Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Do Feminists Believe In Women?

I’m going to make a point about feminists and in the process Hillary Clinton, and I’m going to use the NFL to do it. How do you like them apples! No laughing.

One of the surest ways to know that something is NOT true about another person is if they feel compelled to tell you that it is true. In other words, the more someone assures you that they really be smart, the more obvious it becomes that they are not. You see this with actresses a lot, most of whom are dumber than dirt. What you will see is that suddenly everyone who knows them goes out of their way to tell you how brilliant this idiot is, e.g. Zoey Deschanel. When you see that, you can rest assured that they are rock stupid.

Other great examples include Robot Al Gore trying to prove to us that he is indeed the world’s greatest lover as he bragged about sex acts he’s never done... and missed his wife’s lips when he tried to publicly kiss her. Brrr. Taylor Swift trying to assure us that she’s not some idiotic slut is cute as well. Then there are the vast number of people you will run into who assure you that they are selfless and that they live their entire lives for their kids and husbands/wives. This used to be a favorite of my white trash clients who live off the largess of their friends and relatives and the federal government as they spend their days gambling or watching Jerry Springer and they make their kids clean their homes. I see a lot of this among the martyr-moms at Starbucks too... all without the slightest sense of the irony they are emitting.

Then you have the people who feel the need to tell you how competent they really are. The more they say it, the less likely it is to be true.

So what does this have to do with feminism? Well, I can’t help but notice that feminists won’t shut the hell up when it comes to assuring us that women are in fact competent and can do anything men can do. History and hu(wo)man nature suggests that the reason they keep saying this is that they don’t actually believe it. Yep.

And let me be clear before I am well hung in effigy, I’m not saying that women can’t do the things men can do, what I’m saying is that feminists apparently don’t believe that to be true. Indeed, this seems particularly true given that feminists start worrying that someone might speak the truth and shatter the facade. Indeed, look at the worry driving feminists now that Hillary’s critics might use a magic word to destroy her reputation for competence. Doesn’t that tell us they think her reputation is a fraud?

In fact, interestingly, you never hear this concern expressed about competent men. Why? Because there isn’t a single word that can undo the public’s view of a competent man’s competence. It is only proof that he isn’t competent that can harm his reputation. Heck, the same is actually true of genuinely competent women. I never see women like my doctor or Maggie Thatcher or that ugly chick who runs Germany worry that someone may call them entitled or secretive or suggest they are riding their husband’s coattails. Why? Because people respect competence and they don’t let opinion undo a well-earned reputation. So why do feminists think this is such a big deal unless they truly are worried about the competence of Hillary... and women?

Anyway, that brings me to the NFL.

Last week, the NFL announced that they had hired the first female referee. The reason for this is obvious. After the Ray Rice elevator experience and the ensuing explosion of bad PR, the NFL wants to be seen as pro-chick, so they hired one to be a referee.

Now, it just so happens that this women is an excellent college referee and has passed all of the NFL’s tests and classes with flying colors. In other words, she really is competent and likely does deserve the job. So imagine my (total lack of) surprise when the liberal/feminist world went nuts. First, they acted like it was a miracle that a woman had been handed such a position, even though there are many women working their way up the ranks already, and they acted like she had gone on some strange adventure. What a way to reinforce the idea that women should avoid fields dominated by men. “Hey little girl, wanna be the only non-peniser in a room full of nerds? Be a scientist!” Yeah, that will make them see that as the field for them.

In any event, more interestingly, the feminists and liberals all went out of their way to assure us that, by Godiva, a non-peniser could do this job just as competently as a peniser. Seriously, was there ever any question?

The job does not require feats of strength or long-distance urination. All you need to do is be able to run around the field (which she can do if she takes off the heels), stand in places where you won’t get hit except on truly rare occasions (admittedly Ray Rice’s girlfriend can’t pass this test but other women can... what? too soon?), drop a handkerchief, and know the NFL rulebook. So as long as you can run, litter, and quote the rulebook then anybody can do this job... except Romanians for obvious reasons.

There simply is no reason to think that women will be any less capable than men at doing this in the slightest: lacking a penis does not make one any less capable of blowing calls, mis-spotting the ball or helping the Patriots win games. In fact, I can’t think of a single thing NFL referees do that males do better than females. So why keep bringing it up like it’s a real question that she can do the job unless you have some doubts?

What’s even worse, once the chicky newsreaders got involved, they started asking this non-peniser questions like, “Will you wear makeup?” Uh... get the Favre out. Why in the world would a chick who wants to prove that women can do anything men can do start by asking questions like that which drive home the point that because she's a woman, the job isn't her primary concern when she does the job? Talk about setting up her reputation for failure!

This is what makes me laugh about feminists. They talk a good game at times: women be the same as men! But then they won’t stop hysterically assuring us that women are capable and competent and smart and all that stuff men are... just don’t use words to wipe out the facade they’ve created... oh, and can you wear a pink tutu on the field?

Good grief, Charlene Brown.

I think I have discovered something. Of all the people who occupy this planet, only feminists seem to think that women are inferior (well, and fundamentalists, but that’s for a different reason). The rest of us seem to think women are, like, you know... people.

Thoughts?
[+] Read More...

Open Thread - Secretaries of State Edition

Two Secretaries of State and two topics for today:

Number One: Below is a transcript of current Secretary of State John Kerry form his Sunday appearance on "Meet the Press" with Chuck Todd defending his current negotiations and recent non-agreement agreement pending with Iran:

QUESTION: Let me move to Iran because Iran is on the state sponsor of terror list. Why – how is it that you can do a nuclear agreement and trust a country to abide by that agreement that you also believe, that our government believes, is a state sponsor of terror?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, the bottom line is the word you used, “trust.” We don’t trust. There is no element of trust in what we’re doing. You have to build trust, and that takes place over a long period of time.

This is an agreement that is based on transparency, accountability, verification. You have to be able to know what is happening. And we believe the President’s responsibility and my responsibility in support of him is to guarantee and protect the security of our country and of our friends and allies. And we believe that this agreement does that. We know that the American people overwhelmingly would like to see if we could resolve this question of Iran’s nuclear program peacefully. And that’s what we’re trying to do, but it requires a protocol of visibility, of accountability, of insight, of transparency --

QUESTION: Yeah.

SECRETARY KERRY: -- so that we know what Iran is doing. And over a long period of time we believe that we can indeed do what’s necessary to make the guarantees that are important to everyone. Now --

QUESTION: Well --

SECRETARY KERRY: -- what’s key here is that what we have done shuts off the four principal pathways to a bomb for Iran in the Natanz facility, in the Arak plutonium facility, in the Fordow underground facility, and also the covert program. We think that – we don’t think – the science tells us that we have an ability to know what Iran is doing and to be able to shut off those pathways to a bomb. That makes the world safer.

QUESTION: And there are plenty of people that say if your – what you say the agreement is is the agreement, there are plenty of people, even some Republicans, who say it’s a good agreement. However, the leader of Iran, the ayatollah – and everybody knows this is the guy that calls the shots – he tweets this out in English: “I trust our negotiators but I’m really worried as the other side is into lying and breaching promises. An example was the White House fact sheet.”

And when you look at the differences, whether it’s President Rouhani and what he has said or what the ayatollah has said: The United States has said there’s going to be a gradual relief of sanctions based on progress, the Iranians say there’s immediate sanction relief; the U.S. says there’s limits on uranium enrichment, the Iranians say there’s no mention of enrichment limits; the U.S. says there’s restrictions on Iranian research, the Iranians say there is no restrictions on research and development.

Why are they publicly lying, if that’s what they’re doing?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I’m not going to get into accusations back and forth. That doesn’t help our process. It’s not going to solve any problems --

QUESTION: Are they being truthful? Are the Iranians truthful here?

SECRETARY KERRY: Let me just say this to you, Chuck. They’re going to say the things that they feel they need to say with respect to their deal at home. And all I can tell you is this: When we did the interim agreement, there were these same kinds of discrepancies, or spin if you want to call it that, with respect to what the deal was or wasn’t. But in the end, the deal was signed and the deal has been agreed to and lived up to. No one contests that Iran has lived up to every component of that agreement, and the deal is what we said it was.

Now, with respect to the fact sheet that we put out, just yesterday the Russians released a statement saying that the statement released by the United States is both reliable and factual. So I will stand by every word that I have uttered publicly, and I will be briefing the United States Congress in full – the House tomorrow, the Senate the next day – and we will lay out all of the details to them, some of which are obviously classified, but we will have a long discussion about what the facts are.

QUESTION: All right. But if the Iranians insist that immediate sanction relief has to take place, immediate, that all sanctions have to be gone, will you walk away from that deal?

SECRETARY KERRY: Again, I’m not going to get into one side’s or another side’s characterization of what the deal is or isn’t. We’ve made clear what our needs are, what our expectations are. We’ve made it very clear that if we can’t achieve our goals we will not sign a deal, and we’ve said that again and again to Congress, to the world. We want a good deal. We believe that the outlines, the parameters that we have laid out thus far, are the outlines of that good deal. Now, is it perfect yet? No. Are there things that need to be done? Yes. That’s why we have another two and a half months of negotiation.

And what we’re looking for --

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY KERRY: -- is not to have Congress interfere with our ability inappropriately by stepping on the prerogatives of the executive department of the president and putting in place conditions and terms that are going to get in the way of the implementation of a plan.

QUESTION: I understand.

There are two quotes in this interview that bother me. The first is Kerry's public declaration that "[t]here is no element of trust in what we’re doing." I find that odd for the Secretary to pronounce that he has no trust of the people with whom he is negotiating. Not odd that he does not trust them, but odd that he would make such a public declaration. I cannot put my finger on why I think this is odd, but just that it is odd.

The other statement that bothered me is that he is looking for Congress not to "interfere...by stepping on the prerogatives of the executive department of the president and putting in place conditions and terms that are going to get in the way of the implementation of a plan." Hummm, isn't that why we have Congress. Isn't it the function of Congress to check and balance the "prerogatives of the executive department"?

Number Two: The second Secretary of State issue is actually of the recent declaration of Hillary Clinton that she is officially running for President (Yay!). You may or may not know that her main office has opened in hip and cool (and very expensive) Brooklyn, New York. Well, at least there are few New Yorkers who are not necessarily pleased that Hillary is running -


Over one hundred posters have been popping up all over NYC since her announcement on Sunday. No one knows who is putting them up, but it is clearly a pointed response to Clinton's "Super Volunteers'" warning to the press that there are certain words that they dare not use when describing Candidate Clinton as they would be considered code words for micro-aggressive misogyny. Yeah, that's a thing now and you have been warned...

Discuss...
[+] Read More...

Sunday, April 12, 2015

No More Hillary!

Please let it end. Just let it end. Hillary announced this weekend that she’s running for the position of the first woman to make Obama look good, and frankly, I don’t care. I have Hillary fatigue. Ok, one more time...

Designated statistic oracle Nate Silver of the New York Something says that Hillary has a 50% of winning the presidency. I don’t buy it. I don’t think Hillary survives the primary. Why? Oh, let me count the ways:

(1) She’s fricken dull... and ugly. She is as exciting as getting a sweater for Christmas. She’s got no motivation to be president either. She seems tired.

(2) She’s awash in scandals, particularly scandals that resulted in her and Bill getting loaded with cash from corporate and foreign sources. This just won’t play well with the anti-rich crowd who staff the Democratic primary.

(3) She’s gaffe prone... and pissy... and a liar. Her people are incompetent too. When she launched this weekend, her website was apparently a mess of mistakes. Her book tour was a disaster. Every time she opens her mouth in public, she inserts her foot.

(4) She’s a corporate shill. Her leftist credentials are faked and the left has finally realized this. SNL keeps mocking the crap out of her. Leftist blogs are screaming to be rid of her in favor of a true believer.

(5) Her lack of friends is becoming acute, especially with so many of them publicly avoiding helping her now. Obama and John Kerry both refused to speak well of her this week, as did Mayor de Blasio of NYC. All those people are ready to jump ship to O’Malley at the first safe chance. Even her feminist friends in the publishing industry have stopped protecting her. Just this week, they let a book be published in which White House non-political staff gave their stories about their decades of service. Hillary was horribly presented as nearly psychotic, paranoid and just not a decent human being.

(6) Her record is nonexistent despite holding a number of jobs. And what little she is known for is things like being squeezed out of her duties at the State Department as Obama told jokes about her drunk texting him... or lying about her mistakes.

(7) The liberal MSM is starting to get a giant liberal woody for O’Malley. Once they start writing fantasy articles about him being the new JFK, Hillary is done... and they started that last month.

(8) Clinton fatigue. More people have it than chicken pox. Good God, there isn’t another political figure who bores me more at this point. Obama is fricken Batman and Darth Vader combined by comparison. I would rather read a book on the growth of mold colonies than listen to her speak. This isn’t even political (because I have no idea what her views really are... assuming she has any), she just doesn’t have enough personality to make me even the slightest bit interested in seeing her. All I know is that she’s like the promise of another Adam Sandler film... or a two day standardized test.

So can we please be done with her? Hillary, please spare us. Just go away.
[+] Read More...

Sunday, March 8, 2015

SNL Torpedoes Hillary

I’ve said several times before that Hillary Clinton is in trouble. I honestly do believe she will implode before her coronation and someone on the left will sneak in to grab the nomination. In fact, this email scandal is starting to look like it might have sunk her boat, especially after the torpedoing Saturday Night Live gave her. What’s more, the left may have found their replacement.

By now you know the email scandal we’re talking about. We’ve discussed it before here==> LINK. At the time, I pointed out that there is a very damning aspect to this scandal, but that no one is talking about it yet. And I suggested that the rest of the scandal wasn’t strong enough to bring down Hillary unless the left wanted to use this to bring her down. That seems to be happening slowly. Indeed, here are some points to consider:
● The scandal has been reported upon by everyone in the MSM and it remains front page news today... and they're using ugly photos of her (the cartoon above is from Politico, not Breitbart). Ergo, it has legs. Even Democrats are calling on her to release all of these emails. Note what Diane Feinstein said, for example: "I think she needs to step up and come out and state exactly what the situation is. From this point on, the silence is going to hurt her."

● Clinton’s attempts to blame Bush were actually deflected by the media, as were her claims that this didn’t violate any law or policy.

● More damaging than either above, the MSM has been reporting continuously on the lack of Democrats coming forward to defend Clinton. Not only does this keep the story alive, but it implies wrongdoing of a degree that Clinton’s friends have abandoned her.

● There seems to be a renewed focus on Bill’s scandals suddenly, which gives Hillary the air of corruption.

● The number of articles from the left suggesting that Hillary should not be their choice has spiked.
All of these things are bad for Hillary, but they are survivable... at least, they should be in normal circumstances, but Hillary faces two specific problems: (1) this scandal seems to be morphing into some sort of personal dislike for Hillary and (2) they seem to have found a replacement.

The personal dislike aspect really hit hard this weekend with Saturday Night Live. They opened by attacking Hillary for the email scandal. Only the attack wasn’t so much about the emails as it was about her personality. Indeed, the skit opened with Hillary failing immediately in her attempt to appear to be relatable: “I’m speaking to you... as a relatable woman on a couch.” It then presents her as power mad, having wanted to be the President since she was born: “I was born 67 years ago and I have been planning on being president ever since.”

“Hillary” then delves into the topics of the emails to show us that she isn’t “hiding scandalous or incriminating emails.” For example, a friend in one email asks if she wants to see the new Bradley Cooper movie. “Hillary” then reads her response, which was: “I want to see myself as President of the United States of America.” She then devastatingly says to the audience, “See? Just fun woman talk.”

Why is this devastating? Because it tells the audience that Hillary is WAY out of touch with real people. This is the same kind of personality attack that finally made people see Al Gore as a robot, Sarah Palin as an idiot, and Gerald Ford as a klutz. This is the kind of thing that becomes fact and cements people’s view of you as stiff, obsessed, and something they do not like. And it only gets worse.

“Hillary” decides to share a “sexy email” she sent to Bill Clinton on their anniversary. Check this out:
Dear Sir or Madam,

Congratulations on your continued marital success. I would like to schedule a sit-down at your earliest convenience.

Regards,
The Office of Hillary Clinton
D-E-V-A-S-T-A-T-I-N-G!!! Anyone who saw this, and that will be millions of middle of the road voters, will now see Hillary as a sexless, power-mad robot who only wants to be president and has no social life whatsoever. That’s a horrible personality profile to be saddled with. In films, that makes you the pathetic middle manager, the out-of-touch principal, or the rotten bureaucrat. None of those are personalities people will ever vote to put into power. But this is how the left is now portraying Hillary. That is horrible for her, and it’s likely only going to gain steam.

None of this would matter though, if it weren’t for the fact the left may have found a replacement. After spending years being frustrated trying to woo Elisabeth “Fake Indian” Warren to no avail, they have found their hero: Martin O’Malley, Governor of Maryland.

O’Malley has recently let it be known that he’s running, and the response has been tremendous. Unlike Hillary, who never really earned anything she’s gotten politically, O’Malley got elected Governor of Maryland in 2006 and has held the job since. Before that, he was the Mayor of Baltimore, a black city, from 1999 to 2007 and a member of its city council since 1991. As governor, in 2011, he signed a bill making illegal aliens eligible for in-state college tuition. In 2012, he legalized gay marriage in Maryland, a law which was later upheld by voter referendum. In 2013, he repealed capital punishment in Maryland. These are hard-left stances Hillary has only paid lip service to. But they aren’t crazy enough that he comes across as a whacko. He also has the “professional looking white male” thing which the Democrats rely on to attract white trash voters.

Hillary, by comparison, is an elitist, sexless, sour old woman who reeks of corruption and has a long history as a tool of Big Business. She has never taken a controversial stance until it was no longer controversial, and even then she hedges half a dozen ways. She has no charisma, is gaffe prone, isn't telegenic or energetic... or particularly competent.

This is bad for Hillary.
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Could This New Scandal Kill Hillary 2016?

Another day, another Clinton scandal. No, not the shadow of the blue dress in Billy Boy's official portrait. This time it's Hillary, and the scandal is that she admitted using a commercial e-mail service for all of her e-mails when she served as Obama's Secretary of State. This is actually an important issue, but we'll see if it sticks. Let's discuss.

The scandal at issue is simple. Federal law requires that federal employees use federal e-mail services when they are on the job. Hillary did not. She used a commercial service.

Why does this matter? Well, Federal law requires this to allow the government to control the content of all e-mails these employees send. In other words, the government wants to be able to monitor their communications and take the appropriate action in the event of some violation of personnel policy. Moreover, the government wants to be able to archive these communications so they can be produced in response to things like FIOA requests or Congressional subpoenas. Hillary's use of a private e-mail even for official communications and communications with other employees violated this law and frustrated these purposes. In fact, it now turns out that she destroyed a great many e-mails that should have been available for Congressional investigation and would have been if she had followed the law.

At this point, that is the only issue people are discussing regarding this scandal. Unfortunately, this makes the issue seem technical and nitpicky, meaning the scandal should have no legs.

But there is a more important reason the federal government requires employees to use government systems, and that reason actually does make this a genuine scandal... if anyone figures it out: security. Every single e-mail Hillary sent over the commercial site she used was likely monitored in some form by the provider, e.g. Google, and could very, very easily have been hacked by anyone from terrorists to enemy governments to journalists. Think about that!

Hillary has admitted that she used this commercial account exclusively and that she used it for any and all internal discussions with State Department and Obama Administration people. That means that e-mails about the movement of ambassadors, changes in security policies, the sending in of military units to defend embassies, the identities of intelligence personnel, and even things like Hillary's opinions on military actions all likely went through this easily hacked, commercially-monitored site.

Still don't see the scandal? Imagine if a group of special ops guys got killed because ISIS read about the upcoming attack in Hillary's hacked e-mail, or if Google shared some data on trade negotiations with Japan to buy a few favors from China for their operations in China. See the problem now?

What I find interesting about this scandal is that the MSM seems interested in pounding Hillary on the first issue, but won't mention the second issue at all. It's like they want to wound her, but not destroy her. Generally, scandals have no legs unless they are very visceral for the public or the powers that be have decided to eliminate the person and then use the scandal as their weapon. The first part of this alone should have no legs. Yet, the MSM seems to be jumping all over that. The second part would be visceral if it got out, but the MSM has completely refused to discuss it. I'm wondering if the plan isn't to encourage her to drop out now with the threat of finally starting to take her down for her propensity to engage in scandalous behavior, but not actually wounder her... just in case. Not sure.

Thoughts?
[+] Read More...

Monday, February 9, 2015

"My Pants Were On Fire"

The Brian Williams story keeps getting more and more interesting. Brian Williams, for those who don't know, is the face of NBC Night News. Unfortunately for Williams, he's duller than dirt. And to make himself more interesting, he's invented a tale or two that he likes to tell to spice up his life. Turns out that may have been a mistake.

When Williams ascended to the big chair, NBC thought they had finally found a replacement for the much-respected Tom Brokaw, who had anchored NBC Nightly News for 22 years. But Williams never did live up to Brokaw's appeal. In any event, NBC saw him as their best chance to win over audiences. Unfortunately, Williams has a few skeletons in his closet. The biggest of those is a tale Williams has been telling this since the Iraqi war about being in a helicopter in 2003 that was hit and went down. Turns out, that was a lie. Whoops.

How this was uncovered is really quite interesting. Ever since Williams first told the story, the soldiers who were with him at the time have been calling "Bullship!" on this tale. But they were ignored. Then recently, the story boiled over when one of the soldiers pushed the story on Facebook. At that point, Williams was finally forced to recant his story. Said Williams:
"I feel terrible about making this mistake, especially since I found my OWN WRITING about the incident from back in '08, and I was indeed on the Chinook behind the bird that took the RPG in the tail housing just above the ramp."
In other words, it was another helicopter that was hit and Williams was never in any danger.

Williams tried to play this off as a mistake and called it the haze of combat and the problem of memories, but no one is buying that. Then this weekend, word came that Williams is being investigated by NBC for other sensational claims he's made. In particular, they are questioning his story of seeing a dead body float past his hotel as he covered Hurricane Katrina. There will probably be more.

With word leaking out that NBC is looking into these lies, Williams announced that he would be stepping away from the Nightly News "for a few days." Whether this lasts longer than a few days and/or continues indefinitely will depend on the damage done to NBC's reputation from retaining Williams.

This is interesting on several levels. First, I find it interesting that Williams got away with this without any hint of danger for 12 years now. But now, based on things everyone already knew, NBC decided to discover Williams' wrongdoing and turn on him. I wonder what changed? Sadly, I have no answer for you on this one.

Secondly, I find it interesting how many journalists get caught telling serious lies. We've seen everything from pointless self-aggrandizing lies like those told by Williams to reporters who made up whole stories. There seems to be some temptation among prominent journalists to make news when the real news doesn't fit their desires. Even worse, the length of time it takes to admit these flaws and offer some punishment even after the lies and faked stories had become obvious should be shocking to the journalism industry, but somehow doesn't seem to bother them.

Third, I wonder what this means for Hillary, who told a nearly identical story about landing under fire in Yugoslavia. She made that up, as the troops present at the time have confirmed. Will this reach her as it reached Williams? Or will everyone continue to look the other way on her? Personally, I suspect they will look the other way because there is no one obvious to take her place. If she had an acceptable replacement for nominee, then I think the Democrats would now discover this lie she has been telling and be done with her. But since there is no real alternative, they will continue to try to stick our heads in the sand.

Thoughts?
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

My Thoughts On Romney's "Run"

For a few weeks now, the conventional wisdom has been that Mitt Romney is running for the 2016 nomination. Not surprisingly, that raises a huge number of thoughts in my mind. Here goes...

● He’s Not Actually Running: My first thought upon hearing the news was that he’s not actually running. His wife seemed surprised by the idea and made it clear she won’t agree to another run; and I don’t see her changing her mind, not after the very firm stance she took. Romney will not ruin his marriage over this fool’s errand.

Moreover, Romney hasn’t done any of the intense effort it takes to be a viable candidate, e.g. fundraising, speeches, creating an agenda, door to door greetings, assembling of local, statewide and national teams, etc. With his prior Boy-Scout-like preparation efforts, this screams out that he’s not running.

“Ah hah! But don’t you see, Andrew?!!” scream the ideologues. “That’s the clever part! This is his shot at vengeance... he doesn’t care if he wins so long as he stops the Bush family from running again.”

//shakes head.

Look, I know the conventional wisdom storyline (Fox presented it all weekend): obsessively hating the Bush family, Romney decides to jump into the race to throw the election to someone other than Bush! Huzza! And with everyone knowing that Romney is obsessed and only cares about stopping Bush, the theory continues that we can dismiss things like his lack of a legitimate organization. Indeed, to the twisted contrary, his lack of preparation becomes self-serving proof of his obsession and his plan to run.

But that’s garbage.

First, this doesn’t fit his personality. Romney is not a guy who acts emotionally, and he lacks the Machiavellian instincts that would let him try to harm another person. Nor has there ever been any indication of any sort of obsession in his personality.

Secondly, to make even a fake run will require something like $100 million. There is no evidence anywhere that Romney would be willing to spend that kind of money just to tweak the son of someone he dislikes.

Third, even a fake run requires basic campaigning, which means subjecting Romney and his family to a death-march level of travel, appearances, meetings, speeches, dinners, etc. This could destroy his family. Would he do that just to tweak some guy?

Forget it. The onlyTHE ONLY reason Romney would run would be that he honestly thinks he can win, and he knows that’s not happening. Why? Read on.

● America Hates Losers: With America’s obsession with winners, Romney has no chance. Basically, when you fight in some sort of head to head competition, America judges you on the outcome. Win and you can do no wrong so long as you keep winning. But lose and you are shunned and pushed aside for the next best thing. Indeed, ask the Super Bowl losers, each of whom are forgotten, having been dismissed as the biggest loser of the year, even if they dominated the league until a last second dramatic loss in the Super Bowl itself. This is no different.

When politicians lose the big one, they are finished. They aren’t given a second shot at the nomination. They may get a cushy job on Crossfire or they may become respected elder statesmen and are slowly ushered off to pasture, but no one on their side wants to fight the powerful American impulse to write them off as losers. Why pick a candidate who faces such an uphill struggle before even saying a word? That’s just not smart.

● Why Else Would Romney “Run”: So if Romney isn’t running, what is he doing? He could just be trying to raise his status again now that the election is upon us. It wouldn’t surprise me if this was all followed by a surprise book. It also wouldn’t surprise me if he’s just messing with the media.

● Finally, Would I Support Romney?: Absolutely, but there are caveats here. Despite my initial misgivings about Romney, it soon struck me that he could very possibly be the genuine Reagan II. His lose was a true lose to the country and the cause of conservatism. So I would wholeheartedly support getting him into the White House. That said, however, being a prior loser is just such a huge burden to overcome that I simply don’t think he can win. So, to me, it makes no sense to back him.

Thoughts?
[+] Read More...

Monday, October 27, 2014

Idiocy Repeated Is Still Idiocy

Stop me if you heard this before, but Hillary just said, “Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses [sic] create jobs.” I guess she got a hold of Obama’s “you didn’t make that” playbook. Morons.

Before we take Hillary’s idiocy apart, consider the following facts: there are 140 million jobs in the US. Of those, 120 million were created by private sector firms. The other 20 million are government jobs, which only exist because of funding obtained from taxing the other 120 million employees and the businesses that employ them.

Businesses in the United States invented almost everything you touch or use every single day. Sometimes, the government got the ball rolling, like with the internet, but their invention languished until the public got involved when private firms realized they could make a buck improving the internet. Even things the government “built,” like the nation’s highways, were actually built by private contractors. Heck, there were more private contractors making sure the military could function in Iraq and Afghanistan than there were soldiers.

So at best, Hillary’s statement is backwards: “Don’t let anyone tell you the government is capable of creating jobs.” But she didn’t say that because she’s an idiot. Instead, she said the same moronic thing Obama did. She said that the only people who can create jobs are the ones who actually create jobs without the help/aid of the private sector. She forgot (or ignored the fact) that the private sector is the group that responds to consumers, which is the primary reason for jobs to exist. She forgot (or ignored the fact) that without being able to skim private sector money, there would be no government. Even the communists depended on taxes taken from capitalists to keep their sclerotic system running.

Hillary went further too. First, she wrongly equated business with “trickle-down economics.” The two are not the same. Moreover, she said of “trick-down economics” that “That has been tried and failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.” Again, she’s ignorant at best. Reagan’s economy was the best the US has had in a hundred years. Her own husband presided over a second great economic period which also was based on the same trickle-down economics she now claims “failed rather spectacularly.” In fact, all of our best economic periods have involved the principles of “trickle-down economics,” and our worst have been the result of liberal economic meddling away from these so-called trickle-down principles. Obama and Carter are the worst for a reason: their passion for big government... LBJ didn’t send us into a generational economic malaise by accident, it was his passion for big government. FDR never did manage to dig us out of depression without all of our competitors literally being put to ruins; his efforts to force the economy out of depression with big government failed year after year.

Hillary either doesn't know this or is intentionally ignoring it. Either way, she's an idiot.
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Did Hillary Bump Uglies With Evil Genius Saul Alinsky?

The year is 1971. A young future Democratic presidential candidate pens a love letter to old Saul Alinsky. What's that? You know about Obama? I'm not talking about Obama. I’m talking about Hillary Clinton, and you gotta see this pathetic letter.

In 1971, 23-year-old law school student Hillary Clinton wrote a sycophantic letter to her then-crush, Saul Alinsky. Apparently, young Hillary wanted to be a community activist. She never did go that route however, because that’s for losers. Instead, she took the more accomplished path of marrying a man whose coattails she could ride.

Anyway, said letter was published last week by the Washington Free Bacon Beacon. Here are the highlights of her letter to old Saul (my comments in italics):
Dear Saul,

When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out — or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation? I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about [Reveille for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people.

Does this sound like she’s mocking him? It does to me: “Gee you old fart, when’s your book finally coming out or did I somehow miss that you brought about the end of the world?” Sounds a bit like a taunt, like she's saying he can't finish his book or like he thinks way too much about the impact his book will have. In any event, is she really telling us that she gets all of her material from his one book from 1946? Doesn’t she read other books? Doesn’t she do independent thoughts? Apparently not.

[I] survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact.

It is true that Hillary had a zest for organizing. In fact, she organized her closet before she sent the letter and later in the day, she would rearrange her silverware to be more efficiently dispensed by turning the forks against the spoons. ;-)

The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them, the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead, — if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration.

Yeah, the ghosts at Yale suck -- they're much more positive at Hogwarts. She should try talking to the living people instead. It might have changed her entire world view. Also, talk about a blowhard. She needs to learn that you can’t impress people with store-bought words: keep it simple stupid. And for the record, anyone who thinks “work” and “joy” are synonyms is a crazy person... and probably drinks her own urine.

If I never thanked you for the encouraging words of last spring in the midst of the Yale-Cambodia madness, I do so now.

Yeah, it was crazy when Cambodia invaded Yale! In any event, it’s really bad form to try to send a catchall “thank you” years after the fact. It’s a good thing for her that she and Saul are such good friends and he will forgive her ill manners, or he might be offended. It does make me wonder what those kind words were, though: “Hey you don’t look as chubby as Bill says!” ... “Nice spelling on your protest sign.” ... “You smell purty, comrade.”

I am living in Berkeley and working in Oakland for the summer and would love to see you. Let me know if there is any chance of our getting together.

Huh. I’ve never received an invite to Oakland, but I wouldn’t be happy about it if I did: “Gee, Andy, wanna come to inner city Baltimore and see how long you last?” More interestingly though, am I sensing a little romance here? Hillary just invited old Alinsky, who smelled of cabbage and Soviet toiletries, to come spend some time with her to “get together.” I believe that is known today as “hooking up.” Let’s see what kind of moves the old girl has, shall we?

Hopefully we can have a good argument sometime in the future.

Um, no. That's not a great sales pitch: “Wanna go to Oakland so we can fight?! Welcome to the Thunderdome, ese!” Besides, why would Saul want to argue with Hillary anyways, knowing that she gets all of her material from his one old book anyway:
Hillary: “Do you remember when you wrote that? Hahaha.”
Alinsky: “Kill me.”
Talk about boring.

Interestingly, Saul did respond. Or rather, his secretary did because she knew there was a little somethin’somethin’ going on between the old fruit and the new squeeze, and that means juice:
“Since I know his feelings about you [he’s into chubby girls who dig his book] I took the liberty of opening your letter because I didn’t want something urgent to wait for two weeks. And I’m glad I did. [Your pathetic come on letter made me laugh.]”

“Mr. Alinsky will be in San Francisco, staying at the Hilton Inn at the airport on Monday and Tuesday, July 26 and 27. I know he would like to have you call him so that if there is a chance in his schedule maybe you can get together. [Wear something sexy.]”
One can only imagine the freak these two got on in that hotel room; please God, tell me there's no 8 mm sex tape! Anyway, Hillary claimed in 2004 that Saul offered her a chance to work with him after graduating from Wellesley College (Lic Kum Lesbianus), but she turned him down so she could attend law school. Saul never got over his disappointment and he died in 1971... possibly from the grief, possibly from events that transpired in the Hilton Inn in San Francisco, possibly from something else.

Speaking of the Hilton, isn’t Saul supposed to be a commie? What’s he doing with a secretary and staying at the Hilton? Hypocrite.

Anyway, I may have been a bit cheeky in my article, but let me be the first to officially freak out that Hillary Clinton is clearly the chubby embodiment of Saul Alinsky's dream to convert the US into a communist paradise. If she is elected, Saul Alinsky will rise from his grave and destroy the country. Panic!!! Panic!!!

Thoughts? Pretty pathetic letter isn't it? Kind of makes Hillary sound like a groupie... a brainless groupie who got all of her ideas from one book and who put her own greed ahead of old Saul's desire that she become a community organizer. Sad.
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

The Definition of Insanity Is...

Leftists can be so delusional. And they have such short memories. This time, it’s an article at Politico about their hope that Hillary can fix Obama’s foreign policy mess. This thing will make your head spin.

The article begins by telling us that Obama’s foreign policy is a mess. It’s a mess, says the author, because Obama’s foreign policy is basically “focused on fixing his predecessor’s mistakes.” The article then says that “‘Don’t Do Stupid Stuff’ may be sound advice for college-bound kids, but it’s not a foreign policy doctrine.” Wow. Of course, the article points out that this isn’t really Obama’s fault. See, since Obama was forced to spend so much time fixing “the economic mess he inherited. . . it’s understandable that Obama sought to limit America’s exposure to foreign conflicts.” Hence, it’s not his fault that even six years later he still has done nothing in the foreign policy arena.

Whoa! Hold the phone. That’s completely false.

Obama ran on the idea of closing Gitmo, fixing our foreign relations, and making the world love and respect us again. He promised to stop droning people, to end torture, to stop supporting dictators, to tell China to stop hurting our exports, and to refocus our foreign policy on do-gooderism. That was his promise, not “I’m going to ignore foreign policy while I fix the economy.”

And consistent with that, Obama tried to do precisely this when he first took office... sort of. Specifically, he did the bow and apologize tour and he expected that would fix the Middle East. He declared Bush evil and promised to never act that way again. He hit the reset button with Russia. At the same time, he tried to stand town tiny Honduras and bully tiny Israel into a settlement with the Palestinians. He sent people to dance for the Chinese and he promised to lead from behind at Copenhagen.

So the entire premise of this idea that Obama focused on the economy is wrong. The real problem is not that Obama did nothing, it’s that nothing Obama did worked. The bow and grovel tour didn’t change a thing. When nothing got better, Obama expanded droning and he continued to authorize torture until he’s out of office. Oh, and he expanded the droning into Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia. He also got us involved in Syria and Egypt and Libya, and he sent the navy to make sure any pirates near Somalia were OSHA compliant. Now he’s going back into Iraq. Iran is still going nuclear. He didn’t move the Israel-Palestinian thing even an inch, despite repeated attempts to beat the Israelis into submission. He’s also muddled his way through the Arab spring, ultimately siding with dictators in Egypt.

Standing up to Honduras didn’t work either. They ended up flipping us the bird and Obama walked away in a huff, leaving South American to Brazil, Argentina, and Cuba to carve up. Russia has been on a tear ever since the reset button, invading countries, arresting political opponents, extorting Europe, selling arms, and generally causing problems all around the world.

Obama did call out al Qaeda for racism in hiring, but they didn’t really change. He discovered he couldn’t close Gitmo because no one wanted these people back, so he tried to take away their rights and make them non-people. China laughed in his face and proceeded to cause problems in the region which are slowing building to armed conflict between China and Japan and some others.

Even at Copenhagen he discovered what happens when you let other people lead... they do things you don’t like, and he let them all but kill any international effort to fight climate change.

So let’s be honest. Obama did exactly what he swore he would in foreign policy and it blew up on him.

So what would Hillary fix? Well, this is where it gets interesting. See, the first premise was that Obama basically had no foreign policy. We just debunked that, but the author runs with it. He says Hillary must put human rights and democracy above our national interests and must stop dealing with evil dictators. She must support popular uprisings. And she must be willing to use the US military to back these things up.

But that’s exactly what Obama did!!

Moreover, at the same time the author says this, he attacks Bush for his “freedom agenda,” which he describes as “utopian.” The “freedom agenda” was an agenda to put human rights and democracy before our national interests and to stop dealing with dictators. Sound familiar?

Honestly, my head is spinning. So Obama did what Bush did, but it didn’t work, so the author pretends that Obama did nothing. He then tells Hillary to do what both Bush and Obama did, which didn’t work, but he criticizes Bush for advocating the very things he’s now telling Hillary to do! BANG! Arggg. My head!

Einstein's definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and to expect a different result. Think about that.

Thoughts?
[+] Read More...

Monday, July 14, 2014

The Crazies Are Back

While I enjoyed taking last week off, other people had no such intention. In fact, we could call last week, “Return of the Fringe: The Idiots Want Attention.” Seriously, yikes. Here’s who tried to win your love last week:

● Grizzly Sarah Palin: The easiest way to kill a vampire is to drive a stake through their heart. To kill an attention whore, deny them attention. The moment the media learned that they could kill Palin by simply not talking about her, she imploded as a national figure. She has been desperate to find a national platform ever since. While our little site here was on vacation, Palin was letting it be known that she would happily join The View... you betcha.

When her overtures were denied, she decided to try to incite the fringe again. This time she screamed “IMPEACHMENT!!” Not that she hasn’t screamed it before, but this time she assured that the time had real come, if only those wimpy Republicans weren’t doing the Democrats’ work.

Not surprisingly, Drudge’s mouth-breather audience is right there with her. A poll at his site had 72% of his readers saying Obama should be impeached NOW, 15% said he should be impeached but not yet, and 13% used their brains and said no.

Of course, it never occurs to these fools that they have a zero percent chance of success, that by the time they got it done Obama would only have a few weeks left in office, that the last Republican Congress to try this got their butts handed to them, and that the politics on this would be entirely against them. Indeed, the public really dislikes Obama now. They see him as a joke because of his never-ending failures. Impeaching him turns the focus on the Republicans and their motives. It would be a Godsend for Obama and the Democrats as it lets them deflect all of their failures. It would probably cost us the Senate and it would likely give the Democrats a fresh start for 2016.

But hey, it would help make Palin relevant again.

● Rape Ape Todd Akin: Yeah, Todd is back. He dun wrote a book. And in this book, he admits what everyone pretty much knew – he was lying when he said he had been taken out of context when he spoke about “legitimate rape.” In fact, he doubles down on his idiocy by embracing the idea of there being legitimate rape (real rape, unlike fake rape, which is when the unclean woman lies about being raped), and he lays out his ideology about how you can’t get pregnant from rape – an ideology which relies on the discredited opinion of a discredited doctor.

Todd is also attacking all those RINOs who didn’t defend him when he opened his mouth and spewed his woman-hating crap. FYI, he uses the same list talk radio uses.

And lest you think that Todd is just a lone lunatic screaming in the woods, Mike Huckabee wrote the forward to his book.

Whether this ends up meaning anything is unclear. I doubt any voters will embrace him, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be brought into campaigns, which is exactly what I would be doing if I were a Democrat.

● From The Crypt: Pelosi reappeared last week too. First, she went to Texas to try to claim that all those kids slowly working their way under Drudge’s bed from El Salvador are Americans!. Uh, no. She’s seriously out of step on this. Even Obama has repeating that these kids need to be deported. Nice work, Nancy, keep people scared of your party!

● Clinton v. Obama: Finally, a new book by Edward Klein on the relationship between Hillary Clinton and the Obama’s has knocked Hillary’s book out of the top spot on the New York Times bestseller list. This book is called “Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas,” and it outlines a very nasty relationship between the Clintons and the Obamas. It also lays out how the Obama’s have turned off people like Oprah, who has since been wooed by Hillary. The most interesting idea in the book is that Obama has promised too support Elisabeth Warren if she runs against Hillary.

While Klein is known for being a little sensationalistic and anti-Clinton, the things he says do seem to fit with things we can observe. And his conclusion that the Clintons are much better politicians and much better liked than Obama isn’t really a shock. Ultimately though, it will be very interesting if this turns into a feud between Obama and the Clintons through the primary.
[+] Read More...

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

The S.S. Hillary Takes On More Water

I’ve always had my doubts about Hillary Clinton. Time after time, whenever she grabbed some power for herself, she ended up falling flat on her face. From Hillarycare handing the Republicans the House, to the public exposure of her farce of a marriage, to her campaign’s utter collapse in 2008, to her incredibly shrinking stature as Secretary of State, she’s failed at everything she’s ever done. Now she has a book and is planning to run in 2016, but things are going poorly already. Consider this...

● Not So Inevitable: Hillary has long been considered the inevitable nominee for the Democrats, but I pointed out back in May, the left has been pushing back against Hillary being “inevitable.” The result is that a nasty groundswell of opposition to her is arising on the left... an opposition she is not equipped to handle.

● Foot In Mouth Disease: Hillary has major foot in mouth disease. Last Friday, she was giving an interview in which she said that she’s “totally done” curbing her speech for political reasons and finds her new perspective “liberating.” Actually, she was more wishy-washy about it. She said, “Maybe I’m trying to model that, I don’t know, but that’s how it feels to me, and it feels a little bit liberating, to be honest.”

This is not a smart quote. First, it makes it sound like she hasn’t been telling the truth in the past for political reasons. In other words, if she’s only feeling free to speak her mind honestly now, and she has only stopped curbing her speech now, then clearly she’s been withholding anything that doesn’t play well politically. Should we trust her?

Further, she had really bad timing in saying this as the news of the last week is her getting snippy with reporters who tried to question her about her “evolving” views on gay marriage, i.e. she's still being squirrely for political reasons. Indeed, when she was being interviewed by NPR Radio, the host (Terry Gross) asked her why she changed her position on supporting gay marriage. Hillary tried to evade the question at first, but he asked again. For seven minutes, Hillary couldn't provide a clear answer. Finally, she threw a fit and accused Gross of trying to make her look bad. This exposed Hillary as (1) not someone who is capable of dealing with an unfriendly audience, (2) someone who is uncomfortable explaining her prior "wrong" views, and (3) a liar.

But this is hardly the first instance of foot in mouth disease of late. Just as bad, in her book, Hillary claims that she and Bill left the White House “dead broke” and that they “struggled” to gather enough money to afford a mortgage and to pay for Chelsea’s college. She said this to justify the obscene fees Bill was getting for speaking engagements and otherwise selling his influence. But this is obviously false and the MSM quickly called Hillary on it, attacking her for insulting people who really are broke or live paycheck to paycheck. Hillary immediately backtracked but sputtered in finding a decent escape. Not only did she look out of touch with the common man, but she looked like someone who wanted to present herself as a victim when it was obvious she was not.

All of this has coincided with her poll numbers crashing.

● Tainted Legacy: Now we have the Iraq issue. Iraq has always been a major problem for Hillary. To prove she had balls, she was all gung-ho for the war. When the left started whining about it, however, she claimed to have been an opponent, something that didn’t work for her. After Obama took over, Hillary took over as Secretary of State and became somewhat responsible for anything foreign policy related. That led to Benghazi, which continues to hang around her neck as far as wonks are concerned (the public doesn’t care). Now the entire Obama team looks bad for recommending a pull out of Iraq and chest thumping that something like what is going on could never happen. This includes Hillary.

Rather than avoid this debate, as she should have, Hillary chose Sunday to try to lay the blame for all of this on President Maliki, who may yet be needed as an ally if Obama chooses to do anything. In essence, she got out ahead of Obama’s foreign policy in an effort to shift the blame away from her decisions. I suspect this will blowback on her when Obama starts looking for others to blame. He is, after all, no friend of Hillary’s. Moreover, I’m already seeing articles suggesting that Joe Biden was the only one in the administration who grasped the danger. Again, that’s not good for Hillary.

● Rape Rape Ha ha ha!: Now there's a video someone has found of an interview Hillary gave in the 1970s in which she discusses defending a man accused of raping a 12 year old girl. That's bad enough, but it gets worse. During the interview, Hillary suggests that she knew the man was guilty, but she found a technical mistake in the prosecution's case and got the guy a great deal (one year... reduced to two months). Even worse, she laughs when she suggests that she knew he was guilty, but that she still had him pass a polygraph. This doesn't play well for someone claiming to be a champion of women and children and her laughing about this could be a campaign killing commercial.

● WTH? Finally, we have this. This is what Chelsea wore to a public event the other day:
Yikes. Frankly, this MUST reflect poorly on her mother. Drag a $10 bill through a trailer park indeed.

Obviously, none of this is fatal and it will most likely only be seen by ideologues. The problem here really is what this suggests. It suggests a Hillary with a very poor track record she needs to run away from, but that she simultaneously lacks the skill to do any running. Instead, she gets pissy and complains about being ambushed by friendly journalists. It also suggests that the left is likely to put up a strong fight to stop her. None of that is good for her.

Thoughts?
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

And The Idiots Implode

Just a couple of quick points tonight... telling points about the future.

● RIP The Tea Party: The Tea Party continues its march toward political oblivion. For some time now, I’ve told you that the GOP has learned to fight back and now intends to shut out the Tea Party crazies. The Tea Party recognized this and whined and whined and whined, especially about loyalty... hypocrites. Ted Cruz actually whined about the GOP leadership “carpet-bombing” the Tea Party.

Anyways, when the GOP first started fighting back, the Tea Party decide to put all of their eggs in one basket as a determined show of force. If they could execute Mitch McConnell, then the GOP would learn not to resist them. That was the plan.

Thus, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, every other Tea Party luminary, the Senate Conservative Fund and every other Tea Party group endorsed and donated to McConnell’s opponent Bevins. For months, Rush and Hannity and the other Talk Radio nut jobs smeared McConnell with any lie and distortion they could think of. They made it very plain: You could not be a reel ‘merikan and not see McConnell as worse that Pelosi.

I told you, however, that McConnell would win easily because the GOP had learned to beat the crazies. And that is exactly what has happened. McConnell crushed Bevins by a mile on Tuesday.

Naturally, the Tea Party is now trying to back away from this. This has taken several phases. First, they started saying about two months ago that winning wasn’t their intent. Instead, they claimed it was enough to raise awareness. That’s called “managing expectations” and that’s horseship. Secondly, many are now disclaiming Bevins as a real Tea Party candidate because (1) he lied about supporting the bailout, (2) he lied about his education, (3) he suggested that gay marriage would allow parents to marry their children, and (4) he gave a campaign speech at a cockfighting rally. In reality, however, he’s no different than the other crazies they’ve been backing all over the place. The only reason they want to disavow him now is because his was the race they couldn’t win... so they want to pretend they weren’t involved in the race. Drudge actually described Bevins as McConnell’s “ ‘Tea Party’ Challenger,” in quotes, to suggest that he wasn’t really Tea Party. Presumably, the establishment falsely labeled Bevins as Tea Party.

One article tonight laughingly claimed that the true Tea Party victory in this election cycle was in Nebraska, where the winner (Sasse) is an insider if ever there was one, is a friend of Mitch McConnell, and was originally framed by the Tea Party as the evil establishment guy until they switched sides and turned on the Tea Party candidate, re-framing him as the evil establishment guy. Apparently, this “victory” shows that the Tea Party is still strong.

In the end, the Tea Party isn’t going away anymore than Sarah Palin is going away, but they are finished. Tonight was the last nail the coffin needed. The money and the voters have jumped ship back to the GOP. It’s over.

● RIP The Democrats: This does my heart good. The Democrats are freaking out about the midterms. They are freaking out because they have no message as their push to raise the minimum wage (their only idea) hasn’t caught on with the middle class, and no one likes the things they’ve done. Heck, despite its faked success, Obamacare remains about as popular as herpes, as does Obama himself. Anyway, check out this quote about the Democrats’ feelings about Obama from Politico
Anxious Democrats point to Obama’s low-40s approval ratings as the kind of anchor-round-the-neck numbers that could cost the party real ground in the House, and enough Senate races to lose the majority. His failure so far to present a broad, compelling message on the economy — beyond an emphasis on raising the minimum wage that’s fallen flat with middle-class voters — has, according to internal Democratic polling and focus groups, left that group without a clear sense of what he or the party stands for beyond helping the poor.
Aww. I feel so bad for them! LOL! Actually, no I don’t. This is a party who has been relying on the GOP imploding going into the election. The GOP ended that danger by executing its turds. Now the Democrats have nothing they can run on and so much they need to run away from... Obamacare, record unemployment, falling incomes, 10 million under-water home loans, still too big(ger) to fail, not a promise kept, international humiliations, insults and injuries galore. Good luck with that. Couldn’t happen to nicer people.

● RIP Inevitability: Finally, Hillary’s campaign is suddenly in serious trouble. Ha ha. It all started when Karl Rove noted that Hillary’s medical record might be relevant because it sure looked to him like she had suffered head trauma when she fell.

BANG!! Faster than a speeding bullet, things blew up on Hillary. Experts appeared who commented on her appearance, the medical glasses she wore, and everything else that indicated she’s just too old and perhaps too concussed. The media tried to defend her, but once this genie got out, it spread. Soon even Democrats like Obama-clone Deval Patrick were saying that “inevitability” (the word associated with Hillary) is an ugly thing. There is now a very real chance that Hillary will ultimately fail before she even reaches the starting point in the primary race. If that happens, then the Democrats have no one with a name they can run... the cupboard is bare.

Interesting times.
[+] Read More...

Monday, February 10, 2014

Sending Messages News Round-Up

I was going to write something brilliant tonight, but let’s do a bit of a news roundup instead. There have been quite a few interesting little tidbits of late. Today’s theme is sending a message.

● The Iranians Are Coming!: The Iranian Navy is actually sending a ship to our shores. Yes, they are. According to their Admiral Afshin Rezayee Haddad, they are doing this to “send a message.” Seriously. What possible message could the Iranians be sending – “We are pathetic!”? These guys are dumbships. They don’t seem to realize that the message their little show of farce shows is just how overmatched they are. This is the sort of thing that not only exposes them as hopelessly incapable of competing with us, but also as too stupid to understand why that is. Frankly, I’m hoping they sink on the way... or get captured by pirates. That would be fitting.

● Run Joe, Run!: Slow Joe Biden got a message the other day when the latest polls showed him 61% behind Hillary. This sends an interesting double message. The message tells us that the Democrats are unified behind Hillary (though Cuomo wasn’t in the poll). At the same time, her topping out at 73% suggests that the Democratic fringe will be restless.

As an aside, the Republicans were a little closer. Paul Ryan led Jeb Bush 20% to 18% with Christie third at 13%. There is a message here too: the non-reel ‘merikan candidates total 88%. This is further proof of what I’ll talk about later this week, which is that the fringe is failing.

● Russia is Great!: Russia is trying to send a message with the Olympics. They have done their best to copy what China did with the Olympics to create a spectacle which is supposed to tell the world that Russia is a modern, powerful country... rather than a backwards land of strongmen and corruption.

Yep.

Too bad they (1) didn’t finish the hotels, (2) don't have water you can use, (3) started threatening journalists and falsely accusing them of lies when those reporters exposed problems, and (4) have been playing political games with opponents. All this does is reinforce that Russia is a sh*thole kelptocracy.

● Silence Sends A Message Too: It’s been almost two weeks since Obama’s pathetic state of the union in which he promised to make himself a dictator by Executive Order. His silence has been deafening. Once again, Obama has promised to charge out there and somethingsomething only to pretty much blow it off. We have a lazy, lazy president, folks.

Interestingly, this weekend (notice the weekend announcement to downplay it), Eric Holder announced that they will try to maximize the federal benefits given to gay couples. Wow. Let’s put this into perspective. The law already requires that from Holder. So what he just promised is to do what he was already required to do. I wonder if Obama’s followers are going to figure this one out?

● Foul Language: Obama’s new top diplomat for Europe, Victoria Nuland, was forced to apologize to the EU after being caught on tape saying “F*ck the EU” over their attempts to intervene in the Ukrainian crisis. Nice. This is after a string of embarrassment with Obama appointed-ambassadors. Obama is causing himself problems everywhere. What's the message? "I'm a danger to myself and others."
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Hillary Clinton: Hollow Woman

** Warning: This article is not suitable for children, the hypersensitive, or Democrats. Do not eat within 20 minutes of reading. May cause flatulence. If you get an erection that lasts longer than 0.1 seconds from reading an article about Hillary Clinton, see your doctor.

Hillary has written a book. Actually, I guess she’s contributed to a book. The book is a feminist rant compiled by the leftist Center for American Progress and Maria Shriver, the former sex toy of the Guvernator. What I’ve seen written-up about the book and Hillary’s contribution is well worth mocking, so get your waders on, we’re going in!!

● Mock One: Hillary writes that “the clock is turning back on women across America.” If she was referring to the annoyance that is Daylight Savings Time, I would agree with her, but she’s not. No. Instead, Hillary is channeling a feminist jerk off fantasy in which Rick Santorum gets his way and women everywhere are turned into chattel without the right to have jobs or have sex for purposes other than procreation... because Rick finds sex with women to be “yucky.”

This is, of course, high-grade idiocy... 93.1% pure in fact. Indeed, a recent survey by Pew found that while women still earn only 84% of what men earn, the difference fell to 93% among Millennials, and only 15% of women felt they had been discriminated against personally. So our expert, the woman we are trusting to diagnose the problem and sell us a solution to fix that problem, is absolutely wrong. Nice start, Hillary.

● Mock Two: I am so sick of idiots with no sense of perspective. Hillary is apparently one of them. Check out this verbal dipshitage that came out of her enfecaled mind:
“I think of the extraordinary sacrifices my mother made to survive her own difficult childhood, to give me not only life but also opportunity, along with love and inspiration.”
Hmm. Did Hillary’s mom fight tigers to protect her little crumb snatcher? No. Was Hillary’s mom threatened with stoning for trying to educate Hillary? Threatened with death for driving her to and from the trailer park? Forced to submit to her husband upon pain of death? Did she have her genitals mutilated? Was her job taken away by fundamentalists? Was she forced to wear the ceremonial mumu? Did she live on $0.10 a day as Sally Struthers lorded a box of Twinkies over her? Ha...ardly. Hillary’s mom doesn’t know what sacrifice is and, therefore, little Hillary lacks perspective. Should we really trust someone who can’t tell the difference between a bullet and a harshly worded letter to run our government?

Oh, and your mom didn’t love you, Hillary... love doesn’t run your family... opportunism does. Why else do you think you married Bill?

● Mock Three: Hillary tells us that she’s very proud of her daughter and “I look at all these young women I’ve been privileged to work with or know through Chelsea, and it’s hard to imagine turning the clock back on them.” Yeah, it's hard to imagine because it won’t happen. You’re suffering from what psychologists call, “A worldview based on absolute bullsh*t and paranoia.”

But I’m more interested in the first part of this quote. What exactly is Chelsea doing that is helping Hillary meet young women? Is she a pimp?

Also, does Hillary really not understand that her little pumpkin, who is named for a British soccer team, isn’t exactly meeting all these young, hot, virile women Hillary finds so impressive because of her own skills? No. It’s called Nepotism. Without Hillary’s political connections, Chelsea would need to make it on her own talents and those seem to be limited to... well, we haven’t found one yet. Can we really trust a woman who can’t tell the difference between someone who earned their accolades and someone who happens to have well-connected family? This woman is not a good judge of character.

● Mock Four: In her scribblings, Hillary points to “a wide range of issues” that have stymied the sans-penis class. In particular, she points to “pay equity to work-family balance to life expectancy as areas where women in the United States still face problems.” Oh oh.

I suppose it never occurred to Hillary that number two causes number one? It seems to have finally occurred to everyone else. But more interestingly, did she really say “life expectancy”? Oh, heavens! Those evil Republicans are trying to destroy women's genes to kill them off younger than they should otherwise die! Boo hoo hoo!

Good grief. Women live LONGER than men. Yes. Women live 81 years compared to 76 for men on average... five years longer. So what is the problem? Is Hillary so bad with obvious facts or is this like Obamacare where Obama's real goal was apparently to strip more people of insurance than help them? Look out ladies, Hillary wants to shorten your lives on average by five years.

Do you know how she’s going to do it? I do. This is all part of one plan. She’s going to make you work longer hours, sacrificing family for work, so as to close the pay gap. The misery that generates will shorten your lifespans by five years. Perfect. Total equality. All you need to do is live less fulfilled and shorter lives. Hell, I’m on board... “Hillary 2016, because women have it too damn good.”

● Mock Five: Other contributors to Hillary’s little book include Beyonce, who is best known for selling her breasts to the public, Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg, who is best known for being an elitist and for being too cheap to pay interns, Kristen Gillibrand, who is a far-left ideologue in the Senate and possible challenger to Hillary, and LebRon James, who is best known as one of the greatest villains basketball has ever produced. I guess Hitler’s ghost, Lindsay Lohan and Heidi Fleiss were busy.

● Mock Six: Clinton has launched an initiative called, “No Ceilings,” which also means no second floors and no protection from the rain. This group, apparently, “makes the case ... from the global perspective of why empowering women at all levels of the economic strata is usually helpful to the debate.”

How inspiring. So let me get this straight. Rather than helping women at the bottom improve their lives, the goal is to "empower" them. Yep. She doesn’t want to improve their lives, their security, their families or anything that really matters to them personally... no. She just wants to "empower" them because that "usually" helps. And how does it help? It helps the debate. What debate? Is this the one in Hillary's head where she argues with us that we need to stop burning women at the stake? Or is she talking about some actual debate? Perhaps she means her nightly debates with Rick Santorum... they swap nights sleeping under each other's beds. Oh come on, you know they're the perfect couple.

Anyway, her goal is to help some debate rather than help women in any meaningful way and her goal is apparently worldwide, though I’m not sure why. We all know that everywhere that Islam treads, women are worshiped like Goddesses. And in Europe, well, let’s just say the men carry purses for a reason. So what is she upset about? Perhaps evil macho countries like India, Argentina, Nicaragua, Brazil, Indonesia, Chile, Liberia and others, where women have no rights and cannot rise above simple galley wenches... unless they find themselves elected President or Prime Minister as they have in each of those backward macho hellholes. Yes, Hillary could teach a lot to Cristina Kirchner in Argentina or Dilma Rousseff in Brazil about how these women could succeed if only they would follow her lead.

Yeah, you go girl.

● Mock Seven: Finally, in all seriousness, Hillary lays out the horrific consequences “if we do not continue to campaign for women’s rights and opportunities.” What are those consequences? Prepare to weep uncontrollably: “The world we want to live in – and the country we all love and cherish – will not be what it should be.” Damn that’s horrifying!!!

Imagine a world in which our country was not what it should be. I mean, think about it. Imagine a world in which the wrong policies of evil men caused unemployment to be higher than it should be, raised taxes on the poor and middle classes more than they should, caused employers to drop their health insurance benefits, caused insurers to dump their plans, spent so much money on gifts to their cronies that the government became effectively broke, declared that civil rights laws only applied to certain races, etc. Imagine a world in which women can no longer get their tear-stained hands on 17 oz. cups! The horror... the horror!

Anyways, what this book tell us is that Hillary remains a woman without substance. She doesn’t want to help you, she wants to use you to talk. She sees things that aren’t broken as crises, ignores genuine crises, and offers mindless platitudes to solve these non-problems. In effect, she’s a book of procedures offering non-solutions to problems that no longer exist. If I were a liberal, I’d be really worried about backing this particular horse... she’s lame.
[+] Read More...

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Feminism: Hillary-ous

Camille Paglia is the favorite feminist of conservatives, though she’s not a conservative. The reason they like her is that she periodically takes aim at sacred liberal cows and slaughters them with abandon. She’s done that again in a wide ranging interview, which is interesting for several points, including her depants(suit)ing of Hillary Clinton.

Indeed, the headline grabber from the interview is Paglia taking down Hillary: “It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton is our party’s best chance.” She notes in particular that Hillary has no qualifications whatsoever and a history that doesn’t really inspire:
“She has more sooty baggage than a 90-car freight train. And what exactly has she ever accomplished – beyond bullishly covering for her philandering husband?”
She also slams Hillary for failing in the one instance where she actually had some authority, i.e. Benghazi, though her criticism does strike me as a little off in this regard – she says Hillary should have resigned, which seems politically unrealistic. In any event, it’s interesting to see a liberal point out that the Empress has no pantsuit.

Anyway, more interesting was what Paglia said about feminism. Paglia is a feminist, but isn’t a traditional feminist. She’s part of a different group of feminists who really don’t like the people we normally think of as feminists. In fact, when she first appeared on the radar screen, it was in her struggles against the feminists, who were at the peak of their power in the 1990s. And what she notes now is something we’ve pointed out before here: feminism is dead.
“Oh, feminism is still alive? Thanks for the tip! It sure is invisible, except for the random whine from some maleducated product of the elite schools who’s found a plush berth in glossy magazines.”
That is exactly right. The feminism Rush called “Femi-nazis,” which was born in the 1960s and peaked when it dominated academia, Hollywood and the nation’s universities in the 1990s is dead except for a couple random whiners, and the ideology it constructed has been abandoned. I love this quote in particular: “They keep dusting Steinem off and trotting her out to pin awards on her, but she’s the walking dead.”

It’s interesting to have a real insider confirm this and put a reason to it (one of which actually matches my Fifty Shades argument as you’ll see in a moment). So what reason does she give for feminism being dead? Partisanship is the big reason, and puritanicalism.

According to Paglia, feminism got crushed because “[t]heir shameless partisanship eventually doomed those Stalinist feminists.” In other words, they became so aligned with the Democratic Party that they became just another interest group and lost the respect of the public at large. Unions made this mistake too. Both unions and feminists decided they could get what they wanted through the Democratic Party rather than trying to win the public. Thus, they stopped pressuring everyone but Democrats. This destroyed their “moral authority” because they came to be seen as partisan rather than principled. In other words, rather than their cause being about equality for women, people came to see the cause of feminism as being the election of Democrats. So whether or not they were right as a matter of principle no longer mattered.

Indeed, Paglia notes that this is a continuing problem today:
“While it’s a big relief not to have feminist bullies sermonizing from every news show anymore, the leadership vacuum is alarming. It’s very distressing, for example, that the atrocities against women in India — the shocking series of gang rapes, which seem never to end — have not been aggressively condemned in a sustained way by feminist organizations in the U.S. . . The true mission of feminism today is not to carp about the woes of affluent Western career women but to turn the spotlight on life-and-death issues affecting women in the Third World.”
Paglia doesn’t specifically connect this dot to partisanship, but that is the logical cause of what she notes. Since feminists have aligned themselves with the Democratic Party and since the Democratic Party has aligned itself with “people of color” against white males, Christians, and the West, it goes against party politics to criticize things like Muslim atrocities or to point out that the rest of the world is a racist, sexist sh*thole. Hence, feminists have remained deafeningly silent about various atrocities as they instead focused their energies on things like getting healthplans to pay for condoms for rich girls. Because of this, feminists have squandered their credibility because it’s clear they are no longer about “women,” they are about “Democrats,” just like unions are no longer about workers, they are about Democrats.

In addition to the above, Paglia adds the following. First, she notes that old-school feminists were puritanical. Indeed, they worked hand in hand with the Religious Right in the 1990s to try to stop pornography. And in the process, they alienated the vast, vast, vast majority of women because women aren’t actually opposed to sex like those feminists thought they were. To the contrary, most kind of like it. Of this, Paglia says that these “Stalinist feminists. . . were trampled by the pro-sex feminist stampede of the early ‘90s.” This is my Fifty Shades point. Feminism imploded because it tried to impose a condition that ran counter to what women wanted, so they rebelled.

So what are the takeaways? Well, feminism is dead, at least in the form it took until the 1990s. It died because it lost the public through partisanship and it lost women through being puritanical, and those womyn are relegated to history and a few pointless academic posts at this point. It also explains why modern feminists won’t speak out for women today, not in any serious context, and why they are unlikely to regain any influence with the public any time soon. Finally, Paglia confirms that even liberals recognize that Hillary is an empty pantsuit.
[+] Read More...

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

News Round Up

All right, we are in a very, very slow news period as we wait to see what immigration reform will look like and how Obama’s gun regulation scheme will prove to be a paper frosted tiger. So let’s do a news roundup and talk about a few random things.

● Moving to Texas: Rick Perry sent out letters to gun companies in states like Colorado and Connecticut where Democratic legislatures have passed anti-gun ownership laws. He’s apparently bagged his first prize: Colt Competition of Oregon, who make high-accuracy AR-15-type rifles for shooting competitions. Others may soon follow. Several gun equipment makers in Colorado have claimed they will leave as well, but we’ll see if they do. Let’s hope they do because it’s time to show people that legislative stupidity has consequences. And losing jobs is the best way to show that. Speaking of jobs...

● Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: The jobs report was ugly. The media tried half-heartedly to blame this on sequestration, but no one believes that because almost no one feels the effects of that. Others blame it on seasonal hiring, which is more likely the case. In the end though, bad economic performance falls on the president and his party. The media is trying to deflect this, but when the best they can say is, “both parties should be embarrassed by the latest depressing jobs report,” then you know they know they have problems.

Right now, people are worried that the next three years of Obama won’t be any better than the first four. And there’s really no reason they should be. None of the things holding back the economy have changed. Basically Obama tossed some money out the window of his car as drove through the streets, that didn’t work and now he’s begging for gas money to do it again. No one has considered finding ways to lower the cost of labor or to make working more profitable. Maybe it’s time for a change? Maybe it’s time for Hillary...

● Hillary Clinton: The leftist media is starting to go all fan-boy over the prospect of Hillary running for President in 2016. Indeed, many of the articles I’ve seen on this are practically orgasmic:
“It was another week in American politics highlighted by the overwhelming and deep yearning by Democrats that Hillary should run for president in 2016, and the overwhelming and powerful support she would receive from Americans if she does.”
Yeah, everyone would love our Goddess... unlike that black guy, that pretend-messiah who can’t solve our problems. In fact, this particular article said something that struck me as rather interesting on this very point:
“It would be spectacular if Bill and Hillary Clinton would work with the Clinton Global Initiative to devise major new jobs proposals.”
This is interesting because it suggests that our slobbering author has given up hope that Obama will solve the jobs crisis, doesn’t it? And if Hillary can come up with a jobs plan as this hack believes, then why doesn’t the hack want Hillary sharing this with Obama? Why hope that Hillary waits to unveil it in her own run? I’d say the media crush is shifting to Hillary.

In fact, in the past few weeks there have been a series of things that make me think the media is done with Obama. There’s been a ton of coverage of the failures of Obamacare. There’s been extensive coverage of Obama’s “gaffe” of complimenting a chick attorney general on her looks. There’s been coverage of how big business is raking in the cash from Obama’s programs. There’s been coverage about Obama’s gun push failing because he didn’t really plan it right. And there’s been a lot of anger about the jobs report directed at “both parties.” These aren’t things that would have been covered in the past and the fact they are now suggests that the media is ready to be harsher on him.

Back to Hillary, the only real question right now is whether or not rank and file leftist fruitcakes are on the same page as the limousine media leftists. I have my doubts. So while it looks like Hillary will be anointed the heiress apparent to the pretend messiah by the media, I’m not so sure she’s going to do all that well in the primaries.

At least there’s only one Clinton, right? Uh...

● Spawn of Clintons: As if this will surprise anyone, Chelsea is now dropping hints that she might one day very soon be interested in being handed an elective office. Shocker! I’d rather vote for a Kardashian.

Anything I missed?
[+] Read More...