http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429138/hillary-clinton-feminist-bill-clinton-sexual-assault
Since Hillary announced that
her husband would be joining her on the campaign trail, people have been
debating whether or not it’s fair for the GOP to attack Bill’s sexual misdeeds
in order to indirectly attack her. This makes sense. After all, we’re talking
about a guy who has been accused of the sexual assault of more than ten women.
Think about it: How is her
appointing him really any different than if she’d appointed Bill Cosby? But
here’s the thing: The real issue isn’t whether or not to attack Bill to
indirectly attack Hillary — it’s about directly attacking Hillary for how she
herself treated the women involved. Hillary Clinton claims to be pro-women, yet
has actively worked to ruin lives of so many of them. She’s running on a
“feminist platform” — she’s even dared to say that sexual-assault survivors
have a “right to be believed” — despite the fact that what she did to the women
who accused Bill went far beyond not believing them. She attacked them.
When allegations of sexual
misconduct emerged during Bill’s 1992 presidential run, she’s reported to have
said “Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody’s going to
believe them.”
Multiple people also report
that she called the women “sluts” and “whores” — you know, for daring to be
raped. A private investigator named Ivan Duda claims that, after Bill lost his
second governor’s race, Hillary told him: “I want you to get rid of all these
b****** he’s seeing . . . I want you to give me the names and addresses and
phone numbers, and we can get them under control.”
And there are multiple reports
of her and her detectives doing just that. Kathleen Willey — whom Bill
allegedly sexually assaulted in 1993 — claims that detectives hired by Hillary
threatened her and her children and even killed her cat. Juanita Broaddrick,
who accused Bill of raping her in 1978, reports that she was also threatened by
Hillary. Oh, and let’s not forget — she had no problem blaming the (very true)
allegations that Bill was having an affair with Lewinsky on a “vast right-wing
conspiracy.” Anything to save a man’s career, amirite? Does this woman sound
“feminist” to you?
The sheer number of
accusations against her (there are actually far too many for me to have
included all of them in this article) should make anyone worth their marbles at
least question Hillary’s claim that she’s an “advocate for women.” After all,
this is not just a single report; it’s consistent, repeated pattern of
despicable behavior. Sure, some of the claims (like the cat murder) may sound
outlandish — and there’s no doubt that many feminist activists would point this
out to defend their hero.
Keep in mind, however, that
going by their modern’ mantra that “all accusers have a right to be believed,”
they’d actually have to automatically believe all of them. What’s more: Their
ideology would also dictate that even Bill’s so-called “consensual” affairs
would be reason enough to not support him.
In the ’90s, Hillary was able
to allegedly refer to the 22-year-old intern who agreed to a sexual
relationship with her boss — the president — as a “narcissistic loony toon.”
In fact, even when asked,
she’s refused to deny that she said it. There is absolutely nothing feminist
about Hillary Rodham Clinton. These days, however, many feminists believe that
a sexual relationship between a subordinate and a superior could never be
considered entirely consensual.
Certainly, a sexual
relationship between the most powerful man in the world and a young intern
would fall into this category. In fact, the same power-relationship principle
could also apply to the affairs Bill had while he governor of Arkansas — like
the one with Gennifer Flowers (whom Hillary called “trailer trash”) and the one
with former Miss Arkansas Sally Perdue (who reports that the Clinton Machine
threatened to physically harm her if she didn’t keep her mouth shut.)
Make no mistake: There is
absolutely nothing feminist about Hillary Rodham Clinton. It’s clear as can be,
but for some reason, people are choosing not to see it. “Feminist” activist
Lena Dunham — who has said that “any man who takes advantage of a woman
sickens” her and has criticized people for not being harder on R. Kelly despite
the sexual assault allegations he’s faced — will be campaigning for Hillary
Clinton. So basically, people who listen to “Remix to Ignition” bother her, but
not someone who not only remains married to an alleged serial rapist but also
reportedly worked to ruin his accusers for the sake of his career.
Last month, a reporter asked
Hillary if her comment that all sexual assault survivors had a “right to be
believed” meant that we should also believe Broaddrick, Willey and Paula Jones
(who sued Bill for sexual harrassment in 1994). Hillary’s answer: “Everybody should
be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.” Um. Just
one problem: There is absolutely no evidence disproving the stories of
Broaddrick, Willey or Jones, and you would think that “feminists” would stand
with them and the others against Hillary — but it seems they’re too caught up
in the hype of a potential female president to do anything but support her.
But I’m not. I’m a woman; I
support women — and that’s exactly why I could never support Hillary Clinton.
— Katherine Timpf is a
reporter for National Review Online
No comments:
Post a Comment