The Patriot Post - Alexander's Column 10-19-2016

________________________________________
The Patriot Post - Alexander's Column 10-19-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Democrats Grope Female Gender Gap

By Mark Alexander

Oct. 19, 2016

“If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply than to the sense of this difference?” —John Adams (1775)

A few years back, I wrote a column entitled “Women Voters Are Ignorant Dupes1,” which might have been deemed overly provocative if not for the subtitle, “According to the Democrat Party.”

Of course, my column was a reference to the fact that the majority of votes to elect Democrat presidents in recent decades have been cast by women. Apparently, some women prefer their candidates to be misogynistic sexual predators like Bill Clinton, effeminate socialists like Barack Obama, or, in the current election cycle, Hillary Clinton, a relentless defender of the two previous categories of arrested development narcissists2.

According to a Pew Research study3 published in July, “Over the last nine presidential elections, women have consistently voted for Democratic presidential candidates at higher rates than men.”

I know plenty of women — binders full of them! — who are strongly predisposed to vote against liberal statists like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. (For the record, I’ve been married to one of them for 25 years — an articulate, conservative woman who long ago managed to cast off her liberal Duke University indoctrination.) However, I remain perplexed as to why substantial majorities of women consistently vote for the Democrat in presidential elections.

Allow me to broad-brush the gender gap question in search of some cause-and-effect conclusions.

Perhaps one explanation is revealed by the largest gender gap vote in any presidential election ever. As noted in the Pew study, in 2012 Obama received 55% of his votes from women, enabling him to defeat a far better man and a far more accomplished candidate, Mitt Romney4. I suggest this was “revealing” because Obama comes from the most bizarre and distressed5 family background of any president in history. (To be kind, perhaps the record support he received from women was a reflection of a gender gap in the capacity for sympathy.)

But what about Bill Clinton? Yes, he was also the product of a badly broken family. But unlike Obama, Clinton was and remains a prolific adulterer and serial sexual assailant. The common denominator between Clinton and Obama was that they were both abandoned by their fathers — with similar resulting pathological consequences6. So maybe another factor in this gender gap is the underlying anger associated with that shared pathology, given the growing number of women who also come from broken homes, and most often, as with Clinton and Obama, homes that the father abandoned.

I have researched and written in detail on the irrevocable link between fatherhood and freedom7, and how ineffective or absentee fathering can result in lifelong anger and insecurity, particularly for daughters. That now-generational insecurity may explain some of the attraction to political authority figures advocating statist policies and protection by the state.

Now, I know some conservative women from broken homes who have largely overcome the insecurities associated with abandonment and who have become outspoken advocates for Liberty. But the most vociferously liberal females I know all come from homes with ineffective or absent fathers.

Setting asides my own assumptions about the propensity for women to vote Democrat, undoubtedly, women voters will again this year be Clinton’s largest voting bloc. Thus, she and her media outlets are spending all their waking moments accusing Donald Trump8 of inappropriate and lewd behavior toward women. Of course, Trump is an easy mark because he’s guilty of that behavior, albeit not guilty of the rape and sexual assaults perpetrated by Bill Clinton — and, by extension, his enabling wife.

Let’s review the Clintons' “war on women.”

At the end of his second presidential term (again, elected by female majorities), after a first term replete with sexual assault charges, Clinton was impeached and disbarred for perjury and obstruction of justice. He was charged with “providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury” and for making “corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence” concerning his sexual relationship — in short, for insisting he “did not have sexual relations” with a 22-year-old female White House intern.

That was a lie, like all the others before it, and the case exemplified workplace sexual predation by a superior on a subordinate. But unlike Richard Nixon, who had the decency to resign instead of putting the nation through an impeachment proceeding after he was caught in a lie, the Clintons knew that Senate Democrats would never join with Republicans to achieve the two-thirds majority vote required to convict Clinton — so it all played out in the national media.

Americans learned a lot about DNA “evidence,” and the Clintons should be credited with the popularity of all the cold case and forensic file TV series and the reality TV shows that followed.

What we also learned is how ruthless Hillary Clinton could be in her condemnation of Bill’s rape and sexual assault victims in order to protect her own political aspirations. She had established a long record of defending Bill Clinton against assault charges, including the most serious and credible claims brought by Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones.

When running for president in 1992, Clinton denied his 12-year affair with Gennifer Flowers, and that began Hillary Clinton’s role as his attack dog — systematically and viciously destroying the character of any woman who claimed to have had an affair with Bill. With the help of her “bimbo eruption” aides Betsy Wright and Diane Blaire, Hillary perfected her practice of “blaming the victim,” claiming they were all pawns of a “vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against [her] husband since the day he announced for president.”

But in his 1998 impeachment testimony, Bill Clinton admitted under oath that the affair with Flowers occurred. No apology from Hillary…

After his impeachment trial, Clinton reached an $850,000 out-of-court settlement for the sexual harassment case brought by Paula Jones. (Perhaps that was why Hillary claimed they were “dead broke9” when leaving the White House.)

As for the rape and assault charges brought by Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and others, there will be no justice for them; just a constant campaign by Hillary Clinton to undermine their credibility.

Indeed, deflecting attention from her well-documented record of malfeasance10 and her growing list of criminal conspiracies and cover-ups11, Hillary’s war on women emerged again this year as she renewed her attacks12 against Bill’s assault victims.