While we were there, outnumbered about 75-2, a number of protestors
attempted to block us and our signs. This gave me the opportunity to have a
captive audience; if they left, I wasn’t blocked. If they didn’t, they were
going to hear what I had to say.
Photo via thefederalistpapers.org |
Besides sharing the gospel, which is the most important thing to do in
that situation, I was able to have a small conversation with a man probably
only a few years younger than me. I asked him what his goal was in being out
there. Was it an intrinsically-focused event to rally supporters, or was the purpose
to win others over to their side?
“We want to win people over,” he said.
“I know I’m not the easiest target since I’m directly opposing you,” I
responded, “But if you’re trying to convince others you’re right, why are you
trying to hide an opposing view instead of discuss it?”
That’s exactly why I’m writing this. I
thought I was done with the topic. But as I’ve thought about it, I’ve
realized that these individuals really can’t claim the high ground on this
issue. Their marked hypocrisy revealed itself to me.
“Believe women” and “I’m
with Her” are wholly incompatible statements.
I’m not saying this to be partisan or blast people. I’m saying it
because I’m telling you all that your inconsistency on this issue leaves you
with no credibility when you talk about it. I’m saying it as someone who does
not share your views as a warning. We’re not buying the act. If your goal is to
convince us, you’re not doing it.
And I think a lot of conservatives did not handle this well either,
lacking in sensitivity. In 2016, we
had the choice between a presidential candidate who uses women and
disrespects them openly, and a presidential candidate who is probably a greater
menace to women, especially those that have been victims of sexual harassment
or assault. We all want to jump up and claim we care about victims and care
about women, then we go out and vote for one of these candidates. I’m not
buying it.
An Instagram post of mine from around the time of the election |
It is well documented that Bill Clinton is about as big a scumbag as
one could find in politics, which is an astounding feat considering the
competition. I tip my hat to him. But also documented, although more hidden, are
the actions of Hillary, who rode Bill’s coattails into politics at the expense
of anyone who might get in the way of her ambition, including her husband’s
trail of affairs and assaults.
There was the time she called Gennifer Flowers, one of the women with
whom her husband had an affair, “trailer trash” in an ABC interview. She is “some
failed cabaret singer who doesn’t even have a resumé to fall back on.” She also
told Esquire that if she could
cross-examine Flowers, she “would crucify her.”
When stories mounted of various affairs Bill had, Hillary called it a “bimbo
eruption.”
There was the time Bill sent a state trooper to approach a woman on his
behalf, seeking to have sex with her, and Hillary said “we have to destroy her
story.”
She characterized Monica Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony toon.”
Of course, there were the times that as an attorney Hillary led by
example in the call to “believe women.” As she defended an alleged rapist, she
wrote that the 12-year-old alleged victim “is emotionally unstable with a
tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.” She was taped
laughing about the way she had vital evidence dismissed. “[The defendant] took
a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.”
Then there was the time she cornered Juanita Broaddrick after she
accused Bill of rape, “thanking” her for “everything” she had done for Bill,
squeezing her hand when she tried to walk away and repeating it more forcefully.
Of course, in her own words, all of this was just a “vast right-wing
conspiracy.”
You all don’t need me to tell you that Bill is a scumbag and Hillary covers
for it. The couple is a real-life epitome of Tom and Daisy Buchanan. They use
people and then retreat behind their wealth, avoiding the consequences.
Only this last time, the consequences weren’t entirely avoided. You
have to be the worst presidential candidate in history to lose an election to
Donald Trump. People saw through her. She had a point when she called out Trump
for his treatment of women, but he had a point when he flipped it back on her.
And that’s what I’m here to say. That 12-year-old who Hillary fought
against in a rape case returned fire later in life. “And you are supposed to be
for women? You call that for women, what you done to me?”
I sat here for weeks listening to the cries to “believe women.” I
looked at it with a cool head. Yes, we need to take seriously claims of sexual
assault. But blind
belief in the face of little evidence is dangerous.
But what struck me is that the people championing the “believe women”
mantra had absolutely no credibility, at least the majority of them that voted
for Hillary Clinton. When women came out with allegations against her husband,
she did everything in her power to silence them. She called them “sluts” and “bimbos”
and threw other creative insults. She cornered them in public. She defended alleged
rapists in court. And when she gets called on it, she says the allegations
against her husband were different than those against Kavanuagh.
Now it all makes sense. Photo via New York Times |
She’s right; the allegations against Bill were much more credible.
Still, she just won’t believe women.
Even if Hillary Clinton was not guilty of the outright coverups and
disgusting statements about Bill’s victims, she still broke the rules in the
liberal game. She didn’t believe women. She doesn’t trust women. The very fact
that Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, and Leslie Millwee say
that they were sexually assaulted and sexually assaulted by a certain man is
enough. End of discussion. We have to trust them. No
one would ever lie about such a thing.
So I’m sorry, but when people who vote for someone like Hillary Clinton
rant about the need to believe women, I don’t buy it. It’s disingenuous. It’s intellectual
dishonesty. I’m not fooled.
This was never actually about believing women. It was about political
gain and protecting the crown jewel of legislation from the Bench.
Two years ago, Democrats, you voted for someone with an abhorrent
record on treatment of sexual assault victims. You chose someone who is the polar
opposite of the “believe women, regardless of the evidence” principle. But now
you jump on others who wanted to be careful not to hang an innocent man by
first investigating whether there was any truth to the allegations. Where was the
cry to believe women at the polls that day?
Or maybe that principle only applies when you’re trying to keep
abortion legal.