SEXISM IN OUR TIME: Feminist Blog Jezebel When Asked About Hillary: ‘We Do Not Acknowledge Press Requests From Men.’
My favorite part about the Hillary era is all the gender-relations healing.
SEXISM IN OUR TIME: Feminist Blog Jezebel When Asked About Hillary: ‘We Do Not Acknowledge Press Requests From Men.’
My favorite part about the Hillary era is all the gender-relations healing.
It is grimly hilarious to hear it said that the Justice Department, by not holding Comey to established protocols concerning discussions of ongoing investigations, and concerning pronouncements close to elections, has tainted itself. Obamacare would not have passed if Justice Department lawyers had not conducted what a federal judge declared a corrupt prosecution of Alaska’s Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, costing him reelection. The department has enabled, by not seriously investigating, the IRS’s suppression of political advocacy by conservative groups. Or of the IRS’s subsequent destruction of subpoenaed emails pertinent to this. So, unsurprisingly, the most intrusive and potentially punitive federal agency continues to punish conservative groups for being conservative, according to Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer for political groups who confirms there are indeed conservative organizations who were targeted by the IRS and have still not received their tax-exempt status.
In 2013, President Obama professed himself “angry” about “inexcusable” IRS behavior, before he decided there was not a “smidgen” of IRS corruption. He claimed to have learned about the IRS behavior from the media. Now he claims that he learned from the media about Clinton’s email abuses, although they had exchanged emails using her private server. Perhaps.
The defining scandal of the Obama era has been the media’s lackadaisical consensus that Obama’s administration has had no serious scandal. This, although with the Justice Department protecting the IRS, the administration has (in the words of Richard Nixon’s White House counsel John Dean) used “the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.”
Clinton, the ultimate author of her current agony, resembles no one so much as Nixon in her paranoia and joyless pursuit of joy.
It’s a culture of corruption, and the media are complicit, and corrupted.
“YOU DOMINATE THIS CULTURE. YOU MADE THE RULES. YOU NOW GET TO LIVE IN THE SAVAGE WORLD YOU MADE BRICK-BY-BRICK, MEDIA:” Ace of Spades on media pants-wetting over being yelled at by angry citizens, in a series of tweets collected at Storify.
Back in 1992, at least one Washington Post employee admitted on C-Span she wore a button at that year’s Republican convention that read, “Yeah, I’m in the Media — Screw You.” Today, as Ace tweeted to CNN’s Jake Tapper, “Jake, have you noticed the media destroys average citizens just because their SJW blogs spotlight them?” In the age of Twitter and other social media app, the media all-too-frequently runs stories knowing full-well (and secretly loving) that it will likely fuel a social media frenzy that can wreak havoc on an average citizen’s life because he or she dared to commit doubleplus ungood crimethink. And vice versa: Internet shamings become greatly amplified when they’re picked up and reinforced by old media.
See also: Joe the Plumber, Ken Bone, Justine Sacco, the dentist who legally shot a lion, assorted Christian bakers and pizzeria owners, Elizabeth Lauten, and numerous police officers over the last eight years.
To borrow a warning from Mr. Obama shortly after assuming office to a fellow Democrat who was hesitant to toe the party line, “Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother.” Or as Ace tweets, “The media loves to ride the the tiger of Mob Hatred when that tiger is devouring a plebeian. Well, sometimes the tiger bucks, old chaps.”
Related: Rolling Stone found liable in $7.5M defamation lawsuit.
AND THE BEARDS HAVE ALL GROWN LONGER OVERNIGHT: Three Ways The Hillary Campaign Became The Trump Campaign.
WELL, YES: Joe Battenfeld: Comey’s not the problem, the media is the problem. “A powerful public official errs on the side of transparency and disclosure and how does the media react? Outraged. Indignant. Defensive. These are our supposed public watchdogs. The ones whose job is to expose what taxpayer-funded officials and politicians don’t want you to know.”
Think of them as Democratic operatives with bylines and you won’t go far wrong.
WAR ON WOMEN: Hillary Clinton adviser: ‘Do we have a pay equity problem?’
Despite Hillary Clinton’s constant demands for equal pay for women, a member of her staff privately wondered if the campaign had “a pay equity problem.”
Ann O’Leary, Clinton’s senior policy adviser, was sent a tweet from then-presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, who was hitting the Democratic candidate on equal pay. Fiorina had linked to an article in the Washington Free Beacon about how her campaign paid women more than men, while Clinton’s campaign paid women less.
“We are going to keep getting hit on this one … unless we can more strongly rebut it,” O’Leary wrote in an Aug. 26, 2015, email. “Can we have an independent analysis showing that we have pay equity between men and women on the campaign? Do we have a pay equity problem?”
The email was illegally obtained by WikiLeaks and released Friday, and is not the first time Team Clinton worried about the candidate’s pay equity.
In February 2015, one day after the Free Beacon published an article about Clinton paying women less than men in her Senate office, Democratic operative Ian Mandel emailed other staffers research pertaining to the gender pay gap at the Clinton Foundation.
“Guys — Given the story yesterday about pay equity at the State Department, I wanted to flag something that came out of our research on pay equity at the Foundation,” Mandel wrote. “There are huge discrepancies, and it wouldn’t surprise me if [the Free Beacon] went here next.”
That research showed that just three out of 11 of the highest-paid staffers at the foundation were women. It also found the highest-paid male staffer made, on average, $294,157.50, while the highest-paid female staffer made, on average, $181,576.66 — a difference of $112,000.
Why does Hillary hate women?
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON ON HILLARY & BILL CLINTON: GREED, CORRUPTION, POWER, CYNICISM, ENDLESSLY:
Why did multimillionaire Hillary charge UCLA, in the era of thousands of indebted students, $300,000 (rather than, say, $149,999.99) for a brief, platitudinous speech? Why did multimillionaire Bill need more than $17 million for being honorary “chancellor” of the financially for-profit but tottering Laureate University (whose spin-off associate organization was a recipient of State Department largesse)? Did he think the extra millions were worth the embarrassment of being the highest-paid and least-busy college executive in U.S. history?
Apparently, the good life did not drive the Clintons so much as the quest for the supposed best life. Even though they had finally “made it” among the multimillionaire set, the Clintons always saw others (no doubt, deemed by them less deserving) with far, far more — whether Jeffery Epstein, with his ability to jet wherever and with whomever he pleased, or green half-a-billionaire Al Gore, who ran even more successful cons, such as rapidly selling a worthless cable TV station to beat impending capital-gains taxes, and selling it to none other than the anti-Semitic Al Jazeera, whose carbon-generated profits come from autocratic Qatar. (The media never audited Gore’s attempt to become a cable mogul, unlike their current concerns about a potential Trump media outlet).
The rich did not pressure the Clintons for paid favors as much as they sought out the Clintons as targets for graft. They certainly understand and smile at Hillary’s boilerplate promise of “making the rich pay their fair share” — the mantra of those who are worth over $100 million and immune from the impact of any tax hikes, or, for that matter, immune from any consequences whatsoever of their own ideology.
The Clintons suffer from greed, as defined by Aristotle: endless acquisition solely for the benefit of self. With their insatiable appetites, they resented the limits that multimillionaire status put on them, boundaries they could bypass only by accumulating ever greater riches. The billion-dollar foundation squared the circle of progressive politicians profiting from the public purse by offering a veneer of “doing good” while offering free luxury travel commensurate with the style of the global rich, by offering sinecures for their loyal but otherwise unemployable cronies, and by spinning off lobbying and speaking fees (the original font of their $100-million-plus personal fortune and the likely reason for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s decision to put all her communications, mercantile included, on a private server safe from government scrutiny). Acquiring money to the extent that money would become superfluous was certainly a Clinton telos — and the subtext of the entire Podesta trove and the disclosures about the Clinton Foundation.
Power and pride were the other catalyst for Clinton criminality. I don’t think progressive politics mattered much to the Clintons, at least compared with what drives the more sincere Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Hillary, like Bill, has no real political beliefs — though she doesn’t hesitate to pursue a mostly opportunistic progressive political agenda. By temperament and background, the Clintons are leftists and will follow a leftist vision, sort of, but one predicated on doing so within the constraints of obtaining and keeping power.
Read the whole thing, and though I rarely argue with VDH, I’m not at all sure that “Hillary, like Bill, has no real political beliefs.” In 1992, Bill opportunistically campaigned to George H.W. Bush’s right, then initially governed to his left during his disastrous, Obama-esque first two years in office. But once the GOP retook both houses of Congress in 1994, Dick Morris correctly determined that triangulating off Republican policies was the key to reelection, thus bringing us the happy fun 1990s we all remember.
But like Al Gore, Hillary is much more of a determined leftist—and arguably even more so than Al, she’s certain she know what’s best for both you and your family. If elected, she’ll no doubt seek to implement much of her own vision of the anointed (to coin a phrase), no matter how much she’s personally loathed by both the far left and the right.
It’s for your own good and the common good of the village, after all.
NEW CIVILITY WATCH: Podesta: Calling Chelsea ‘Not Smart’ Is An ‘Understatement.’
Flashback: MSNBC’s David Shuster Suspended for Chelsea ‘Pimped Out’ Remark.
GOOGLE HONORS 100TH BIRTHDAY OF ‘OBJECTIVE’ CBS ANCHOR WALTER CRONKITE, IGNORED REAGAN’S.
You can learn a lot about Google’s worldview, which like Cronkite’s, is steeped in what the late Steven den Beste dubbed transnational “progressivism,” by studying its splash pages Kremlinologist style.
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton now leads Trump by an average of just 1.7 percentage points nationally, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polls. Less than three weeks ago, Clinton led by 7 points on the same model.
Trump remains the underdog and has only a narrow road to victory. He must hold every state Mitt Romney won in 2012, add Ohio, Iowa and Florida, and then flip a blue state or two.
But the Republican’s chances keep growing — and he has kept himself on message as media coverage has focused on Clinton and the FBI’s investigation of her private email server.
FiveThirtyEight’s forecast model gives Trump a 34 percent chance of winning. On Oct. 17, the same model gave Trump a 12 percent chance.
Trump has surely been helped by the FBI controversy, which has kept the spotlight on Clinton’s biggest vulnerability. But he’s also managed to get out of the way of it, something he often failed to do in the past during moments of controversy.
“He has done very well and I think will finish well,” said Republican strategist Charlie Black, a friend of Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort. “This is going to be very close.
It’s not just the FBI probe that is helping Trump, either.
“Another major factor,” Black added, “is all the news about ObamaCare’s huge premium increases.”
There’s a lot of fail on the Hillary/Obama side.
I HOPE WE’RE NOT TOO MESSIANIC, OR A TRIFLE TOO SATANIC: Wikileaks Tweet: Hillary Campaign Manager Jon Podesta Invited To, And Apparently Interested In, Ritual Dinner Featuring “Spirit Cooking,” Allegedly Derived from Aleister Crowley’s Satanic Rituals.
Given that Podesta is also obsessed with UFOs, it sounds like Leonard Nimoy’s paranormal In Search Of series, which aired when was Podesta was in his 20s, had quite a powerful effect on him. If the report is true, why is the Democratic Party such a cesspit of conspiracy theories and Satanism? (I blame Saul Alinsky.)
Related: David Brock: “Bats**t Crazy.”
More: Anthony Weiner rides through sex addiction rehab on a horse.
As John Hinderaker writes at Power Line, “The dispute recalls John Lennon’s words: You may say I’m bats**t crazy, but I’m not the only one.”
Heh, indeed.™
NOT THE ONION: Samsung’s latest recall: Washing machines that can burst apart.
Pretty sure I saw the Exploding Washing Machines open for the Bangles at the Palladium in 1984.
SHOCKER: McClatchy: Majority of voters think Clinton acted illegally, new poll finds.
A majority of voters believe Hillary Clinton has done something illegal, according to a new McClatchy-Marist Poll days before the presidential election.
A total of 83 percent of likely voters believe that Clinton did something wrong – 51 percent saying she did something illegal and 32 percent saying she something unethical but not illegal. Just 14 percent said she’s done nothing wrong.
By comparison, 79 percent think Donald Trump did something wrong, though not nearly as many think he did something illegal. Just 26 percent think he’s done something illegal, while 53 percent think he’s dome something unethical but not illegal. Just 17 percent think he’s done nothing wrong.
The deep suspicion of Clinton is likely a top reason she’s lost much of her lead and the race for the White House has tightened in the race’s closing days.
Well, they don’t call her Crooked Hillary for nothing.
WEIRDLY NOT ABOUT THE ELECTION: Mechs and werewolves, what’s not to like.
HOW IS DAVID FRUM WRONG? LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: Is There A Conservative Case for Voting for Hillary?
OH, YEAH, VOGUE. THAT’S WHERE I GO FOR MY POLITICAL DECISIONS! Vogue’s endorsement of Hillary means nothing — and probably helps Trump. And frankly, Vogue, I iz disappoint. How can you endorse someone who wears THOSE pantsuits.
BAH. DON’T COUNT THE VAMPIRE DEAD UNTIL YOU’VE PUT A STAKE THROUGH ITS HEART AND CUT OFF ITS HEAD: Hillary won’t survive another WikiLeaks dump.
DON’T YOU HAVE ENOUGH STRESS IN YOUR LIFE? Kids Don’t Like Veggies. So What?
YES, OF COURSE THEY’RE ALL EVIL SPACE LIZARDS, BUT: Trump – The Less Evil Choice.
WELL, WE ARE LIVING IN THE 21ST CENTURY, YOU KNOW? Cancer survivor receives world’s first 3D-printed face prosthesis.
THE WORLD IS NOT A SAFE SPACE: “Running While Female,” and The Comforting Lie of Safety.
NANNY GOVERNMENT AT ITS WORST: Everything you know about healthy food is a lie.
NATIONAL POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT COMES IN SECOND: Russian Hackers? 45% Call News Media ‘Primary Threat That Might Try to Change Election Results’.
InstaPundit is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.