What is, perhaps, the most-shocking aspect of the media’s pathetic vendetta against Dr. Ben Carson is their naked hypocrisy that is identifiable to even a modest observer of politics.
The same liberal media who dared not to question barack Obama’s past is the same liberal media who screams “gotcha!” when Carson flimsily recounts events that occurred fifty years ago. The same media that never appeared to question why Obama palled-around with so many extreme (and violent) radicals now wonders the exact details of conversations that took place between Carson and associates fifty years ago. The same media that never wondered why Obama’s records are sealed, what kind of grades he received or why there is so little about his past available now wonders what Carson is hiding.
It’s also the same media that adoringly relays Hillary Clinton’s pathetically-fabricated narratives and tall tales about her past without question.
Hillary has a hard time with the truth. Her email scandal explanation, alone, has more twists and turns than an M. Night Shyamalan movie. At various times, she has explained that she never transmitted classified material. She has also said that she did, but didn’t mean to, that somebody else did it, that she was sorry, that she wasn’t sorry, that the whole situation is a witch-hunt and finally, after never having leveled with the American people (or investigators), we have arrived at “Are we still on this?!”
It was the same with Benghazi. Her negligence helped slaughter four innocent Americans and since that day, Hillary has refused to be forthcoming with who did what and when.
Where has the media been? Running interference, of course…
But what about Hillary’s personal lies concerning her touching narrative?
Hillary has claimed that she attempted to join the Marines as a younger woman. Then it was the Army. Then it was the Marines.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media is wondering what college officials told Carson exactly fifty years ago.
The Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross reports on Hillary’s conflicting narratives:
In June 1994, the then-first lady spoke at a luncheon for female military veterans where she told a story about her attempt to sign up for the Marines in 1975.
“You’re too old, you can’t see and you’re a woman,” Clinton recalled a young military recruiter telling her. “Maybe the dogs would take you,” he added, referring to the Army.
“It was not a very encouraging conversation,” Clinton added. “I decided maybe I’ll look for another way to serve my country.”
Clinton, a feminist who was 27 years old at the time of the attempted sign-up, said that her rejection was “not an isolated incident” and that it was common for women to be rejected by military recruiters.
But many were skeptical of the claim at the time. And in more recent years — in April 2008, to be exact — Bill Clinton said that his wife had attempted to sign up for the Army, not the Marines.
“I remember when we were young, right out of law school, she went down and tried to join the Army and they said ‘Your eyes are so bad, nobody will take you,’” Clinton said at a campaign event, according to Jake Tapper, then a reporter with ABC News.
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd called Clinton’s claims into question at the time. She asserted that Clinton’s story “did not seem to fit in with the First Lady’s own persona” and that her claimed fervor for the military did not match her political work for anti-war Democrats or her then-boyfriend Bill’s recent dodging of the Vietnam War draft.
“Rodham was an up-and-coming legal star involved with an up-and-coming political star,” wrote Dowd, a longtime critic of the Clintons. “She had made a celebrated appearance in Life magazine as an anti-establishment commencement speaker at Wellesley College, where, as president of the student government, she had organized teach-ins on her opposition to the Vietnam War.”
Clinton had also recently moved to Arkansas in order to be with her future husband, she told friends. The couple was married on Oct. 11, 1975.
“So, if she was talking to a Marine recruiter in 1975 before the marriage, was she briefly considering joining the few, the proud and the brave of the corps as an alternative to life with Mr. Clinton, who was already being widely touted as a sure thing for Arkansas Attorney General?” Dowd asked…
Clinton has told image-bolstering stories in the past that have turned out to be fabrications. In March 2008 then-Sen. Clinton claimed that she had come under sniper fire during a 1996 visit to Bosnia. She was forced to retract that claim when video emerged showing her on an airport tarmac during that visit. And as The Daily Caller reported last month, Clinton has told competing tales about a job she had at an Alaskan fishery in 1969. She has claimed in the past that she was fired from the job after she complained about the state of the fish she was hired to clean. But in a more recent interview, she said that her job with the fishery came to an end after she showed up to work one day to find that the manager of the operation had closed up shop.
No, Hillary is not the first politician to fabricate advantageous narratives. However, when we view her lies through the prism of the mainstream media’s supposed obsession with truth, their motivations are clear.
Why did Barack Obama get a pass, but Clarence Thomas had his porn-viewing habits called into question? Why does Hillary get a pass while the mainstream media is grasping at straws to smear Carson as a liar?