RUTHFULLY YOURS

Michelle Malkin wrote about Hillary’s behavior during President Bush’s speech to Congress on September 20, 2001

http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2001/09/26/hillary_clinton_in_crisis

— WHAT’S eating Hillary Clinton? Her behavior during President Bush’s address to Congress last week was abominable. At a time when even the most partisan of her Democratic colleagues stood united with the president, NY Sen. Clinton shunned patriotism for petulance. She grimaced. She sighed. She rolled her eyes. She fidgeted like a five-year-old at an opera. And when Mrs. Clinton mustered enough energy to clap, she acted as if there were razor blades strapped to her palms.

Although network talking heads refrained from comment, outraged Americans across the country spoke out. Teacher Kathie Larkin of Atlanta wrote to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: “This is behavior I would not accept from my sixth-graders listening to a speaker, and I expected better of an adult from a state ripped apart by terrorist violence. Hillary needs to grow up.”

James Gale of Silver Spring, Md., wrote to the Washington Post: “She at times seemed bored and uninterested, clapping perfunctorily, and at other times she was talking during the speech. I thought her actions were unbecoming a senator at this difficult time.”

The Boston Herald, one of the few bold newspapers to take note of Clinton’s insolence, editorialized that she “looked like she was sucking on a lemon.”

And Karen Gauvreau of Clearwater, Fla., wrote to the St. Petersburg Times: “She would have been better off had she stayed home.”

Mrs. Clinton’s staff claims she was weary from traveling. What nerve. All she had to do last week was park her taxpayer-funded backside on a plane seat. Meanwhile, her constituents and volunteers from across the country pulled 13-hour shifts, sifting through rubble, sorting body parts, and collapsing on curbsides from exhaustion and grief.

A few nights’ rest didn’t seem to cure Mrs. Clinton’s unsightly condition. During last weekend’s prayer memorial at Yankee Stadium, she remained dour and tight-lipped as the tearful crowd of thousands sang the National Anthem. Hiding behind sunglasses – guess she can’t control the rolling eyeballs any more than Al Gore can control his heaving sighs – Mrs. Clinton posed for photos with a strange sneer frozen on her stony face.

Let there be no doubt about whose interests come first for Mrs. Clinton in times of crisis. While New Yorkers mourned, their junior senator sulked. Then she tried to rip off both President Bush’s and Mayor Giuliani’s coattails by claiming credit for securing federal disaster aid. The damage-control patrol at the New York Times ate up her narcissistic spin. A Sunday puff piece, which was silent on her churlish performances, extolled her “full transition from a former first lady who happened to hold a Senate seat to true federal legislator.”

Hillary Clinton’s mean-spirited put-down of half of Donald Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables” gives further proof that she is the real “basket case.”

The term, itself, is so archaic that I keep forgetting it. I have to remind myself that it rhymes with “adorable,” though I’m sure that adjective is not in Her Heinous’ anti-Trump vocabulary. Yet somehow the strange term fits Hillary’s image as a relic of the past. She has not driven a car for over 20 years. Her excuse is that the Secret Service demands it. Nor does she demonstrate the slightest understanding of technology, for which there is no excuse. So Hillary’s outrageous use of a quaint metaphor suits her well.

It doesn’t suit in other ways, though. We have many hundreds of millions of voters in America but only two major contenders running for president. A candidate cannot be excoriated for the makeup of his supporters any more than a novelist can be blamed for those who read his books.

Further, Hillary’s blast at Trump supporters defies Logic 101, since the premise is suspect. To hold water, arguments must be based on fact, not mere assumption. Classic example:

In most states, American citizens over 18 are eligible to vote.

John Doe, 20, is an American citizen.

Therefore, in most states, John Doe is eligible to vote.

Without getting too technical about propositional logic, it’s fair to say that the first two statements in this formula must be accurate in order for the conclusion to be the same. If in the premise you substitute the word” “permitted” for “eligible” it changes things. And if John Doe is only 16 and is not an American citizen as stated, it also invalidates the conclusion.

What Hillary Clinton took for granted in her accusation was this:

Donald Trump is a bigot who incites followers.

Half of these followers are bigots.

Therefore, they support Trump.

………Consider the reaction over the weekend to Mrs. Clinton’s comments Friday night that “just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’ Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it.”

The remarks echo Mitt Romney’s comment in 2012 about the 47% on the government dole. The media played up the Romney comments as emblematic of an out-of-touch rich guy, and they probably contributed to his defeat. Mrs. Clinton’s comments were arguably worse, attributing hateful motives to tens of millions of Americans, but the media reaction has treated it like a mere foot fault.
Mrs. Clinton apologized, sort of, on Saturday by saying in a statement that, “Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that’s never a good idea. I regret saying ‘half’—that was wrong.” But she went on to say she was otherwise right because some of Mr. Trump’s supporters are the likes of David Duke.

Yet the rest of what she said was almost as insulting. She said Mr. Trump’s other supporters are “people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”

So she thinks half of Mr. Trump’s voters are loathsome bigots and the other half are losers and dupes who deserve Democratic pity. It’s no accident that Mrs. Clinton said this at a fundraiser headlined by Barbra Streisand, the friendliest of crowds, because this really is what today’s elite progressives believe about America’s great unwashed.

Mr. Trump has certainly made appalling comments, but Republicans and media conservatives have criticized him for it. They denounced his praise of Vladimir Putin. They assailed his attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel and his insensitivity to the Khan family. Some have said they can’t support the GOP nominee.

But where are the Democrats raising doubts about Mrs. Clinton’s behavior? Mrs. Clinton reneged on her confirmation promise to the Senate not to mix her State Department duties with the Clinton Foundation by doing favors for donors. She maintained a private email server to hide her official emails and lied about it to the public. Yet no prominent Democrat we know has denounced this deception, and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says there’s “too much ado” about it.

The great liberal media watchdogs aren’t challenging Mrs. Clinton either. They’re beating up NBC’s Matt Lauer because he spent too much time asking Mrs. Clinton about the emails during last week’s military forum. This is best understood as a collective warning to the moderators of the coming debates not to jeopardize their standing in polite progressive company by doing the same.
CONTINUE AT SITE***

I could not have prepared better for Lou Dobb’s question last night regarding Trump’s weaker polling with the weaker sex than having watched this video — “I Thought You Should Know.”

The video introduces a brutal rape of a 12-year-old girl that took place in 1975 in Arkansas. A 41-year-old man named Thomas Alfred Taylor stood trial. His defense counsel was a freshly minted lawyer named Hillary Rodham. She got him off.

Once you start reading more deeply into this case, thanks to the crack research of Alana Goodman for the Washington Free Beacon, which broke the story open in 2014, it becomes clear: This case is Hillary Clinton’s Chappaquiddick — the original moral stain, which, as with Ted Kennedy, once exposed, becomes her ultimate undoing.

Clinton’s involvement in this Arkansas child-rape trial was not a matter of providing counsel to a defendant, as our system requires. It was jumping through legal hoops to win a dirty victory — a dirty victory for a child-rapist by the woman who presents herself as lifelong champion of women and children.

Some key points.

Clinton demanded that this grievously injured 12-year-old undergo a psychiatric exam, later depicting her to the court as “seeking out older men.” This is already monstrous; however, listening to the audio unearthed by Goodman at the University of Arkansas library intensifies the horrors. “I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” we hear Hillary Rodham Clinton herself say, laughing. It is chilling. It is also sickening.