Soap Box

Recently, on a television news show I was watching, it was revealed that a group of Hillary for President supporters had written a letter to a New York Times reporter with a list of supposedly sexist words that she was forbidden to use when reporting on Mrs. Clinton.

The group informed the reporter they would be watching, reading and, by my understanding, demonstrating if necessary. Of course it's meant to be an intimidation factor, a guideline of how Mrs. Clinton is to be handled by an already adoring media and it's hard to believe that the people who hold themselves to be far superior to us lesser mortals could have done something so downright stupid, offensive, arrogant and silly.

In the first place, isn't this the bunch that is always clamoring about the freedom of the press? That every story, no matter how offensive or un American, has a right to be told? That the most lurid of pornography has to be given a place in the media market place? That every communist, traitor, terrorist or enemy of the state has a right to be heard, unfettered by editorial opinion and public disgust?

Could these possibly be the same people who want to limit the interrogation vocabulary of the free press, these defenders of smut, who spout off about separation of church and state, and think a mass murdering scumbag terrorist captured on the field of battle has a right to a day in the open courts instead of the military courts, the proper venue for that kind of justice?

Are these people actually arrogant enough to believe they can pervert two hundred years of freedom of the press? Do they all have the "Obama Syndrome" of being above the laws they expect everybody else to abide by and interpreting the Constitution to mean anything they danged well dream up?

The whole premise of this arrogance is so short sighted and ill thought out as to be laughable.
Even if the New York Times and other media outlets nixed the verboten words, and even if Mrs. Clinton gets elected, what's going to happen when she comes face to face with a cold eyes character like Vladimir Putin?

Is Putin going to respect her femininity or soft pedal his questions and comments to stay within the boundaries of political correctness?

What about the Mullahs of the Iran who will hold her in contempt just for being a woman, will they be willing to consult a list before taking it to the limits?

If this group is worried about how a fawning publication like the New York Times is going to treat Hillary, they're pretty short sighted. The American media, for the most part, will bend over backward to make Hillary look good, without any prompting from the sidelines.

Their worries are not the media, but the debates when she has to explain what she meant by
"What difference does it make" and tell the world why she allowed a United States Ambassador to go into a war zone with totally inadequate security.

She'll need to explain her part in Susan Rice's statement about the Benghazi massacre being caused by a video and why no one attempted to send help during a nine-hour siege when Americans were dying in Benghazi.

There is also some very old luggage in her closet, some things that happened in Arkansas, the Travelgate affair and the inevitable Monica Lewinsky questions.

Then there's her private email account while she was Secretary of State, the proposition that her brother provided special treatment to visa applicants who were disposed to contributing to the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Then there's the problem of foreign money and the Clinton Foundation.

Yes, I'd say you folks have a lot more words to add to your list.

Better get busy.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem.

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels