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 21^st 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.”

David Martin

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