Skip to main content

Hillary’s one-woman war on women

Written By | Nov 24, 2015

WASHINGTON, Nov. 24, 2015 — Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton has much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving season. Above all, she’s blessed in not being called to answer for her hypocrisy by the ever-deferential mainstream media.

“Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed and supported,” tweeted Clinton in support of the contention that “one in five women report being sexually assaulted while in college.”

Oh, really?

What about Paula Jones, who said that in 1991 a bodyguard for then Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton escorted her to a room in Little Rock’s Excelsior Hotel, where the future U.S. president dropped his pants, exposed himself and asked for oral sex.




Does Paula Jones deserve “to be heard, believed and supported”?

“There is no way that she [Hillary] did not know what was going on, that women were being abused and accosted by her husband,” Jones told the London Daily Mail.

Or Juanita Broaddrick, who in an interview with NBC, said Bill Clinton forced “me down on the bed. And I just was very frightened, and I tried to get away from him and I told him ‘No.’”

Does Juanita Broaddrick deserve “to be heard, believed and supported”?

Or Kathleen Willey, who wrote in her book “Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton,” that the former president sexually accosted her in the Oval Office?

According to Willey, Hillary hired a private detective, Ivan Duda, in the late 1980s as her husband considered making a run for president.

According to Duda, Hillary told him, “I want you to get rid of all these bitches he’s [Bill’s] seeing … I want you to give me the names and addresses and phone numbers, and we can get them under control.”

Bitches? Get them under control? Aren’t these terms more likely to come from the lips of knuckle-dragging, misogynistic rappers than someone who believes “every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard”?

Hillary’s actions make clear that her primary concern was to protect her meal ticket and political mentor—Bill Clinton.

In 2003, the late Christopher Hitchens, a man of the left, wrote in the Atlantic magazine:



It comes down to this: Clinton asserts to the present day that he was innocent of perjury because although he did ejaculate in the intimate presence of Monica Lewinsky, she derived no pleasure or excitement from the moment. These included several women who had been quite fond of him, and who came to regret it. It wasn’t enough for him to deny that he had lavished his attentions, whether wanted or (as in several thoroughly attested instances) unwanted. He had to say that the unfortunate but truthful females were liars, fantasists, job-seekers, and even blackmailers. Their veracity versus his voracity. And this from someone who had taken personal credit for a clause in the law on sexual harassment that allowed men, as well as women, to be questioned about their sexual pasts. To say that he tried to put himself above his own law would be stating the merest fact.

Hillary Clinton, now running for the highest office in the land, was and continues to be Bill Clinton’s criminal accessory after “the merest fact.”

And the term “criminal accessory” applies to the millions of Hillary aiders and abettors itching to cast their votes for predatory Bill’s craven enabler.

Steven M. Lopez

Originally from Los Angeles, Steven M. Lopez has been in the news business for more than thirty years. He made his way around the country: Arizona, the Bay Area and now resides in South Florida.