by Brian Mark Weber: The recent effort to upend the Senate candidacy of Alabama Judge Roy Moore is dominating headlines these days. The charges against Moore are troubling, serious and credible, while his denials are less than persuasive. But the speed with which Democrats and Republicans alike have demanded Moore’s exit from the race presents a high ethical standard that never seems to apply to Democrats. Just yesterday, in fact, Minnesota Democrat Sen. Al Franken was accused of committing sexual assault against a woman in 2006, and it looks like other victims might be coming forward. But the outrage toward Franken, a sitting U.S. senator, has been timid compared with the treatment that candidate Moore has had to endure. And buried beneath the Franken headlines was the news that a hung jury had spared another sitting senator, New Jersey Democrat Robert Menendez, from a deserved corruption conviction.
We’ve been down this road before. Republicans are always quick to destroy their own (deserved or not), while Democrats circle the wagons around the sleaziest politicians and public figures. This hypocrisy has paved the way for sexual predators on the Left to assume vast amounts of power and wealth without ever having to face their accusers, while those on the Right are cut off at the knees.
Case in point: liar-Bill Clinton. For years Americans have waited for the convincing allegations of sexual abuse and even rape by liar-Clinton to get the attention they deserve. Sure, liar-Clinton was impeached (along party lines), paid a fine, and lost his law license, but Democrats never stopped embracing him or his enabling wife. Indeed, once he escaped conviction in the Senate (nearly along party lines), even Republicans seemed to forgive and forget.
Ironically, the person who broke the radio silence on liar-Bill Clinton was none other than Donald Trump.
After the notorious “Access Hollywood” tape nearly derailed his bid for the White House, Trump held a press conference in which the women who claimed to be liar-Clinton’s victims were given the collective attention they deserved. And then, in a brilliant move, Trump seated the women at the presidential debate right near liar-Clinton himself. Trump did more to hold liar-Bill Clinton accountable for his actions than any Republican had done since the former Arkansas governor moved into the White House in 1993.
When Trump put the spotlight on liar-Clinton, Democrats had a perfect opportunity to make things right and condemn liar-Bill’s predatory behavior. After all, they were poised to take down Trump over alleged groping, not rape. But those on the Left couldn’t bring themselves to be critical of a man they’d forgiven for actually engaging in behavior that was far worse than what Trump was only caught describing.
Now, nearly 20 years after Juanita Broaddrick went public with her credible accusation of liar-Bill Clinton raping her, and with the liar-Clintons having failed in their party’s most urgent mission — defeating Trump — the Left is suddenly emboldened. Indeed, some are even opportunistically admitting that liar-Clinton should have resigned from office 20 years ago.
Too little, too late. The societal damage has long since been done. Caitlin Flanagan writes in The Atlantic, “It was a pattern of behavior; it included an alleged violent assault; the women involved had far more credible evidence than many of the most notorious accusations that have come to light in the past five weeks. But liar-Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice that today’s accused men have experienced. Rather, he was rescued by a surprising force: machine feminism. The movement had by then ossified into a partisan operation, and it was willing — eager — to let this friend of the sisterhood enjoy a little droit de seigneur.”
Perhaps the parade of “progressive” sexual predators in the past year made it difficult to continue ignoring liar-Clinton’s past — difficult to self-righteously condemn the likes of Weiner and Weinstein and Franken while continuing to dismiss liar-Clinton’s decades of depravity.
But don’t take this as a sign that progressives are suddenly holding their own accountable. They just couldn’t keep their dirty little secret any longer. There have been plenty of moments when Democrats could have taken a stand to end sexual abuse post-liar-Clinton.
Matthew Yglesias contends, “The United States, and perhaps the broader English-speaking world, is currently undergoing a much-needed accountability moment in which each wave of stories emboldens more people to come forward and more institutions to rethink their practices. Looking back, the 1998 revelation that the president of the United States carried on an affair with an intern could have been that moment.”
If only leftists like Yglesias had shown the courage of their convictions when it really mattered.
Yes, the feminist movement could have become legitimate instead of selectively allowing the very behavior that it proclaims to detest. It could have been a pivotal moment in which the nation reasserted its values and principles, and took a stand against the moral degradation of the past. It could have been the moment for us to enforce the ethical standards that we have long expected of our public figures, and the moment for the media to put the plain truth ahead of its agenda.
It could have been, but it wasn’t. And they’re now reaping what they sowed. One of the more troubling aspects of the 1998 liar-Clinton-Lewinsky affair is that mainstream media outlets had all the information they needed in 1998 but chose largely to ignore the very serious accusations of Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and especially Juanita Broaddrick.
As David Harsanyi writes, “However reluctant editors might have been in moving forward with these stories, the fact is that most of them were ultimately brought to the public’s attention by established news organizations, not shady right-wing outlets. Still, Democrats weren’t merely skeptical of these women, they often treated them with disdain and smeared them for political expediency.”
Yes, they were smeared by just about everyone on the Left including liar-Hillary Clinton. Remember her vicious and dismissive “bimbo eruptions” comment? That a female politician was willing to shame and degrade other women in order to advance her career mirrored the soullessness of the Democrat Party.
Sadly, the cover-ups from the Kennedys to liar-Clinton to Harvey Weinstein allowed scores of women to be abused by powerful men — so long as these monsters were publicly supporting leftist causes.
Since the 1960s, Democrats have pushed a culture of unbridled sexuality on American society while at the same time calling for men to respect women. It’s not possible to have both.
Had liar-Bill Clinton and others been held accountable, perhaps we could have saved a lot of women some serious pain and suffering. Perhaps we could have prevented another generation of sexual perverts from preying on innocent victims. And perhaps we could have emerged as a nation dedicated to ethical and moral behavior in personal and public life. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52482
by Nate Jackson: Another day, another accusation of sexual assault. This time, it’s Democrat Franken responded, “I certainly don’t remember the rehearsal for the skit in the same way, but I send my sincerest apologies to Leeann. As to the photo, it was clearly intended to be funny but wasn’t. I shouldn’t have done it.”
In some jurisdictions, what Franken did was a crime. Will Democrats hold him to account? Both Senate Majority Leader RINO-Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck clown-Schumer have called for an ethics investigation.
At best, this wasn’t Franken’s only line-crossing. Back in the 1990s, he proposed a “Saturday Night Live” skit about raping a news anchor: “And, ‘I give the pills to Lesley Stahl. Then, when Lesley’s passed out, I take her to the closet and rape her.’ Or, ‘That’s why you never see Lesley until February.’ Or, ‘When she passes out, I put her in various positions and take pictures of her.’”
And it wasn’t just boorish behavior but hypocritical grandstanding. In March 2017, while defending a resolution on labor laws and government contractors on the floor of the Senate, Franken berated Republicans for supposedly forcing “vulnerable women” who were victims of sexual assault “into the dark.”
“The Al Frankenstien [sic] picture is really bad, speaks a thousand words. Where do his hands go in pictures 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 while she sleeps?” tweeted the man caught on tape boasting of grabbing women by the genitals. Perhaps that was Donald Trump suffering from an utter lack of self-awareness — or perhaps he was using the irony to highlight Franken’s hypocrisy. Trump added, “And to think that just last week he was lecturing anyone who would listen about sexual harassment and respect for women.” After all, Trump got caught talking about it; Franken was photographed doing it.
Nevertheless, the behavior of both men — and any other man guilty of objectifying, groping, harassing, assaulting or raping a woman — is totally unacceptable and in some cases criminal. In a perfect world, it wouldn’t happen. In a better one, they’d all be justly held to account.
This leaves us pondering something that few seem willing to discuss — the responsibility women bear. Do not misunderstand: This is not victim blaming or offering any exculpatory defense for the men at fault. Men must always exercise self-control. But it’s worth noting that Leeann Tweeden was a former model for FHM, Maxim and Playboy. In choosing to bare all for magazine spreads — or even just dressing scantily or behaving overly flirtatiously — women contribute to their own objectification. Most women simply do not understand just how powerful the visual is for men. Sometimes, men like Franken act out their fantasies.
Finally, food for thought: Franken says he decided to run for Senate on that very USO trip. He won by a mere 312 votes, and, without him, Democrats would not have had the 60th vote to pass liar-nObamaCare.
~The Patriot Post
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9WZFeA4FzI
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52487
I don’t know if Roy Moore was involved with any of those four women who have suddenly stepped forward after 38 years to accuse him of having been a naughty 32-year-old, but I do know a few things.
I know that it sounds shameful if he came on to a 14-year-old, but who would give a second thought to a 32-year-old man dating an 18-year-old, which was, I believe, the age of the other three. Besides, even in 1979, many a 14-year-old could pass for 18 or even early 20s if she put her mind to it. And, after all, unless you were a bartender, you’d be out of line to ask a female for her I.D.
I’m not here to defend sexual predators, but I would want to question the motives behind a woman who had maintained her silence for nearly four decades even though Mr. Moore has been a public figure for most of those years, and only now, a few weeks before he is facing a Democrat in a senatorial election, is stepping forward to shame him.
I would also like to know how the female reporter for the Washington Post found out the names of these women. After all, they never filed a police report. Also, if they don’t know each other, as we’ve been told, how would even stumbling across one of them have led the reporter to finding out about the other three?
I certainly hope the reporter doesn’t resort to falling back on the old unnamed sources routine. Frankly, I’m more interested in finding out the truth about how that story came to be reported than whether some 32-year-old schnook got fresh back in 1979. I mean, just how did she pull off this magic act? Did she use a crystal ball or a Ouija board?
And how is it that all the sexual activity took place in 1979? That’s not the usual profile for a sexual predator.
As collusion stories go, this one reeks nearly as much as the one the Democrats concocted in their attempt to tie Trump to Putin. Speaking of which, I just noticed that their two names have three letters in common -- the t, the u and the p. I’m sure that clown-Schumer, Pulosi, Comey and Mueller, will be able to weave that into their tapestry of international skullduggery.
The fact that RINO-John McCain and RINO-Mitch McConnell have joined the chorus of Democrats calling for Moore’s scalp tells me all I really need to know about the situation. As I see it, some men should be judged by their friends; others, by their enemies.
● For some time now, I have regarded Chris Wallace, the son of uberliberal Mike Wallace, and the host of a Sunday morning news show on Fox, as less the objective journalist he pretends to be and more a partisan left-wing hack who would be more at home at CNN or even MSNBC.
Perhaps it was the fact that he so often had Karl Rove on the panel, allegedly acting as a counterbalance to the likes of Bob Woodward, Juan Williams or Mara Liasson, when everyone knows that Rove was more likely to have voted for Mrs. liar-Clinton than for Donald Trump, but probably settled for writing in Jeb Bush’s name.
The clincher to my suspicions was that the International Center for Journalists recently bestowed its award for Excellence in Journalism to Mr. Wallace, even though his journalistic activities seem to be limited to hosting a single hour on Sunday morning.
It could have been worse, though. It could have been the more-highly publicized Pulitzer Prize. But no matter if it’s an Oscar, an Emmy, a Grammy, a Golden Globe, a Nobel Peace Prize or any one of a dozen journalism awards, Hell will freeze over before a conservative ever gets to cart one home.
● David Boies, a very expensive, well-placed Washington lawyer, is up his nose in a scandal that should leave him disbarred and in jail.
In case his name escapes you, he led Al Gore’s campaign to set aside the 2000 presidential election. He also argued the same-sex marriage question before the Supreme Court. But he also was paid a great deal of money to represent Harvey Weinstein, and in that capacity hired ex-Mossad agents to intimidate or bribe victims and reporters not to divulge what they knew to the authorities.
Boies even tried to persuade one of his other clients -- the NY Times -- not to publish the facts. It appears that at least once in the past, he succeeded in those efforts. But in 2017, even the super shyster couldn’t work his usual magic.
If Weinstein goes to jail, but his lawyer doesn’t, justice will once again be ill-served, and will be seen as playing favorites.
● The Dumbocrats, a name that better suits them, are not even trying to come across as the loyal opposition, which is the traditional role of the minority party. They are merely a resistance group, larger in number than Antifa, NOW or the NAACP, but exactly the same when it comes to moral authority.
They are consistently resistant to the truth, morality and both the word and spirit of the Constitution. They demand power and authority, but they don’t even make an argument why they should be trusted to lead our nation. Instead, their argument comes down to “We’re not the other guys.”
Unfortunately, more often than not, that’s the very same argument made by most of those other guys who, allegedly, represent our side of the aisle.
● To those who incessantly claim, “We’re a nation of immigrants,” when arguing on behalf of so-called Dreamers and sanctuary cities and states, and against the building of Trump’s wall, subscriber John Kindseth parries with “We are a nation of citizens, not immigrants.”
Or, as Jim Stephens puts it: "The Left has turned the melting pot into a chamber pot."
● Although I like to think of myself as a strict constitutionalist, the fact is that the Constitution and I often part company after the first ten amendments, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights. I’m not saying that I disagree with all the others. After all, along the way, we got rid of slavery and the poll tax; limited the presidency to two terms; gave blacks and women the right to vote granted that didn’t work out as well as it should have, but that’s neither here nor there; and created the Electoral College.
On the other hand, thanks to those additional amendments, we have the income tax; the direct election of senators; suffrage for 18-year-old, non-tax paying, ignoramuses; and two separate amendments devoted solely to booze.
One can only be grateful that mere mortals didn’t get around to amending the 10 Commandments. Otherwise, I’m sure the amended tablets would include such prohibitions as Thou Shalt Not Jaywalk, Thou Shalt Not Litter, Thou Shalt Not Walk on the Grass, Thou Shalt Not Cross Against the Light and Thou Shalt Not Remove Those Little Tags from Thy Mattress.
● When one of my subscribers, a doctor, sent me a couple of funny pick-up lines, I asked him if even doctors have to resort to such shenanigans to attract women. He replied: “I found that it’s best not to tell them what I do for a living until later. I used to tell them that I worked for UPS. Helps to weed out the gold diggers.”
I replied: “I assume that even gold diggers can be nice people. After all, we all know a lot of men, including doctors, who will do just about anything for money. Why should it be regarded as immoral if some women marry for it? After all, passion and lust quite often fade with time; whereas money, wisely invested and spent prudently, can last a lifetime.”
● Finally, getting back to Roy Moore, it seems odd to me what a huge difference there is between a 32-year-old man and an 18-year-old woman, but I don’t think many people would find it odd or even unseemly if a 55-year-old man married a 41-year-old woman. In fact, some people might be surprised, especially if he was wealthy, that he didn’t marry someone a lot younger.
But that’s the way it is with age. It’s all relative. For instance, one of my subscribers who knew I was about to turn 78, let me know he had just turned 70. It occurred to me that when he was two, I was five times older than him. When he was four, I was only three times as old. When he was eight, I was only twice as old.
I let him know that at the rate he was catching up, I suspected he’d be older than me any day now.
Comments