Articles

Sunday, June 22, 2014

Hillary's War on Women

When the Roman Polanski rape case resurfaced, Whoopi Goldberg coined the term “rape-rape” to describe the difference between the kind of rape she opposed and the kind she was okay with because it had been perpetrated by someone she liked.

In the political world the cases of Clarence Thomas and Bill Clinton showed how liberals delineated between the sexual harassment of men they approved of and disapproved of. Now the “Rape Rape” distinction is back with Bill’s wife.

Last week liberal activists were denouncing George Will for questioning the lack of due process for accused rapists on campus. Then the Washington Free Beacon posted a tape in which Hillary Clinton had a good laugh discussing how she freed a child rapist that she knew was guilty from prison.

Hillary had become the Democratic Party’s official “Role Model for Women” through her willingness to stand by her powerful husband during his affairs, cover up his sexual harassment of other women and even target those women for daring to speak out against her husband.

Now the face of the Democratic Party’s bid to make feminist history in 2016 was caught on tape cheerfully recollecting how she accused a 12-year-old girl, in formal legal language, of being a mentally ill slut. Or as the Washington Post’s Melinda Henneberger put it, “The ‘little bit nutty, little bit slutty’ defense has a long, ugly history. It’s jarring to see it trotted out against a kid by a future feminist icon.”

Suddenly the social justice warriors who were denouncing due process, such as access to legal counsel, for campus rapists being tried by student committees, became big fans of due process for rapists.

As with Whoopi Goldberg, it was all about who was doing the raping and who the rapist’s lawyer was.

 Amanda Marcotte, of Slate and The Daily Beast, as well a blogger for John Edwards, another noted defender of women, had called critics of the Duke Lacrosse case “rape-loving scum” and suggested that George Will was a “rape apologist” for questioning some questionable rape cases.

But when Hillary Clinton was outed as a “rape apologist” and “rape-loving scum”, Amanda became a “rape apologist” explaining why being “rape-loving scum” was actually a good thing.

"Hillary Clinton Knows Rape Is No Laughing Matter", she wrote, describing a tape in which Hillary Clinton is laughing while talking about rape.

With a desperation only previously known to members of the Communist Party after Khrushchev had denounced Stalin, Amanda explained that Hillary Clinton might have called a 12-year-old victim of child rape a mentally ill slut, but it wasn’t her fault.

It was society’s fault.

"While it’s always unpleasant to hear defense attorneys try to sow doubt about an accuser’s trustworthiness, the blame for this should not lay on the shoulders of those who have an obligation to defend their clients. The blame should lay on society for perpetuating the myth that false accusations are common” she wrote.

Don’t blame Hillary Clinton for her horrible evil lie about a raped little girl. Blame a society that gave Hillary the idea that she could get away with it.

This is a good defense because it can be used for any of the many lies told by Hillary Clinton. Don’t blame her for lying about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire. Blame a patriarchal society which values military heroics over defending child rapists. Don’t blame her for lying about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary. Blame a society which prioritizes climbing large mountains over stealing White House furniture and covering up for your husband’s history of sexual abuses.

Marcotte, like many of Hillary’s defenders, claims that Hillary Clinton had no choice but to do what she did in support of a “constitutionally mandated right of the accused to an adequate defense.”

 But the Constitution does not mandate that the accused must have a lawyer. Only that he has a right to one if he can find one. The public defender was another invention of a liberal activist judiciary. And even so, there was no legal obligation for Hillary Clinton to defend him. The child rapist already had a lawyer.

He wanted a female lawyer. And Hillary, looking to her career, agreed.

Hillary Clinton served the same role for the child rapist as she did for her husband by letting a sexual predator use her gender for political cover against the women he had victimized.

The child rapist was entitled to a lawyer. He was not entitled to Hillary Clinton. The Founders never wrote that one into the Constitution. Not even the Warren Court did that. Nor did her choice to undertake the defense of her client trump her moral and ethical obligations as a human being.

Being a defense attorney does not free one from the basic standards of right and wrong. The Nuremberg Defense did not work for soldiers. It certainly does not work for lawyers.

If an action is wrong when undertaken by an individual, it is also wrong when undertaken by a lawyer.

Gawker’s Jezebel blog had demanded that George Will be fired. "Are victims of rape and domestic violence... the final politically acceptable punching bags for opinion pages?" it asked. The answer is yes, if they are Bill or Hillary Clinton’s victims because when it came to the Hillary rape tape, Jezebel began making excuses.

Hillary supporters at Correct the Record claimed that the rape tape was distracting from her record. But the rape is very much a part of her record. It shows how far she is willing to go to win and what tactics she is willing to use. It also once again shows her contempt for the gender that her party claims she represents in political life.

"The desperate attempts to get Clinton’s name in a headline with the word “rape” bespeak of a conservative movement that can’t imagine that rape as anything but a hot button word to try to damn political opponents with," Amanda Marcotte writes in a convoluted coda to an article so morally convoluted that it ought to have its own law degree.

As her own behavior demonstrates, the social justice warrior crowd doesn’t really believe rape is wrong. It believes that rape is a useful political weapon. It believes the same thing about racism and a host of other ills. It is even willing to use gay smears against Republican politicians while campaigning for gay rights.

The pass that both Clintons have gotten is proof of how seriously the Democrats take women’s rights. Not to mention the same pass that another courageous liberal defender of women, Ted Kennedy, got. Marcotte jumps into a Pavlovian frenzy every time some Republican somewhere says something about rape. But when it comes to Democrats who don’t just talk, but who actually abuse women, she jumps up as the counselor for the defense.

Like most of the left, she puts her ideology first and sisterhood last. And that was exactly what Hillary Clinton did when she put a child rapist ahead of his victim and her husband ahead of his victims.

"Feminists don’t criticize conservatives for rape-complacent or ever rape-apologetic statements or policies because they’re trying to score cheap political points. They very sincerely believe that these people stand in the way of justice for rape victims, often for very good reason. There is no reason to think that of Clinton," Amanda Marcotte writes.

Aside from the time that Hillary Clinton prevented a child rapist from going to jail for raping a child, there is no reason to think that she stood in the way of justice for rape victims.

How many child rapists do you have to free before you officially stand in the way of justice for rape victims? One. Marcotte has accused Christians of having beliefs that blame women for rape. It’s not a good description of Christians, but it is a surprisingly good description of Hillary Clinton.

In the Blair Papers, also turned up by the Free Beacon, Hillary blamed Bill Clinton’s affairs on her failure to be “sensitive enough” to him. She also appeared to believe that Bill’s behavior was the fault of by being raised by two women.

Hillary Clinton not only didn’t hold her husband responsible for his sexual harassment of other women, she blamed the women, she blamed the women who raised him and finally she blamed herself. And that wasn’t a sexist worldview that she reserved for Democrats.

When Senator Bob Packwood, a liberal Republican, was accused of sexual harassment, Hillary dismissed the “whiney women” because she needed the famously pro-abortion senator on health care.

In public, Hillary Clinton mouths all the right platitudes about women, girls and sexual assault. In private, another Hillary comes out of the closet.

This is the Hillary who blames women for the abusive actions of powerful men; even when she is one of those women. The real Hillary is not only not a feminist icon, but she is much closer to the stereotype that leftist activists have of Christians and conservatives.

Hillary Clinton blames women for being sexually assaulted and raped. Having tethered her career to a serial predator, she can only get ahead by tearing down women in private while talking them up in public. The real Hillary is a neurotic living a lie who hates herself and her own gender.

The real Hillary despises women and identifies with the men who victimize them.

8 comments:

Workingstiff said...

Well said, Mr. Greenfield. Hillary reminds me of of the character Sergeant Waters from the movie, "A Soldier's Story." In the movie, Sgt. Waters, a black NCO in charge of an all black platoon during WW2, hated himself for being black so much that he took his self-hatred out on the black soldiers under his command. He hoped he could curry favor with the white military hierarchy by distancing himself from his own race. He ended up being despised by both.

Hillary is the same. She hates being a woman, because she perceives her gender as being weak and an obstacle to gaining political power---when in truth its not because of her gender that holds her back, but her lack of moral character and mental ability that does.

Hillary defends her Lothario husband due to her of inferiority complex, because he has access to the power she craves. So instead of striving to be a strong, independent woman, she actually behaves like a helpless one, blaming her sex instead of her lack of ability.

Which is why she denounces women who threaten her perception as being "one of the guys" in the halls of power in DC. The only reason she survives hating herself is by relentlessly pursuing power that she thinks will make her satisfied and complete. Power is the drug that weak people like her crave as a short cut to character and fulfillment.

Anonymous said...

Excellent piece, dr. k. I think the most damning evidence against Hillary is the Affidavit she signed under oath.

The affidavit exists at this website of the court records on p. 34.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2296...

The affidavit was in support of a motion to compel a psychiatric examination by "a psychiatrist to be selected by the defendant." (I.e., a hired gun, not a court-appointed doctor.)

Hillary swears she "investigated the facts of the case," but recites only her own conclusions, not a single fact. (para. 3) She says she is "informed" that the victim is "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing." (para 3.)

There s no affidavit from anyone backing up the "emotionally unstable" bit, though. No name of anyone who says the girl seeks out "older men." (She's 12, any man is "older.")

The Affidavit goes on to smear all children in "early adolescence" as people who "tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences." Ms. Rodham swears that an unnamed "expert in child psychology" told her children in "early adolescence" "tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences," and when the child is from a "disorganized family" she is "even more prone to the behavior." (para. 5)

In contrast, two witness affidavits were filed to support her request to reduce bail and let the defendant (who she thought was guilty) out on bail.

She got an affidavit from Azilee Huddleston, a cousin, and another from Buck Porter who was the Foreman at the paper company where he worked.

This is a real story, not "old news." Mrs. Clinton needs to explain herself, and the media claiming preeminence needs to ask her.
Jerry

Anonymous said...

Won't we ever be free of the Clintons?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Greenfield - thank you for this analysis!
Your last sentence says it all! Being a woman it disturbs me a great deal to observe what Hillary does and what she says.
Lacking in morals, empathy for others and ethics brings out her cold, callous, calculating power lust.
Her history entails so many lies, unethical behavior that her own boss fired her during the 'water gate' era.
Since then - she has nothing but lied and manipulated whatever she needed to advance including the destruction of the women her husband intentionally raped or otherwise.
She would not hesitate to step on a dead body to get to the white house. She has no qualification to speak of because she failed in every position she held including that of being a wife to a husband.

Dennis Latham said...

I read somewhere that her book, which she got a 14 million advance for, has been a total flop, with only 60,000 in sales to start when they expected millions. She will run for President this time because she can't do much of anything else except get awards for stuff like being a woman who survived a cheater, being the most hated woman in the Middle East, or being the Queen of pants suits. I asked a hardcore Liberal to name one positive thing Clinton has accomplished, and I never did get an answer. She would be worse than even Obama as President, and that's hard to do.

DenisO said...

There needs to be a Hillary-familiarization video that plays her lies, back to back in an endless loop. It might be too long; maybe two, instead.
Both Clinton's lied like children, all their lives, never having learned that lies are generally transparent to almost anybody that cares to see. It takes a while to become a "straight-faced liar", but they practiced all their lives and became experts, becoming model Demorat politicians to the aspiring Left.
The problem is that many voters don't remember or didn't pay attention, and that is what the Left counts on.
Voters need to be reminded, maybe, but, then again, I can't say that Hillary appears to be accomplishing anything that helps her political career. Just like everything else she has done, it is likely to be a failure. She doesn't look that scary.
Regards,

Anonymous said...

At some point before starting first grade, someone told Hillary she was the smartest person in the room, she had never stopped believing this ..Thus the endless lies, fumbles, and mistakes. She is a legend in her own mind.

sophie

Anonymous said...

Why we humans always seem to lean towards believing some are qualified to be rulers over us is something of the mystery of human nature after the Fall. While Adam and Eve fell for the lies of the first con who convinced them they could create something better than the perfection in which they existed, since then man has fallen for a myriad of cons that have proven to be as insane as the first one and yet they keep coming and there are always believers.

Hillary and Obama are the current day cons who certainly have convinced a lot of people that if only they could make all the rules, everyone would have their own paradise on earth. Since both of them really believe they are gods in the flesh, they can't stop the con.

Elaine

Post a Comment