“And all the kids
[Democrats; biased MSM] cheered! But I didn’t cheer. I
stood right up and started shouting. This isn’t what happened last
week! Have you all got amnesia? They just cheated us! This isn’t
fair!” – Kathy Bates as Annie Wilkes in “Misery” (1990)
Who among us would not agree that the
contentious exchanges between insider Hillary
Clinton and outsider Donald
Trump have not been a “misery” (for the rest of us)? In
different ways, the two candidates are a warped fun house mirror into
the American political character—or lack thereof. Unfairly
demonized in the press, Donald Trump's boorish playboy ways can
easily be excused as red blooded carnal excess. Certainly, the
bullish erector of phallic skyscrapers is no boy scout. So what? In
presidential politics—as in real estate—neither arena is for the
faint of heart.
Unless you're as newly delicate as
Michelle Obama now claims to be. Suddenly she's a retiring flower,
recoiling from the horror (the horror!) of Donald Trump's taped
jocular language! One imagines many put-upon butlers rolling their
eyes from coddling
madame in her rarefied White House bubble. Which of her serfs
fetched the industrial-sized smelling salts from 5-star chefs in the
White House's kitchens to revive her?
Ah, designer
duds Michelle. Apparently, her sensibilities are so much finer
than ours; her troubles so much more severe! How she must have
steeled her nerves to absorb Mr. Trump's locker room banter. Of
course, it's just decade old words from a private conversation. But
Michelle wants the Thought
Police dispatched forthwith! How dare The Donald make such
coarse noises! Michelle's rocked: 'shaken to her
core.' Why is it that Mr. Trump's language staggers her, but not
Bill's immoral sexual escapades, or Hillary's amoral lies or
Server-gate
criminality?
Consider the Obama daughters, Malia is
18 and Sasha is 15. Most mothers of daughters—especially gullible
teenagers—wouldn't want a man of Bill
Clinton's predatory history skulking around the White House.
After all, Mr. Clinton did much more than simply talk: he acted out.
For example, during his presidency he turned the Oval Office into a
boudoir for adulterous trysts with Monica Lewinsky; then an
impressionable intern just a few years older than the Obama girls.
How vigorously the MSM defended Bill
Clinton's numerous affairs, his “bimbo
eruptions” in the '90s as “just sex.” (Specifically,
Hillary demonized Ms. Lewinsky as “a narcissistic
loony tune” until irrefutable DNA evidence emerged from her
blue dress.) Furthermore, during Mr. Clinton's impeachment
proceedings how stridently the press argued that his private life had
absolutely nothing to do with his ability to govern. And
foolishly the public bought that real whopper of a fish story. Yet,
in “Crisis of Character,” former Secret Service agent Gary Byrne
directly observed:
“I witnessed firsthand the Clintons'
personal and professional dysfunction: So consumed were they by
scandal, so intent on destroying their real or imagined enemies, that
governing became an
afterthought.”
In retrospect of those scandal-plagued
years Mr. Byrne's statement rings true. In the final analysis, has
any politician been more directed by the orientation of his zipper
than Bill Clinton?
So it is with crooked Hillary's
lawbreaking, her greed and titanic lies. Once again, same as before,
the legacy media is promoting Clintonian corruption as “no big
deal.” This time instead of Bill's hanky-panky, it's Hillary's
“damned
emails.” Or is it lying
repeatedly to Congress, the FBI and the American people? Or
perhaps it's the pay for play influence peddling scandal via the
charitable
sham that is the Clinton Family Foundation? Is it really a good
idea to put the most powerful country in the world in the hands of a
person with no
discernible moral code? What does Hillary Clinton really
stand for besides her own lawlessness, recklessness and
relentless self-promotion?
Any U.S. president to the electorate is
very much like a de facto marriage. As an analogy, why would any
sane person elect (or marry) “a partner” who cannot be trusted to
act in the U.S.'s best interests? That's the existential question
that has led to failed
Obama's reelection—and threatens to derail the country entirely
if Hillary Clinton replaces him. Facts are often not pretty things.
From this two-faced Democratic triumvirate—if any of their lips
were moving—when didn't they lie about something? That overarching
dynamic has defined both Bill Clinton's and Barack
Obama's presidencies. Why would Hillary's be any different?
The scandals change—but the lying doesn't. That's what's truly
inexcusable here. Beyond that, why is the public so conditioned to
accept the big lie (after the dastardly deed)? More to the point:
what insanity compels them to keep pulling the polling levers for
these wrongdoers anyway? Is this the real-life mass amnesia Annie
Wilkes complains about?
Why are Democrats
forgiven everything while Republicans
are given no latitude whatsoever? Still, no matter what the
propagandist
media reports, there remains a vast difference between Trump's
words and Bill and Hillary's misdeeds. Annie's right: fair is fair.
Only the deluded or the dishonest believe that either scandal
embroiled Clinton is fit for office. And why should triviality
automatically disqualify Mr. Trump? Certainly not his vocalizations:
as unsubstantial as the hot air coming from his mindless detractors.
Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976
No comments:
Post a Comment