Kaine And Clinton . . . Think That Flapping Their Lips Makes Voters Blind To Reality
By DEXTER DUGGAN
As a native of Mexico born early in the 20th century, new St. José Sanchez del Rio, canonized in mid-October, spoke Spanish. But he also spoke an entirely different language from this year’s Spanish-speaking U.S. Democratic vice-presidential hopeful, Tim Kaine.
Shortly before his 15th birthday, Sanchez was tortured and martyred by the sternly anti-Catholic Mexican government of that era for refusing to renounce Christ. He had been a flag bearer for the Cristeros, the heroic Catholics who rose to war against the Godless government that was punishing the Church and her faithful.
They threw the government back on its heels. Without their armed resistance, how much longer would the political rulers have been hanging Catholics in rows from telephone poles alongside the railroad tracks?
Kaine, who claims to be a Catholic, talks in an entirely different tongue about life-ending topics. He worships a U.S. government increasingly hostile to Catholics and other religious people. To Kaine, young Sanchez’s sacrifice of his own life had to be useless and foolish. All the youngster needed to say was the blasphemous, “Death to Christ the King.”
The sly U.S. senator, after all, has found that he just has to say “death to millions of unborn babies,” and he personally doesn’t have to suffer any discomfort at all from the ruling elite.
Societies tend to arrive at a certain point in increments, not one big jump, whether Mexico, the U.S., Russia, or Germany. However, there can be such shocking transformations as the U.S. Supreme Court announcing that overnight it has created some new basic constitutional right previously unknown.
Kaine is one of those politicians whose conscience discovered it can mince along from one immoral assertion to another without rebuke. At a recent homosexual fund-raising dinner, he foresaw the Church even changing its teaching to accept the grave sin of “same-sex marriage” — just as his degenerate Democratic Party did.
The U.S. government under morally sick Barack Obama isn’t attacking a certain religion, but instead any religion, or even any atheist, adhering to traditional morality. Kaine has pretended that protecting unborn babies is some unique Catholic stand that he dare not impose on anyone else — although he’s fine with imposing conscience-trampling Obamacare mandates, crippling fines, and taxation for immorality.
Archbishop Joseph Naumann, of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas, called an end to Kaine’s pretenses in his column posted October 14 at The Leaven website.
Naumann wrote: “The Founders of our nation actually dealt with this issue 240 years ago in the Declaration of Independence, in which they articulate certain self-evident and inalienable rights that government does not bestow but has a responsibility to protect. Our Founders actually believed that the right to life is given to us by our Creator, not by the Supreme Court.
“Of course, religion will speak about fundamental human-rights issues. However, to understand that the government has a right to protect human life is not dependent on religious belief. As the Founders stated, these are self-evident truths. They are accessible to everyone through the use of reason. They do not require faith,” the archbishop wrote.
“Why is Sen. Kaine personally opposed to abortion, if he does not believe that it is the taking of an innocent human life?” Naumann asked, adding later: “If he knows these truths of biology, why would he believe that anyone has the right to authorize the killing of an unborn human being?”
Meanwhile, Kaine’s running mate, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, escaped persistent pertinent questioning on abortion during the third and last presidential debate October 19 in Las Vegas.
After Clinton spoke in the usual pro-abortion code about “women’s right to make their own health-care decisions,” moderator Chris Wallace, of Fox News, asked how far this should go, because she had voted against restricting partial-birth abortion.
Clinton emitted more fog, claiming that late abortions are done in extreme cases.
Her Republican presidential foe, Donald Trump, said this can mean to “rip the baby out of the womb of the mother” in the ninth month. “And that’s not acceptable.”
Hillary didn’t want to hear it and claimed that Trump was using “scare rhetoric.”
This is where Trump, or the moderator, could have asked the Democrat to describe for the audience just what actually happens to the baby then. Is the infant put on a soft pillow in a crib, or are her limbs torn off, her brain sucked out, or is she put in a closet to gasp for breath until she suffocates?
Or, and don’t forget, maybe the assassinated baby has some choice organs to be cut out for an organ-procurement company. Her heart? Lungs? Kidney? Like the rest of her life of lies, Clinton with her dour smile again can’t address reality.
It’s good for Trump to promise putting conservative justices on the High Court to undo the illegitimacy of massive permissive abortion, but making Hillary squirm about the scandal of selling baby organs would have been a powerful ploy that evening, too.
In Las Vegas, Hillary used the very same tactic that her predator husband, Bill, employed years ago when he vetoed the first of two bills against partial-birth abortion during his presidency. Bill used women as props as he pushed the narrative that they had to turn to late abortion only for extreme cases.
“Appearing with a group of women who have had the procedure to end pregnancies that went tragically awry, (Bill) Clinton called the so-called ‘partial-birth abortion’ bill a dangerous intrusion into a decision that should rest with a woman and her doctor,” the Los Angeles Times wrote on April 11, 1996.
The following year, the head of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, Ron Fitzsimmons, admitted that he “lied through my teeth” on the Nightline television program when he claimed such abortions are rare and used in extreme cases. His intentional deception made him feel “physically ill,” Fitzsimmons was quoted by The New York Times on February 26, 1997.
Hillary may be physically ill, but telling lies that come so naturally to her to promote the death of defenseless babies isn’t what’s sickening her.
Like Bill, Hillary also cited women’s “heartbreaking” cases for late abortions.
With Fitzsimmons’ truth revealed, Bill didn’t repeat his phony dramatization in 1998 when he vetoed a second bill against late abortions, but went behind closed doors for the veto.
At the October 19 Las Vegas debate, Hillary also spouted fog when she said the Supreme Court ruled there must be an exception for late abortion for life and health reasons, but she failed to explain herself. As usual among champions of permissive abortion, she neglected to say that the High Court specifically said “health” is to be defined broadly.
And neither the moderator nor Trump supplied this necessary information, which would have helped dispel Hillary’s claim the late abortions are rare.
When Hillary said the Supreme Court “should represent all of us” instead of protecting the powerful, surely she turned things on their heads, because the court has shown itself to be the faithful errand boy of Hillary’s numbed elitists instead of protecting the broad swath of Americans.
If Hillary used decades-old abortion tactics, her campaign’s battle strategy against Trump as an oaf harassing women came from a well-worn playbook, too.
Back in 1991, radical feminists went howling against conservative Clarence Thomas as a harasser when he was nominated to the Supreme Court. Thomas courageously faced down their phony assault and won his seat on the court.
However, in 2011, when businessman Herman Cain seemed to be gathering strength to start a successful GOP presidential effort, the sex-harasser follies began another time, and Cain gave up.
Trump has been a famous billionaire who could be forced to pay settlements for a long time. If he had shamed a bevy of women with gross behavior, they certainly didn’t have to wait to call him to justice until he about ready to win the presidency.
As she previously has done in the presidential debates, Hillary in Las Vegas again didn’t seem to realize she was talking about herself when she denounced wealthy people who need to pay higher taxes.
When she claimed that Trump “never apologizes or says he’s sorry about anything,” she was actually just repeating the criticism her own staff made against her, according to recent WikiLeaks information dumps.
And when Hillary claimed that Trump “incites violence,” she showed how completely unmoored from reality she is — just as Tim Kaine reeled off one stale talking point after another in the vice-presidential debate.
Shortly before the Las Vegas debate, conservative James O’Keefe’s “Project Veritas” began releasing damning videos of powerful Democratic operatives babbling about trying to incite violence and disruption at Trump rallies, and also about vote-fraud schemes to help Democrats.
This lawless activity had ties from the Clinton campaign to the Democratic National Committee to Obama’s White House. How in the world dared Hillary condemn violence at Trump rallies when her own party operatives were just exposed as stirring it up?
Or maybe Hillary thought that as long as her sycophants in the dominant media tried to hush up WikiLeaks and Project Veritas, the whole nation would be none the wiser. Indeed, WikiLeaks was revealing dominant media to be an obedient propaganda arm of Hillary’s campaign.
However, as O’Keefe commented, social media these days are enabling people to bypass major-media censors to obtain facts.
Resentment
Toward The Media
Shortly before the Nevada debate, conservative GOP political consultant Constantin Querard told The Wanderer that he expected fallout to continue from these embarrassing revelations.
“The Project Veritas stuff is meaningful and would ordinarily garner a lot more attention, but it is getting lost in the noise of the election. I suspect it, like a lot of the WikiLeaks emails, will get a lot more attention and scrutiny after the election,” Querard said.
“The media will largely ignore Hillary scandals because they want her to win and because Trump is great for ratings,” he added.
“The American people don’t really want to see Hillary on their TVs, and the stations know that. If her issues are going to become the issues that are being covered, it will be because Trump takes the cameras that are focused on him and uses them to change the topic back to Hillary Clinton.”
Some big-media folks were voicing concern about strong resentments being expressed against them by some of the public. But that’s simply the same kind of legitimate customer complaint a grocer should expect if he insists on selling rotten goods, worms, and garbage packaged as health food.
The public knows it’s being fed poisonous misinformation every day by self-important reporters and editors who’ve lost some of their clout. Just as occurred last year when the Center for Medical Progress blew the lid off abortionists profiting from their busy business of selling baby organs.
The dominant media went reeling — not because they were shocked by what CMP revealed, but because the media biggies were determined that the slaughter must continue, and that anyone telling the truth had to be smeared beyond recognition.
Both Hillary and her royal court of media jesters need to ask themselves: Do they really believe that if they can just get her into the White House, everything will be swell, and the nation will smilingly accept all the additional moral degeneracy and death that Queen Hillary and her jesters plan for us?
The guillotine was the tool of one revolution after heedless royalty went about in its finery. But laughter was a more cutting instrument when a naked king imagined he was wowing the peasants with his clothes that just weren’t there. And Hillary and her courtiers have just about stripped themselves bare.
Considering Hillary’s crimes, Trump said, “She should never have been allowed to run for the presidency.”
Maybe voters will put an end to her unseemly ambitions on November 8.
