The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Friday, October 14, 2016


Okay, it does looks like the Donald is a woman's equivalent of a Bill Clinton mini-me. Unlike Bill, he hasn't yet been accused of rape, but with remarkably convenient timing (for the Democrats), women have begun to come out of the woodwork to accuse him of "groping" and other overt sexual approaches that occurred 10, 20 or even 30 years ago. I'm fairly certain the accusations are true or at least based in truth, but their timing is fascinating. Any of these woman could have come forward during the GOP primary. Any one of the news organizations that have tapes of the Donald behaving badly could have released them during the primaries. That would have ensured that he would not get the nomination. But they didn't, did they? Interesting.

It's becoming increasingly clear based on leaked Clinton campaign emails that the Clinton machine wanted Trump to prevail in the primary, assuming he'd be the easiest candidate to beat. I'm beginning to think that's why he surprisingly got so much play in the mainstream media (to the exclusion of other more competent GOP candidates), why the main stream media didn't really go after him, and why his sexual escapades weren't news then (but are big news now). Was there direct collusion between the Clinton campaign and main stream media outlets? Maybe. But that really wasn't necessary. Clinton's hamsters in the media knew what had to be done and they did it—lots of happy airtime for Trump during primary season; no explosive revelations; a little finger shaking but otherwise relatively benign (for a Republican) treatment—until the presidential campaign itself began. Then, like a light switch, every word Trump uttered was dissected as "racist," "bigoted" or setting up the coup de grace already planned for later months in the campaign—a "misogynist." Trump's jokes were characterized as malicious intent. He exemplified "the war on women" (funny, I never have heard Bill Clinton referred to in that manner).

And Hillary? The media went dark on Hillary. No media investigations of wrong doing. No media commentary on the validity of the DoJ investigation of Clinton's wrong doing. Little mention of leaked emails. Minimization of any obvious wrong doing that could be shoved under the table. No retrospective investigation of any past scandals—that's reserved only for the GOP candidate, whoever he or she is. Note that Trump's "pussy" video has been played thousands upon thousands of times and is still in regular rotation. Hillary's deplorable comments about "deplorables"—not so much.

Life isn't fair. I know that. But every time you hear a media hamster or a Democrat get the vapors because Donald Trump walked into a room of naked beauty contestants or allegedly groped one or more women, ask yourself this—why wasn't this information presented to GOP voters during the primaries only 8 months ago? If you answer that question honestly, you just might begin to agree that aspects of this campaign are, in fact, "rigged."


Kim Strassel summarized my argument nicely:
If average voters turned on the TV for five minutes this week, chances are they know that Donald Trump made lewd remarks a decade ago and now stands accused of groping women.

But even if average voters had the TV on 24/7, they still probably haven’t heard the news about Hillary Clinton: That the nation now has proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of.
The media has established a self-declared blackout of any news that might hurt their candidate. This is a blatant attempt to mislead the public—diametrically opposing every principle that ethical journalists should follow. Main stream media "news" has become a propaganda organ for Democrats and progressives, and as such, has inserted itself into the presidential race in ways that are unprecedented and just plain wrong.

Strassel provides a brutal but accurate summary of the media's candidate:
Mrs. Clinton has been exposed to have no core, to be someone who constantly changes her position to maximize political gain. Leaked speeches prove that she has two positions (public and private) on banks; two positions on the wealthy; two positions on borders; two positions on energy. Her team had endless discussions about what positions she should adopt to appease “the Red Army”—i.e. “the base of the Democratic Party.”

Voters might not know any of this, because while both presidential candidates have plenty to answer for, the press has focused solely on taking out Mr. Trump. And the press is doing a diligent job of it.
Hillary's trained media hamsters are certainly diligent propagandists in the most unflattering interpretation of that word. Like their master, they have no core, but like most competent propagandists, they will have success. It's actually very sad.