Archive for the ‘2016 elections’ category

CNN: It Is Illegal For Voters To Possess Wikileaks Material

October 17, 2016

CNN: It Is Illegal For Voters To Possess Wikileaks Material, Jonathan Turley Blog, Jonathan Turley, October 17, 2016

There was an interesting segment on CNN last week where CNN anchor Chris Cuomo reminds viewers for it is illegal for them to “possess” Wikileaks material and that, as a result, they will have to rely on the media to tell them what is in these documents. The legal assertion is dubious, but the political implications are even more concerning. Polls show that many voters view the media as biased and this is a particularly strong view among supporters of Donald Trump who view CNN and other networks openly supporting Clinton or attacking Trump. More importantly, the mainstream media has reported relatively little from the Wikileaks material and has not delved deeply into their implications, including embarrassing emails showing reporters coordinating with the Clinton campaign and supposedly “neutral” media figures like Donna Brazile, formerly with CNN, allegedly slipping advance question material to Hillary Clinton. The credibility of the media is at an all-time low and most voters hardly feel comfortable with this material being reported second-hand or interpreted by the mainstream media. So is it really illegal for voters to have this material?


Cuomo was about to discuss embarrassing emails from Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s inbox but he stopped to remind viewers “remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents,” Cuomo says. “It’s different for the media, so everything you’re learning about this, you’re learning from us.”

First, the criticism of Cuomo as trying to keep people from reading this material (which is damaging to Clinton) seems a bit far-fetched. It is more likely that he felt obligated to disclose the uncertain legal status of such documents. However, he overstated the case in my view.

It is true that possession of stolen items is a crime and documents can be treated as stolen items. However, this material has already been released and it is doubtful that downloading widely available material (particularly in a matter of great public interest) would be seen as prosecutable possession. Whoever had original possession has released them widely to the public like throwing copies out a window by the thousands. Whatever crime is alleged, it will be directed at the original hacker and not the public. Just downloading and reading public available material is unlikely to be viewed as a crime unless you use material to steal someone’s identity or commit a collateral crime. Otherwise, possession of the Pentagon Papers would lead to the arrest of tens of thousands of citizens.

More importantly, most people do not downloading [Sic] these documents but read them on line and there is no actionable crime in reading the material from any of the myriad of sites featuring the Wikileaks documents.

Cuomo is right about status of reporters being clear and protected. In Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the media is allowed to publish material that may have been obtained illegally and declared a law unconstitutional to the extent that it would make such media use unlawful. The Court reaffirmed the need to protect the first amendment interests and took particular note of the fact that the material was a matter of public interest:

“The Court holds that all of these statutes violate the First Amendment insofar as the illegally intercepted conversation touches upon a matter of “public concern,” an amorphous concept that the Court does not even attempt to define. But the Court’s decision diminishes, rather than enhances, the purposes of the First Amendment, thereby chilling the speech of the millions of Americans who rely upon electronic technology to communicate each day.”

While technical arguments could be made that downloading is a form of possession of stolen documents, it is a dubious argument when the material is widely distributed and a matter of public interest. The weight of the existing case law militates heavily against the legal threat described on CNN.

 

Man the Vote: It’s the Least You Can Do for Your Country

October 16, 2016

Man the Vote: It’s the Least You Can Do for Your Country, American Thinker, Clarice Feldman, October 16, 2016

Earlier this week Nate Silver reported that if only men voted Trump’s already won. That is, to say women are voting in greater percentages for Clinton and men for Trump. Here’s his astonishing chart:

manvote

“If men were the only voters, conversely, we’d have to subtract 10 points from Clinton’s current margin in every state — which would yield an awfully red map. Trump would win everything that could plausibly be called a swing state, with Clinton hanging on only to the West Coast, parts of the Northeast, Illinois and New Mexico. That would yield 350 electoral votes for Trump to 188 for Clinton:”

This may well explain the Clinton effort to schlep before the cameras every woman who is willing to accuse Trump of making advances toward them no matter how flimsy, tardy and improbable the charge.

Hillary who asserted on her website HillaryClinton.com that women who claimed to have survived sexual assault “have the right to be believed” scrubbed that as Trump reminded voters of her husband’s depredations against women.

Christina Jeffrey notes in correspondence how the term “sexual assault” has been stretched beyond rational meaning when it suits the left to do so:

Our side has done a good job of pointing out what real sexual assault looks like, so just for fun, I think I’ll take up what the PC crowd wants to fight. Fighting rape and real sexual assault in the inner cities and by predatory older males against middle and high school students is difficult and the statistics tend to stigmatize African-American males. So the P.C. crowd goes after the kind of “sexual assault” that is often quite benign and part of semi-modern/traditional courtship rituals.

Political Correctness has invaded every aspect of our lives; but the area where it is now being felt most intensely is in the sexual realm. While pushing “Kiddie Porn” to K-4 students as “health education,” and making statements in the press like this one: “girls have to get used to seeing male genitalia” as a defense for transgendered locker rooms” (paraphrased, but not inaccurately), the PC education crowd insists that college women are constantly at risk of “sexual assault.” If you properly define “sexual assault” as rape or intent to rape, college campuses are actually among the safest places for women of college age. If that were not true, no one would pay $50,000 or more to let their precious daughters attend college. And those of us who teach on these campuses, and are close to our students, would be aware that our women students were being constantly “assaulted.”

When it suits them to do so they are perfectly willing to claim that a hug or kiss is a “sexual assault” in the absence of a notarized statement of consent.

My Facebook friend Lynn Chu apparently concurs with this analysis,” The invention of this term, and its misuse, was a deliberate propaganda effort to blur harmless romance including clumsiness or episodes gone awry often while both parties at colleges are drunk, with actual rape for which a prosecution and conviction would lie. The courts know how to do this, and universities and colleges do not. ”

Now they are trying to use such an expansion to cover dubious claims, often contested by other witnesses, about Trump.

We’ve seen such sexual propaganda before in the Duke and University of Virginia “rape” cases.

The young women whom these charges are designed to influence are astonishingly ill-informed as this tape of some of them who are for repealing women’s suffrage under the misguided belief that it means “suffering” or something reveals:

That some Republican politicians have backed off supporting Trump because of these allegations — again underscoring my contempt for the white-togaed ninnies who also rankle Katie Hopkins at the Daily Mail:

Fearful for their own political future, deserting Republican politicians have spoken of not being able to look their daughter in the eye and still back Trump, despite having made him the party’s nominee.

Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House, said ‘women should be championed or revered, not objectified’.

For the record, I never want to be either of those two things. I am not a charitable cause. Being championed makes me sound incapable. And I certainly don’t want to be revered — that’s one step away from being embalmed in holy oil.

John McCain has jumped ship, too. Trying to swim away from the candidate nominated by his party, who has been entirely consistent in his campaign in saying things more sensitive souls find hard to hear.

Predictably the founder of Everyday Sexism was wheeled out from her feminist lair to reinforce Trump as a monster, applauded wildly by young women who need a trigger warning before they read Watership Down.”

She concludes the charges are “no worse than the Hillary-voting, smug rape-culture rappers who like to hang out at the Obama White House while peddling vile lyrics to kids that would make Trump blush.”

Michelle Obama claims that the offending Trump locker room boasts to Billy Bush which NBC sat on until now “shocked her to her core”. Perplexingly, she has also said she considers the half dressed, obscene singer and dancer Beyoncé a “role model” for her daughters.

Nor have I forgotten the warm welcome women carrying giant dildos with the motto “cocks not glocks” received at the White House.

Michelle’s husband’s display of his erect manhood before a planeload of women reporters none of who to my knowledge reported the incident and who now are getting all Victorian further suggests sexual vulgarity is not unknown to the Obama family.

Back in 2008, at least a portion of the below video of Obama flaunting himself did appear on CNN’s website.

However, no media coverage made any reference to lewdness. There was just reference to the unremarkable news that Obama was… wearing jeans.

CNN captioned the clip with only what follows, which Michelle Malkin and Allahpundit took note of at the time:

“Obama in jeans: Sen. Barack Obama surprises the press corps by wearing jeans.”

It appears that the portion of the video that would have created a firestorm had been circumsized by CNN editors.”

I haven’t forgotten either when the left talked about Paula Jones as “trailer trash” when she successfully charged Hillary’s husband with real sexual misconduct or when Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin were called “c*nt” without press or Democratic rebuke. Everything, it seems, is relative. Women of the left are to be treated with care. Those in opposition are disrespected every possible way.

As tawdry as all this is, it has to be answered so if you are offended, I apologize, but there’s no sheltering behind good taste when mud is being slung by people whose record for sleaze and aggression is boundless.

I’m in full agreement with Dr. Hurd:

Hypocrisy is a painful thing to watch. It’s beyond laughable to watch the biased media culture and all the Hillary-supporting politicians go Puritanical when it comes to sex. The morally righteous never had this problem with Bill Clinton, and they don’t have a problem with Hillary’s mind-numbing evasiveness when it comes to partnering with one of the highest profile sexual predators of all time.

Hypocrisy is a symptom. People are hypocrites only when they’re evading something big. What the Clintonistas try to hide is they care about only one thing: Power. They don’t care about respect for women, because to respect women you first have to respect individuality. Their entire lives have been based on the acquisition of political power and the millions of dollars they receive when that power is peddled and sold on the government market. They care nothing for the preservation of individual rights. They care only about rewarding their donors and advancing their socialist causes.

As for career politicians like John McCain and Paul Ryan, why should anyone care what they think? They are nothing more than managers for the collapsing imperial state. Their squandering of America’s Constitution and fiscal future for the sake of their own power trips makes Trump’s sleazy comments seem like nothing in comparison.

[snip]

If you want to make the case for NOT voting for Donald Trump, you have to get real. This tape is the least plausible reason you can find. And if you’re not voting for Donald Trump, be prepared to defend why you did your part to let an actual criminal and lawbreaker — Hillary Clinton — become president.

The issue is more than hypocrisy; it is allowing such stupid distractions to keep us from focusing on the real threats to our lives. Wretchard T Cat (Richard Fernandez) is on target:

The most astonishing thing is that nobody’s hiding anything any more. The Russians are openly stealing information; Wikileaks is blatantly distributing it. America’s enemies are opening fire, banners flying at American warships. The Obama administration is frankly buying the silence or quiescence of enemies with public money. At the same time he’s got so many secret wars going on you can lose count. The Clintons have got a cash drop set up in the middle of Main Street.

The press is openly rooting for Hillary. Heck the UN wants her to win and isn’t shy about saying so. ISIS is taking video, video of atrocities. It’s like they don’t care. It’s like nobody cares. All pretense, all decorum are gone.

The only people who care are the GOP leaders who are shocked, shocked that candidates are using bad language. But they’re like Temperance League biddies in saloon with a fight going on.

The whole spectacle is taking place in plain view and the most miraculous thing is that everyone pretends not to notice and keep drinking even while they dodge flying chairs and spittoons.

The show must go on. Whatever happens the show must go on.

David Gelernter argues we’ve become emasculated by the left in an article which I urge you all to read in its entirety, Here’s the money shot for his argument that Hillary must be stopped:

Trump voters have noticed that, not just over Mr. Obama’s term but in recent decades, their own opinions have grown increasingly irrelevant. It’s something you feel, like encroaching numbness. Since when has the American public endorsed affirmative action? Yet it’s a major factor in the lives of every student and many workers. Since when did we decide that men and women are interchangeable in hand-to-hand combat on the front lines? Why do we insist on women in combat but not in the NFL? Because we take football seriously. That’s no joke; it’s the sad truth.

Did we invite the federal bureaucracy to take charge of school bathrooms? I guess I missed that meeting. The schools are corrupt and the universities rotten to the core, and everyone has known it since the 1980s. But the Democrats are owned by the teachers unions, and Republicans have made only small-scale corrections to a system that needs to be ripped out and carefully disposed of, like poison ivy.

The Emasculated Voter to whom no one pays any attention is the story of modern democracy. Instead of putting voters in charge, we tell them they’re in charge, and it’s just as good. That’s the Establishment’s great discovery in the Lois Lerner Age.

Enter Mr. Trump. People say he became a star because he just happened to mention an issue that just happened to catch on. But immigration is the central issue of our time. Trump voters zeroed in because they saw what most intellectuals didn’t. What is our nation and what will it be? Will America go on being America or turn into something else? That depends on who lives here — especially given our schools, which no longer condescend to teach Americanism.

To reclaim your country and your virility — assuming Nate Silver is right — take all your male friends to the polls. It’s the least you can do for your country.

 

Donald Trump: “A moment of reckoning.”

October 16, 2016

Donald Trump: “A moment of reckoning.” Via YouTube, October 13, 2016

(The full speech is available here. –DM)

 

Memory Lane, With a Suggestion for Trump and a Cartoon

October 14, 2016

Memory Lane, With a Suggestion for Trump and a Cartoon, Power Line, John Hinderaker, October 14, 2016

It is interesting to see the news dominated by allegations of sexual boorishness by Donald Trump. Some of us are old enough to remember when Bill Clinton was disbarred and fined $90,000 because he committed perjury in a sexual harassment case. In those days, of course, Democrats insisted all of that was “just about sex,” and demanded that we stop talking about it. Same with the Lolita Express, I guess.

That was then and this is now. Or, more pertinently, that was a Democrat and this is a Republican. So here is an idea: Trump should point out that he was a Democrat when the boorishness in question happened (or didn’t), and therefore it is dirty pool to mention those events. Or else he can say that since then he has reformed his behavior, as well as his politics.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton appears to have stopped campaigning. She has no public appearances scheduled prior to the final presidential debate. Apparently she is happy to let the press campaign for her. Michael Ramirez comments; click to enlarge:

clintonmedia

Washington Post: Hillary for President, Benghazi ‘No Scandal at All’

October 13, 2016

Washington Post: Hillary for President, Benghazi ‘No Scandal at All’, Breitbart, Joel B. Pollak, October 3, 2016

wapo

The Washington Post endorsed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for president on Thursday. That was predictable. What was less predictable was the incredibly weak, and misleading, case the Post editorial board attempted to make as it argued that she is not the lesser of two evils, but will make an “excellent” president.

The Post cannot highlight Clinton’s achievements. Instead, it re-casts her many failures as “a series of learning experiences that have prepared her well” for the Oval Office.

For example, it excuses Clinton’s role in the ill-fated Russian “reset” by pretending that no one could have predicted the result: “When Ms. Clinton launched the policy, Dmitry Medvedev, not Vladimir Putin, was president of Russia, and nobody — maybe not even Mr. Putin — knew how things would play out.” Everyone knew that Putin controlled the real power behind Medvedev, and the Russians immediately took advantage of Clinton’s weakness, pushing back U.S. missile defenses.

The Post cites Clinton’s “executive experience” as Secretary of State, but cites no actual accomplishments. The word “Iran” does not appear once in the editorial.

Most laughable of all, the Post describes the Benghazi terror attack as a “hyper-investigated” controversy that “proved to be no scandal at all.” Never mind Clinton’s dereliction of duty on the night of Sep. 11; never mind her refusal to provide increased security beforehand; never mind her lies about a YouTube video; never mind the intimidation of witnesses when investigations began; never mind the emails she destroyed, while under subpoena.

About those emails: the Post brushes aside the controversy. “Her use of a private email server as secretary was a mistake, not a high crime; but her slow, grudging explanations of it worsened the damage and insulted the voters.” The Post glosses over her continued lies, and omits her mis-handling of classified information.

The Post‘s nod is not an endorsement, but just the latest cover-up.

“Stronger Together” Under Hillary Clinton? I Don’t Think So

October 13, 2016

“Stronger Together” Under Hillary Clinton? I Don’t Think So, Power LinePaul Mirengoff, October 13, 2016

“Stronger together” is Hillary Clinton’s campaign slogan. Like most of what comes out of Hillary’s mouth, it is insincere. Clinton has written off approximately 20 percent of the American public as deplorable and irredeemable. Her top aides express contempt for traditional Catholics, evangelicals, and Jews who support Israel.

But let’s look beyond the inevitable Clinton insincerity and ask whether, under a Hillary presidency, America would be stronger together.

We must first ask what makes America strong. I believe there are four main elements.

First, America must have a strong military. Second, America must have a shared belief that it is great, and not just “because it is good.” Third, America must hold its citizens to high standards of personal conduct. Fourth, America must be a meritocracy and must judge merit without regard to extraneous factors such as race, ethnicity, and gender.

Would an America unified behind Hillary Clinton’s left-liberal leadership and vision satisfy these requirement? I don’t think so.

First, America’s military is in steep decline under President Obama. Marco Rubio laid out some of the sorry details here. In all likelihood, this decline would continue under Hillary Clinton.

Second, Hillary Clinton’s stated position on American greatness is that “America is great because it is good.” Coming from Hillary, this tired phrase is code for the claim that American greatness depends on policies such as open borders and liberal largess.

The real left-liberal view of American greatness is even more disturbing. It holds that America is anything but great. Political leaders like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have manifested this view by running around the world apologizing for American foreign policy.

Meanwhile, under the guidance of left-liberal intellectuals, the rejection of American greatness has become the organizing principle behind a new way of teaching of American history to top high schools students.

Can America be great if it teaches students that it isn’t even good?

Third, Hillary Clinton and her fellow left-liberals want to hold Americans to lower standards of personal conduct than those currently embodied in the criminal law. They want to release criminals, set lower sentences, and decriminalize certain conduct. They also want to impose substantially less discipline on disruptive students.

Their main argument in favor of these measures is that certain segments of the population bear a “disproportionate” burden as a result of current standards. Thus, they want standards lowered because some groups have difficulty adhering to them. Such laxity won’t make America stronger; it will weaken us.

Finally, Hillary Clinton and her fellow left-liberals oppose a meritocracy in which merit is judged without regard to factors like race, ethnicity, and gender. Instead, they favor a spoils system in which a share of rewards — e.g. admission to college and accession to jobs — is set aside for African-Americans, Latinos, and (where necessary) females. This system produces a lowering of quality and a sense of entitlement antithetical to a strong America.

For these reasons, America won’t be “stronger together” under Hillary Clinton’s leadership. Rather, it will be stronger if those who oppose the left-liberal policies and viewpoints described above maintain a status apart. That way, we can uphold a vision of what a strong America truly is like and, as Hillary’s America begins to unravel, perhaps persuade a critical mass of Americans of the soundness of our vision.

Trump Tapes and Clinton Morals

October 12, 2016

Trump Tapes and Clinton Morals, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, October 12, 2016

billandhill

 

“Even presidents have private lives. It is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives and get on with our national life,” President Clinton whined.

It was the late hot summer of ’98 and the man dubbed “Slick Willie,” the nickname he claimed to dislike the most, was facing the prospect of becoming the first president to be successfully impeached.

These days the Clintons seem to have changed their minds about whether presidents should have private lives that ought to be pried into. So did the media, which back then insisted that it was “just sex,” but has belatedly decided that a president’s sexual conduct ought to be subject to scrutiny after all. But then again double standards are its stock in trade. They always have been.

Bill’s bedroom is off limits, but Trump’s isn’t.

Unable to run on national security, the Clintons want to run on the same subject that they once eschewed. And they want Trump’s sex life to be up for public debate, but not Bill’s.

The media has joined in this chorus which insists that when Trump mentions Bill’s rapes, he’s climbing into the “gutter,” but that when Hillary references Trump’s tape, she’s taking the “high ground.”

How can the same subject be both the gutter and the high ground? It’s either one or the other.

Meanwhile the clock to the next Islamic terror attack goes on ticking.

Back in ‘98 Bill Clinton complained, “Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long, and I take my responsibility for my part in all of this. That is all I can do. Now it is time, in fact, it is past time to move on,” he added. “We have important work to do — real opportunities to seize, real problems to solve, real security matters to face.”

These days the Clintons don’t want to move on. They want to discuss the Trump tape as often as possible. Why? Because they don’t want to deal with what the Clintons did move on to.

Hours before 9/11, Bill Clinton was giving a speech in Australia and boasted that he could have gotten Osama bin Laden, but chose not to because of the collateral damage in Kandahar.

“I nearly got him. And I could have killed him,” he admitted.

The planned airstrike had been vetoed in late December ’98. Congress had postponed debate on impeachment a few days earlier to allow Bill Clinton to bomb Iraq in peace.  The raids accomplished little except to distract from the impeachment debate and from his refusal to take out Osama bin Laden.

Americans watching every salacious detail of the Lewinsky affair laid out for them were focusing on the wrong thing. In early August, Al Qaeda had carried out the bombings of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. This attack was a major signpost on the road to 9/11. But like the World Trade Center bombing and the Benghazi attack, the Clintons had miserably failed in the face of Islamic terror.

Back in ’98, Bill Clinton insisted that his sex life didn’t matter compared to “security matters.” Now the Clintons would like us to believe that Trump’s sex life matters more than ISIS.

The Clintons have cost the lives of thousands of Americans and the lives of hundreds of thousands of people around the world with their approach to “security matters.” The real question may be how many more lives, especially American lives, their way of doing things will cost.

Hillary Clinton is determined to dump massive numbers of Syrian Muslim migrants in this country despite the terror risk. She has doubled down on the destructive policies that led to the rise of ISIS.

It’s not hard to imagine a speech by yet another President Clinton discussing how she could have gotten the man behind the next Islamic terror threat, but chose not to do anything.

The question is whether voters can take the time to look past the flood of salacious material in the media. Europe has seen a wave of major attacks. It’s only a matter of time until an attack on a larger scale than the Pulse massacre in Florida, in which an ISIS Muslim killed 49 people, takes place.

Despite their ugly past, the Clintons have decided to run for a third term on their record as moral paragons. Hillary’s Role Models ad urged voters to protect their children from the bad influence of a President Trump. “Our children are watching. What example will we set for them?” it asked.

At the second debate, she also warned that our children were watching.

Hillary’s concern for what children watch politicians do on television is a little belated. It wasn’t that long ago that parents were sending their children out of the room when Bill’s affairs were being discussed.

And these days they are again.

Hillary would have as much luck running on her honesty or foreign policy track record as on being a role model for the children. Having the Clintons as role models for children should be considered child abuse.

But Bill Clinton was just doing his best JFK impression. And compared to the antics of the Kennedys, he looked like a saint. At least we don’t know of a single woman whom he actually murdered.

And here was Ted Kennedy at his best. “The six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound Kennedy grabs the five-foot-three, 103-pound waitress and throws her on the table. She lands on her back, scattering crystal, plates and cutlery and the lit candles. Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then picks her up from the table and throws her on Dodd, who is sprawled in a chair… Kennedy jumps on top and begins rubbing his genital area against hers.”

This wasn’t talk on a tape. It happened. And Ted went on to be praised as a champion of women’s rights.

It’s a little bizarre that at this late date, the Democrats have decided to become the guardians of our moral values. Or that the Clintons of all people would try to fill those shoes.

But discussing Trump’s tape is a nice distraction from addressing the role that Hillary’s support for the Arab Spring played in the rise of ISIS, the mass kidnapping and rape of Yazidi women by Islamic Jihadists, the mass sexual assaults against women in Germany perpetrated by Muslim refugees, including those from Hillary’s Arab Spring, and the men and women who died here on September 11.

Back in ’98, Bill Clinton claimed that his personal life had to be off limits so that he could protect our national life. He got what he wanted and he failed to protect our national life. Having abandoned any sense of responsibility to our national life, the Clintons want to talk about the values of personal life.

But if voters want paragons of morality in personal life, why would they turn to the Clintons? And if they want someone to protect the national life, why would they turn to the Clintons?

If they want a superpredator who waged a private war on women, they have the Clintons. And if they want someone who will let the next 9/11 happen, they also have the Clintons.

Gingrich on the media’s deliberate effort to destroy Trump

October 12, 2016

Gingrich on the media’s deliberate effort to destroy Trump, Fox News via YouTube, October 11, 2016

(Gingrich chimes in at approximately 4 minutes and 16 seconds into the video. — DM)

Feminists Blazed The Trail For Donald Trump’s Vulgarity

October 12, 2016

Feminists Blazed The Trail For Donald Trump’s Vulgarity, The Federalist, October 12, 2016

(Perhaps interestingly, The Federalist seems to post more articles of the Never Trump genre than anything approaching Pro Trump articles. — DM

 

trump-billy-bush-998x754

 

Smut in service to a good cause is fine with the great and the good. All the handwringing and shrieks of distaste over Trump’s swaggering has nothing to do with the sorry content of his bluff. It is simply a minesweeper to clear a path for the looming obscenity of another Clinton presidency.

**************************

We are no longer drifting Left. The polls tell us we are hurtling hard-left on class warfare rhetoric and its handmaiden, gender demagoguery. Meanwhile, networks and pundits are in a frenzy to tut-tut over Donald Trump’s jock-strap bravado.

You want locker room talk? Forget Trump. His old-style cisgender crudity is as outdated as a codpiece. On a bus that fateful day 11 years back, he did not know that “pussy” was not getting grabbed any more. No, the grabbing had been going the other way for a full decade by then.

Dirty talk acquired cultural cachet some 20 years ago when it wrapped itself in the banner of female empowerment. Eve Ensler updated a seamy genre with “The Vagina Monologues” and got a Tony Award for it. Her vulgarity won an Obie for Off-Broadway excellence in 1996 and subsequently earned her a Guggenheim Fellowship.

Ensler repackaged soft-core discourse and marketed it as an achievement for women’s voices. Girly smut emerged as a tool to combat violence against women. A supposed kick in the groin to misogynistic oppression, “The Monologues” were hailed in the New York Times as a significant piece of political theatre. The format consisted of a series of soliloquys, each with its own thematic caption. A few samples: “Reclaiming Cunt”;  “The Woman Who Loved to Make Vaginas Happy”; “My Angry Vagina”; and my very favorite: “The Little Coochie Snorker That Could.”

Trump’s attention was directed to grown women. Ensler, by contrast, was not above making copy out of an interview with a six-year-old girl. She asked the child to describe her vagina—sight and smell—and to tell what it might say if it could talk. (Simply explaining that makes me wince more than anything on the Trump tapes.)

Ensler acquired standing as a feminist heroine with a desire to bring “a culture of vaginas” into the light: “. . . to speak of them out loud, to speak of their hunger and pain and loneliness and humour, to make them visible.” Her eulogizing runs along anthropomorphized lines like this: “The heart is capable of sacrifice. So is the vagina.”

The Vaginas Are Still Talking

But this is old news now, yes? No, unhappily, it is not. “The Monologues” endure. Each year brings a new version, addressing the latest issue on which vaginas have something to say. (2004 featured an all-transgender cast, each chattering vagina played by an altered male. Ventriloquism sells.) Ensler’s magnum opus remains a staple in popular productions by amateur actors in local colleges and community centers.

Anywhere that men gather is a mission territory for evangelists of the vagina. This past May, after a run in several women’s prisons, it was time to bring the act to two men’s prisons. Quartz, an online venture of Atlantic Media, publisher of The Atlantic, covered the event at Queensboro Correctional Facility in Long Island City. The article opens:

‘My vagina is angry!’ a woman’s voice loudly echoed through a large gym at a minimum security prison in Queens, New York. Minutes later, the gasping and moaning of an imitated orgasm filled the space, accompanied by the loud, uncomfortable laughter and knee slapping of the men in the audience.

To prepare inmates to re-enter society, the productions all-female cast, including two former female prisoners, held forth on sexual pleasure and sexual violence:

They heard detailed descriptions of the female anatomy, of visiting the gynecologist’s office, and of being abused.

The men laughed, throwing their heads back when they heard actors unabashedly spitting out descriptions of vaginas: ‘New Jersey twat,’ ‘split knish,’ ‘poonani,’ or when they saw them mime examining their private parts in a mirror. They shook their heads in disbelief when hearing about genital mutilation of young girls. Every once in a while a guard’s walkie-talkie would go off, reminding everyone of their place.

Smut in service to a good cause is fine with the great and the good. All the handwringing and shrieks of distaste over Trump’s swaggering has nothing to do with the sorry content of his bluff. It is simply a minesweeper to clear a path for the looming obscenity of another Clinton presidency.

Clinton’s ‘foreign intervention’ hypocrisy

October 11, 2016

Clinton’s ‘foreign intervention’ hypocrisy, Israel Hayom, Ruthie Blum, October 11, 2016

During the second U.S. presidential debate on Sunday night at Washington University in St. Louis, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton did her best to sidestep the issue of the tens of thousands of emails she deleted from her private server.

This she tried to accomplish by urging listeners to”fact-check” on her web site.

But then, co-moderator Martha Raddatz asked a question — posed by a social media user — surrounding alleged excerpts, released by WikiLeaks, from her exorbitantly paid speeches. In one such address to Wall Street bigwigs, Clinton purportedly said to the hosts she pretends in public to revile, “You need both a public and private position on certain issues.”

Is it okay, Raddatz asked on behalf of the person who had submitted the question, “for politicians to be two-faced?”

Clinton’s response was to compare her double-dealings with America’s 16th president — or at least to Steven Spielberg’s rendition of Abraham Lincoln in the Oscar-winning film.

“I was making the point that it is hard, sometimes, to get the Congress to do what you want to do,” she said. “And you have to keep working at it. And, yes, President Lincoln, [in] trying to convince some people … used some arguments; convincing other people, he used other arguments. That was a great … display of presidential leadership.”

This analogy was so ridiculous that even Hillary knew she had better squirm her way out of it. “But, you know, let’s talk about what’s really going on here, Martha,” she said, self-correcting and diverting attention to her Republican rival. “Because our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian government, are directing the attacks — the hacking of American accounts — to influence our election.”

Indeed, she declared, “We have never in the history of our country been in a situation where an adversary, a foreign power, is working so hard to influence the outcome of the election, and … they’re not doing it to get me elected. They are doing it to try to influence the election for Donald Trump.”

One could almost hear Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei laughing out loud at this assertion. Why in the world would they want to throw a wrench into the good thing they have going with America in a state of weakness? What could possibly possess them to wish to rock the boat? Iran is getting billions of dollars in cash and renewed business deals; Russia is starting to realize its dream of becoming a superpower again. Furthermore, with a Clinton White House, radical Islamists would have an easy time entering the U.S. — as “refugees” — to wreak havoc on the “Great Satan.”

Now, Hillary may be no dummy, but she is a great hypocrite. This was evident during the debate not only in her assault on Trump’s escapades with women and wealth. Even more striking was her shock and awe about foreign powers attempting to influence the upcoming U.S. election.

As a former member of the Obama administration, she ought to know a thing or two about such a practice. Yes, her pals in the White House and State Department invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a concerted campaign to prevent the re-election last year of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. They did this by funneling “grant” money to a far-Left, pro-Palestinian nongovernmental organization called OneVoice.

A Senate investigation revealed that the activities and political leanings of OneVoice were well known. In addition, as the Washington Free Beacon reported in July, a senior State Department official admitted that he had deleted several email exchanges pertaining to the administration’s coordination with OneVoice, whose grants and oversight were done by then-U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem Michael Ratney.

“It is completely unacceptable that U.S. taxpayer dollars were used to build a political campaign infrastructure that was deployed … against the leader of our closest ally in the Middle East,” said Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who chaired the subcommittee that investigated the fiasco.

Not to worry, though. Private money from Hillary’s billionaire friends, such as the virulently anti-Israel George Soros, was also spent on the effort to keep Netanyahu from winning the election. Another organization, established specifically for this purpose, was V15 (victory 2015).

Founded by an Israeli named Nimrod Dweck, V15 hired U.S. consulting firm “270 Strategies” — comprised, as the website World Net Daily reported — mostly of former top staffers for Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. Dweck told World Net Daily that it was OneVoice that persuaded him to hire the firm.

The attempt to topple Netanyahu by bolstering the Israeli Left failed abysmally, much to the dismay of Obama and cohort Democrats. But theirs was a blatant example of foreign intervention in the election process of another country.

I guess Hillary thinks that’s okay, as long as it’s her team running the interference.