This page was last updated on November 1, 2016.
Hillary Clinton is running for president, not Bill; Stephen F. “The Onion” Kislock, III; Beaver County Times; October 4, 2016.
Most of Mr. Kislock’s 80+ letters over the last 11 years have been Republican-bashing exercises, though he sometimes goes after Democrats for his pet causes. Sometime during 2009 Mr. Kislock became an in-house commentator for Beaver County Reds, though it’s been some time since he’s written there. Please follow this link to learn more about Beaver County Reds. You may also remember Mr. Kislock appears to believe “The Onion” is a real news source. Mr. Kislock went on hiatus between June 2013 and July 2014. The last Kislock letter I reviewed was entitled “Bishop’s priorities are out of line.”
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“The headline on the Associated Press story in The Times on Sept. 30 read, ‘Trump targets Bill’s infidelities.’
“Dear Donald Trump: Bill Clinton was president. It’s Hillary Clinton who is running for president in 2016.”
[RWC] During his 1992 campaign, Mr. Clinton (WJC) said if he was elected we’d get “two for the price of one” because his wife (HRC) would play a major part in his administration. As an example, WJC appointed HRC to head his Task Force on National Health Care Reform, the product of which became known as Hillarycare. Hillarycare was so bad, it went nowhere despite a Democrat-majority Congress (both House and Senate). Since WJC and his wife were “co-presidents” during his administration, won’t they be “co-presidents” during HRC’s administration should she become president?
HRC also spent a chunk of her time as FLOTUS dealing with her husband’s “bimbo eruptions,” blaming them on a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” The “vast right-wing conspiracy” theory fell apart when we learned of the blue dress. (Note: Readers may be surprised to learn I did not believe WJC did what was claimed until the blue dress. I didn’t like WJC, but I didn’t want to believe a sitting U.S. president would have such little respect for his country, his office, and his family that he would do what he did.) Should HRC become president, I assume she’ll have to hire someone to keep an eye on her husband.
On 9/14/15, HRC tweeted, “To every survivor of sexual assault … You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We’re with you. —Hillary.” Anyone old enough to remember HRC’s role in dealing with her husband’s extramarital affairs noted her hypocrisy.
At a 12/3/15 campaign stop in Hooksett, New Hampshire, a woman asked, “Secretary Clinton, you recently came out to say that all rape victims should be believed. But would you say that Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones be believed as well?” HRC replied, “Well, I would say that everyone should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.” The HRC campaign website still shows her statement, but without the “You have the right to be believed” portion.
HRC can’t be blamed for the first time WJC cheated on her, but from there she became an enabler of her husband’s infidelity by attacking his victims.
“And Mr. Trump, since you were married three times, were their [sic] infidelities or indiscretions on your part?”
[RWC] I have little patience for someone who cheats on their spouse. That said, the infidelities of WJC and Donald Trump (DT) are vastly different.
I don’t follow this stuff, but from what I can tell, DT’s indiscretions were pretty much public knowledge, and he was not a public official.
On the other hand, WJC was a public official and had to keep his alleged indiscretions secret from the public for obvious reasons.
HRC enabled her husband’s extramarital activities for more than 20 years while he was Arkansas Attorney General, Arkansas Governor, and President of the United States. As a public official, WJC’s secret affairs opened the door of blackmail for both WJC and HRC. As President, WJC’s susceptibility to blackmail was a national security risk. What was HRC’s response? HRC claimed a “vast right-wing conspiracy” was to blame, not WJC. The infamous blue dress took care of HRC’s conspiracy story.
You may be wondering how the National Organization for Women (NOW) addressed the actions of WJC and HRC.
First, though, let’s look at how NOW handled the Packwood scandal. In the early to mid-1990s, numerous claims of sexual misconduct were made against Sen. Bob Packwood (R-OR). NOW launched attacks to get Mr. Packwood expelled from the Senate. The Senate Ethics Committee unanimously recommended expulsion and Mr. Packwood resigned soon after in 1995.
Contrast the Packwood scandal with how NOW reacted to the various allegations of sexual misconduct against WJC, including the Monica Lewinsky affair.
The Lewinsky affair especially was the textbook example of a powerful, male superior taking advantage of a young, female subordinate, one of the very things NOW complained about for years. NOW responses to the various Clinton scandals ranged from silence to outright defense of WJC. In one press release, NOW commented, “Consensual sex with a White House intern is an abuse of power by the president; but consensual sex is not illegal harassment and it is not an impeachable offense. Nor is it in the best interest of our country for the president to resign.” Translation: “Move along, nothing to see here.” In some cases, NOW implied allegations were “right-wing” fabrications. The stained blue dress eliminated all doubt.
One “good” thing came out of NOW’s reaction to WJC’s sexual misconduct, however. NOW exposed itself as nothing more than a leftist front group targeting women.
© 2004-2016 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.