Share This Article with a Friend!


Outsiders vs. Insiders: Should conservatives be worried about what the media isn’t telling us?

Only in the Democrat party would be admitting you’re a capitalist be considered a bad thing.

In perhaps the most pathetic sign that Hillary Clinton isn’t yet over her well-deserved defeat in the 2016 presidential election, the former Democrat nominee has taken to besmirching free markets as a justification for losing to now-President Donald Trump. If she’d only been more outwardly socialist like Bernie Sanders, Hillary Hillary Clintonreasoned, she would be sitting pretty in the Oval Office with Huma Abedin waiting on her hand and foot and there’d be a rash of Obama leftovers standing nervously by the door (holding Chardonnay bottles) anxiously awaiting a signal that they remained in her good graces.

It’s true, Clinton really did say such a thing – at least the part about capitalism. Naomi Lim of the Washington Examiner reported, “Failed 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that openly identifying as a capitalist ‘probably’ hurt her electoral chances because a growing number of Democrats align with socialism.

“’It's hard to know, but if you're in the Iowa caucuses and 41 percent of Democrats are socialists or self-described socialists, and I'm asked are you a capitalist, and I say yes, but with appropriate regulation and appropriate accountability, that probably gets lost in the 'Oh my gosh, she's a capitalist,'’ Clinton said at the 2018 Shared Value Leadership Summit in New York City.”

It's hard to imagine any politician voicing such nonsense but Hillary’s assertion is ludicrous on its face. First of all, only an idiot would believe Clinton when she claimed to be a capitalist – or at least that she supports capitalist systems. Sure, Clinton’s a proven capitalist when it comes to turning a thousand-dollar investment into a hundred thousand-dollar windfall within the span of a few days through insider trading.

And Hillary’s a dedicated free market enthusiast when it comes to consummating sweetheart deals from the highest bidder (like accepting money from the Russians in exchange for official U.S. government permission to obtain control of 20 percent of our uranium stocks via the Uranium One fiasco). The Clinton Foundation was notoriously on the receiving end of lots of Hillary’s “capitalism” as she traded favors for cash.

Face it, Bill and Hill knew how to milk their political celebrity to enrich themselves – and by the looks of it, they’re still at it.

But make no mistake, Hillary Clinton is no capitalist in terms of her views on the U.S. economy. There isn’t an income redistribution plan or tax hike that she disagrees with, right? A new welfare program? Sign her up. How about another taxpayer funded outlay to Planned Parenthood or strong-arming another state to accept Obamacare Medicaid funds? She’s your gal.

Or placing heavier environmental restrictions on U.S. industries just because some leftist group is targeting it? President Hillary would’ve taken out what was left of the coal producers in Appalachia. Now they’re thriving under the stewardship of President Trump.

Hillary ain’t no capitalist no matter how you slice it. She’s a government union-buttressing, single payer healthcare promoting, traditional values bashing socialist just like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Corey Booker (and practically every other Democrat).

It seems opportunism abounds these days on both the left and right as people try to make a quick buck off the name (or fame) of Donald Trump.

Take rapper Kanye West, for instance. Some suggest West’s taken advantage of his own notions of capitalism to promote himself under the publicity umbrella of none other than Donald Trump. W. James Antle III of the Washington Examiner wrote last week, “Imagine if you wanted to promote a new album (or two). What better way to do so than by getting everyone talking about you and linking yourself to the man everyone has been talking about since that fateful escalator ride nearly three years ago?

“That is the most plausible way to read the sudden burst of Twitter activity from rapper Kanye West, including his embrace of President Trump, whose job approval rating is up but still below 50 percent. West has a pair of upcoming musical projects and he is simply practicing good marketing.

“Then again, isn’t that what people were saying about Trump himself until the wee small hours of election night 2016? That the real estate developer and ‘Apprentice’ host wasn’t running a real campaign but was instead seeking attention and engaging in some kind of new branding exercise? That he was really interested in teaming with then-Breitbart chief Steve Bannon and then-Fox News head Roger Ailes, among others, in launching Trump TV?”

Ah, a look back to the “old days” in the ever-evolving career of Donald Trump. It’s difficult to remember now but it was two years ago last Thursday that Trump soundly defeated Ted Cruz in the Indiana GOP primary (forcing Cruz to pull out of the race) and essentially assured Trump would be on the November presidential ballot representing the Republican Party.

By that time all the theorists (myself included) had endlessly speculated as to why a man like Donald Trump would seek to run for president – and win. In the earliest days of his candidacy practically everyone considered Trump’s campaign a publicity stunt singularly meant to increase the Trump brand and provide an additional bit of legacy for a famous American who up until that point had everything – except real political power.

At the time lots of people surmised Trump was motivated only by the fame – and to perhaps jumpstart a project like “Trump TV,” which would provide a platform for the billionaire to steer the national issue conversation towards the things he was most interested in. Needless to say, such a venture would make gobs of money too. Trump loves gold, doesn’t he?

But I doubt Kanye West is speaking out on Trump purely to sell rap records and/or lay the groundwork for a political career himself. In his article Antle points out that several celebrities (including Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger) turned to the GOP to enter politics, as did Trump. But fame without brains isn’t going to gain anyone a foothold in the political realm. If you don’t believe it, just ask Ashley Judd.

The list goes on and on, but why would a rapper suppose he would profit monetarily by publicly boosting a controversial figure like Trump? I highly doubt the vast majority of Trump supporters would even consider buying one of West’s records no matter how many nice things the guy said about the president. And if West truly desired a future in politics he’s got to find issues to champion, not merely sit back and throw his hat into the social media fire of public punditry.

It just doesn’t make any sense. West’s recent tweets on Trump have increased his national recognition but as has been proven time and again with similar stories, no one’s going to be talking about this in a few weeks… Lifelong weirdo (and Trump friend) Dennis Rodman is more likely to earn press attention when (or if) Trump meets with NORK dictator Kim Jong-un.

Drawing attention to oneself in such a manner always comes with the potential for backlash, too. In West’s example the left now identifies him as public enemy number one – and young hipsters are his target market. Will his record sales plunge?

Other noteworthy celebrities are making names for themselves in ways that may (or will) come back to haunt them. Take the behavior of the people behind the bashing of Trump and his staff at the recent White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Conservative Matt Schlapp wrote at The Hill, “Humor is a wonderful gift and during these political times, when friendships seem to end over a presidential vote, it is in desperate need. But humor turned to ridicule and moral condemnation, especially when the preacher of hate has the microphone and the world is the stage, is ugly.

“Make no mistake, this dinner did not unify Americans across the political divide by reminding us we have more in common than not. Instead, this dinner attempted to make an unmistakable and very sober point, that Trump is a lying, malignant mouthpiece of hate, and it is the D.C. press corps that is literally fighting him to save the country. Don’t laugh at that sentence; please understand many in the national media desperately cling to that delusion…

“The White House Correspondents dinner is not our problem, it is but a symptom of a larger problem in a polarized country where it seems weapons cannot be dropped even for a few hours to have some laughs and make some new friends. Perhaps each of us should relearn our manners and remember that weapons have holsters. Those are the facts, just the facts.”

Schlapp’s wife Mercedes works in the Trump White House so there’s added incentive for him to come to the defense of the president and his team -- but the point is well taken. Trump rightly refused (for the second year in a row) to subject himself to an evening of non-stop barbed leftist bombs lofted at him from a perch that’s unassailable for conservatives or Republicans.

It’s unfathomable how the left assumes it’s funny to joke about getting an abortion or the correct usage of someone’s name (Sarah Huckabee Sanders), but the real humor will hopefully come later this year when decent people rise up and decide they’re not going to take it anymore and reject the ideology behind these incessant and unwarranted personal attacks.

The left sees Trump as easy pickings for all manners of insults since he’s been in the entertainment business for so long and he gives as good as he gets. But for the average person hearing these comments for a couple minutes on the evening news you can’t help but wonder when they’re just going to completely tune it all out; why not change the channel or disengage from politics?

We have enough negativity in our daily lives – who needs to add to it?

And where the media is concerned it isn’t in what they’re reporting – in some cases it’s what they’re not telling the public. Take Hillary Clinton’s very real alcohol issues which were touched on in New York Times’ writer Amy Chozick’s recent book.

No details of Clinton’s boozing hit the light of day prior to Election Day. Is that fair to the voters?

Kyle Smith wrote at National Review, “Chozick’s unpublished color piece on Clinton’s drinking was meant to illustrate that Clinton was not the starchy, purse-lipped frump of popular perception but a freewheeling good-time gal. Why couldn’t the story have run during the campaign rather than after it? That seems obvious. The factual details were such that they might have made readers question the Times’s spin that Clinton’s drinking habits reflected well on her.

“The attentive reader will wonder whether Clinton has a drinking problem. Chozick says that Clinton would have been ‘the booziest president since FDR’ and ‘enjoys a cocktail — or three — more than most previous presidents.’ Chozick isn’t saying that Clinton has three cocktails but that she has three cocktails more than a man. So: five cocktails, then? Five cocktails for a woman is generally said to have the same effect as ten cocktails on a man. Would you want a man who regularly put away ten cocktails to be president?...

“But it is fair to ask whether the nation came close to electing a president who regularly drinks to excess, and it is fair to ask of the nation’s press corps how much information about Clinton’s drinking they withheld from the public. Given that, according to Chozick, virtually everyone embedded with the Clinton campaign was a woman who was excited about the prospect of her winning, it’s also fair to ask of the major media’s assignment editors whether the reporters they put on the Clinton beat were even close to being objective observers.”

It really isn’t surprising that a major establishment newspaper like the NYT would purposely withhold information from the public. It was hard enough for journalists to paint Crooked Hillary in a light where Americans could see dealing with her everyday for (at least) four years. Liberals claim Donald Trump is the most divisive president ever – but what if Clinton had won?

Conservatives instinctively know to question everything that’s reported by the liberal mainstream news media but the recent flare-ups over the Correspondents’ dinner and the ongoing pampering of Hillary Clinton are especially troubling. How much bias is there and what are they not telling us?

Share this