Trump’s Gorgeous Wife Nude?
To comment on this
article go to Treasure
Liberty.
Whatever you might think of Donald Trump, you
have to admit that he has the right enemy in the form of the very deservedly
foundering mainstream press. They
have tried everything to bring him down, like they brought down Edmund Muskie
because he was caught shedding a tear on the campaign trail, like they brought
down Gary Hart for a bit of fooling around that would hardly register on the
Bill Clinton lechery scale, or like they brought down Howard Dean for…raising
his voice to be heard over a crowd.
Nothing has worked.
Reflecting upon these efforts, I wondered why
the press almost seems to be giving Trump’s colorful private life a pass. Then I did a little Internet searching
and found that, actually, they had made a little test run at tarnishing him on
the subject of the background of his third and current wife: “Melania Trump: from nude
supermodel to first lady?” reads the article’s headline in the Tampa Bay Times.
It’s an interesting construction. There are supermodels and there are nude
models, but the category of nude supermodels is one with which I am not familiar. Supermodels are noted for fetchingly gliding
down runways showing off the latest fashions, posing on the covers of women’s
magazines, and occasionally making cameo appearances in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition. What would a nude supermodel do, prance
down the runway modeling her birthday suit?
When you read the article, which comes with a
promising but voyeuristically disappointing video, you discover the headline
writer’s verbal trickery. Yes, the
multilingual Slovenian immigrant, formerly Melania Knauss, was a big time New York fashion model, perhaps well
enough known in some circles to merit the label “supermodel,” and she did on
one known occasion pose for a photograph in which she appears not to be wearing
any clothes. If you were hoping to
find that photograph in the Tampa Bay
Times, though, you are in for a disappointment. For that, you have to go to one of
London’s notorious tabloids, the Daily Mail.
With only a little bit of scrolling down one can
see Melania on the cover of the January 2000 British
edition of GQ magazine posing apparently
naked on the furry skin of an animal they say once belonged to a bear, but only
some billowing frontal and a sliver of comely dorsal cleavage are actually in
evidence. Another British tabloid, The Sun, has an article with that photo plus some other
sexy shots from Melania’s modeling days, but that’s
about the size of it. With its
headline on the article that originally appeared in The Washington Post, the Tampa
Bay Times has done its best to create a scandal where there really isn’t
one. Even the certain prurient
interest engendered hasn’t been enough to give the story any negative legs.
Furthermore, one can’t help but wonder if there
were loads of Kim Kardashian-like photographs of the
potential future first lady out on the Internet it would really scandalize
anyone in the second decade of the 21st century. After all, if you do an Internet search
that says “Obama’s mother nude” or “Sarkozy’s wife nude” (speaking of the
former prime minister of France) you can find lots of Kardashian
type photos (all lacking her or Melania’s endowment),
and neither Barack Obama nor Nicolas Sarkozy has been politically affected by
them in the least.
Trump Scandal, Washington
Post-Style
We know that cheap scandal mongering is hardly
beneath our leading news publications when they have it in for someone,
though. Exhibit A is the December 14
(Dec. 15 print edition) opinion piece in The
Washington Post by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, “A leading presidential
candidate embracing the fringe?
That’s nuts—and new.” What
Maddow and The
Post would have us be scandalized by is the fact that Donald Trump gave a
long live interview to Prison Planet’s
Alex Jones. It happened on December
2, and you can watch the entire interview here.
Now I must say that I found much of the Jones
interview objectionable. Jones performs throughout more like a starry-eyed groupie
than as a journalist. Trump is full
of bombastic militaristic rhetoric that Jones simply goes along with. As Maddow
makes clear in her article, Jones has made his reputation questioning the
authenticity of many of the events that underlie the fear of Muslim terrorists,
the same events that Trump has capitalized upon politically, yet Jones allows
Trump to proceed upon the apparent assumption that they are all proven
facts. We refer in particular to 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing (The San Bernadino
massacre
has exhibited many similarities with respect to the conflict between evidence
and what the press and government are telling us.). The serious
secret-government critic that Jones pretends to be was nowhere in evidence in
the interview.
Nevertheless, Maddow
would have us believe that she was sufficiently scandalized to give us a very
heavy dose of #2 in my “Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression,” “Wax indignant.”
That same day, after that [Donald Trump] interview, 14 people
were killed and 21 others were injured in the mass shooting in San Bernardino,
Calif. Within hours of that news breaking, Jones
and his website — predictably — were hosting discussions of how San
Bernardino, like Newtown, like the Boston Marathon bombing, and of
course like 9/11, was a hoax. Either it didn’t happen, or if it did, it was perpetuated by the government to bring about
. . . who knows, gun control, maybe? Mind control? Something about aliens? Concentration camps?
---
What I’m genuinely perplexed by, though, is how it’s going to
change the Republican Party — how it’s going to change what counts as
normal and acceptable in that party — to have Trump as its
standard-bearer.
When Popular Mechanics published its seminal
debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
wrote the forward to that book.
All
we really need to know about Maddow is that this is
the same person who, approaching the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination,
told us that it was our lax gun control
laws permitting
Lee Harvey Oswald to buy that foreign combat rifle by mail order that allowed
the assassination to happen. She
was talking about the woefully unreliable Mannlicher-Carcano
with a misaligned scope sight that they say Oswald used.
The
almost mainstream liberal Jim DiEugenio of Citizens
for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination wrote a very poignant open letter to Maddow
in response to her editorial. It
begins this way:
Many of us, including me, have admired much of your work on
radio and television since 2004, when you were perhaps the very best show on
Air America. We then followed you as you became a regular
guest on MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann’s show and CNN’s
Paula Zahn show. Therefore, we were glad when Keith pushed for you to have your
own show on MSNBC. You deserved it. You were a great advocate for progressive
causes and puncturing MSM shibboleths and sacred cows.
Which makes it disturbing that you would do what you did on your
March 13th program. A common joke among the vast majority who understand the
truth about President Kennedy’s assassination is this:
“You know 85% of the public doesn’t buy the Warren Commission
hogwash about Lee Oswald being the lone assassin of President Kennedy.
Unfortunately, the 15% who do all work at the New York Times, Washington Post,
LA Times, NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox.” Should we add now, MSNBC?
At
the risk of sounding like the insensitive Donald Trump himself, when I think of
Melania Trump and Rachel Maddow,
another old joke comes to my mind:
“Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes all the way to the bone.”
December 17, 2015
Addendum
On February 24, 2016, CNN did, in fact, make a tentative effort
to tarnish Donald Trump’s reputation and question his suitability for the
presidency on account of the photographs that his wife had posed for in the
past. It seems to have blown up in
their face, making it unlikely that we’ll be seeing much more of that strategy for
the rest of the campaign. The title
of the article about it on the web page Bizpac Review says it
all, “Social media explodes over CNN anchor’s condemnation of Melania Trump’s ‘racy’ photographs.” Here one of the commenters on the
article using the screen name “SusieQ” captures the
flavor of the “explosion,” directing her ire at that anchor, Ashleigh Banfield:
The same outrage should be said of Bill Clinton. Where was your
diatribe on Bill, the woman abuser and rapist, Ashleigh? To me that would be
more than enough reason not to have him as first fella, but we all know you’ll
never question him or his behavior.
What hypocrites! At least Melania was not hurting anyone, and I'll go one further and
say you are probably jealous, Ashleigh.
For her part, the eponymous
hostess of “The Rachel Maddow Show” has moved on from
tarring Trump by associating him with “conspiracy theorists” to associating him
with “racists.” “What does it say about
the GOP that Trump is the white supremacists’ candidate?” is the
title that The Washington Post gave to
the article she wrote for its op-ed page, giving her a much bigger audience than
she would ever get on MSNBC with its miniscule ratings. We anticipated this latest establishment
strategy for derailing the Trump train with our article “Dylann Roof and Jared Taylor” about
the slick Yale graduate who postures as a white nationalist. Taylor has been loud in his support for
Trump, and robocalls invoking Taylor’s name urged
Iowans to support the real estate mogul in the run-up to that state’s
presidential caucuses. Most
recently it has been former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke that they have been
connecting to Trump, but we can expect to see and hear more of Taylor as this
historic presidential election year grinds on.
David Martin
March 1, 2016
Home Page Column Column 5 Archive Contact
