Since the sixties sexual revolution, which overthrew the
pre-silly sixties traditional morality of the Western World, everyone has
become an expert on the subject of sex. The moral questions that tormented St.
Augustine – who was not, by his own admission, a saint – are easily answered
today by asking the question, what would I do in circumstances A or B? In the era of unorganized religion, we all have out private codes.
If I were President of the United States, would I have
seduced an aide in the White House when, on one occasion, I was chatting with a
high Israeli official on the phone? Probably not. Would I have bitten Juanita
Broaddrick’s lip in the process, so she says, of raping her? Not in the cards. If
I were a self-infatuated real estate mogul in New York, would I have bragged
about my conquests of married women to Billy Bush, then the host of Access Hollywood, little thinking
that my every word would surface eleven years later in a Presidential campaign?
Nope. If I were the wife of a robber who had a bank safe hidden under her
marriage bed, would I raise the question of petty robbery in a Presidential debate?
Not unless, Donald Trump has said of Hillary Clinton, my judgment was
irreparably impaired.
In the post-modern, post-sixties world, what has any of this
to do with one’s fitness to serve as President, children of the sixties ask?
Both the right and the left agree, more or less, that sexual impropriety is a
matter of concern only to prudes. And everyone ends up talking about it –
endlessly, as if the children of the sixties who had valiantly banished shame
to the backrooms our post-modern liberated souls, some of whom now occupy high
political office, were themselves moral arbiters. If it were not so amusing, it
would be a shame. The sexual liberators of the sixties, having vanquished all
their opponents, now step forward on the public stage to defend sexual modesty
and honor which, we are assured, is compatible with abortion on demand and
the selling of pre-born baby parts for
profit.
Right from the beginning of the Republican primary campaign
against eleven worthies, three of whom were articulate anti-incumbent
insurgents, Donald Trump’s march to the White House was a deep dive to the
bottom. But Mrs. Clinton and her husband, the Lucrezia and Cesare Borgia of presidential politics, had hit
bottom long before Mr. Trump appeared in the Presidential campaign theatre.
Four of Hillary and Bill’s past victims,
all women – Paula Jones, Kathy Shelton, Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Wiley –
members of Hillary Clinton’s “bimbo” brigade, appeared in a media
availability prior to the second debate
and were present in the audience when Mr. Trump alluded to Mr. Clinton’s molestation – and, in one case, rape – of the
four women. Mrs. Clinton abetted her husband’s violation of the women until the
episode of the semen-stained blue dress belonging to Monica Lewinsky, then a White
House intern. Ms. Lewinsky, now in the process of shedding the media amber she
has been caught in for decades, was not present at the debate. She recently
appeared in Connecticut, unmolested by the state’s press corps, to talk about
bullying. The artist who painted Mr. Clinton’s official White House portrait,
now hanging in the national gallery, included in his paint a shadow
representing that blue dress, a shadow, he later explained, on the Clinton
Presidency.
During President Barack Obama’s entire term in office, solicitous
Democrats, alarmed that an objectively true representation of Islamic terrorism
might encourage Islamic terrorism, have been leading the forces of light in the
Middle East from behind, while some Republicans, pilloried as warmongers, have
been asking: Shouldn’t we be talking
about how we might most effectively kill ISIS, and do it in such a way that
Islamic terrorists the world over will understand their time has run out? Why
are we tolerating salifists hopelessly lost in a pre-medieval world who have in
recent days emptied whole villages of Christians, beheaded some of them, raped
or taken into slavery as war trophies any woman who may broadly be described as
kafir, thrown gays to their deaths off tall buildings in accordance with Sharia law,
threatened Israel every hour on the hour
with destruction, instructed assassins in Paris, Germany, Belgium and other
Western ports how best to murder innocent civilians and conspired with the traditional
enemies of the United States – Vladimir Putin of Russia, China’s fascists
dictators and that little pipsqueak in North Korea – to frustrate a sensible and
effective pre-Barack Obama foreign policy? Should we be paying bribes and ransom
money to Iran, a terrorist state that undoubtedly will transfer the billions of
tax dollars they have received from the Obama-Clinton administration – all in
transferable cash and gold -- to their Hamas proxy terrorists, holed-up in
Lebanon, once a Christian nation, now a pit-stop for the assassins of Israeli citizens? Why is
moral indifference in the face of such horrors honorable? Why is it moral?
Comments