathed even by her own voters.

From Whitewater to the Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton got away with everything. But unlike the FBI, the public can’t be threatened or bought. And that is what Hillary and her allies are truly afraid of.

Tonight at the debate, Donald Trump made the case for why Hillary is unfit for office and fit only for prison. It was a simple case. It’s a case that even most Hillary voters are familiar with.

Because the time when Hillary could fool even some of the people has passed.

But there is an even more relevant quote, from the real Lincoln, rather than Spielberg’s fraudulent one. It is a quote that the Clintons and their ilk ought to ponder with the greatest of caution and care.

“The people… are the rightful masters… not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it,” Lincoln had said. It is this question that is at the center of the election.

The one thing that both sides can now agree on is that the other is utterly unfit. It will soon be the choice of the people that will determine whether Hillary will be in the White House or the big house.

 Tags: debate, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton