Oops, Donald Trump has done it again. He has enraged the women voters by saying that Hillary Clinton “plays the woman card” and suggesting that she would receive less than five percent of the vote were she a man. Aside from that, we already know from Madeleine Albright that there is a special place in hell for women who don’t vote for Hillary.
Usually, I try to steer clear of political columns, but since frugal, responsible living is so heavily under attack these days, I can’t help myself today. I just have to pose the question: Why on earth do so many women support Hillary Clinton? I realize some percentage of persons, male and female, blindly follow the Democratic candidate, without exception or thought – just as some do with the Republican nominee. But why would any thoughtful, hard-working, responsible, self-reliant person – man or woman – support the divisive, anti-responsibility, pro-entitlement, envy-stoking, hypocritical garbage that comes out of her mouth in the most condescending, pious tone imaginable? Even if we put aside Hillary’s abject phoniness—from that hideously fake smile to the pandering, screeching voice, to the shifting positions – what is the appeal? Since a major purpose of this blog is to promote responsible, authentic, no-nonsense living, let’s look at some of her leading rally cries and see if we can debunk this myth that Hillary Clinton is in any respect a good thing for America.
First is Hillary’s promise to finally secure “equal pay for equal work for women.” How many times has she screeched this promise? And it sounds so noble, doesn’t it? Who could be against this concept? Well, the only problem is that we have had a federal law requiring this very thing for over fifty years. It’s called, logically enough, the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Here it is if you don’t believe me. Here are some of the remarks made by President Kennedy upon signing the legislation:
I AM delighted today to approve the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibits arbitrary discrimination against women in the payment of wages. This act represents many years of effort by labor, management, and several private organizations unassociated with labor or management, to call attention to the unconscionable practice of paying female employees less wages than male employees for the same job.
Yes, although no one ever calls her on this point, it has been the law of the land for over half of a century: an employer must pay people equally for equal work, regardless of gender. I wonder why Hillary, a lawyer, does not know this, or why she is so eager to promote the myth that such legal protection is non-existent.
Now, granted, the EPA doesn’t mean that every woman must be paid the same as every man in the same position, or vice versa, regardless of job performance or qualifications. Employers can still pay more for more advanced degrees, more valuable experience, greater business contacts, or other legitimately distinguishing credentials. Employers can still pay lower performing employees less. If you have crummy attendance, if you are chronically late to work, if you put out crappy work product, the employer can, and should, pay you less than better performing peers. But if a woman is paid less than a man for the same work and in the absence of any bona fide business reason, she can sue the employer for the difference in pay and then some. As a practicing employment law attorney, you can trust me on this one. In fact, you can contact me; I’ll be happy to represent you.
Now, how about this business of protecting the woman’s “right to choose?” Let’s first clarify what this classic, liberal red meat phrase refers to. It’s not, as they like to pretend, the woman’s right to choose whether to become pregnant – there’s really not much mystery as to what causes pregnancy, is there? It is an absolute, guaranteed rule as old as mankind: no sex = no pregnancy. But what about non-consensual sex, you say? That’s what the rape and incest exceptions in virtually every conservative candidate’s platform are for. By the way, it is also a pretty fool proof rule of thumb that a woman can avoid becoming pregnant, even while engaging in sexual activity, so long as she and/or her mate take reasonable and simple precautions in the form of birth control. In short, there are plenty of ways to honor a woman’s choice whether to become pregnant or not without killing off an innocent fetus after the fact.
No, what this right to choose phrase refers to is the woman’s “right” to choose to kill an unborn baby that she has conceived. According to Hillary Clinton (and her entire party for that matter), a woman must be given the absolute right to abort (i.e., kill) any fetus within her.
Let’s pause here and remember that Democrats tout themselves as the compassionate party, the party that looks out for the helpless and downtrodden, the party that wants every person to be given a fair shot in life. Is there any more compellingly helpless, vulnerable, and innocently dependent form of life than a fetus? Should women indeed have a “right” to kill a baby? Do the rights of this dependent third-party, albeit in the womb, not deserve any consideration at all? And now let’s just consider how utterly selfish this position is at its very core: “I have an absolute right to determine what happens to my body (for eight or nine months), even if it means killing a third-party individual with an entire life ahead.” Another way of putting it, made popular by the old bumper sticker, is “Keep your laws off MY body” (and to hell with the helpless baby’s).
Granted, we can debate abortion until the end of time and probably get nowhere in terms of convincing one another. The point for now is that this is yet another issue that really falls well short of justifying a vote for one of the most fundamentally dishonest persons to run for high office. Like it or not, abortion is here to stay. It will not be outlawed unless the composition of the United States Supreme Court is changed dramatically, something that cannot happen for decades to come. So why, really, should women feel a need to cast their vote for Hillary Clinton on an issue that has been settled law for over 4 decades at a cost of over 40 million would be infants?
Then we have the larger “war on women” theme. Closely tied to the above issues, Hillary promotes the notion that only she and her party care about the dignity, respect, and equal protection that women deserve. It is truly hard to believe that anyone can fall for this claim given her distinguished history of assisting her husband Bill with abusing women for years. For those too young to know, allow me to relive a bit of history from just the 1990s. Then President Bill Clinton was required to give deposition testimony — in a sexual harassment case, no less — over his objections and claims of executive privilege. During the deposition questions arose about his relationship with a former White House intern, one Monica Lewinsky. Indignantly and emphatically, Bill stated, under oath, that he had never had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. As the matter reached the media, Hillary rushed to Bill’s aid, and told the country that he was simply being victimized by “a vast right-wing conspiracy.”
Shortly after Hillary’s statement, the country learned that Ms. Lewinsky just happened to have retained a blue dress on which Bill Clinton had ejaculated while receiving oral sex from Lewinsky — a woman young enough to be his daughter. Bill then came clean, so to speak, and calmly and matter-of-factly told the nation: “Indeed I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate.”
One has to wonder why Hillary Clinton would have rushed to his aid in not only denying his guilt, but in blaming it all on a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” This she said while knowing firsthand that Bill was the biggest over-sexed, philanderer to occupy the White House since JFK — (the other caring Democrat who signed into law the Equal Pay Act, by the way.) From Gennifer Flowers, to Jaunita Broaddrick, to Paula Jones, the list of Bill Clinton victims is tragically legendary. And in each case the defense strategy has been to attack the victim. Hillary, for example, called Lewinsky “a narcissistic loony toon.” Does this sound like someone who is championing the rights of women? Which side of the purported war is Hillary on exactly? And do we really want to return to these disgusting, miry depths?
I don’t. Let’s face it, the old jokes — e.g., that Clinton did not tell Lewinsky to lie in her deposition, only to “lie in that position;” that President Bush opposed the abortion bill while President Clinton paid it; that Bush the elder’s closest brush with death was when he was shot down over the Pacific in WWII, while Bill’s was the night Hillary came home early — just are not funny any more. The country was a laughing stock for the world during this travesty (remember the Russians calling upon Ms. Lewinsky to help calm our President after he lobbed missiles into Iraq?) We don’t need to go there again.
So what does this all have to do with frugal living? It’s fairly simple, really. Frugal living is all about living responsibly, authentically, honestly. It’s about integrity and discipline. It is, quite simply, the polar opposite of everything this woman represents. But if you really want to see the direct connection, tune in to part two on this subject.
