By DEXTER DUGGAN
He enslaves women, hates foreigners, and despises other religions. Who is he?
If the answer is Donald Trump, those offensive acts mean he doesn’t agree with Hillary Clinton’s love of ravenous abortion, he thinks un-vetted travelers from the Mideast should be screened before entering the United States, and he knows that Islamic radicals are dangerous.
Trump’s guilt for having such thoughts makes him totally unqualified to run for any office, much less the presidency, say the elite arbiters of correctness.
However, if his name were Donaldrahni Muhammed al-Trumpani, he might keep women chained at home and wearing shroud-like outfits, he’d capture travelers to behead them, and set off bomb blasts in “infidel” areas.
This would seem to be the exact opposite of the world that elite secular arbiters want, a direct threat to all they desire and admire. However, they actually make excuses for, avert their eyes from, and carefully ignore all the offenses that an al-Trumpani would relish.
What is intolerable to them among conservative Americans is accepted willingly by them if it’s far more extreme and done by Mideast anti-“Crusader” zealots.
Consider the mid-September weekend bomb and stabbing attacks in New York, New Jersey, and Minnesota by men apparently with radical affections — more of a lengthening line of Islamic-tied violent outbursts from coast to coast in the U.S. during the Barack Hussein Obama presidency.
If pro-lifers had committed such a string of random shootings, stabbings, and bombings, thousands of their sympathizers already likely would be in internment camps for preventive detention, and their entire social movement would be blasted daily by dominant media.
However, when radical Islamic sympathies seem to be the motivation, the stronger a left-wing politician’s beliefs are, the stronger is his denial of guilt by ISIS. Left-wing New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was at pains to try to avoid the connection. Unless specific emailed terror instructions from a mullah in the Mideast were uncovered, blame seemed just too hard to place.
If a Republican conservative had occupied the White House for the last two terms, dominant media unceasingly would decry his direct responsibility for the rise of domestic terror. But their actual lying, lawbreaking hero Obama doesn’t get cuffed for any disasters he caused.
GOP presidential nominee Trump, however, is blamed day and night by his media foes for anything and everything.
National radio talk host Laura Ingraham noted on September 20 that Trump even was portrayed as being controversial for saying a bomb went off in Manhattan before there was official word of the explosion’s cause.
Presumably the Manhattan billionaire learned there were a loud explosion, a bright flash, and debris flying the evening of September 17, when nightspots were busy in a metropolis that had just observed its 15th anniversary of the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Should Trump instead have suggested a kitchen sink accidentally overflowed?
Left-wingers like Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and Obama regularly escape criticism from their media buddies despite their blatant hypocrisy on issues like international relations, firearms, and protective walls.
The politicians stumble in to destabilize nations and governments, leaving smoking ruins and chaos, then expect to be congratulated and rewarded for showing “international experience.”
They live surrounded by heavily armed U.S. government agents and have fancy residences behind gates and walls, but they denounce defenders of the Second Amendment and people calling for enhanced border security.
However, when Trump suggested at a Florida rally on September 16 that Clinton’s Secret Service agents should “drop all weapons” protecting her in order to test her opposition to firearms, the media beagles quickly bayed that he was inviting her assassination.
The New York Times soon posted a story put together by not one or two but three reporters aflame with indignation over Trump’s alleged incitement to violence.
Dominant media already had made themselves a laughingstock over their obvious heavy bias against Trump’s candidacy, and this was another instance.
National conservative radio talk host Dennis Prager said on September 19 that even liberals understood what Trump meant, and it wasn’t a call to violence against the Democrat. “Everyone knows that he was using sarcasm to make his point,” Prager said.
Another way Trump caught dominant media off balance was with his outreach to blacks suffering under decades of liberal Democrat-created welfarism.
Perhaps with the best of intentions originally, President Lyndon Johnson’s “war on poverty,” begun in the 1960s, instead nurtured family dysfunction and dependency that have grown into a new “plantation” of welfare enslavement.
Crafty Democrat politicians, well aware of the rich vote benefits to themselves from patronage, have little intention of freeing poorer blacks from this bondage.
Meanwhile, dominant media often depict their suffering but skip past this reason for it. Black unemployment even has increased under Obama, but as usual he gets none of the blame.
“Disadvantaged” and “discriminated against” are familiar characterizations in stories about blacks. But when Trump invited blacks to join him in shaking off their shackles, these media gasped that the Republican bigot was trying to give black lives a bad name.
Trump already had dared to suggest that America generally was suffering tough times under Obama. Then the very same media that regularly bemoan what a racist, unfair, exploitative, unequal country the U.S. is quickly reversed themselves and mourned that Trump supposedly was casting the hideous pall of his “dark vision” upon the nation.
At the same time, blacks whom these media often portray as impoverished victims suddenly became remarkable success stories that Trump allegedly despised.
The August 25 New York Times had a story and photo spread across the top half of Page A12 headlined, “Blacks beg to differ with Trump’s depiction.” Once again, not one or two but three Times reporters were needed to carry this heavy load — plus assistance from yet two more reporters!
The Times claimed that Trump, in its words, was generalizing that “all African-Americans inhabit a hell of violence and dysfunction.” But, aha, the story quickly added, a black interviewee for the story reacted to Trump’s outreach with “an incredulous and slightly bitter cascade of chuckles.”
The propagandistic article sneered that “the unrelievedly dire picture he has painted of black America has left many black voters angry, dumbfounded or both.”
Hint to Times: Trump perhaps knows there are better-off blacks because he speaks at their churches, and has them in his neighborhood and employment and social circles.
But the newspaper marched forth another interviewee to say what it wanted said, that “Mr. Trump’s depiction of a hopeless, violent black America did not match reality.”
Memo to Times: You may think such contrived screeds leave readers trembling with revelation and contrition. But the clippings more likely arouse disgust that writers who could have served as disinformation specialists in the old Soviet Union have managed to find journalist jobs in Manhattan.
Trump likely wasn’t many conservatives’ first choice for GOP presidential nominee this year, but he’s the one they have now. He even may produce much to please them if he’s elected, as Phyllis Schlafly contends in the book released just after her death, The Conservative Case for Trump (Regnery).
No-nonsense conservative national radio host Mark Levin delayed in endorsing Trump but announced he’ll vote for the billionaire to prevent Hillary from becoming president. Levin said to listeners on September 20 that Trump isn’t a conservative, “but he has some conservative views, depending on whether his feet are held to the fire.”
One deviation from common-sense principle was Trump’s September 15 statement that women should be able to obtain birth-control medications without a prescription.
The Associated Press reported this year’s GOP platform says it “opposes the FDA’s ‘endorsement of over-the-counter sales of powerful contraceptives without a physician’s recommendation’.”
In 2012, Catholic conservative Bobby Jindal, then governor of Louisiana, said oral contraceptives should be available over the counter. One of the reasons he gave: this would remove birth control as a political issue.
Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., founder of the pro-family Ruth Institute, told The Wanderer on September 17 that Trump’s proposal is a bad idea.
“These are dangerous drugs,” Morse said. “A doctor’s office visit and doctor’s-office supervision are the bare minimum. . . . He wasn’t thinking when he said that.”
Ann Howard, a retired Arizona Catholic attorney, told The Wanderer that in addition to the issue of morality, “all birth-control pills are a strong hormonal cocktail, with multiple side effects. Whether it should be taken without a prescription is a medical issue and should be decided by the proper professional entities.
“The pill is not a political issue. It is a medical issue,” Howard said. “And for Mr. Trump and other candidates to fall for the idea that they should opine on its availability betrays a lack of judgment concerning to many. The best position to take is not to take a political one.”
As Election Day drew nearer, pundit Chris Buskirk recalled on the September 20 Seth Leibsohn radio program that not so long ago, Obama’s adoring fans were fainting at his rallies, but now it’s candidate Hillary Clinton who’s losing consciousness.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress