Isn’t It Ironic?

March 2017

Will the ironies of the political Left ever be scrutinized honestly by the mainstream media? At this point, it seems not. In fact, most of the time, the media is powering the engines of leftist irony.

Last year, for example, we had Hillary Clinton supporters waxing apoplectic about her white, male, Republican presidential contender. The accusations and accompanying rhetoric were brutal. Among other things, Donald Trump was deemed sexist and misogynist. With mouthfuls of hyperbolic invective, talking heads have been fulminating for more than a year now against Trump’s mistreatment of women, primarily citing his lewd locker-room babble, his use of derogatory terms for women he presumably finds fat or unattractive, and the fact that he’s been married three times. Although Trump’s misogynistic trash-talking is indefensible and his multiple marriages indisputable, it is certainly ironic that those who lambasted the future President Trump not only supported Hillary but cast her in the role of defender of women’s dignity and rights.

One wonders how difficult it was for them to disregard the mountain of evidence to the contrary. For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, the former Democratic presidential nominee is no friend to women. In fact, she has been a brazen bully and an enabler of sexual assault. By 2016 it had long been part of the public record that Hillary had been credibly accused by a number of women, including Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones, of threatening women who lodged verifiable complaints of sexual harassment and sexual assault against her husband when he was governor of Arkansas and president of the U.S. Hillary, referring to Trump, suggested publicly on a number of occasions that anyone who resorts to lewd comments or says terrible things about women is not suited to serve as our country’s president. That’s ironic. Considering that she called Bill Clinton’s mistress Gennifer Flowers “trailer trash,” dismissed Bill’s nineteen-year-old intern mistress Monica Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony toon,” and referred to the numerous other women her husband was allegedly involved with as “bimbos,” couldn’t one say that, by her own standard, she too was unsuitable for the presidency? The media never seemed to think so.

True, Hillary has been clear and consistent in her condemnation of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and other various forms of sexual impropriety when it involves her Republican rivals. Why then, as an attorney, did she defend a forty-two-year-old rapist of a twelve-year-old girl? Why did she smear the rape victim as having a “tendency to seek out older men”? Why did she later laugh about the incident (caught on audiotape and made public) and brag about getting her rapist client off, leaving the twelve-year-old girl without justice? Some women’s advocate she is!

If speaking out against various forms of sexual impropriety is so important to her, why then did Hillary fail to publicly criticize the various bizarre sexual improprieties of either her husband or Anthony Weiner, the husband of her close campaign advisor, former deputy chief of staff, and “surrogate daughter” Huma Abedin? Weiner was convicted of “sexting” photos of his genitalia to a fifteen-year-old girl, exchanged lewd messages with women online using the moniker Carlos Danger, and once described himself as “a perpetually horny middle-aged man.”

You could call it hypocritical, but let’s just call it “ironic” for now.

Furthermore, why did Bill and Hillary’s Clinton Foundation accept charitable donations by the tens of millions of dollars from countries that do not recognize basic women’s rights, including the right to vote, to inherit, to appear in public, and not to be harassed and abused by men? Hillary said if she were elected president, she would ensure equal pay for women. Why then did the Clinton Foundation’s “pay recommendations” and salary schedule create a huge pay gap, with male employees being paid on average thirty-eight percent more than female employees for doing the same work?

Again, you could call it hypocritical, but let’s just stick with ironic.

The point here is certainly not to defend President Trump’s bawdy and offensive comments, but rather to highlight an extant double standard. Does the media fault liberal politicians who have been married thrice or toss around bawdy comments with cavalier disregard for decency? Hardly.

So if, for example, Hillary’s history as a politician and a political wife is riddled with verifiable incidents against the dignity of women, why is it that the media gets bent out of shape about Trump but not about Hillary? The answer is simple: It has to do with their stances on abortion. Only after Trump declared that he would defend the pro-life position and later when he named staunchly pro-life advocate Mike Pence as his running mate did his bawdiness become an issue. Had he come out in favor of “abortion rights,” the media would have looked at him very differently, as they did with President Bill Clinton. It is much less likely that Trump’s locker-room talk would have hit prime time. He would have been a useful tool.

The very disturbing reality is that, after all is said and done, so-called women’s issues boil down to one primary concern: abortion. When half a million people took to the streets for the Women’s March on Washington, D.C., and another half million in sister marches in Chicago, New York, and elsewhere across the country on the weekend of the presidential inauguration, the day before the anniversary of the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade decision, they came together for one primary reason. Billed euphemistically as “reproductive rights,” that reason was abortion. How do we know this? Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards was a keynote speaker at the D.C. march. Both Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America were major sponsors. The march’s platform included “open access to safe, legal, affordable abortion.” Pro-abortion signs were ubiquitous. And a few pro-life feminist groups (New Wave Feminists, And Then There Were None, et al.) asked to be included as partner organizations for the march but were rejected after abortion promoters had hissy fits.

Woe to she who doesn’t support abortion-on-demand!

Even after forty-four years of legal abortion, so many of these women’s-rights crusaders still seem to be completely in the dark about what abortion is, that it is the willful killing of innocent human life, that it is violent, that it harms women physically and psychologically. How exactly is Trump’s bawdy locker-room humor worse than promoting universal abortion and demonizing all who dare disagree?

Why, then, as Hillary admitted of herself in the third presidential debate, do so-called women’s advocates refuse to recognize a female’s constitutional right to life before birth, even a day before birth? Why do they support partial-birth abortion, a late-term procedure that pulls apart the body of a girl so that she is born dead rather than alive? Why do they support massive federal funding of Planned Parenthood and other groups that perform these and other types of abortions, all of which end in the death of a girl (or a boy) and often physically and emotionally wound the mother?

We at the NOR believe in the dignity of the human person — male and female, rich and poor, born and unborn. More specifically, we believe in the dignity of women. And we find the pro-abortion position too illogical to believe, too full of irony.

And speaking of irony, the D.C. Women’s March partnered with several Islamic groups, including Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim Women’s Alliance, the Arab American Association of New York, and Women for Afghan Women. In other words, the same abortion-promoting march organizers who claim to be defenders of women’s rights — real human rights for women — gladly accept money from supporters of Islam, a religion that systematically discriminates against women, holds women in contempt, and inspires a culture that includes female genital mutilation, female honor killings, and preying on non-Muslim women. There is no concept of “gender equality” in the Muslim world, no freedom of conscience for women, and no equality in law regarding legal testimony, equal-employment opportunities, or equal pay for equal work. The bottom line is this: Women in societies governed by Islamic law have far fewer rights than women in Western societies.

And by the way, Islam does not look kindly on abortion. Ironic?

But back to President Donald Trump: Despite his history of demeaning comments about women, it is also ironic that in his first couple of days in office he restored the Mexico City Policy, the U.S. law that blocks federal funding of non-governmental organizations that provide abortion counseling or referrals overseas, and called for federal defunding of Planned Parenthood.

Truly, truly, this is what so terrifies women’s advocates. So, perhaps their hysteria is real. The day Trump turned pro-life was the day he was deemed a threat to the abortion-based social order. Ironic? You bet.



DOSSIER: Abortion

DOSSIER: Fanatical Feminism

DOSSIER: Pro-life Issues



New Oxford Notes: March 2017

Read our posting policy Add a comment
Wonderful article. Too bad it won't be read outside of the "choir". A link to Facebook, etc, would give it an opportunity for a much wider, needed reception. Posted by: billford
March 08, 2017 12:14 PM EST
Add a comment