Saturday 16th of December 2017

hillary lost because bill played the saxophone...

bill and hillary

As the date for the Alabama Senate special election gets closer, the (if true) appalling revelations about Roy Moore have reignited a dialogue that began with Donald Trump’s infamous Access Hollywood tape released last year. Moore is merely the latest character in a month-long tsunami of sexual assault allegations that have already claimed Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Louis C.K., Al Franken, and so many more.

It also revived a national conversation about Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, and all the other allegations of wildly inappropriate (proven) and forcible or illegal (not proven, at least yet) Clinton-era sexual shenanigans. Republicans and conservatives have used “Bubba” as their get-out-of-jail-free card for the past two years. But how can Democrats and feminists object to people like Roy Moore or Donald Trump now, when they went to the edge of the envelope to shield and protect Clinton from similar charges of exploiting vulnerable employees, and even possible rape?

The brouhaha was kicked up many a notch by MSNBC liberal Chris Hayes tweeting:

As gross and cynical and hypocrtical as the right's "what about Bill Clinton" stuff is, it's also true that Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against him.

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) November 10, 2017


A-list essayists Caitlin Flanagan and Michelle Goldberg quickly jumped into the fray, with think pieces provocatively titled (especially for non-Right writers), “Reckoning With Bill Clinton’s Sex Crimes” and “I Believe Juanita (Broddrick).” Matt Ygelsias probably outdid them all, writing in Vox that Clinton should have resigned in 1998.

Yet as worthwhile as the reading has been on both sides, it seems like everyone is still walking on eggshells to avoid the central point of exactly how and why “feminists saved Bill (and Hillary) Clinton in the 1990s,” as Flanagan pointed out. They may have been on “the wrong side of history,” but from a liberal or feminist point a view during the culture wars of the 1990s, they certainly didn’t think they were.

For one, there is the central and undeniable fact that Bill Clinton had won in 1992 and 1996 where a quarter-century of Democrats had failed—except for Carter, who wasn’t exactly known for his style or pizazz—largely because he had the  sexualized the office of the presidency, in a way then unheard of, even including his hero JFK. 1990s feminists knew this inconvenient truth all too well, and indeed, many of them breathed a sigh of relief because of it. Remember what kind of people the Democrats had at their head of their class before “Bubba” : pasty, intensely middle-aged, desexualized Debbie Downers like Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, and Mario Cuomo. In the media-conscious world of the 80s and early 90s, they racked up one loss after another—1984, 1988, the 1994 mid-terms. The public—especially young people—was saying loud and clear, “We’re Just Not That Into You” to the traditional Democrats. As Michael Kinsley noted, after nominating choirboys since Humphrey in 1968, the Democrats got serious about wanting to win in 1992—and that meant nominating a far from “impotent” (in any sense of the word), irresistible-to-the-media “bad boy” who could get the job done with charisma to spare.

read more:


feminism old style...


From an old Sydney Morning Herald, Saturday, February, 1959

feminism new style...


meanwhile at the NYT...

Glenn Thrush, a reporter for the New York Times, is in professional limbo after a Vox article accused the journalist of sexual harassment. Thrush was suspended from the Times Monday pending an investigation just hours after the article was published.

"The behavior attributed to Glenn in this Vox story is very concerning and not in keeping with the standards and values of The New York Times," the outlet said in a statement Monday. "We intend to fully investigate and while we do, Glenn will be suspended."

Thrush was one of the reporters exposed by WikiLeaks as having run his stories by the Clinton camp for approval in 2016.

"Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u," an email exchange between Thrush and John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's election campaign chief. "Please don't share or tell anyone I did this… tell me if I f*cked up anything."

read more:

news from the capital of fake news...

We have already mentioned on this site that a lot of Trump-promoting "fake news" came from Macedonia. Here is a bit more (fake or real) news about it. It is likely that Tito Veles, this little town in Macedonia "hated what Clinton had done to Yougoslavia". Did they take their revenge on La Woman?... Is it possible that King Murdoch financed their little operation?


While the world was reeling in shock at the election of Donald Trump as US President, the residents of a small Macedonian town were less surprised. For months, the residents of Veles had been making big bucks from pro-Trump stories. They told Sputnik how they put the once-mighty industrial town back on the map, as the world's capital of "fake news."Amid a sensationally bitter US presidential campaign, "fake news" became the country's hottest buzzword in 2016, with many US analysts declaring that the phenomenon played a significant role in Trump's success. 

Outrageous stories about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton were shared millions of times on Facebook. Two of the biggest fabrications were claims that in 2013, 
Clinton said that Trump should run for president and that the Pope had endorsed Trump.

Clinton and her supporters have sought to blame shadowy 
"big data" analysts or "Russian hackers" for persuading the electorate to vote for the Republican candidate.

In reality, the "fake news" that dominated social networks during election season arose out of the kind of economic decline that most Trump supporters would recognize. But rather than the rust belt in the US, this story started in a small town called Veles, Macedonia.
The main protagonists are educated, IT-savvy young people with a desire to make money and skills that outstrip their job prospects. Their sole concern: making thousands of dollars by giving American news consumers what they wanted - stories about Trump. 
He and his school friends started their operations by buying plausible-sounding domain names, installing Wordpress on the new site to make it look like a legitimate blog, and then loading it with articles. Once they had 50-60 articles on the website, they applied to become affiliated with an advertising program such as Google Adsense, which earns them revenue from website traffic. 

US residents account for more than a quarter of the world's consumer market, making election fever there a prime opportunity to earn advertising revenue. This revenue may be based on the principle of pay per sale, pay per click on the advertiser's banner, or pay per impression, according to how many times an advertiser appears on the site. 

"The American click is the most valuable, so that's why they started doing this business. They targeted only American people and they targeted news about Donald Trump because we wanted to get a lot of American clicks, just to earn money." 

Although his site published pro-Trump content, Dimitar was not in fact a supporter of the Republican candidate. His preference was for Bernie Sanders, but news about the Democratic contender didn't get him as many clicks and, consequently, advertising profit. 

"I know a lot of my friends tried to post news about Hillary and Bernie Sanders but only Donald Trump news was very clickable and only the Donald Trump stories were very shared," he explained. 

Dimiter said that his site got shut down by in June 2017 by Google, which "went on this spree of shutting down sites that are here in Veles so in that period they pretty much took all of the sites." 

read more:



feminism, presidential style...

US journalist Edward Klein, former editor-in-chief of New York Times Magazine and author of multiple bestsellers, discussed the new explosive sexual misconduct allegations by four women against former US President Bill Clinton with Radio Sputnik’s Fault Lines Tuesday.

According to Klein, important Democratic Party sources and an official who served in both the Clinton and Obama administrations have confirmed these new charges of sexual assault. A member of Clinton's legal team recently told Klein, "obviously, I'm aware of [the allegations], but can't talk about them." 

Four women claim the former president, no stranger to sexual misconduct allegations, sexually assaulted them after leaving the presidency when he worked for the playboy billionaire investor Ron Burkle at his Yucaipa companies. Clinton has faced sexual misconduct allegations throughout his career, including during his tenure as Arkansas governor, during his presidential campaign and while in the White House.

Read more:

feminism, fabricated fake news style...

Court documents confirm that Fusion GPS, financed by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, paid reporters in relation to the infamous dossier that alleged then-candidate Donald Trump engaged in “golden shower” urine show orgies at the Ritz Carlton in Moscow.

The US House of Representatives is stepping up pressure on Fusion GPS, a private research firm founded by two former Wall Street Journal reporters. According to recent documents filed by the House in court, Fusion transferred unspecified sums of money to unnamed journalists between June 2016 and February 2017. These journalists were known to have covered "Russia issues relevant to the [House Intelligence Committee's] investigation," according to the Washington Examiner.

Documents Fusion GPS filed with the US District Court for the District of Columbia had virtually all useful information about the financial transfers redacted, including names, the amount of money, and the intention of the payments.

The House Intel Committee is urging the court to force Fusion GPS to publish banking records connected the payments, the Examiner reports.

For its part, Fusion GPS asked the court for a restraining order to avoid having to disclose further information. "Those requested records involve transactions that are not pertinent to work related to Russia or Donald Trump," Fusion GPS co-founder Peter Fritsch said in an affidavit filed this week.

Obviously, there seems to be a concern by some members of the House committee that Fusion paid journalists to report on the story. Notably, BuzzFeed was among first to publish the salacious document, while CNN quickly followed suit and discussed the dossier's existence on national television. Literally dozens of reporters from Politico and the Washington Post — two publications hardly known for exhibiting a pro-Trump bias — had seen the dossier and dismissed it as not newsworthy because its statements could not be corroborated.

Furthermore, attorneys for the House alleged that Fusion GPS set up meetings between "dossier author Christopher Steele with at least five major media outlets in September 2016, including Yahoo News."

Read more:


I don't know if trump had a pissing rigmarole in Moscow once, but the gist here is that the news is paid for by the "anti-Trump" machine... No a good look... Possibly worse than the manufactured Trump-Putin-gator... 

"a day late and a dollar short"...


The Clinton team’s first strategy was to attack Lewinsky. Sidney Blumenthal, the former journalist and trusted confidant of Hillary Clinton, arranged a lunch with his friend the writer Christopher Hitchens in the hope of convincing him that Lewinsky was an unstable stalker. Appalled by the effort by the president and his team of smear artists, Hitchens filed an affidavit testifying to Blumenthal’s effort. But the whispering campaign was hardly subtle. It was widely enough known that Maureen Dowd wrote a New York Times column headlined “Liberties: The Slander Strategy.”

“Inside the White House, the debate goes on about the best way to destroy That Woman, as the President called Monica Lewinsky,” Dowd wrote. “Should they paint her as a friendly fantasist or a malicious stalker?” There were limits for even the most ardent Clinton supporters, though, Dowd noted: “At least some of the veteran Clinton shooters feel a little nauseated this time around, after smearing so many women who were probably telling the truth as trashy bimbos.”

The strategy changed. The Lewinsky relationship was next a consensual affair between adults and a matter properly resolved within the privacy of the Clinton marriage.

“It was neither of those things,” Tripp says. “It was not consensual, and it was not an affair. It was a servicing agreement on his part. She was a kid. She may have been 22 and had a voluptuous body and was misguided in her choices, but emotionally, she was 15—a groupie. It reminded me of myself with the Beatles and the Dave Clark Five in the early ’60s. That same obsession. To say that Monica Lewinsky was a woman at that point in her life was a stretch beyond comprehension.”

The record would seem to support Tripp’s assessment of the relationship. Lewinsky’s grand jury appearance revealed that between November 1995 and March 1997, she met the president furtively in a hallway, a bathroom, and, once, while he talked on the phone with a member of Congress. They had six sexual encounters before they shared any meaningful conversation. “I asked him why he doesn’t ask me any questions about myself,” she said, “and . . . is this just about sex . . . or do you have some interest in trying to get to know me as a person?”

Hillary Clinton next shifted the narrative with a memorable appearance on NBC’s Today show in January 1998, where she blamed the president’s troubles on a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” The Lewinsky matter thus became a partisan political attack, with the real wrongdoing perpetrated by Republicans. When that narrative took hold, Tripp lost purchase on any claim as a straitlaced whistleblower. She became the prying, traitorous villain of a sordid story, an assessment neatly summed by Lewinsky herself at the conclusion of her grand jury testimony, when she said, “I hate Linda Tripp.”

Tripp says she has not spoken to Lewinsky in all these years but understands why she felt as she did. “Monica absolutely had to be seen, not just to others, but also to herself, as a bona fide girlfriend,” Tripp says. “She could not be seen as an orifice or a party to a situation where you call in someone for servicing and send them on their merry way.”

Still, Tripp remembers being stunned by the vilification directed at herself. She received death threats at the height of the scandal, prompting a move to a safe house. Her character was assassinated over and over, as was her appearance. Saturday Night Live had a running sketch in which John Goodman played her as a fat, prying busybody who casually betrays a friendship while gorging on junk food.

Tripp was fired from her Pentagon job on the last day of the Clinton administration. She sued the government, won a settlement, and then set out to start a new life.

She wanted, literally, to become a different Linda Tripp. 

Read more:



Noteworthy: The Weekly Standard was a News Corp creation, described as a "redoubt of neoconservatism". This does not mean that this article is not trustworthy, but it is necessary to cleanse the pavement from the blood of the awful Clintons.


One of the WS writer was Christopher Hitchens. Strange outlet for this clever man. Having long described himself as a social democrat, a Marxist, and an anti-totalitarian, Hitchens began to break with the established political left after what he called the "tepid reaction" of the Western left to the Satanic Verses controversy, followed by the left's embrace of Bill Clinton and the antiwar movement's opposition to NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1990s. His support of the Iraq War separated him further. His writings include critiques of public figures such as Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger, Mother Teresa and Diana, Princess of Wales. He was the elder brother of the conservative journalist and author Peter Hitchens (a fully fledged Christian). He also advocated for the separation of church and state.

As an antitheist, Christopher regarded the concept of a god or supreme being as a totalitarian belief that impedes individual freedom. He argued that free expression and scientific discovery should replace religion as a means of informing ethics and defining codes of conduct for human civilization. The dictum "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" has become known as Hitchens's razor.[10][11]

read more:


I have bolded Hitchens support for the Iraq war to highlight the fact that Murdoch welcomed all hands on deck to support the Iraq War. Having Hitchens on board would have been like a nice breeze in Uncle Rupe's sail... We all knew then back in 2002 that the WMDs was a hoax constructed by the CIA, but despite many people, including Gus, pointing this fact ahead of the invasion, no "serious" media would ever consider going with this possibility. The media scribes were deluded and manipulated by "intelligence" professionals better than them and the Media (MMMMM) has not recovered since despite trying to sound more saintly than Mother Theresa by going after the Trump/Putin non-connection...

Here the main subject that Uncle Rupe has been demonising is the concept of global warming. We need to fight him all the way. Contrary to "Hitchens's razor", there is much evidence to show that the science is correct.

read also: 


cheap drivel, shallow fluff and propaganda...