Feminist leader: He probably raped her but he is still a good feminist

Wonkette’s Rebecca Schoenkopf thinks Bill Clinton probably raped Juanita Broaddrick back in 1978 — but that doesn’t make him a bad person.  Schoenkopf continues to defend Bill’s alleged actions, in a super-disturbing string of nonsense.

 

Wonkette: You Can Assault Women And Still Be A Good Feminist

AUGUST 17, 2016 By Bre Payton
Wonkette’s Rebecca Schoenkopf thinks Bill Clinton probably raped Juanita Broaddrick back in 1978 — but that doesn’t make him a bad person.

In a post published in response to Broaddrick’s recent interview about the alleged attack, Schoenkopf explained Bill probably just didn’t know that forcing himself upon a woman was a no-no — because apparently no one told men not to rape 30 years ago.

“I can absolutely see Bill Clinton doing this (then, not now) and not even thinking of it as rape, but thinking of it as dominant, alpha sex,” Schoenkopf writes. “I can see a LOT of men doing that during that time period, before we started telling them in the ’80s, ‘hey, that is rape, do not do that.’ I can see YOUR NICE GRANDPA doing that, back then.”

For the record, neither of my grandfathers are rapists. I would venture to say that most people’s grandfathers are not rapists because most men don’t rape, and the ones who do are bad.

Schoenkopf continues to defend Bill’s alleged actions, in a super-disturbing string of nonsense.

“To sum up, I think Bill Clinton could very well have raped Juanita Broaddrick,” she writes. “It doesn’t make him an evil man, or irredeemable (I’m Catholic; we’re all forgiven, if we’re sorry, and Broaddrick says Bill Clinton personally called her up to apologize). It doesn’t even necessarily make him a bad feminist — you know, later, once he stops doing that.”

No, Bill Clinton was not convicted for raping Broaddrick, but Schoenkopf’s rationale (he is probably a rapist, but who cares) is really quite stomach-churning. Hate to break it to ya, Rebecca, but raping a woman results in the automatic termination of one’s feminist card. A man who sexually violates a woman doesn’t have the right to be considered a feminist, let alone a decent human being, because he’s clearly demonstrated that he doesn’t have women’s best interests in mind.

Saying you’re sorry isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card, either. It’s good if you do that, but it shouldn’t mean giving your victim no justice. Rape is rape, after all.

As if that’s not bad enough, Schoenkopf proceeds to gaslight Broaddrick’s account of Hillary’s attempts to silence her. Schoenkopf seems to think Hillary Clinton isn’t capable of minimizing a rape victim’s claims and protecting abusers.

In reality, Clinton has long been an enabler of sexual predators and has even laughed about it. She once called Monica Lewinsky, the White House intern Hillary’s husband took advantage of during his time in the Oval Office, a “narcissistic loony toon.” Kathleen Wiley, who accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault in 1993, said Hillary went out of her way to verbally beat her down in order to delegitimize the accusations.

CNN caught rigging poll to claim Hillary won debate

Also, See video of CNN coaching focus group on what to say after the debate.  This immediately gave the impression that Hillary trounced Trump in the debate, and set the standard for the media narrative that it was a bad night for the Republican candidate.

CNN FRAUD: Poll Claiming Hillary Won Debate Sampled 41% Democrats and 26% Republicans

This isn’t bias — This is FRAUD!Paul Joseph Watson at Infowars reported:

A CNN/ORC poll released shortly after last night’s debate found that Hillary Clinton scored a clear victory over her rival Donald Trump. One problem – the survey sample included 41% Democrats compared to just 26% Republicans.

Asked, “Who do you think did the best job in the debate – Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?”, 62% of respondents said Hillary while 27% said Trump.

This immediately gave the impression that Hillary trounced Trump in the debate, and set the standard for the media narrative that it was a bad night for the Republican candidate.

However, 33% of the people surveyed in the poll identified as Independents, 41% identified as Democrats, while just 26% identified as Republicans.

cnn

What matters: What Hillary has done. Not what Donald has said

What matters: What Hillary has done. Not what Donald has said

By Mario Murillo

In an act of breathtaking hypocrisy, a very famous pastor and author from Texas explained why he opposes Trump: “If Obama had shown the same rudeness Donald Trump is showing I would have opposed him too.”

Here is his logic: Benghazi was the intentional loss of life but at least Obama and Hillary were not rude.  When they knowingly lied to the families of those that were killed—blaming the attack on a video to protect a reelection campaign—it was okay because they were polite.

Obama’s tone of voice was calm whenever he insulted the Bible and exalted the Koran.  His demeanor in ramming Obamacare, gay marriage and flooding our borders with people who would harm us was done courteously.

So, even though he is a pastor with a large following, he admits he did not fight to stop Obama in 2012.  He told his people, at that time, “I am staying out of politics.”  He remained silent as our morals were dismantled—our safety was compromised—our economy was trashed.

NOW HE DECIDES TO SPEAK UP—NOT AS A VOICE AGAINST ABORTION, IMMORALITY AND TERRORISM—BUT AS MISS MANNERS?!

Political correctness bends the brain in unusual ways.  But it is most bizarre when it twists the logic of an otherwise respected man of God.  No wonder the Bible says, “A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well.” -Proverbs 25: 26

This blog is about a fat lie that is overruling common sense.  You hear it all of the time: “look at what Donald Trump said.”  This is a patently insane and false moral equivalence.   Here are examples:

  1. Trump not letting us see his tax forms makes him worse than Hillary.

Hillary erased 33,000 emails!   Putting these emails on a private server broke federal law and jeopardized national security.   She put all of us—you, me, and our children in danger!  How can anything on Trump’s tax forms compare to that?

Okay, one more time: 33,000 emails versus one tax form.  Top secret information that our enemies can use against us sat on a server that could be—and most likely was hacked by our enemies.

She covered her crime by erasing them even after she was ordered by Congress to protect them and turn them over.

Trump legally used tax laws—she deliberately violated federal law.

  1. Trump has called women names. He is worse for women.

Look at what she has done to women.  She took of millions of dollars from nations that treat women like indentured slaves and execute women for misdemeanors.

She tried to destroy women who were raped by her husband.

Can you think of a more horrendous role model for young girls than Hillary Clinton? Her message is: lie, cheat and discredit.  Stand by your man—not out of virtue—but to protect your ambitions.

  1. Trump has had bankruptcies that left contractors unpaid.

Hillary has been in a scandal or has bungled every single political project she has ever touched…no hyperbole here, just fact.   In 30+ years of politics, she has never created a single job or improved the situation.

Meanwhile: Trump took a one-million-dollar inheritance and built a company worth several billion employing thousands.  And he did in the most viciously competitive market on earth: New York City.

Nothing shows this demented form of false equivalency better that something Tim Kaine said in the debate against Mike Pence.  He spouted this: “The Clinton Foundation has a higher rating than the Red Cross.”   I am sure the victims of Hurricane Matthew in Haiti can’t wait for the Clinton Foundation to show up.

  1. Trump doesn’t have the temperament to be allowed to have the nuclear codes.   Temperament?  Let’s talk about temperament: Hillary once asked in a political ad, “who do you want answering that phone call at 3 AM?”   Well we already know…she got the 3 AM call from Americans begging for their lives in Benghazi.  Hillary—in order to protect her career—has cost people their lives…and maybe even worse.

In 1975, Hillary the attorney defended a man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl.  After she got him off.  Later,  she was caught on audio tape laughing about that little girl.   That rape victim now speaks out:

“It’s put a lot of anger back in me … Every time I see [Clinton] on TV I just want to reach in there and grab her, but I can’t do that,” 54-year-old Kathy Shelton told The Daily Mail, as Clinton tries to portray herself as a supporter of women and girls during the 2016 campaign.

“I don’t think [she’s] for women or girls. I think she’s lying, I think she said anything she can to get in the campaign and win … If she was [an advocate for women and children], she wouldn’t have done that to me at 12 years old,” said Shelton.

I heard you on tape laughing …. I just want to know, you’ve got a daughter and a grandbaby. What happens if that daughter of yours, if that would have been her [who was assaulted at age 12]?

You would have protected her. You don’t know me, so I’m a piece of crap to you … Who cares about me, as long as you can win your first case as an attorney?”  Her temperament has never changed…it has just gotten more sophisticated… is this the temperament we want with nuclear codes?

Pastor Stephen Jeffers from Dallas First Baptist Church has called this election a choice between Good and Evil.   I agree.  When you vote on November 8th you should think about what Hillary Clinton has done and not what Donald Trump has said.

This one ad says it all

This one ad says it all.  Sometimes we just need someone to put it all in perspective—true perspective about Hillary Clinton.  Here it is.

 

 

But wait…there’s more…

How soon we forget

by John Komula

When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform.  Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress.  This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general.  Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration.

Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.”  Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.

Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission.  Lani Guanier was her selection.  When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration. Hillary-Allah

Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations.  She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.  Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

Many younger voters will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.”  Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton  friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply.  She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired.  This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.

Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.  Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

ready

Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the “bimbo eruption” and scandal defense.  Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle was:  She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit.  After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.

She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr’s investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

hillary (3)

 Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for ‘lying under oath’ to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.

Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.

keys

After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, China, and artwork she had stolen.

What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year of this type low-life mess?

Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next.  But to her loyal fans – “what difference does it make?”

Electing Hillary Clinton president would be like granting Satan absolution and giving him the keys to heaven!

PASTOR: CAN YOU LIVE WITH KNOWING YOU ALLOWED A PRESIDENT HILLARY?

PASTOR: CAN YOU LIVE WITH KNOWING YOU ALLOWED A PRESIDENT HILLARY?
‘That’s the real question for all of these people talking about their ‘conscience”

By Pastor  Carl Gallups Pastor of Hickory Hammock Baptist Church in Florida

Sen. Ted Cruz told conservatives at the Republican National Convention to “vote your conscience.”  Republican strategists linked to establishment figures like Jeb Bush are leaving the GOP because they can’t bring themselves to vote for Donald Trump.   Elected Republicans, cowed by the media, are piling on Trump in defense of Khizr Kahn.   And Marvin Bush, brother of George W. Bush and Jeb Bush, has endorsed Gary Johnson for President because he “wants to have a conscience.”

But pastor Carl Gallups, author of “Be Thou Prepared” and a prominent Christian supporter of Republican nominee Donald Trump, suggests the real moral burden lies with those who refuse to oppose what he believes is the frightening candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

“Will my conscience allow me to act in a manner so that Hillary Clinton will win the presidency and thus destroy this nation and the future of my children and grandchildren?” asked Gallups rhetorically. “That’s the real question for all of these people talking about their ‘conscience.’ Everyone else is going to have to live with the consequences of all of those who simply opt out of this election by not doing what they can to stop Hillary Clinton.”

Gallups recently appeared on The Jim Bakker show to explain what he said was the critical importance of Christian participation in politics. He was critical of those who said Christians should stay out of the political process.

“We’re citizens and we have a right to be a part of the political process but more than that, we have a responsibility to be a part of all of that,” he said.

Gallups suggested many pastors have been convinced, incorrectly, they don’t have the right to speak out about political issues from the pulpit. The leader of Hickory Hammock Baptist Church in Florida said the difference between “political: and “spiritual” issues is often overstated.

“Pastors have been brainwashed, not all pastors, but a ton of them have been brainwashed or intimidated into believing that they can’t stand in their pulpits and say, ‘Thus sayeth the Lord,’” said Gallups. “Regardless of what the government says about it.

“That’s the dirty little trick that’s been played on the church, the pervasive politically correct atmosphere. Let’s take an issue like abortion – is that not a biblical issue? That’s a biblical issue, that’s a deeply spiritual issue. It goes to the demonic. But the government has stepped in over the decades and said this is a political issue. And we always hear the phrase ‘separation of church and state.’”

Gallups argued Christians need to understand they are not electing a pastor but someone who will set policies for the nation. The best they can hope for, said Gallups, is to have a leader who can provide space for Christians to promote their faith and create a revival.

“We need people who love America and love the Constitution,” said Gallups. “We need people who understand America’s history and its foundation, who love the rule of law. And who will protect that, because if that’s in place, then we are free to do what we’re supposed to do. It’s not the president that’s supposed to be preaching the Gospel, it’s you and me. But we can’t do it if we have people in power who are constantly holding us down and trying to crush us out of existence.”

Gallups told WND that is precisely what Hillary Clinton is trying to do. He urged Christians to understand the dire consequences which will result if another President Clinton gets to determine the Supreme Court.

“These are just the facts – Hillary Clinton would replace Justice Scalia with another liberal, perhaps even ultra-liberal justice,” he said. “This devastating maneuver would give the ‘progressives’ a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court. And that doesn’t count the times that Justice Kennedy might vote with the liberals (as we have seen him do on several occasions), giving them a 6-3 majority decision.

“And don’t forget: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83. She has had numerous and serious health problems, including pancreatic and colon cancer, and heart problems. Justice Breyer is 78. Justice Kennedy is 80.”

Gallups said the ironic result of Christians sitting out of the election because of “conscience” could be the end of America itself.

“It is entirely within the realm of possibilities that the next president could nominate up to four justices to the Supreme Court in the next few years,” Gallups warned. “If that president happens to be Hillary Clinton, because millions of Christians ‘couldn’t vote against their conscience’, she would seal a far-left activist Supreme Court for many decades to come. And don’t forget, she will be appointing numerous lower federal court justices on top of that! America as we have known it would be toast. Plain and simple. And the end would come like a flood.

“Our nation would be ruled by unelected and largely unaccountable far-left judges. An uncooperative legislative branch would be ignored, as Hillary’s government would merely rely upon liberal judicial fiat for its law.”

Gallups cautioned Americans against assuming the Constitution would protect their rights, as the Supreme Court has shown it is willing to radically reinterpret the supreme law of the land.

“If you have a Hillary Clinton Supreme Court, for starters, many of your First Amendment rights would be gone,” Gallups said of the consequences. “Your right to bear arms would be ancient history. Whatever privacy rights you have left now will also evaporate. Government intrusions and atrocities, all committed with the Supreme Court’s sanction, will sweep down upon us. Look what has happened, even without a liberal majority on the Supreme Court. Listen to what Hillary is openly and currently boasting about doing should she become the president. Her agenda is evil – and it is clear.”

Gallups urged Christians to examine their conscience in a different way. He asked believers to really ask themselves if they are willing to inflict such a fate on their fellow Americans and fellow Christians.

“Do you really want to take this chance?” he asked. “Do you really want a president that couldn’t even pass an FBI background check to be employed as an agent? Do you really want Bill Clinton back in the White House and thrust onto the world scene as a world leader? Do you really want all the Clinton baggage we were so glad to see leave the White House years ago simply step back in for four or, perhaps, eight more years?”

Gallups told Jim Bakker he doesn’t believe Donald Trump will somehow save the country by himself. But he said as a Christian the stakes are too high to do anything but stand with the Republican nominee.

“I don’t think Donald Trump is the savior of America,” concluded Gallups. “I don’t think he is the perfect candidate. There are parts of his platform I don’t agree with. But I’m saying on November the ninth, after the election, it is going to be one of those two people, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. So that’s what I tell Christians – get out, get engaged, be the salt, be the light, or we’re going to lose everything we have.”

 

Inspector General: Clinton emails had intel from most secretive, classified programs

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gestures during a press conference on June 30, 2012 at the United Nations office, in Geneva. Hillary Clinton said a deal reached between world powers in Geneva would pave the way for the end of the President Bashar al-Assad's regime. AFP PHOTO / FABRICE COFFRINI (Photo credit should read FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/GettyImages)

Inspector General: Clinton emails had intel from most secretive, classified programs

EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton’s emails on her unsecured, homebrew server contained intelligence from the U.S. government’s most secretive and highly classified programs, according to an unclassified letter from a top inspector general to senior lawmakers.

Fox News exclusively obtained the unclassified letter, sent Jan. 14 from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III. It laid out the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies that identified “several dozen” additional classified emails — including specific intelligence known as “special access programs” (SAP).

That indicates a level of classification beyond even “top secret,” the label previously given to two emails found on her server, and brings even more scrutiny to the presidential candidate’s handling of the government’s closely held secrets.

“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community] element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels,” said the IG letter to lawmakers with oversight of the intelligence community and State Department. “According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources.”

Intelligence from a “special access program,” or SAP, is even more sensitive than that designated as “top secret” – as were two emails identified last summer in a random sample pulled from Clinton’s private server she used as secretary of state. Access to a SAP is restricted to those with a “need-to-know” because exposure of the intelligence would likely reveal the source, putting a method of intelligence collection — or a human asset — at risk. Currently, some 1,340 emails designated “classified” have been found on Clinton’s server, though the Democratic presidential candidate insists the information was not classified at the time.

“There is absolutely no way that one could not recognize SAP material,” a former senior law enforcement with decades of experience investigating violations of SAP procedures told Fox News. “It is the most sensitive of the sensitive.”

Executive Order 13526 — called “Classified National Security Information” and signed Dec. 29, 2009 — sets out the legal framework for establishing special access programs. The order says the programs can only be authorized by the president, “the Secretaries of State, Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence, or the principal deputy of each.”

The programs are created when “the vulnerability of, or threat to, specific information is exceptional,” and “the number of persons who ordinarily will have access will be reasonably small and commensurate with the objective of providing enhanced protection for the information involved,” it states.

According to court documents, former CIA Director David Petraeus was prosecuted for sharing intelligence from special access programs with his biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell. At the heart of his prosecution was a non-disclosure agreement where Petraeus agreed to protect these closely held government programs, with the understanding “unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention or negligent handling … could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation.” Clinton signed an identical non-disclosure agreement Jan. 22, 2009.

Fox News is told that the recent IG letter was sent to the leadership of the House and Senate intelligence committees and leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and State Department inspector general.

Representatives for the ODNI and intelligence community inspector general had no comment.

In a statement, State Department spokesman John Kirby said, “The State Department is focused on and committed to releasing former Secretary Clinton’s emails in a manner that protects sensitive information. No one takes this more seriously than we do.”

The intelligence community IG was responding in his message to a November letter from the Republican chairmen of the Senate intelligence and foreign relations committees that questioned the State Department email review process after it was wrongly reported the intelligence community was retreating from the “top secret” designation.

As Fox News first reported, those two emails were “top secret” when they hit the server, and it is now considered a settled matter.

The intelligence agencies now have their own reviewers embedded at the State Department as part of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process. The reviewers are identifying intelligence of a potentially classified nature, and referring it to the relevant intelligence agency for further review.

There is no formal appeals process for classification, and the agency that generates the intelligence has final say. The State Department only has control over the fraction of emails that pertain to their own intelligence.

While the State Department and Clinton campaign have said the emails in questions were “retroactively classified” or “upgraded” – to justify the more than 1,300 classified emails on her server – those terms are meaningless under federal law.

The former federal law enforcement official said the finding in the January IG letter represents a potential violation of USC 18 Section 793, “gross negligence” in the handling of secure information under the Espionage Act.

Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

Rape Allegations: Media Hunts Bill Cosby, Celebrates Bill Clinton

Rape Allegations: Media Hunts Bill Cosby, Celebrates Bill Clinton

EDITOR’S NOTE: In light of the sexual assault charges filed against Bill Cosby this week and how Donald Trump is exposing the DC Media’s glaring double standard when it comes to the allegations against Cosby and Bill Clinton, this piece from 2014 (with minor edits) seems more relevant than ever.   

Regardless of the circumstance, time, place, identity of the victim or the accused, allegations of sexual assault are serious and should be taken seriously. Bill Cosby, along with George Carlin and Richard Pryor, is a permanent fixture in my lifelong holy trinity of stand-up comedians. I love the guy. I am in awe of his talent.

Nonetheless, a woman has come forward with the claim that Cosby assaulted her 30 years ago. The allegations are horrifying and media outlets from NPR to the Washington Post toCNN are treating the woman’s story with the seriousness it deserves.

The scandal is a classic case of Power vs. The Powerless. There is substance to the charges,including a lawsuit Cosby settled with the woman in 2006, and similar allegations from other women.  As loved and lovable and talented as Bill Cosby is, as much as I am personally fond of him for all the pleasure he has brought into my life, looking into this kind of story is what the media is supposed to be about.

Unfortunately, our media is not guided by the lofty principle of what it is supposed to be about; because history shows that when it comes to these kinds of allegations, some powerful men like Bill Cosby are taunted and hunted, while other powerful men with the first name Bill, who have faced similar allegations, are protected.

I am of course talking about former-President Bill Clinton, who like Bill Cosby, has been accused of rape and has been forced to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit. There is also another woman who has accused Clinton of groping her in the White House. All of this is above and beyond the countless extra-marital affairs that swirl around Clinton, including an admitted one with a 21 year-old  White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. Clinton’s deceit during the fallout of his affair with Lewinsky resulted in impeachment andthe loss of his license to practice law.

Juanita Broaddrick’s charges of rape against Clinton appear every bit as credible as those against Cosby. Moreover, unlike Cosby’s accuser, Broaddrick was a reluctant witness who never filed a financial lawsuit. Regardless, the media went out of its way to discredit and dismiss Broaddrick as a liar, a tool of the Right, and my personal favorite, “old news.”

Paula Jones would eventually settle a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton for $850,000, but not before Clinton surrogates smeared her as trailer trash as television news anchors chuckled along.

Kathleen Willey, a Democrat and White House volunteer who worked on Clinton’s 1992 campaign, accused Clinton of sexually groping her in the White House in 1993. The Clinton machine worked overtime to destroy and discredit her in 1998, and the media is still  too happy to play along.

Many of these women accuse Hillary Clinton of being behind campaigns of personal destruction designed to silence them and protect their abuser.

Let us also never forget that the elite media not only attempted to cover up the Lewinsky affair, but before Lewinsky came up with Clinton’s DNA on the infamous blue dress, his White House was pouring every ounce of energy into portraying this young woman as a crazed liar and stalker. And again, the DC Media was all-too eager to play along.

While I’m at it, let’s throw in the media’s never-ending Frankenstein villaging of Clarence Thomas, a black Supreme Court Justice who was dragged through the mud based on the allegations of only one woman. Unlike the allegations against Bill and Hillary Clinton, there was no established pattern with other woman. Just the one.

Herman Cain, a black Republican presidential candidate, was destroyed by the media just as he assumed the role of frontrunner. The sexual harassment allegations against Cain were nowhere near as serious as the charges of outright assault against Clinton, and no more credible. The only difference was a media determined to destroy Cain.

If political correctness was really about political correctness and not partisan politics, the media’s offense here would be condemned by the left as racist. There is no question that what we have is a media that takes allegations of sexual misconduct against black men with the utmost seriousness, while a white southerner is protected at all costs.

Race is certainly part of it. The elite media is left-leaning and the political left is desperate to keep blacks “in their place,” which of course means voting for Democrats.  Cosby, Cain, and Thomas challenge and question that destructive cultural mindset. Therefore, all three are threats to Power. Therefore, all three must be marginalized and destroyed at all costs — not just personally but also as a warning to others.

Again, the media is doing the right thing in chasing down the truth about Cosby, but not for the right reasons.

The media’s motives are racial and political, not noble.

If the media was really about protecting women from powerful predators, the idea of Bill Clinton as America’s first First Gentleman would horrify, not thrill.