For a damaging story about a Democrat to be true, DNA must be found on a blue dress. There must be Blue Dress Proof™. It’s not enough to have a witness and a victim. It’s not enough to have a computer, a cache of validated emails, thousands of affadavits signed under the threat of perjury. There must be actual DNA, videotaped evidence. If the bad guy is a Democrat, there must be Blue Dress Proof.
For a damaging story about a Republican to be true, nothing has to be true at all. Third-hand hearsay about hookers and pee, a smile on a face, or a sarcastic tweet or phrase taken out of context can make even the most absurd conclusion be portrayed as fact and conveyed as truth in perpetuity. If the bad guy is a Republican, no proof is needed.
Hunter Biden, the China-compromised (to the tune of a request of 10 million smackers), Russian oligarch–payoff taking, crack pipe–smoking, naked-picture havin’ Democrat has been given every benefit of the doubt. The media and technology companies forbade mentioning the story before the election. No one who watched CNN or NBC or MSNBC or read the New York Times or the Washington Post knew about the story. Those on Twitter whose tweets weren’t throttled or blocked outright were called names by the media. The story, which had witnesses, corroboration, and evidence, was deemed a conspiracy theory.
It’s all true. The DOJ and FBI knew it was all true, and, shockingly, the intelligence agencies that leaked like 30-year-old sieves throughout the Trump administration miraculously learned how to keep a secret for over a year. They stayed mum through the primaries. They were quiet through the presidential election while sitting on a laptop full of emails, images, and texts of Biden corruption.
Since everyone has the memory retention of a fart due to the internet turning humans into mindless clickers, I thought it would be good to refresh everyone’s memories about the media during the Clinton years. Bill Clinton was president 20 years ago. An Arkansas guy, he rose above his station and through intellectual brilliance and not a little viciousness blew through the ranks in politics to become the 42nd president of the United States.
Bill was known to be a cad and in some cases an “aggressive” date. None of the women he’s (allegedly) raped has been taken seriously by the #MeToo movement even today. No woman assaulted by Clinton back in the day was taken seriously either.
Hillary Clinton knew a meal ticket when she had one, and like all good feminists attached herself to Bill like a fungus. She would not let go no matter the stories. They had an understanding. Feminists loved Bill Clinton. They defended him. Gloria Steinem wrote a big op-ed in the New York Times defending Bill. When recently interviewed by the Guardian, Steinem said the following:
“I’m glad I wrote it at the time,” she said. “Because the danger then was we were about to lose sexual harassment law because it was being applied to extramarital sex, free will, extramarital sex, as with Monica Lewinsky.”
Feminists defended the appalling behavior of the Leader of the Free World with an intern. While decrying men in power abusing their authority and wanting a sexual harassment law, they looked the other way at the inherently lopsided relationship between the president and Monica Lewinsky.
What did Bill and Monica do? Well, they had sex in the Oval Office. Bill used the contents of his humidor creatively. Monica, clad in a blue dress, satisfied the needs of the president of the United States. It was messy. She had genetic proof. Monica loved him. She wanted a souvenir.
When the sordid tale unfolded, the media of the time, like the media now, couldn’t believe that the Man from Hope would do something so untoward. Not one major media outlet broke the story. No media wanted to be cut off from the sweet, sweet access at the White House.
Hillary Clinton famously fumed that the rumors were a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
Bill Clinton famously held a press conference where he bit his lower lip, pointed his thumb at the reporters, and looked plaintively into the cameras and said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
It was a lie. The media believed him.
Let’s parse Bill’s statement for a moment because his words were oddly specific. He didn’t have “sexual relations,” and in a manner of speaking that was true. Bill didn’t bed his intern on a couch in the Oval Office in full-throttle missionary position. He preferred other sexual methods. And then there’s him using the phrase “that woman” — technically, Monica was a woman, but she was not a peer. She was a plaything. But Bill used that word “woman” to plant the idea of her adulthood, when he clearly knew it was wrong to fool around with a woman so junior to him in power. Finally, he put the emphasis on the name “Miss Lewinsky” at the end. Why? Well, to make it clear that she was the villain in this story. He was the victim. It was an evil thing to do. Here was the president of the United states damning an idealistic young intern in front of all the media. To think the media now decries abusing power. It is a laugh. Bill Clinton wrecked this young girl. Wrecked her.
Why is this important? Because, like now, the media actively strove to ignore the story because it harmed their hero. After eight years of Ronald Reagan and four years of George H. W. Bush, no one wanted to hear one bad thing about a Democrat. The media loved Bill and Hill. They were a “two-for-one package,” as Hillary said. The Clintons were former hippies, dedicated leftists, and relatively young. Most importantly, they weren’t Republicans.
What goaded the media into finally reporting the truth? The blue dress. In the course of the investigation, the president had to produce a DNA sample. The semen on the blue dress proved beyond a shadow of a doubt and forced everyone, finally, at long last, to believe what had been obviously true for months: William Jefferson Clinton had had sexual relations with that intern, that young woman, Miss Lewinsky.
Who broke the story? Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report. An alternative internet news source and website, a relative unknown, posted the story. The mainstream media wouldn’t touch it until they couldn’t help it anymore.
Not much has changed 20 years later, except that the news environment has gotten worse. Any fantastical story about a Republican is immediately believed — and by conservative news outlets, too. The worst motives, the worst actions are accepted as fact. The conservative commentariat are as hateful to their own and nearly as forgiving of Democrats as the mainstream media. The police in the death of George Floyd? Still condemned despite compelling exonerating evidence. Nick Sandmann, the pro-life teen? Condemned by the mainstream media and conservative media alike.
Any bad action by Democrats, in contrast, is instantly viewed as innocent. Joe Biden being beholden to China and using his son to pimp his name for money, giving communists easy access to U.S. information? Why, this is just a father helping out and trying to protect his son — when the exact opposite explanation is far more sensible and has witnesses, emails, corroboration evidence — PROOF — that shows Joe Biden was and is a man willing to use his fragile, drug-addicted son to get money trading on the family name. It’s disgusting, and it’s being swept away by an incurious media. At least he’s not a president who says mean things on Twitter!
How about the presidential election fraud story? There was fraud. It is documented. There are multiple witnesses in multiple states. There is hard statistical evidence. There are state-level investigations. There are state-level audits that are currently being manipulated (again). This is not some made-up thing. There was a Senate hearing yesterday cataloging the instances of fraud, for heaven’s sake. The question isn’t whether there’s been voter fraud. That’s been firmly established, and people are being prosecuted right now for allegedly violating the law and producing hundreds and in some cases thousands of fraudulent ballots. The question now is whether all these fraudulent votes add up to enough to turn the election for Joe Biden. Some very smart scientists (see Nevada, here), statisticians, and computer experts think it did.
And yet the election fraud story is being treated like Monica Lewinsky — a nasty little inconvenience getting in the way of favored politician greatness.
There will have to be Blue Dress Proof™ as I’m coining it, for the media, for the Democrats, and for even the so-called intellectual conservatives to believe that this obvious thing that happened actually happened. There has always been voter fraud and maybe the fraud has moved other recent elections, too. We don’t know for sure, but this is something Americans should feel confident about. Americans should know with certainty that their votes count, that fraud couldn’t possibly sway an election of such magnitude.
It’s obvious why the Democrats and media want this story to go away. If the fraud is verifiable and it was ubiquitous enough, then Joe Biden actually lost the election. Losing would mean four more years of enduring a politician they loathe.
The media and Democrats loathed Ronald Reagan, too. The establishment Republicans were not fond of him, either. Any courageous thing President Reagan did — “Tear down that wall!” or standing by Britain in the Falklands — was viewed by his advisers as risky and imprudent. Reagan was right, of course. Reagan, like Trump, didn’t want foreign entanglements. He wanted “peace through strength.” He wanted to rebuild the pride of the military. He wanted American power to deter conflict. And it did.
Donald Trump, loved by the voters and hated by nearly everyone in D.C. left, right, center, and even in his own administration, doesn’t play by the established rules. He just tries to do the right thing. Thus, no new wars. Thus, peace in the Middle East. Thus, his obsessive focus on the working and middle class. America first. This sentiment makes citizen of the world D.C. types crazed.
There are lots of motives to look the other way if there was significant enough election fraud. But knowing the truth is imperative not just because half the country feels disenfranchised, but because faith in our voting systems and our system of governance is imperiled. Without the confidence of the people governed, how long does a Republic last? Is it still a Republic? One way or another, the truth must come out.
Time to either get Blue Dress Proof™ and convince the jaded and craven. Or, if no proof exists because the election was fair enough and fraud didn’t change the outcome, it’s time to clean up the process to restore faith in future elections, and move on. Moving on comes after the evidence is examined and not before. Moving on comes after putting in vote integrity processes. Faith returns when transparency builds trust.
The mainstream media is not interested in examining the evidence to find out if there’s a there there. Like two decades ago, the facts will come out in some form of alternative media. It will have to be so compelling that no Democrat, journalist, or cynical so-called conservative commentator can ignore it. Anything less and it will be dismissed as a conspiracy theory no matter how trustworthy and believable the witnesses. The media didn’t listen to Eileen Wellstone, a couple anonymous college students, Juanita Broaddrick, Carolyn Moffet, Paula Jones, Christy Zercher, or Kathleen Willey even though each case was compelling and detailed, there were police reports, and the women have all stuck by their stories. But Bill Clinton, Democrats, and the craven media liars couldn’t deny the Blue Dress Proof™.
When it comes to election fraud turning the results to favor Joe Biden, the pathetic non-candidate who couldn’t turn out five people to a “rally,” there will need to be Blue Dress Proof. Let’s hope it’s found quickly. This wound should not fester. A Republic is at stake.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.