What is it with liberals and their obsession with sex? Why say something that is so provably false in a day when it takes mere seconds to spot and disprove fake news?
Here is this tweet from President Trump in its entirety:
Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office “begging” for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill & Crooked-USED!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2017
There is, as is plain for even the densest person on the planet to see, no reference — zero, nada, none — to anything remotely having to do with sex. But that didn’t stop Gillibrand and all sorts of others like the Washington Post from instantly insisting that it did. The Senator and her sex-obsessed allies in the Post and elsewhere cited the phrase that she was “someone who would come to my office ‘begging’ for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them)” as, don’t you know, a phrase that is synonymous with “sex.”
Really? Really? Maybe the Senator should do just the minimal research before looking so foolish.
Back there in July of this year, no less than the far left Daily Kos had this headline about Trump:
33 times Trump claimed his enemies came to him begging for favors — and HE SAID NO!
That’s right. As the Daily Kos points out in detail, this is something the President has said quite frequently over time, and the Daily Kos took the time to list his targets.
Among others Trump has said a version of this about Arizona Senator John McCain, Iowa GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Platts, magician Penn Jillette, Texas Governor Rick Perry, late night hosts David Letterman and Seth Meyers, and 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney. All of them, don’t you know, men.
Of McCain, Trump said this: “The very foul mouthed Sen. John McCain begged for my support during his primary (I gave, he won), then dropped me over locker room remarks!” Of Vander Platts Trump said: “.@bobvanderplaats begged me to do an event while asking organizers for $100,000 for himself — a bad guy!” Of Penn Jillette he first said: “I let @pennjillette come back on the record 13th season of ‘All Star’ @CelebApprentice after he relentlessly begged me to–good t.v.” When that seemed not enough he also said: “I loved firing goofball atheist Penn @pennjillette on The Apprentice. He never had a chance. Wrote letter to me begging for forgiveness.” And Rick Perry, Trump’s then rival for the nomination and now his Secretary of Energy? Trump said: “@GovernorPerry in my office last cycle playing nice and begging for my support and money. Hypocrite!” Of Romney: “Why did Mitt Romney BEG me for my endorsement four years ago?”
Of Gillibrand’s fellow New York pol, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, the Trump comment was: “Why did lightweight A.G. Eric Schneiderman come to my office on numerous occasions begging for campaign contributions? Also, recent asks?” Not left out were Trump’s “begging” comments about two newspapers, the New Hampshire Union Leader and the Des Moines Register.
Now he says almost exactly the same thing about Kirsten Gillibrand — and Gillibrand and the Post suddenly decide it’s sexist? So much for equality. Apparently Senator Gillibrand, in her own eyes and that of the Post, is not the equal of Senator McCain and the rest of the guys on the list who have had the same charge hurled at them by the President over the years. They can take it because they are guys but, well, you know, Senator Gillibrand is just a woman. Seriously? How insulting is that?
The phrase that X person “would do anything” to achieve a goal is one of the most mundane, common and quite sexless phrases in the English language, which doubtless accounts for Trump’s repeated use of it. The phrase is used to describe any and everything from someone’s appetite for food, getting a job and getting money, to breaking a sports or business or any other kind of record and so much more. So common is the theme that back in the 1950s one of the hit movies of the day — based on a Broadway play — was Damn Yankees. The plot? Joe Boyd, a serious fan of the hapless Washington Senators baseball team, would do anything to have the Senators beat the mighty New York Yankees. Specifically, “do anything” in this case means Joe would sell his soul to the Devil. The Devil hears his plea and shows up as a conman named Applegate to make Joe an offer, which he accepts. Eventually, of course, Joe regrets his choice, turns his back on “doing anything” to beat the Yankees and returns to his wife to live happily ever after.
One doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry at Gillibrand and the Post’s stunningly cynical stunt in turning this phrase which Trump has used repeatedly to describe male critics or opponents into something that is synonymous with sex. She wasn’t alone in this stunt either. Here is the headline on the Washington Post article on Trump’s tweet by reporter Ashley Parker:
Trump sends sexually suggestive and demeaning tweet about Gillibrand
Making her story up out of whole cloth — can you say “Fake News”? — Parker invents a fairy tell as she goes along:
President Trump attacked Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) in a sexually suggestive tweet Tuesday morning that implied Gillibrand would do just about anything for money, prompting a swift and immediate backlash.
Um, no. There was nothing in the least sexually suggestive in this tweet. He has said it about a lot of men. That this is sexist is made up, fabricated, a fairy tale, fake news and, politely put, a bold prevarication. A lie. Did the Post ever suggest that the phrase was “sexually suggestive” when Trump used it on Schneiderman? Or McCain? Or Romney? Or any of the others? No, of course not.
Parker goes on to quote all manner of outraged women who unwittingly buy into this myth. Former Fox New anchor Gretchen Carlson and BBC anchor Katty Kay do a startling turn as pushers of a flat untruth. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren tweeted that Trump was “trying to bully, intimidate and slut-shame.” So too my old CNN colleague and ex-Hillary Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon. Did none of them do their research on this? No. Was Trump really “slut-shaming” John McCain and Eric Schneiderman? Come on.
In the case of the Clintons, recall that it was only weeks ago that Gillibrand said Bill Clinton should have resigned during the Lewinsky scandal, immediately drawing the wrath of, yes, Hillary Clinton’s longtime aide Philippe Reines, who said the following of the woman who succeeded to Hillary Clinton’s New York Senate seat:
“Over 20 yrs you took the Clintons’ endorsements, money, and seat. Hypocrite.”
Translation? What Reines is really saying here is that Gillibrand did “do anything” and was “begging” to get Clinton’s Senate seat, the endorsement of both Clintons and tons of money in the form of political contributions. And once all was in hand, she turned on the Clintons, the very people who did everything to help her. Are Gillibrand and the rest now saying that Hillary Clinton’s longtime aide Philippe Reines was saying Gillibrand would have sex for the Clinton Senate seat? That she would have sex for all that money? Really? Really?
What is wrong with these people? Sexual harassment is a serious enough issue as it is without making up flat out untruths about something like this Trump tweet.
The obvious answer is that Gillibrand and company, the Washington Post included, are not just willing to make up a flat out fake news-style untruth about Trump. They clearly are obsessed with sex. Everything is about sex in this bizarre world view of the Left. Everything. Including politics, the latter being the view of the Clinton campaign and the elite media in the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton, went the sub rosa message last year, couldn’t be rejected because she was a woman. The American people saw her instead as what she — and her opponent — were: politicians aspiring to be president. A decidedly sexless occupation. And judging her as such, as is the way of the political world, she lost. Just as all manner of men have lost before her.
The real problem here is the poison of identity politics. Whether it rears its head as a racial issue or about sex, identity politics demands a total obsession in judging everyone and everything — or in this latest case, every word — as all about sex or race.
Thus a simple presidential tweet that had no reference to sex at all — becomes all about sex. And Gillibrand is out there to make sure of it. And it matters not that this is something Trump has said repeatedly about a long list of men over the years.
Gillibrand is mentioned by some as a presidential nominee for Democrats in 2020. One can only imagine the reaction of the American voting public were she to be the Democrats’ nominee. It wouldn’t take long for them to realize that it was crystal clear Kirsten Gillibrand would do anything to be president. And, in this case, do anything to get attention. Which she has just done.
And as for the Post? This is one more bold example of mainstream media fake news. A story, note well, that no one else in the mainstream media took the time to simply fact check.
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.