A couple of weeks back, the media came out with an eleven-year old recording of Donald Trump saying some loutish things. The things were ridiculous. And, yes, they were, obviously, “locker room talk.”
The media insisted, though, that there was ever so much more in the Trump utterances, and I bought it. At least to more than a little extent.
Yet, if you were to peruse these pages, you would see that there are few in the world who hold what the dominant media say in lower regard than I. Yet, swallow it I did. And I agonized over it.
Trump’s publicly-stated agenda for the country is obviously superior — though, it should be noted, not all that much — to that of the closeted socialist, Hillary Clinton. Yet, I was seriously considering the idea that the Trump recording disqualified him for the Presidency. After all, no one had been more vociferous than I in his condemnation of our first white trash, horn-dog President, Bill Clinton.
However, there are others who had sight of the real nub of it all. The long-time, outstanding commentator Bob Tyrrell of the wonderful American Spectator magazine, said (here):
But back then all this sexual innuendo talk was dismissed as “It’s only about sex. Everyone Does It.” Well, once again it is only about sex, and as you might gather from my mention of puppies I find it absurd. What Bill Clinton did in the 1980s and 1990s was while he was as an official of the state — eventually president. In fact, he was in state offices, state vehicles, and using state credit cards. He did it in the Oval Office. Whatever Donald did was on his own time, years ago, and child’s play when compared to the president and his enabler, the first lady. [Editor’s Note: red emphasis added. The entire piece is well worth a read. Tyrrell has long been an outstanding commentator.]
It’s worth repeating: “Whatever Donald did was on his own time, years ago, and child’s play when compared to the president and his enabler, the first lady.”
That little snippet of text is pregnant with meaning. Here are some other things that the phrase contains:
- You and I never paid a dime to finance Donald Trump’s personal escapades. You and I, though, did pay Bill Clinton to abuse women.
- Or: You and I never gave a single dime to Donald Trump that we didn’t choose, perfectly freely, to give him. Hundreds of millions of us have all given Bill Clinton a lot of money — tax dollars — that we were forced to give to him, on pain of serious repercussions. We, the American people, paid Bill Clinton to abuse women. That we were forced to do so by taxation ought to fuel public outrage even more.
- There had never, before this month in this election cycle, been even the slightest hint that any of Trump’s extra-curricular activities involved anyone but fully consenting adults. This was not the case with Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton’s having thrust himself upon unwilling women is now part of the historical record.
- Hillary Clinton is just as guilty (more?) of the abuse of Bill Clinton’s babes as Bill Clinton.
Bottom Line: No one on earth can say credibly that Hillary Clinton occupies any moral high ground whatsoever, relative to Donald Trump.
Tyrrell neatly summed up the Stockholm Syndrome that grips many of us Republicans, and even many of us (like me) who consider ourselves more Conservative than Republican.
We Americans have all been living in a fetid, stinking swamp of generally left-leaning propaganda for decades. To such an extent that we can still speak of Bill Clinton in purely policy terms, while (rightly) condemning Trump’s boorishness, or lack of character.
The correct response to all this is the one that a minority of Americans (including the writers of this small, but increasingly influential think tank) made: demand that the Democrats, the American left, and of course Hillary Clinton, be held to the same standards as Republicans.(1)
Some of us have consistently done this, but other of us have suggested that they don’t want to “re-litigate” the past.
Re-litigate the past? Should we not have “re-litigated” Dred Scott? Really?
Real history is all about re-litigating the past, constantly, in order to … get it right. People generally believe the old saw: “Those who don’t learn history are doomed to repeat it.”
Okay. Then, guess what: I guess we Conservatives had best be ready to “re-litigate” the Clinton Presidency if we want to be able to condemn Trump with any credibility. Otherwise, the opposition to Trump by many — from a pure character basis — is phony.(2)
Bill Clinton was (is?) a sexual predator, whom the American system allowed to abuse women, and then to get away with it. These are things that would have lost you and me our jobs, our careers, and our freedom.
Yet, to this day, many of us Conservatives were willing to throw Trump overboard when the “revelations” came out about his salty language. Mind you, there were many — myself included — who were not willing to allow Trump to be the Republican nominee in the first place, but that ship has sailed.
However, if Bill Clinton was eligible to be President, and we Conservatives want to say that Trump is not eligible to be President, on character grounds, then we have to insist also that Hillary Clinton, the enabler half of Hill-Billy, is morally ineligible to be President as well.
We, we Conservatives, have had a problem saying that because of the bath of left-wing propaganda in which we’ve been marinating for decades. We’ve assumed for decades that the left is just the left. They are morally deficient. It’s as if they’re the wayward brother in the family and we still love him, all while disapproving of his “lifestyle” choices,” However, we’ve long since given up trying to talk him out of how he lives. The left, the wayward brother, is intellectually deficient as well, and that — the realm of the intellect — is where we’ve focused for so long.
It’s been easy for us to make that choice — taking on the left on intellectual, not moral turf — because they’re so easy to defeat intellectually. Their “ideas,” if such they can be called, are so crashingly stupid, have been proven deficient so frequently and so completely, that it’s easy to point it all out, and to reduce them to their default debate strategy: deflection and avoidance, then insult, and finally escape.
However, we Conservatives have made the bed from which we’ve tried to eject Trumpism. If that’s the case, we have to say also that we’re also going to reject the left — for whom abuse of women, minorities, children and others is Standard Operating Procedure — and we’re going to reject them as vociferously as we’ve scorned Trump.
In other words, this conflict that we have with Trump is the conflict that we have between the “Social Conservative” and the “Fiscal Conservative.” There should be no conflict between those two groups, because all Conservatives — Trumps proves this — should be Social and Fiscal Conservatives. The reason for this is simple: we who are both Social and Fiscal Conservatives are constantly forced to pay (and pay and pay and pay(3)) for the long-term results of the moral compromise that the “Fiscal-But-Not-Social” Conservatives make.
We Fiscal and Social Conservatives are not filling the country with babies from unwed mothers. We F&S Conservatives aren’t on the welfare rolls. We F&S Conservatives aren’t spreading AIDS, or getting arrested for drug use, possession or distribution. The prisons aren’t overflowing with F&S Conservatives. We F&S Conservatives are paying our bills, working and working and working, paying our taxes, providing for our families. We’re not abusing women, children or others. We’re by far the most charitable, productive, hard-working, reliable, steady, dependable people in the world.
Lets face it, we F&S Conservatives are, purely and simply, the only ones holding America together. We’re the only ones who do nothing but work and ask nothing — not money, resources, time or anything — of anyone else. We’re the only ones in America still giving and giving and giving, as opposed to those who are taking and taking and taking. We’re still the only ones who simply work hard to provide for and protect our families.
So, bottom line: it’s still necessary to conquer the media, to overthrow the leftist scumbags that control the dominant media of America today, and replace it with a right-wing, or more importantly, an honest media culture.
An honest media culture would be, inevitably, a right-wing media culture.
Read this well: the only thing missing from American society today is: an honest debate. If you could purge the dishonesty and fraud from the dominant media, then you’d do nothing less than save America … and the world.
(1) Bottom Line: the press cover the Republicans roughly correctly: at a nearly proctological level. The media’s corruption manifests itself in not remotely doing likewise for the Democrats; in fact in giving them a complete pass. That, by the way, is at the root of all the major problems we face in in America today. Meaning: No problem/issue/crisis in America can ever receive an honest airing because of the corruption of the press.
(2) It should be noted at this point, that many people who disagree with my decision to vote for Trump, are not among those who have no right to criticize Trump. I’m referring, of course, to the great Kevin Williamson and the also great Jonah Goldberg — both from the finest online publication there is for political commentary: National Review Online. Both have always been perfectly consistent in their criticisms of both Trump and the Clintons.
It should be noted also that my decision to vote Trump is made significantly easier because I live in Connecticut. My vote hasn’t ever counted in the Presidential elections. My vote will do nothing more than ever so slightly diminish the Clinton victory in my state. And that, finally, is the factor that tipped me over the edge from voting for Evan McMullin to Trump.
(3) With our money and our freedoms.