Did President Trump Admit to Sexually Assaulting Women

A popular refrain among the left is that Donald Trump admitted that he sexually assaulted women. Hillary Clinton regularly refers to the President’s conversation with Billy Bush, when he was heard boasting about his sexual exploits with women, as the proof that Trump assaulted women. Mrs. Clinton casually makes these remarks in interviews, and in talks that she gives in her never ending attempt to stay relevant on the national stage after her stunning defeat at the hands of Donald Trump during the last Presidential election. Media outlets and personalities have also frequently discussed the President’s supposed admission of sexual assault. Recently, Al Franken in his resignation statement mentioned the irony of his departure from the Senate, while the President; a man who admitted to committing sexual assault, was voted into the highest office in the land, and continues to enjoy wide support among his supporters.

It is vital to state that this piece is not a defense of President Trump’s statement in the infamous recording of the conversation between himself and Billy Bush. This is simply addressing whether or not what he said was a confession of sexual assault. No doubt haters of the President will tell you that no further discussion is needed on the issue. The recording says it all! It is his voice that everyone heard on the recording, he apologized for his statements, and that makes him culpable of sexual assault. On the other end of the spectrum, the President’s supporters will say that he was simply engaging in the lewd kind of braggadocio and boorishness that men have always engaged in since the beginning of time. He was joking the same way that satirical articles, and comedians say outrageous things to get a laugh. Listen to the tape they say, no one can seriously listen to it and say that he was admitting that he sexually assaulted women. When an image of the conservative commentator S. E. Cupp was portrayed performing the act of fellatio on the pages of hustler magazine, though offensive, and despicable; it was considered to be fair game. Hustle Magazine could not be accused of slander neither could they be sued. The Supreme Court has ruled that a lot of what people say has to be taken in the context of how, and under what circumstances it is said in order for it to fall outside of the bounds of free speech.

After the “October surprise,” involving Trump and the recording of his conversation with Billy Bush, women have come out, and accused the President of inappropriate behavior. The President has vehemently denied all of the accusations, so those accusations are essentially “he said, she said”. The question remains though, did the President admit to sexually assaulting women? For those who contend that this was just male boorishness, which though unfit for civil discourse, and polite conversation, is typical in certain other environments, there is nothing more to add.  For those who say that the President did admit to sexually assaulting women, let us take a look at the substance of what he said in the now infamous “Access Hollywood Tapes.”  Without going into a verbatim recount of what the candidate did say, here is the gist of it.  He talked about sexually grabbing women, he talked of the role that celebrity played in his actions, and he said that the women let him do it. If he was not joking, surely his actions can be classified as sexual assault, right? Again, this piece is not to defend Trump’s behavior or what he said, it is simply to determine if he admitted to sexual assault. Here are some questions to consider. In the world of consenting adults, is there such a thing as implied consent? Does every sexual encounter between men and women only occur after the man asks if he may touch or otherwise engage the woman sexually? If we agree that there is such a thing as implied consent, does it only occur between boyfriend and girlfriend, or within the marriage covenant? Does the age old process, and the act of sexual seduction ever occur between consenting adults without one person being a victim? On the issue of celebrity, we know that fame and fortune has an alluring attraction for many in our culture. For some people who otherwise would never get to rub shoulders with the rich and famous, sex is their gateway into these circles. Groupies have written books that give graphic details of their sexual exploits with celebrities, and they give an insider’s view into their world. In the world of celebrities and their groupies so much more than what candidate Trump said in the recording occurs between the participants. Finally candidate Trump also said that the women let him do anything because of his celebrity. So if they did indeed let him do it, that part of what he said has to be taken in the context of the entire statement which essentially said that he grabs the women and they let him do it because of his celebrity. People have to ask how difficult it is to imagine that this behavior takes place among likeminded people in a promiscuous world where sex has been relegated in many circles to a purely animalistic act of pleasure devoid of any emotional attachment.

In the end, Trump did say what everyone heard him say. There is no denying that, but people have to be honest about whether or not what he said was an admission of sexual assault, a crude joke or simply boasting about what happens between consenting adults in certain situations where implied consent is given. There is nothing in the statement itself that is worth defending, but addressing the contention that the President confessed to sexually assaulting women is worth an honest discussion.   

Advertisements

The Tale of a Modern Day Pocahontas

Last week President Donald Trump called Senator Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas again, and it was downright hilarious! It was totally uncalled for, but it was nevertheless funny. After a brief millisecond of disbelief, and wondering; did he really just say that? The only thing left to do was shake the head. The President is a supreme troll, and he knows exactly how to get into the heads of his opponents. Pocahontas is the name that the President gave to Senator Warren ever since it was revealed that she lied about here heritage to use as a selling point in advancing her career at Harvard University. As sure as the night follows the day, the media became apoplectic. How dare he use such a solemn occasion, honoring Native Americans to hurl a racial slur at the Senator. The media that has never seen it fit to harangue the good Senator about her false claims, lying about her supposed Native American Heritage to advance her career are more upset at the President’s mocking of her. They fail to tell the American people exactly how or why referring to the Senator as Pocahontas is racist. Pocahontas is a legendary figure in Native American lore. Why the term is considered a “racial slur” by the media no one knows. Soon they were singing their favorite refrain. It’s a snappy little ditty called “white supremacist.”

 

Has there ever been a more misused or abused term than the term white supremacist? Everyone knows what it is meant to do. It is not meant to identify the proponents of this ugly movement, but to shame decent people into silence. The left knows that no one wants to be identified with white supremacists. They know that one sure way to get a Republican cowering under the couch is to scream the “R” word. Most of all, using the word is one sure way to avoid trading in the market place of ideas, and it is a sure way to generate an emotional response. The media and their cohorts are invested in painting Trump as a racist, but President Trump is a different animal however. In simple parlance, Trump don’t care. It is what people love, and it is what people hate about him. It is a strength and it is a weakness. Calling him racist is not going to move him to hold back on who he is.

If what we are witnessing today under President Trump is white supremacy, then the country has indeed come a very long way. From slavery, to the Klu Klux Klan, to Jim Crow, to lynchings, to segregation, to…Trump? Lots of people will take that any day. They will take that type of white supremacy and run with it in a heartbeat.

The Truth ladies and gentlemen is that everyone knows that the President calling Senator Warren Pocahontas is not racist. Calling her Pocahontas is meant as mockery. It is meant as pure ridicule and to call out a fraudster. This woman who for years shamelessly paraded herself as a descendant of the Cherokee Nation has been excused for no other reason than that she is a Democrat, and when she gets called out for it, the person who calls her out is then called a racist. What a charmed life it must be to be a Democrat politician.  So do not be fooled by the false indignation of Don Lemon, Anderson Cooper and the rest of the Democrat operatives pretending to be journalists. They know why the President calls Senator Warren Pocahontas. How could they not know? What is in play here is, in pointing out the Senator’s fraudulence; President Trump is also putting the spotlight on the media because they have never taken Senator Warren to task for her “cultural appropriation.” “Cultural appropriation” is a favorite grievance of the left, and if there was ever a case of cultural appropriation, this would be exhibit A. But again, Democrats always get a free pass in the traditional media, however with the new media landscape they cannot totally get away with their chicanery.

The truth is that people do not have to like the President, they do not have to agree with his policies, or support him on the issues. They could even call him out on using the term Pocahontas, but the fact that the good Senator could make the rounds on CNN, MSNBC, and the other networks, portraying herself as a victim of racial attacks, and depicting herself as “brave,” with no pushback from any of the so called journalists speaks volumes. If there was still any doubt that the media is not even interested in their credibility, this is another classic example that they are not. Protecting the Democrat Party, Destroying Trump, and advancing the cause of leftism is their main concern.

In the end, lots of the people who support President Trump will agree that he should not have used the occasion to score political points. Was it inappropriate? Sure, without a doubt. Was it racist? Not even a little bit.

Response to a Previous Reader

Barrack Obama was treated like every President before him, except that every criticism of him was determined to be racist. One was forbidden from criticizing his holiness because he was the first black President of the United States. The media, except for Fox News of course, never saw it fit to hold him accountable for anything, and for that they too were determined to be…you guessed it…racist. When the Republicans refused to vote on his final Supreme Court Nominee, that was also determined to be a racist act. Surprise, surprise, I bet you didn’t see that coming. It went like that for eight long years. George Bush was savaged in the press every single day, and the common refrain was that he was a dummy, he was incompetent, and a buffoon who was out of his league. Some of the nastiest things were said about him. For the entire eight years of his Presidency. He never defended himself, his administration and its actions, he took it all and just continued plugging away with his agenda. During Bush’s tenure, one artist put on an art show that displayed a portrait of him made up of several monkeys to form the image of his face. The artist defended his show, many people defended him, and he refused to stop showing the image. There was no outcry or condemnation, no claims that critics were taking their criticism of the President “too far,” no cries of racism. Bush was often caricatured as an animal, and the left was fine with that because after all, it was just another Republican President. That treatment is usually reserved for Republican/conservatives. In another instance, one filmmaker actually did a documentary that imagined what it would be like if President Bush was assassinated, and that too was fair game.  To the guardians of tolerance this stuff never meant anything, because in their minds; George Bush was just another bastard evil Republican who deserved everything that he got. When Democrats did everything in their power to power to sabotage the war effort, they were seen as brave and patriotic. When the effort to initiate the surge in Iraq was announced, Democrats lost their minds, and did everything in their power to stop it. Hillary Clinton famously declared that it would require a major suspension of disbelief to accept General Petraeus’ contention that the effort would be successful. The New York times famously called him “General Betrayus.”

When the Republicans took congress in two thousand and six, they opposed President Obama just as vigorously as the Democrats opposed President Bush. The big difference is that the left did with President Obama what they generally do with black people. They turn them into victims, and true to form they immediately turned the man sitting in the most powerful position in the world into a victim. Every single issue from that point became all about race. The truth is that the Republicans did oppose President Obama on policy, and they did want to make him a one term President. They should never apologize for that! The people who did not vote for him wanted him to be a one term President based on the agenda on which he ran. The Republicans’ opposition to President Obama was no more, or different than their opposition was to Bill Clinton who they also wanted to make a one term President. It was no different than the Democrats Opposition to President Ronald Raegan who they wanted to make a one term President. If you are old enough to remember, you would recall how much the left despised Raegan, and they also called him a big dummy who was going to lead the world into nuclear holocaust. They hated Raegan! The Democrats were not kind to Raegan one bit, but that’s the way it goes. One wishes it were different, but that’s is the reality of politics. It is a dirty game and not for the faint of heart. The Republicans wanted to make President Obama a one term President all right, pretty much like the Democrats want to make Trump a one term President right now. The Democrats want to make him a one term President to the point that several of them started calling for his impeachment even before he took the oath of office. At this moment, they are staunchly opposing him no less vigorously than Republicans opposed President Obama, but definitely more. Maxine Waters famously told us that she “does not respect the President,” she “will not work with him,” and that “it is in the best interest of constituents to get rid of him.” She also let us know that his cabinet nominees were “a bunch of scumbags.” Of course Democrats love to outdo each other in their vitriol, so less a person than the head of the California Democrat Party led a crowd of the faithful at one of their events in a F*** Trump chant, as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and former Housing Secretary Hilda Soliz smiled approvingly in the background. Just a couple of weeks ago crazy aunty Maxine was leading another crowd of enthusiastic supporters in a impeach Trump chant. So how is that for a couple more “anecdotes?”

Nothing like these personal attacks happened with President Obama. Of course no individual is perfect, and by extension no group or movement is perfect either, so I am sure if you go digging you can find an exception or two, and internet trolls are in every party. President Obama was resolutely opposed, but there is no reason to attribute this to anything but the fact that the two parties are fundamentally different. Their vision for the country is diametrically opposed. They differ on taxes, health care, and the role of government in the lives of people, the type of judges to put on the Supreme Court, the second amendment and gun control, abortion, gay marriage, regulations, the seriousness of climate change, and a list of other issues. During his time as a Senator, Senator Barrack Obama was one of the most liberal lawmakers in the Senate. He did not simply give that up when he became President, so yes; the Republicans did oppose his agenda. President Obama however was successful in getting a very large part of his agenda passed. Please also remember that when the Democrats had the Senate, Harry Reid refused to bring up over three hundred Republican bills for a vote that were passed in the house. When the Republicans won back the Senate they continued to oppose President Obama, but they also worked with him to pass some legislation. Take a look at President Obama’s last spending bill, it was filled…filled with compromise, and President Obama in particular got a lot of what he wanted. The Republicans did not revoke DACA, and did not defund any aspect of Obamacare like they had the power to do, and they ended up caving on quite a few issues, but they did oppose him on most of his agenda. Anyone who tries to make the argument that opposition to President Obama was personal might be right, but it was personal in the same sense that opposition to Clinton, Bush or Raegan was personal, or to Trump presently is personal, not because President Obama is black. Democrats cry racism so often that the word has been cheapened. It is fine to disagree with this assessment and opinion. We will just have to agree to disagree.

As for the contention that the Democrat Party tried to work with Republicans on health care, that is simply not true. The Democrats had a Super Majority when they initiated and processed the ACA through the house and the Senate.  They literally passed the bill in the dead of night to avoid more publicity over its unpopularity. They never allowed the Republicans to bring any proposed amendments to be brought to the floor, and Nancy Pelosi famously said “we have to pass the bill so that we can find out what is in it.” There was absolutely nothing that the Republicans could have done to stop the bill, to slow it down or do anything to it. There was absolutely no compromise on the bill. The Democrats did compromise with so-called blue dog Democrats who had hesitations about the bill, by agreeing to not let any funding go to abortion. When the bill was passed they then began allocating money to abortion anyway. None of the Republicans proposals were even entertained. The Republicans could not even filibuster the bill because the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority. The bill was an all Democrat bill because they did not accommodate any of the Republicans’ proposals.

As far as the birther movement is concerned, that was started way back in two thousand and four by a gentleman called Andy Martin. He was a serial Senate candidate in Illinois. He is a man who has filed so many frivolous lawsuits that he is now barred from bringing them in court. He also stated that Barrack Obama was a closet Moslem. Nobody takes him seriously, but he has been given a lot of air time over the years by many media outlets. When he started the rumor he was running as a Democrat Senatorial candidate in Illinois. According to the Huffington Post, he has since disavowed the movement. He is a major conspiracy theorist, and has since run for public office as a Republican. To describe Mr. Martin as an outlier would be the understatement of the year. Another originator and promulgator of the birther movement was another Democrat by the name of Phillip J. Berg. He was a former member of the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee, and he is also a former Democratic Assistant Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and a paid lifetime member of the NAACP. He filed a lawsuit in 2008 asking the courts to declare Candidate Obama ineligible for the Presidency to prevent him from running for President, because then Senator Obama according to him was not born in the US, and for other reasons. No one in the mainstream of the Republican Party gave the birther movement any credibility, in fact when a woman at a John McCain town hall called candidate Obama an Arab, Senator McCain immediately corrected the woman. Mc Cain even fired a member of his campaign staff for using Barrack Obama’s middle name because he felt the person used the name to insinuate something sinister about then Senator Obama. While the Hillary Clinton Campaign itself did not raise the birther issue during her 2008 Presidential run, supporters of hers tried to make it a point. In one instance the Obama campaign even confronted them on the insinuation that President Obama was a Moslem. Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe described the behavior as “the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election.” The Clinton campaign had to defend itself saying “I just want to make it very clear that we were not aware of it, the campaign didn’t sanction it and we don’t know anything about it.” These are the roots of the birther movement. What is even funny is that the Obama campaign tried to insinuate that John McCain may not have been eligible to run for President because he was born in another country when his father was in the Military.

When Barrack Obama won the Presidency it was no longer feasible or made sense for Democrats to continue insinuating that he was not a natural born citizen. Fringe elements on the right eventually ended up giving it new life and bringing it to the national conversation like it had not been done before. Donald Trump also took it up and used it to gain notoriety, but Republican leadership never were a part of the conspiracy theory. They always made it clear that they did not believe President Obama was not a citizen. If people do a Google search no one will come up with Republican leaders pushing the birther conspiracy. Not even talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and others ever took that up as an issue, and they were always dismissive of the notion. The birther movement was always a fringe, conspiracy movement clinging to straws, upset at the election of a Democrat. It was never anything more. Of course instead of treating this fringe movement for the kooks they were, like most conservatives did; the left did what they do best and resorted to the age old tactic of race baiting. The left has been making a serious attempt to label Trump a sympathizer of the KKK and a white supremacist based on nothing but a notion that is as flimsy as that given for the birther movement, but the left has no problem with that. There are people on the left who believe that George Bush is responsible for the attacks on the Twin Towers on 911, and the mainstream of the Party never lost sleep over that, but when it comes to the stupid birther movement they looked into the hearts and minds of everyone on the right, and saw racism at the center of the movement.

On the issue of the Klu Klux Klan, it is always interesting to hear Democrats talk on this. The Republican Party and the conservative has never ever had any affiliation with the Klan, the Nazis or any white supremacist movement. Ever! They have never endorsed any of these groups. These groups and people like David Duke are persona non grata in the party and to the movement. Please also remember that David Duke also ran as a Democrat in the past. He did not become a Republican until nineteen eighty nine, and when he ran as a Republican the last time over twenty years ago, the Republican Party supported the Democratic candidate. The rally in Charlottesville had nothing to do with the Republican party or the conservative movement, by the same token, some of the people who were there were not part of the so-called alt right, and even a New York times article entitled “Some Charlottesville Protesters Were Not White Supremacists, Nazis” acknowledged this. Some people were there simply to protest, and exercise their first amendment rights. They were not part of any white supremacist group. On the other hand the rally was organized by a despicable group of people who nevertheless had the right to be there. They had the permits to be there, and were the only ones authorized to be there. It does not matter that they represent a horrible cause. They had the right to conduct their rally in peace. They deserved to be protected by law enforcement. The police had the obligation to protect them, and keep the counter protesters away. They did not, and they allowed the ANTIFA protesters to disrupt the rally. That is how and why the rally descended into violence. Why it is difficult to believe this, no one knows because the ANTIFA protesters have a history of violence, despite the glowing reports and news features on them. That is part of their modus operandi. After getting a lot of tacit support on the left for a long time, even Nancy Pelosi had to eventually come out and condemn them.

Apart from all of these facts, the Democrat Governor said that the alt right had weapons placed all over the city, and that the police had inferior gear. He gave that as the reason why the police did not get involved. The police chief said there were no weapons hidden across the city. In addition to all of that, despite their despicable cause, these people have not condoned this type of violence before. The organizers of the rally, no matter how much one despises their cause did not start the violence. And yes, conservatives do get to disassociate from the killer that day because he had nothing to do with the conservative movement. If conservatives do not get to disassociate from this person, then the Democrat Party, and the left in general does not get to disassociate itself from the Orlando night club shooter who was a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter, or the black Nationalist who massacred five police officers, or the man running through the streets of Los Angeles shouting Allahu Ackbar looking for white people, and shooting and killing two of them in the process, or the Bernie Sanders supporter who fired on Republican Congressmen injuring Congressman Scalise. That is just a few from a very long list. Another thing that is always fascinating to see is how the left goes into defensive mode whenever there is a radical Islamic attack against Americans. They do everything in their power to tell Americans that these attacks have nothing to do with Islam, and to not confuse the actions of a few with the religion, but they have no problem taking isolated incidents like the Charlottesville incident, and trying to associate it with the conservative movement and Republicans. By the way in pointing out violence on the right, you forgot to mention the abortion clinic doctor, and Timothy McVeigh. Again, no one claims that the right is innocent. The claim is that violence, vitriol and venom as a political tool is the domain of the left. The history of the left is littered with this behavior and no one can deny that. The examples previously given to you are not anecdotes. They were numerous, and just a small fraction of what has happened since Trumps election. One can find incidents in the news like this every single day. In fact, just today another celebrity by the name of Morrissey said that if given a chance he would assassinate Trump for the good of humanity. There will be no outrage over this statement, no looping of the statement on the twenty four hour news cycle, because the left is allowed to get away with this type of behavior. Look again at all of the things that the left has said and done since President Trump’s election that were mentioned.

Ted Nugent did not threaten the President! There is no problem admitting that he has said some crazy stuff that should be condemned, but he did not threaten the President. The quote that you gave was part of an entire piece in a talk that he gave to the National Rifle Association. You can read the entire thing here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/apr/19/context-ted-nugent-saying-if-obama-wins-i-will-be/ But again, the point is not that the right is innocent. Nugent and anyone else like him in any case is not the norm. There is no movement that is perfect. On the other hand you could find numerous examples like Joss Whedon saying that he hopes a rhino f*** Paul Ryan to death, or  Saturday Night live calling President Trump a cheap cracker, or Mickey Rourke threatening to beat the President with a baseball bat, or the GrubHub CEO threatening workers who voted for Trump, or the PackettSled CEO who threatened President Trump on Facebook, or Robert Dinero saying I’d like to punch him in the face, or David Simon saying to pick up a God D*** brick if Trump fires Mueller, or Lea DeLaria threatening to “take out” Trump and Republicans, when they won the elections, or Chelsea Handler calling Stacy Dash and Ben Carson “black white supremacists,” or Marylyn Manson simulating a Trump execution on stage, or Sarah Silverman calling for a Military Coup against the duly elected President of the United States, or Stephen Colbert portraying Stephen Miller’s head on a spike. I could go on with numerous more examples, and while I am sure you may be able to provide a few more (using your favorite word) anecdotes to say that the right does it too, you cannot show anything that is comparably close happening on the right. You simply cannot. Another difference is that when the right does the stuff that you talk about, they are usually criticized and harangued for their behavior even by people on the right. Nothing close happens on the other side. Take for instance when Glenn Beck said that Obama had a deep hatred of white people. One would have taught that someone set off a nuclear bomb. Before you knew it, Beck was apologizing for blaspheming the holy one.  When one congressman said I am not touching that “tar baby, he was not calling Obama a “tar baby” but was using the word in the context of what the term has always meant “a sticky situation.” One would have thought it was world war three the way that media reacted to the statement. That type of reaction by the media is generally reserved for conservatives, and just as night follows day, the Congressman apologized for his sin of blasphemy.

At the end of the day the Republican Party does not have a history of racism. In the last fifty years they do have a history of being accused by Democrats of racism, but you cannot point to one racist law that currently exists, that was passed by the Republican Party. Oh yes maybe you can…ID voting laws, riiight. Yeah, that’s racist! Every major atrocity that has happened to minorities, and other groups in America, happened at the hands of the Democrat Party. Everyone, without exception! (Except of course voter ID laws, that are so, so racist…ooooh scary). You cannot point to one single atrocity in America that was carried out by a Republican Administration. That does not mean there are no bad people in the Republican Party. Human beings are flawed and they exist everywhere, but let us lay blame for wrongs committed at the feet of those who committed the wrong. Today the only things that the left can point to are so called “racist tropes,” “dog whistles” and other interpretations of racism where none exists (like voter ID laws) to accuse their political opponents or racism. After being on the wrong side of every civil rights issue for their entire history, the Democrat’s began to, and still accuses everyone who opposes their socialist agenda of being racist. It is one of the greatest sleight of hand tricks ever performed. They then try to cover their sordid history with talk of the “the big switch.” It is a myth, It never happened! The only switch that occurred was with Strum Thurmond. All of the segregationists remained in the Democrat Party until their deaths, and for all the talk of the South Switching to Republican after the civil rights movement, the Democrats continued to dominate in the South after the civil rights victories. It was only in the nineteen nineties that the South became Republican, after civil rights change occurred there. Of course Democrats claim that is because the South was upset, and wanted to go back to how it used to be before civil rights.

Today, in a classic attempt to revise history the left tries to associate nationalism with Nazism, but Hitler’s version of Nazism was founded in leftist ideology. Nazism had nothing to do with the control of illegal immigration, love of the free market, low taxes or any of the other planks of conservatism. NAZI is the abbreviation of the term “Nationalsozialist” in German. Listen to the words of Adolf Hitler “We’re all socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalist system of exploitation. And we’re determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” Look at the platform of Hitler’s Nazi Party and see if the looks anything like conservative ideology. Here are just a few as pointed out by a very astute political commentator “Abolition of incomes unearned by work. Profit-sharing for workers and all large companies. Broader pension systems, paying higher benefits. And universal free health care and universal free education. Today the left has taken out the racist elements of Nazism, and attribute them to the right, but the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis has more in common with the way Democrats were treating black people in America, not anything the Republican Party has ever done to any group.

That is enough, otherwise this will turn into a book. It is already longer than intended. There is no doubt that it will mean nothing to you. After seeing you call the many examples of leftist hate, anecdotes; it became obvious that nothing will move you from your position, and that you will not even concede a good point even if you disagree with it. But that is okay. At least you will know a little about other side’s views despite your caricature of them. Well, this conversation is over.

Confronting the Left and the Democrat Party’s History of Hate

First and foremost, it is important to state up front that no one here has any delusions that the Republican Party is saintly, or that conservatives do not have their undesirables in their  movement. Far from it, human beings are badly flawed, and the sinful nature reigns in us all. It takes a concentrated effort, and a willingness to fight the demons that plague us all and the grace of Almighty God in order to combat and overcome our human frailties. The Republican Party and those on the right are no different. Having made that point; it is interesting to note that so much of the recalcitrant behavior that is so firmly rooted on the left, is often excused, while those on the right are held to a completely different standard. The Democratic Party and Democrats in general, from the inception of their party has been responsible for every atrocity, and inhumane law or policy ever committed or passed in this country. From slavery to the trail of tears, lynchings, Jim Crowe, Segregation, forced sterilizations, pushing eugenics as a philosophy, Internment of the Japanese and other ethnic groups, the Ocoee massacre, the Rosewood massacre, and the dreaded prison gangs of the South which some have described as worse than slavery, these are all the legacy of Democrats.

This is the party that opposed reconstruction, the Freedmen’s Bureau Act, gave rise to the Klu Klux Klan, and opposed the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and nineteenth amendment. Every major opposition to civil rights legislation from the eighteen sixties to the height of the civil rights movement was done by the Democrat Party. After the Klu Klux Klan was seriously decimated and became an insignificant movement because of Republican efforts to combat them, they were revived in the 1920s when a Democratic President showed the film “Birth of a Nation” at the white house, and the Klan then once again became the terroristic arm or the Democratic Party, unleashing a reign of terror on blacks all across America.

They opposed the Civil Rights Act of the eighteen sixties, The Civil Rights Act of nineteen fifty seven, The Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty, and by the time their party finally came around to supporting the civil rights act of 1964, members in their party tried to filibuster the bill. They even opposed the nomination of the first black man nominated to the Supreme Court. Republicans in Congress continued to lead the way with all of the subsequent civil rights legislation of that era. The left points fingers at Barry Goldwater for opposing the nineteen sixty four legislation. The truth is that Barry Goldwater was a civil rights leader before it became popular. He was in favor of civil rights advancement and did a lot to advance the cause of civil rights. He integrated the Arizona National Guard when he was governor of Arizona before Harry Truman dreamt of doing it with the rest of the Military, and though Truman signed the executive order integrating the Military, it only began to be rigorously enforced during the Eisenhower Administration.  The only reason that Barry Goldwater opposed the civil rights act of 1964 was because of provisions in the bill that he felt gave too much power to the Federal Government and took too much from the States. He wanted changes to the bill to avoid that. Today with the Federal Government reigning supreme, and the states losing more and more of their autonomy, his concerns now seem like they were prescient.

The Democrat Party once boasted hundreds of thousands of Klansmen. Today the Klan is a toothless tiger with less than ten thousand members across the country with little to no influence, but the media continues a relentless effort to cast an image of them being an influential movement, all in the effort to try and link the present day Klan with the Republican party, and the conservative movement, when no such link ever existed. If one belongs to the Klan, that person is not allowed to join, and cannot be a member of the Republican Party. Every segregationist law ever passed in this country was passed by Democrat legislatures, and signed by Democrat Governors. To reiterate, there is not a single piece of segregationist legislation that was ever passed by a Republican legislature or signed by a Republican Governor. In addition, the next time anyone looks at video of innocent, peaceful black marchers being set upon by dogs, remember that the man by the name of Bull Connor responsible for that act was a Democrat.

The Democrats have never apologized for their sordid past, but to redeem themselves, they claim that contrary to everything we know about human nature, “the big switch” took place after the civil rights movement, and all the Democrat segregationists switched parties. Democrats became the party of civil rights and the Republicans became the party against civil rights. In other words, the party that was responsible for so much atrocities, and wreaked so much terror on Americans for over one hundred years, just suddenly had an epiphany, changed their ways, and the party that was formed to lead the fight for and championed the cause of civil rights for over one hundred years just switched places. The bad guys became the good guys, and the good guys became the bad guys. It is a lie! It never happened. How such a story could ever have taken root is difficult to understand.

Today all the Democrats have to do is claim that anyone who does not embrace their socialist agenda or their controversial policies is a racist, misogynist, sexist, xenophobe, islamophobe or a homophobe, and all of their past is forgiven by Hollywood, Academia and the media.   That remains enough for them to continue getting a pass. It is absolutely fascinating to observe. But that is not all, the left and the Democratic Party also has an absolutely horrible history of political violence, and while the media, and other defenders of the left become ecstatic, and jump for joy at every opportunity to point out violent behavior and incidents on the right, they ignore the violence that is an intrinsic part of leftist ideology. The left justifies violence in the name of “the struggle.” They rejoice and dance on the graves of victims when they get to point a finger at a Dylan Roof as an example of violence on the right, even though Dylan Roof belonged to no recognized conservative group, an acted on his own accord. By the same token, the left remained silent when a man linked to the Black Lives Matter Movement committed a massacre against the police, killing five Police Officers in cold blood all in the name of “justice” for black men. When a Hilary Clinton supporter committed the atrocious act at the Orlando night club shooting, killing over fifty people and injuring over two hundred, the media refused to highlight the Hillary Clinton link. Let’s be frank, Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with him committing the unspeakable act that he did, but the question must be asked. Why the double standard in the response to what he did? Why the attempt to link Roof’s act to conservative ideology, but none to link the Orlando shooter’s act to leftist ideology. Why the double standard when a man shouting Allahu Akbar, targeting white men on the streets of Los Angeles killed three people in his attack? Why is it that one of the biggest structural fires in the history of Los Angeles, destroying several buildings, causing excessive pollution and costing the City tens of millions of dollars set by a black man in response to “police brutality against black men” not as news worthy? Though a couple of people on the left have recently come out against ANTIFA, why does the left continue to laud this violent group that uses blatant fascistic tactics as part of “the resistance?”

Just to mention one more time, no one is saying that the right is guiltless or that they have not committed violence, but violence as a tactic is a pillar of the left, vitriol is its close ally, and people have to start calling out this movement for its bullying. This can be seen across the decades in even more examples, and most recently in the response to Donald Trump’s election. Folks it is the left that supports and rallies for people like the murderers Mumia Abu Jamal, and Asata Shakur, two cop killers. It is the left who lauds the freed terrorist Óscar López Rivera whose organization was responsible for several bombings all across America, killing five innocent people in the process.  The left shamelessly walks around with images of the psychotic, deceased maniacal, bloodthirsty zealot Che Guevara emblazoned across the front of their T-shirts. The man had no redeeming quality, and his penchant for sadistic brutality, and his dislike of black people is well known, but he is adored by the left. The Una bomber was a disciple of leftist ideology. The assassins of President Kennedy, President McKinley and President Lincoln were on the left or Democrat. It is a leftist who made an attempt on the life of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and two leftist women attempted to kill President Ford. In 2011 a young man from the Occupy Wall Street movement fired a bullet at the white house during President Obama’s tenure, and do not forget that during the last election Donald Trump is the only candidate who was rushed on the stage by a supporter of the other candidate. In town hall meetings earlier this year, it is only Republican members of congress who were attacked by leftist protesters showing up at the gatherings.

The destructiveness of this ideology can be seen across the world, from the shores of present day Venezuela (a once prosperous nation) to the plains of Zimbabwe, stretching all the way back to Stalinist Russia, the people’s revolution of China, the jungles of Vietnam, the killing fields of Cambodia, working its way all across the Oceans back to Cuba, and traversing much of Latin America. There are not too many success stories, but tens of millions of dead bodies as a direct result of leftist violence. Despite almost successful attempts to rewrite history, Hitler’s Germany is another glaring example of the left’s ability to descend into the pit of ruthlessness. Yes folks, you read that right, Nazism as practiced by Hitler, and his party was another brand of leftist ideology, but do not believe anything written here. Go examine the twenty five planks of Hitler’s “Nazionalsocialist” Party and his speeches, and you will see that it reads like anything you would hear at the Democratic Party Convention. The left attempts to link conservatives and the Republican Party to Nazis because of the Republican Party’s stance on illegal immigration, and their America first stance. Hitler’s platform had nothing to do with illegal immigration, low taxes, welfare reform, or the beauty of capitalism, free market reform of the health insurance industry or anything espoused by conservatives. The Nazis treatment of the Jews had more in common with Democrats treatment of blacks in America, not anything the Republican Party has ever done to any group of people. The Nazi College leaders burned books to stifle speech, and thought they did not like. Today the left riots, uses the heckler’s veto, and other forms of intimidation tactics to keep those they disagree with from speaking on University Campuses across the country. Violence against conservative speakers is such a threat, it is to the point that conservative speakers must have intense security when they give speeches at Universities because the left has independently declared these speakers spew hate speech, which must be shut down using any means necessary.

The Democrat Party has been on the wrong side of every major issue this country has faced, and today they continue to use race to divide people, albeit with a new twist. Today they attack the white male in a sick and twisted attempt to compensate for their history of injustice against blacks, and they continue to use Government programs to lure black people to their Party, and keep them dependent on Government in order to secure the votes of black people. This tactic of giving black people stuff started way back in the nineteen thirties. During this period, the Democrats denied blacks the benefits that they gave to whites during the Great Depression, but they always gave them just enough to keep them quiet, and coming back, while denying them real opportunities to be successful full-fledged Americans. Their reign of terror against blacks continued, but despite their treatment of black citizens, they began securing the black vote by feeding black people scraps to keep them dependent. Despite the Democrats’ reign of terror against blacks, and despite the lack of economic progress for many black Americans, blacks started to become more and more dependent on them, and that continues to this day. They tell black people that those who oppose the policies of the left want nothing but to take their stuff away. They convinced many black people that the scraps they are fed is divine sustenance from their benevolent benefactors, the Democrats.

As one prominent commentator so eloquently put it, the “Democrat Party has persuaded many black people to think that clinging to a rope while those at the top try to pull them up is better than providing those at the bottom with a ladder to climb to the top.” The ladder is risky, and there is a chance that those climbing it may fall. There are times when they may need the assistance of others to hold the ladder a bit, but making it to the top will mostly depend on their own effort. Some will not make it, but those who cling to the rope while someone attempts to pull them up are at the complete mercy of the person pulling the rope. Today in places like Baltimore, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Ferguson, Detroit, Chicago and other cities all across America run by Democrats, black people and other minorities are clinging to rope, and desperately reaching for scraps while they hang on for dear life. Many of these people will continue to vote for the Democrat Party because they are convinced that those who offer them another way, leading to the path of self-reliance are racists.

Here are a few examples of Democratic race baiting using white people as the bait from the headlines of established media outlets over the last few years:

The White Guy Problem

White Men Must be stopped: The Very Future of Mankind Depends on It

I Do

n’t Know What to Do With Good White People

Ten Things White People Need to Stop Saying

Dear White People: Here’s a List of Things, We’d Wish You’d Stop Doing

White Men are the Greatest Threat to This Country

Lena Dunham celebrates “The Extinction of White Men.”

A Drexel Professors calls for a white Genocide.

(Here is a strange twist) Stacy Dash and Ben Carson are “black white supremacists” according to Chelsea Handler.

A young Wisconsin College Democrat leader closely affiliated with the Clinton 2016 presidential campaign had to resign for tweeting “I f—ing hate white men.”

A few days ago a New York Times Columnist who is a professor at Yeshiva University wrote an op-ed where he stated that he’ll be raising his children to not trust white people.

Who can forget the black female professor Said Grundy who famously said “White masculinity isn’t a problem for America’s colleges, white masculinity is THE problem for America’s colleges,” she also said “Every MLK week I commit myself to not spending a dime in white-owned businesses. And every year I find it nearly impossible.”

Check out the words of a Trinity College Professor by the name of Eric Williams in response to representative Steve Scalise’s shooting that was committed by a Bernie Sanders supporter: It is past time for the racially oppressed to do what people who believe themselves to be ‘white’ will not do, put an end to the vectors of their destructive mythology of whiteness and their white supremacy system.”

These are not random trolls that you can find on all sides of the political divide. These are prominent people on the left who continually spew this kind of rhetoric. The irony is that they will look to the people who highlight their behavior and call them racist. Just for the heck of it let’s look at another example of this white hatred. This is from a Black Lives Matter affiliated group called F Yo Flag on their radio show a couple years ago. It’s from a caller, as the host agrees: “when those mother f**kers are by themselves, that’s when when we should start f***ing them up. Like they do us, when a bunch of them ni**ers takin’ one of us out, that’s how we should roll up.”  He said, “Cause we already roll up in gangs anyway. There should be six or seven black mother f**ckers, see that white person, and then lynch their a**. Let’s turn the tables.”

This is the kind of stuff that is now praised as being “woke,” or “brave,” “unafraid to speak truth to power,” and “telling it like it is.” Ladies and gentlemen, it is none of these things. It is just dangerous! No doubt there are lots of decent people on the left, but the machine that continues to spread the bilge on the left must be combatted fearlessly by those who do not wish to see the country go down this road. It is time to start standing against this divisiveness. Make no mistake about it, the left will try to insult, call names and resort to all kinds of intimidatory tactics to silence anyone who opposes their behavior. Stand up to them anyway!

How to Respond to the Accusations of Sexual Misconduct

 Matters of sexual abuse should never be relegated to a partisan squabble. The most important consideration for any fair minded person who hears claims of sexual abuse should be the veracity of the claims made. In a highly politicized environment, where partisanship seems to be the main criterion that people use in determining where they stand on these delicate issues, it is important to carefully navigate the waters and come to a well thought out conclusion. The decision to support a candidate should never simply be about the party.

There should be no room for sexual harassment in any party and sexual abuse is a crime that should always be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law whenever possible. It does not matter who the perpetrator of these offenses may be. There must be a zero tolerance policy for this type of behavior, and though all acts of sexual impropriety are not created equally, there must be consequences for them all.

In the midst of all of this there must be special consideration for the normal sexual dynamics that take place between men and women. In this context, it is sometimes possible to misread the signals that are sent out by the opposite sex, and when this happens; special consideration should be given to the manner in which one responds to these misread signals. Every attempt to win over someone sexually is not necessarily sexual harassment even if the attempt is rejected. One should keep that in mind even If one holds to the value that sex is an act that is to be shared between a man and woman in the sanctity of marriage, because that is not the prevailing view of our society at large. These are some of the delicate issues that will have to be worked out as society continues to confront these difficult issues. Despite that caveat, it is necessary to stress once again that sexual misconduct should always be taken seriously, and the women who bring these complaints should be given the respect that is given to people who have been the victims of sexual crimes. They deserve to be treated with dignity.

Contrary to popular the popular notion though, women do not have the right to be believed. Once again, to be clear; their allegations should be taken seriously, and every attempt should be made to determine the truth. This is where due process comes in, however; there are times when people do not have time to let the procedure of due process play out, as in the case of Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore. Voters need to make a quick decision, and leading up to that decision; it is hardly likely that due process would determine who is telling the truth, so voters have to look at all of the circumstances in the case and form a dispassionate opinion based on nothing else, but the credibility of the accusations. Obviously for family and friends of those involved, they are likely to believe the person close to them, but for everyone else, pure and simple; it is a judgement call.

Voters should try putting the shoe on the other foot and ask themselves one question. If this were a Democrat, or no one knew the political affiliation of Roy Moore, and these exact charges were brought against him, how would the people hearing these accusations respond to them? Absent any clear evidence, and given the limited time before the election, who is more credible, the accuser or the accused?

If Mr. Moore is guilty of the act that he is accused of committing, he does not deserve to sit in the United States Senate, especially if his actions were a pattern of behavior over an extended period of time as some allege. The truth however is that no one knows for sure, and the only thing to go on is the believability of the parties involved. An accusation in itself, and the notion that all women have the right to be believed is not enough. People believed the woman in the Duke Lacrosse players’ case, people believed “mattress girl” in the University of Virginia case. Brian Banks, a young man black man with a promising future ahead of him with a pending scholarship, and prospects to play in the NFL spent five years in prison based on the word of a young woman who said he raped her. He had to register as a sex offender until he got his accuser to recant here story. People believed Lena Dunham until Random house had to remove the account of the alleged rape from her book, and they agreed to pay the legal fees of the man she accused of raping her. And let us not forget the case that shot the “Reverend” Al Sharpton to National prominence, destroying the lives of several innocent men in the process, the infamous Tawana Brawley case. Let us also not forget the many black men who were falsely thrown into jails all across the South during the Jim Crow era, based on nothing but the word of white women who said they were raped by these men.

Obviously these examples do not represent what happens in every case, but they happen enough to be significant, so when it is simply word against word and nothing more, everyone has to use extreme caution in coming to a conclusion. Women deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. They must know that if they have been violated that they will get the care and access to the justice system that they need and deserve, but they do not have a right to be believed.

The Left and Their Treatment of Women

For years, the beautiful people of Hollywood, the geniuses in Washington, the brilliant intellectuals in Academia, the social justice warriors in the media, and others on the left and in the Democrat Party told us that they were the champions of women’s rights. They let everyone who listened know that no one cared about women more than they did. While women in other parts of the world suffered the indignity of female genital mutilation, honor killings, were denied education, endured forced marriages, and sexual slavery, the guardians of women’s rights here in the United States demonstrated their care and concern for women by advocating for abortion, free contraceptives, the end of slut shaming, body shaming and many other noble causes.  At every opportunity they always let us know how brave they are, and anyone who dared to stand in their way would be exposed as misogynists. In the last few years such luminaries as Sandra Fluke, Amber Rose and Lena Dunham have carried the torch, and helped to redefine what true feminism is. They would take the fight to the masses, and challenge and stand up to anyone who dared to treat women like second classes citizens.

The fight for women’s rights is not just a woman’s cause they always declared. It was a chance for men to join in solidarity with women and show their support for them. By joining the fight, men were standing up for the women in their lives, their sisters, their mothers, their daughters and all women. Men everywhere declared themselves to be feminists, and gained the admiration of leftist all around them. As traditions got trampled underfoot women felt more liberated. Marriage, child rearing, male chivalry, female modesty, and other outdated views were cast aside for more updated models of the modern liberated woman.

A strange phenomenon wrapped in irony was occurring simultaneously during this time of enlightenment though. Women who disagreed with the new dogma and, dared to walk a different path for themselves were mocked and treated with scorn by many of the new standard bearers of this wave of feminism. There is no tolerance for women who believe that though equal in essence, men and women are different and have different roles. Women who do not adhere to the sacrament of abortion become fair game for anyone who chooses to go after them. Women who still believe in traditional marriage, and the traditional concept of family become fodder even for the men who declare themselves feminist. These women do not deserve to be protected from the vitriol that is often spewed at them by those who disagree with them. The protectors of women do not come running to their defense. Listen to the comedian Calvin C.K. Luis talking about Sarah Palin and her special needs son a few years ago. Remember, this was not your random trolls talking. This was not a slip of the tongue. This was a male feminist doing his best to be “edgy.” Here goes, “when she was on stage at the f—ing convention that just came out of her disgusting f—ing c—-… her f—ing retard-making c—…, and she held it up, oh I hate her more than anybody.” Sarah Palin was a safe target because she was a conservative woman who opposed the Democrat Party politics. The left defended the daily vitriolic attacks on her because in their estimation, these attacks on her were different than attacks on Hillary Clinton because Palin deserved it. For the years that Palin was in the spotlight, she was attacked over and over like this by men like CK Luis and Bill Maher. Go listen to this man attack this woman and her down syndrome son. It is one of the most vicious, mean spirited things you will ever hear, but it was ok, for no other reason than that she is not a leftist feminist. Mr. CK apologized years later, but that behavior is typical for some prominent men on the left.

There was never any outrage from the left, in fact they snickered, and cheered at these insults. These attacks also came from women on the left like Joy Behar and Sandra Bernhard. The nastiness, and the sheer venom of the personal attacks like Keith Olberman calling Michelle Malkin a mashed up bag of meat with lipstick, and Bill Maher calling Michelle Bachman a dumb t**t are too numerous to list. There are numerous videos on YouTube that gives examples. It is equally so for the men who refuse to go along with the tenets of modern feminism. They are usually targeted for destruction with a ferociousness that is usually reserved for the worst in our society. On the other hand, genuinely bad behavior by the men who declare themselves to be feminist is often excused. When Bill Clinton was in the middle of the Monica Lewinsky fiasco, Time contributor and White House correspondent Nina Burleigh famously said that she would gladly perform fellatio on Mr. Clinton to thank him for keeping abortion legal. As pictures of Al Franken surface of him consistently grabbing women’s breasts, and buttocks, supposedly in jest, one cannot help but marvel at how these giants of feminism simply put up with his behavior.

 Currently there are videos and pictures all over the internet that give a montage of Joe Biden getting extremely close and personal with women of all ages in what is described as a creepy manner. Even leftists media outlets said that these photos will come back to haunt Biden if he decides to run for President. The point is that it speaks volumes when one considers what the left is willing to put up with from powerful men who attack women who simply do not agree with leftist ideology. It gives a good idea of why men like Harvey Weinstein, CK Luis, Al Franken and others were able to get away with the spate of bad behavior for so long with their mistreatment of women. Their political stance gave them leeway that others will never be given. Is it any wonder that so many of the men caught in these scandals are men on the left, and prominent members of the Democrat Party? Observe the media’s silence on the political affiliation of so many of these men.

The Left’s Tolerance of Bill Clinton

For many years we heard about the sexual exploits, shenanigans, indiscretions and alleged crimes of Bill Clinton. The Democrat Party ignored all of the allegations made by the women who accused him. Victim shaming was not a problem then. Some of the accusations brought against the former President go all the way back to the nineteen seventies. The allegations of sexual misconduct made against Mr. Clinton run the gauntlet, from inappropriate touching, inappropriate comments, sexual harassment and sexual assault to rape. In addition, he has been accused of using his position of power to gratify himself sexually with women in his immediate sphere of influence. 

As the decades rolled on, Mr. Clinton became less and less accountable for his alleged improprieties. Some of the women who claim to have been the victims of Mr. Clinton say they have chosen not to pursue any legal recourse, or continue to highlight their plight for fear of recrimination by the Clinton machine. Who can forget when Paula Jones claimed that she was sexually harassed by the Clintons, how she was ridiculed. Her reputation was attacked and tarnished, and she was summarily dismissed by defenders of the Clintons and the Democratic Party. At one time, Clinton campaign manager Jim Carville infamously said, “If you drag a hundred dollar bill in a trailer park, you never know what you’ll get.” The defenders of “women’s rights” applauded Mr. Carville; they snickered, and praised his wit. The complicit media went right along with the charade, and in the case of Juanita Broderick who accused Mr. Clinton of raping her, NBC sat on the story until after the election. Dan Rather once refused to highlight a story that was unfavorable to President Clinton “out of respect for the President’s private life.”

The stories are never ending, and famous among them are the allegations that Hillary Clinton never hesitated to use intimidatory tactics in the effort to silence many of these women, in order to protect her husband. Tales of Mr. Clinton’s alleged exploits and abuses are legendary, and the stories were more than just whispers. They were “open secrets,” but they were never enough to stir an incurious media to dig deeper.

In all of this, it is important to remember that Bill Clinton was never charged or convicted on any of the accusations brought against him. Despite the claims made by any of these women, and despite the apparent credibility of many of the stories; Mr. Clinton has never admitted to any wrong doing. When it comes to these situations, and it’s is one person’s word (or in the case of Clinton, several people’s word) against the other, the people simply have to decide for themselves whose story and character is more credible, and who they believe. What was unusual though, in the case of several of Mr. Clinton’s accusers, is the scorn that was heaped on them, and the venom that was used in attacks to destroy their credibility. Victim shaming was ok as long as it was Democrats doing it. All of the rules that the left and the media applies in similar situations simply went out the window, and the focus of the battle became solely to defend the Democrat President at all cost. The regular sensibilities normally afforded to women in these situations were discarded. When someone with such an ungentlemanly reputation, and the rumors of his alleged ill conduct are so well known, people more often than not defer to the alleged victim when it is just word against word. For others it simply does not matter. This is what happened with the former President. It did not matter what he did, there is no way his supporters were going to sacrifice a Democrat being in the White House.  The cause above all is what matters most.  

Recently many prominent Democrats have begun speaking out against the former President and first lady. Now that the power couple no longer suits their cause, many of them have finally found the courage to speak out against the Clintons. These same people, who just a few months ago had no problem hobnobbing, rubbing shoulders, and touching noses with the Clintons, have suddenly been awakened by a deep level consciousness that the Clintons treatment of women in the past has been deplorable. Now that sexual accusations have been brought against the Republican Senate Candidate Roy Moore, they have finally seen the light. How can they credibly condemn this awful Republican while the Clinton Albatross hangs so conspicuously around their necks? Should we believe that they have really, finally seen the light or is this simply another example of the cause being bigger than any individual?