Sex, Lies and Audiotape – The Second 2016 Presidential Debate

Hillary Clinton promised us an October surprise regarding Donald Trump, presumably before Sunday night’s presidential debate in St. Louis – and she delivered. Well, sort of.  The famous “October Surprise” is never meant to be a “surprise” but more of a shock.

 

The most shocked group was the Republican Party, headed by top ninny, Reince Preibus. Trump’s vice president, the respectable Indiana governor, Mike Pence, initially said that he’d have no more to do with his running mate.  Feminist women fainted, the Media shook their shaming fingers, and Hillary Rodham Clinton figured she had the election all but clinched with her shocker.

 

That was before last night’s debate, remember.

 

The 2005 audio for Access Hollywood, revealing an admittedly racy conversation between the recently-married Donald Trump and host Billy Bush (who has since been suspended from the show). Trump makes some unsavory revelations and boasts about his appetite for women.

 

If we were to go back to the year 2005, ala Back to the Future, would we have been shocked and surprised by Trump’s salacious comments? No.  We wouldn’t have been surprised at all.  Some of us would have been disgusted.  Others would have laughed.  Others would never have heard it at all simply because the kind of, at least on-air, persona Trump enjoyed in our low-down, Fifty-Shades-of-Grey, dress-your-daughter-as-a-tramp, wrestling-match culture.

 

Judging by the reaction to the audiotape, you’d think we’d jumped back not 11 years, but about 111 years, just a few years after the Victorian Era ended and the Edwardian Era had begun – The Age of Men, as it was sometimes called. Or 311 years – 1705 – a few years after the Salem Witch Trials.

 

Hillary Clinton graduated high school in 1969, the Age of Free Love, Free Sex, and (eventually) Free Condoms. The Pill was the issue of the time.  The Sixties gave us the lewd, crude, and rude culture in which we find ourselves today.  The Sixties gave us the miniskirt and brought pole dancing (among other things) out of the closet.

 

The Sixties gave us the R rating in movies. The preview for one film was so explicit, that my angry father marched me and my younger brother out of the movie theater.  On the way out, he complained about showing such previews before a movie which children were going to view.

 

My father was a gentleman of the first order. He didn’t believe in using bad language in front of women.  He believed in opening doors for them and, in general, treating them with respect.  In private, he thought nothing of referring to women as dames (bossy women) and broads (trashy women).  He certainly never used bad language in front of my mother (she had no such reservations, although her language never went beyond “Damn!” and “Goddamn it!”

 

When my older brother and his adolescent friends used language with sexual references, they received a severe reprimand from my father, whom they respected on this matter. Crank callers who made lascivious suggestions to my mother wound up hearing my father’s deep voice informing them they’d gotten the wrong number and to never call back.  Once when we were in New York City and some construction workers gave my mother (with three children tagging along behind her) the wolf whistle, my father was prepared to take them all on, single-handedly.

 

He was doggedly determined to defend my mother’s honor and did go back to them, much to my mother’s dismay. No fight broke out nor even loud words.  Perhaps it was my father’s size.  The construction workers, I saw, drew back in something like alarm.  My father returned.

 

“I told you I would just talk to them,” he replied to my amazed mother.

 

My older brother, I must note, out-did Bill Clinton, famous for his astro-turf pick-up. My brother converted a tradesman van into a virtual sin wagon, complete with shag carpeting, a bed, paneling, curtains, and even a little table drilled to the floor with a night-light connected to the van’s electrical circuit.  My parents were appalled and when he went on his first date with his future wife (and ex-wife), although they insisted that he take our father’s car, he was adamant about driving the sin wagon to the date.

 

According to my now ex-sister-in-law, her father’s reaction to the van was just what you would expect.

 

I don’t know whether my father had any coarser attitude about women than dames and broads. He’d never have alluded to me or my mother.  He never hit my mother or us.  He knew he wouldn’t have lived to tell the tale of physically abusing my mother, as she cautioned him on their wedding night (!).

 

I don’t think my father (who died many years ago) would have approved of Trump’s language. But he wouldn’t have been “surprised” by it.  Even in 1977, the year he died, our culture was already on the downhill side.

 

The greatest hypocrisy was for Hillary Clinton, via her campaign operation, to gloat over the released audiotape. Hillary Clinton, whose husband’s appetite for women even in his college days was legendary?  Hillary Clinton, who moved the traditional First Lady’s Office from the East Wing to the West Wing so she could keep an eye on her philandering husband?

 

Hillary Clinton, who went on national television to defend The Philander-in-Chief from a chorus line of charges from women whom he’d sexually assaulted or otherwise mishandled? Hillary Clinton, who sent private detectives and henchmen to intimidate these same women?  Hillary Clinton, who thought nothing of allowing James Carville to sling the reputation of these women through the mud?

 

Hillary Clinton, who as a lawyer whose reputation was supposed to be the protector of children, defended a child rapist against the charges of a 12 year-old and got her client off, laughing about it later?

 

After the audiotape was released, everyone thought Trump’s campaign was over. Some speculated that he would step down immediately, only to have him vow that he would continue on.  He apologized for the tape not once, but twice, assigning to his words the excuse of very late adolescent locker room talk and boasting.  His wife, Melania, was angry but forgave him, he said.

 

Feminists and other detractors are not so ready to forgive him. At least, they’re not ready to give up a handy commercial which they can replay repeatedly until the election.  One must expect tenacity from one’s opponents.

 

I grew up with brothers. The older brother, as I have already noted, had friends who frequently used that sort of banter.

 

“You think that’s bad,” the high school quarterback said one day. “You should hear what we say in the pile-ups.”

 

His other best friend, the high school valedictorian, explained the design of the U.S.S. Enterprise of Star Trek fame in terms of biology – female biology.

 

We built the culture in which Trump found success. We not only allow it and revel in it, we defend it.  As Rush Limbaugh noted today, Evangelical Conservatives have been persona non gratas in the Republican Party for years.

 

We mustn’t foist our “morality” off on others, the Liberals and Progressives proclaim. We mustn’t tell them how to live their lives.  We mustn’t judge others on their race, sex, nationality, or (now) gender.  Get our religion out of the schools, the marketplace, and the public forum.

 

Yet there was Hillary Clinton, on the debate stage last night, lecturing us about how Donald Trump doesn’t have the “discipline or temperament” to be president. Hillary Clinton (and her husband) who used every media spin in the book – along with some they invented – to spin themselves out of endless troubles and then complain that they were ill-used by the press.

 

Although the Media will scarcely admit it, Trump trumped the debate last night. Physically, he dominated the stage.  He never once sat down in the chair provided, but stalked Hillary on the podium, looming over her, never far out of the camera’s sight (no matter how hard Fox News’ camera tried to crop him out).  The best visual moment was when he passed behind her as she spoke from her chair.  Most people probably missed it – for happened in the blink of an eye – but as he passed behind her, she lowered her eyes as they nervously shifted from her right to left, aware that something big was passing behind her.

 

The camera never lies. But Hillary does.  Lying is second nature to her, as is her practiced Cheshire-grin smile.  She had the face to deny all the sexual charges against Bill, who was in the audience, or that she deliberately destroyed evidence in the e-mail scandal, or that she didn’t have a good record in the Senate.

 

Trump noted that all her bills failed. She blamed it on Republican presidential vetoes.  If only she’d had a Democrat president.

 

Trump handled the serious issues in statesmanlike fashion, pretty much. He answered the questions fully.  Hillary simply lied.  When she wasn’t lying, her Marxist/Leninist/Alinsky ideology slipped.  She denounced the very corporations and businesses that would put the unemployed back to work and said that they needed to pay their “fair share” of taxes.

 

They did. And then they left the country.  Hopefully not for good.

 

The audiotape notwithstanding, Trump had a very good sound byte night. The best verbal punch of the night was when Hillary said, given Trump’s temperament and so forth, that it was good thing he was not president.

 

“If I were, you’d be in jail,” he retorted. The audience exploded into laughter and applause.  That couldn’t have just been Trumpsters cheering, for it was very loud indeed.  Anderson Cooper, the weasel, scolded the audience into silence.  But it was too late.  Trump had scored big.

 

There’s a difference between someone not winning a debate and not wanting to admit that someone won the debate. Hillary and her Gang are nothing if not tenacious bulldogs.  They’re not going to let go of the bone they want to pick.  Already, she’s back out on the campaign trail, hounding him about that tape.

 

She thinks – or is it hopes – that all the skeletons in her closet will disappear, just like the Congressional hearing on the thousands of e-mails she destroyed. Trump made a great point of describing just how this task was accomplished.  I thought I noted that while he spoke, she couldn’t look him in the eye.  I could be wrong and that would have to be double-checked.

 

Meanwhile, the Republicans have run for cover. Paul Ryan has vowed that he will not, now, or ever again, campaign for Trump.  I don’t recall that he or any of the GOP have ever been of much help to Trump.  They fought his nomination from the very beginning.

 

These same Republicans denounced the Tea Party and Conservatives, leaning way over to the middle to court the so-called Independents and conservative Democrats, the low-hanging fruit. They denounced the Evangelical Christians, who are said to be still in Trump’s camp, despite the audio tape.  Maybe it’s because they believe in second chances.

 

Hillary Clinton is against sending ground troops to Syria. Trump would put an end to the Syrian war, in which the so-called “rebels” are ISIS, a creation of Obama and Hillary Clinton’s State Department.  We haven’t forgotten Benghazi.  Unfortunately, Trump seemed to have last night.  Or perhaps his handlers advised him against it.

 

If Trump can end the war in Syria decisively – and there’s not much of the country left, it’s nothing but rubble – the refugees can return home. Hillary cast Trump as some sort of cold-hearted martinet for his eminently practical solution.  Sending back the refugees would mean fewer voters for Hillary.

 

They sparred over Russia. Hillary accused Trump of having a bro-crush on Putin.  Yet Hillary herself held meetings with Putin (not that he would have impressed her).

The Democrats’ newfound paranoia about Russian influence on American affairs was certainly nowhere to be found when Hillary Clinton was cheerfully selling them a huge chunk of America’s uranium stockpile, right after a Russian bank paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech.

The Uranium One story is among the incidents in Clinton Cash, by Peter Schweizer.

Originally a Canadian company, Uranium One was bought by Russia’s state atomic energy agency, Rosatom.

 

Uranium One’s executives made generous donations to the Clinton Foundation, the “charity” through which so much foreign money has flowed to the Clintons. The New York Times reported in April 2015 how those donations spiked as the deal for Rosatom to secure Uranium One and its holdings in the United States was brought to a successful close, making for one of Bill Clinton’s biggest paydays ever:

 

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million.  These contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.  Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

 

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

 

According to Breitbart.com, “The Russian bank in question, Renaissance Capital, was so pleased with Bill Clinton’s performance at that $500,000 Q&A that Vladimir Putin, who was prime minister at the time, personally called Clinton to thank him.

 

The total donations from Uranium One shareholders to the Clinton Foundation exceeded $145 million, in the run-up to Hillary Clinton’s State Department approval of the Rosatom deal, which gave Russia control over about 20 percent of U.S. uranium.

 

The Clinton’s have denied any and all charges of influence-peddling. Breitbart notes that in the wake of the DNC WikiLeaks controversy, the Clintons have suddenly become quite interested in Russia’s influence on American elections.

 

“That’s an impressive double standard,” the online website notes, “which the media also follows. Since the same news organizations currently flooding the zone with Russian hacker stories [and indiscreet audio tapes by Hillary’s opponent] were completely uninterested in asking Hillary Clinton about the Uranium One deal. Even papers that reported on the story, like the New York Times, made a point of never confronting Clinton about, during her amusingly rare press availabilities.”

 

Is the influence-peddling a mere coincidence, a non-story, as Hillary would have us believe? Back in 1998, just as the Monica Lewinsky affair was about the break, Bill Clinton was under investigation by the U.S. Senate for the same charge.  Only Communist China was the Big Donor back then. The scandal involved the DNC’s hiring John Huang (a Chinese Clinton donor and Asian-American fundraiser), on Bill Clinton’s recommendation  According to “Spin Cycle:  How the [Clinton] White House and the Media Manipulate the News” by Howard Kurtz (1998; Touchstone/Simon & Schuster), Clinton was sent off on a diplomatic mission to Spain to make him look more presidential during the hearings, ostensibly to meet with NATO allies over the prospect of admitting Eastern European nations (including Turkey) into the fold.

 

His handlers hoped this maneuver would draw the oxygen out of the fund-raising scandal. Chinagate was already “old news” and they hoped the trip to Spain, at the height of the hearings, would put Chinagate in its grave.  Clinton held a news conference in Madrid in which he took questions from foreign journalists only; American reporters were pointedly excluded, to the point of being roped off in their own corner.

 

And there was an e-mail leak in that scandal, too. Just one, compared to the thousands and thousands in Hillary’s case.  Lanny Davis, a Clinton White House lawyer, conveniently leaked the e-mail to the Los Angeles Times on July 4, one of the deadest newspaper story days of the year.

 

Clinton survived Chinagate and all his other gates. Some commentator called Trump an “escape artist” but if he is, Trump has nothing on Bill and Hillary Clinton.  They survived all their scandals except one – Monica Lewinsky.  Bill’s wagging finger as he lied to the American public in 1998 (“I’ve never had sexual relations with that woman!”) came back to slap him in the face. The lie brought about his impeachment and his disbarment as a lawyer.

 

Donald Trump was a citizen and businessman not the President of the United States when he made those crude remarks. He never actually did any of the things about which he boasted, at least to anyone’s current knowledge.  We can be sure Hillary has trailer trash out in the parking lot, awaiting their turn, of course.

 

However, he never hurt anyone. He certainly never entertained women in the Oval Office or had Secret Service agents or state troopers provide transportation for his female friends (as Jack Kennedy and Bill Clinton did).  Trump was the owner of a beauty pageant as well as a casino owner.  Those enterprises rather speak for themselves.

 

Since the audio-tape release but before the debate, voters were said to be fleeing in droves (if Hillary is to be believed about anything). Their noses are turned up in disdain because Trump is not a “gentleman.”

 

There seems to be little doubt – although as little proof – that he’s not a gentleman. In any case, what good have gentleman done for us Conservatives?  Former Pres. Gerald Ford was a gentleman and a former college football player, yet photographers always managed to be on hand to catch him literally stumbling.

 

Ronald Reagan? “Bedtime for Bonzo.”  A B-movie actor.  George H.W. Bush?  “Read my lips (no new taxes – although it was actually the Democrats who broke the bargain).  Then there were the gentlemen losers:  Bob Dole and John McCain.  Mitt Romney, the GOP nominee in the last Presidential election was a gentleman’s gentleman.  He was everything you could want of a candidate:  handsome, intelligent, well-mannered, clean-cut (save for the youthful hijinks of cutting a long-haired hippie kid’s locks, which the Media and the Democrats hammered him on; anything for a vote), in short, presidential.

 

Yet, he lost. When he had the chance to take Obama down during those debates, he took Hillary’s “high road” and passed up the opportunity to end Obama’s reign then and there.  That’s what happens to gentlemen.

 

As for the GOP, of what use have they ever been to us? They’re the very reason Donald Trump was nominated, known warts and all, during the primaries.  The voters, main blue collar, sent a message to the GOP about just how fed up they were with the GOP dandies, with their political correctness and inclusionary delusions about winning over the Hispanic vote.

 

RNC head Reince Preibus has had to eat his words that the GOP would not support Trump as the candidate and offered up an apology since last night. Sen. Paul Ryan is sticking to his fake lightsaber.  He has vowed not to support Trump as president, but focus instead on the down-ticket races.  Much good it will do him if Trump doesn’t win.  It will be business as usual, pandering to the Democrats, the very tack that Conservatives find most deplorable.

 

Hillary, meanwhile, was on her broomstick today trying to keep the drumbeat going on the audio tape. Fox News did a fact-check on her declarations, such as her not having received a notification not to destroy evidence before she did.  In fact, she did receive an official notice and went ahead and destroyed the e-mails (or ordered them to be destroyed).

 

What Hillary doesn’t want us to see, while trying to focus on the leavings of Donald Trump, is the mountain of garbage trailing Hillary. All her denials, all her lies, all her manipulations (that, Mr. Trump, is what is known as triad in Speechmaking 101) may not avail her this time.  Not only is there a mountain of evidence against her, but a mountain of books with pages and pages of footnotes referring to newspaper accounts to back up the evidence.

 

No, Donald Trump is no gentleman. Or at least it seems that he isn’t.

 

But at this point, with the prospect of a Marxist/Leninist Hillary following up on Obama’s “transformation of America,” what difference does it make?

Advertisements
Published in: on October 10, 2016 at 7:31 pm  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://belleofliberty.wordpress.com/2016/10/10/sex-lies-and-audiotape-the-second-2016-presidential-debate/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: