Tag Archives: Bill Clinton

The Medal of Freedom Free-for-All

Medal-of-FreedomOriginally posted at American Thinker

On the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy’s establishment of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Barack Obama, the guy who’s done more to obstruct freedom than any American president in history, will be the one handing out the medals.  Having Barack Obama dispense freedom medals is on par with Hitler lighting Shabbat candles or Bill Clinton hosting a couples’ seminar on the joys of marital fidelity.

Nonetheless, according to the White House website, the purpose of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which is the nation’s highest civilian honor, is to pay tribute to those who’ve made “meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.”

President Obama had this to say about the Medal of Freedom:

The Presidential Medal of Freedom goes to men and women who have dedicated their own lives to enriching ours. This year’s honorees have been blessed with extraordinary talent, but what sets them apart is their gift for sharing that talent with the world. It will be my honor to present them with a token of our nation’s gratitude.

The individuals due to receive the medal are supposedly selected by the president or recommended to him by the Distinguished Civilian Service Awards Board.  Judging from the list, it’s easy to see that when choosing the 2013 recipients, Barack Obama was guided by his own personal opinion.

This year’s group is made up of the following luminaries: liberal politicians from the left-of-left wing to the just plain old RINO left wing; one liberal journalist, plus a Berkeley-schooled psychologist; a departed Obama-supporting female astronaut and a living Jimmy Carter-supporting coal miner’s daughter; a Cuban musician; a Berkeley-schooled Mexican scientist; a black athlete; a female Democrat judge; a deceased LGBT activist; and a couple of civil-rights leaders.

Although the group consists of many standouts, three in particular have Barack Obama’s fingerprints all over them, the first being former President Bill Clinton.  If Bill Clinton deserves anything, it would be a medal for freeing the Oval Office from the confines of presidential dignity.

While Commander-in-Chief Clinton cavorted with a chubby intern, lied about it, perjured himself under oath, and was impeached, now that the “vast right-wing conspiracy” has been fully exposed, he’s one of 16 candidates for a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Barack Obama had to be behind giving Bill Clinton a medal.  After all, what better way for the present occupant of the White House to make his sorry self look good than to give a medal to someone just as sorry?

Therefore, Bill Clinton deserves a Medal of Freedom for freeing Barack Obama from a future of indignity associated with being a God-awful president.

Then there’s feminist Gloria Steinem.  How she got on the list is a Ms-tery.  It must be because Obama respects Gloria for dedicating her life to America’s enrichment by fighting for the right to deprive children in the womb of the right to be born.

Seventy-nine-year-old Gloria proudly wears an “I had an abortion” T-shirt, openly boasting about aborting her own child who, had he or she lived, would be 57 years old today.

Ms. Steinem fondly reminisced about that abortion:

I used to sit and try and figure out how old the child would be, trying to make myself feel guilty. But I never could! … Speaking for myself, I knew it was the first time I had taken responsibility for my own life. I wasn’t going to let things happen to me. I was going to direct my life, and therefore it felt positive.

Who can argue with Obama choosing to give a medal to Steinem for being so cold, heartless, and self-serving that she makes a guy who believes in allowing babies born alive in botched abortions to die without warmth, hydration, or oxygen seem like a pillar of compassion?

Hence, Gloria Steinem deserves a Medal of Freedom for decades of freeing fetuses from the wombs of women who refuse to be deterred from directing their own self-absorbed lives.

Last but not least, we have Oprah Winfrey.  Besides being a gazillionaire and a media magnate of gargantuan proportions (shh, don’t you say it), Oprah was one of Barry’s biggest supporters in 2008.  She probably secretly credits herself for singlehandedly catapulting Barack Obama from the mean streets of Chicago into the family residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Among her many achievements, Oprah is an actress, broadcast journalist, and talk show host who, in a similar way to how Gloria Steinem’s dead baby was Gloria’s new lease on life, considered the untimely death of the newborn infant she delivered at 14 years old a “second chance.”

Oprah Winfrey deserves a Medal of Freedom, all right, but not for her varied accomplishments, nor for her outstanding ability to bring home the bacon.  Rather, she should take a medal for involuntarily freeing her false eyelashes from her eyelids during Barack Obama’s 2008 acceptance speech in INVESCO Field.

Anyone who can be so moved by Barack Obama’s “transcendent” oratory that the salty droplets gushing from her tear ducts dissolves her eyelash glue and destroys a perfectly good set of Ardell Demi Lashes deserves a medal.

Couple the eyelash episode with being identified as Oprah, which sort of resembles the name Obama, and Winfrey may very well have shown up the other 15 recipients and earned herself not one, but two Medals of Freedom.

With the award ceremony months away, there’s still time for Commissioner of Liberty Barack Obama to hand out medals to a few more freedom-lovers.

Let’s see…how about Queen of Free Birth Control Sandra Fluke, MSNBC Head Lesbian Rachel Maddow, IRS official Lois Lerner, ousted Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, and the no-longer-closeted basketball player/newly-christened homosexual icon, Jason Collins?  Meanwhile, Barack Obama is probably trying to concoct a way to give one of those medals to his number-one choice — himself.

Weiner’s Got Hillary’s Pantsuit in a Bunch

hillaryfeet2Originally posted at American Thinker blog

It’s taken Hillary Clinton decades to politically circumvent Bill’s sexual peccadilloes and put enough distance between his bad behavior and her fantastical self-image of a strong, capable leader.

In her unending quest to occupy the Oval Office, Mrs. Clinton lives her pantsuit-centered life in one locale while wandering Bill lives his pantsless life in another, and with God’s grace the twain meet as infrequently as possible.

Now, as Hillary sets her sights on the White House for yet a second time, out of the shadows comes another XY chromosome character with a zipper that seems to be stuck in the down position.

Complicating matters is his patient wife, who just so happens to be Hillary’s right-hand woman and who has fashioned her response to her husband’s repeated transgressions after the ever-stoic faithful spouse Hillary.

That scenario is precisely why Ms. Rodham-Clinton’s pantsuit is in a bunch. Seems mayoral hopeful Tiny… oops, I mean Tony Weiner and wife Huma Abedin are comparing Weinergate I and II to the cock-up that well-known cigar aficionado Bill Clinton perpetrated on America during his eight-year stint.

For most people, emulation would be a compliment, but not for Mrs. Clinton. The problem is that after almost 25 years of carving a place for herself that protects her from her husband’s notorious inability to control his wandering libido, the last thing Hillary needs right now is to have Weiner’s image associated with Slick Willy’s and a rejected but forbearing Huma linked to her own.

In classic Clinton style, Weiner is desperately trying to deflect attention away from the iPhone pictures of his penis and proclaim his concern for the middle class. Meanwhile, Democrats are saying that “The Clintons are upset with the comparisons that the Weiners seem to be encouraging — that Huma is ‘standing by her man’ the way Hillary did with Bill, which is not what she in fact did.”

Hillary didn’t ‘stand by her man?’ Oh, that’s right, what Hillary did had nothing to do with ‘standing.’ Instead, Hillary vanished into the nether regions of solitude, sat right down, and crafted a new plan of action. Then, when the time was right, Hillary emerged stronger, more enduring, and more determined to move forward with her systematic plan to realize her dream of presidential omnipotence.

As for Bill, his being upset is understandable. After all, let’s give credit where credit is due. Weiner’s ‘vast iPhone conspiracy’ is small potatoes in comparison to the escapades of an unmatched swordsman like Bill Clinton. Not only that, but Bill doesn’t want a weenie like Weiner to ruin his chances of parking his humidor on a shelf in the Oval Office for old time’s sake.

That’s supposedly why the Clintons are angry. It’s alleged that Hill and Bill believe that Weiner and his campaign aides are pointing to their experiences in desperation, to convince those who want Weiner to throw in the towel, so to speak, that marital infidelity is a private matter. After all, Bill Clinton did prove that refusing to let go of the (ahem) presidency together with a supportive wife was key to his being undeterred by minor details like a blue Gap dress, perjury, and impeachment.

According to one Clinton source, “The Clintons are pissed off that Weiner’s campaign is saying that Huma is just like Hillary. How dare they compare Huma with Hillary? Hillary was the first lady. Hillary was a senator. She was secretary of state.” Yeah! How dare anybody compare anyone to Hillary? Doing so borders on blasphemy.

Question: When the Weiner campaign says Huma “is just like Hillary,” do they mean in ways other than imitating Clinton’s haltingly didactic lilt when publicly defending her husband’s spicy sexts? And yes, it’s true, Hillary was the first lady, but at the height of the Lewinsky scandal she was neither a senator nor the secretary of state.

Moreover, since when does the position held by the spouse of a pervert define one reaction as being superior to another? Hillary sets the scorned-woman tone and then punishes a supposed protégé for imitating an attitude that has repeatedly delivered Hillary political rewards?

The consensus among Hillary defenders is that the Weiners are making thinly-veiled allusions to the Clintons. For instance, at the press conference where Abedin dutifully declared that “Our marriage, like many others, has had its ups and its downs,” a prominent Democrat asked, “Who didn’t think Huma was referring to the Clintons when she said [like many others]?” Now that’s just plain unfair. For the Weiners it may be “ups and downs,” but for the Clintons, it’s different — it’s “ins and outs.”

Clinton’s aides claim that Abedin supporting a husband who continued acting out after he resigned from Congress in 2011 has “the Clintons stunned.” Hillary, wife of sex addict Bill, being “stunned” over Weiner being unable to discontinue his sexual shenanigans is like Nicole Kidman being “stunned” that ex-husband and notorious control freak Tom Cruise stifled Katie Holmes.

Are the Clintons, who refuse to drop out of anything and continue to drag home medals for sitting on the sidelines, attempting to further desensitize America to their own dysfunction by demanding Weiner drop out of the race for behaving just like them?

Yep! And after being mortified and humiliated by her husband, power-hungry Huma is now being cast aside by power-hungry Hillary, whose needs Abedin faithfully attended to while Tony was home pitching ideas for erotic encounters to Sydney Leathers.

Let’s face it — Hillary Clinton is not going to allow her political ambitions to be mucked up by a sex scandal that pales in comparison to the one she survived with Bill. And so, as she forges ahead in her relentless quest for the White House, the unstoppable Hillary ‘Benghazi’ Clinton will continue to do what she does best: dodge scandals and fling friends aside.

Prostitution and Drug Ring in State Department! Where’s Bill?

images Originally posted at The Blacksphere

It has been revealed that the U.S. State Department may have concealed accusations of illegal behavior that include alleged sexual assaults and a possible covert drug ring.

The disclosed documents also reveal that members of Clinton’s security detail “engaged prostitutes while on official trips.”

The Diplomatic Security Service (DSS), an internal regulatory agency, implicated the State Department in a series of international wrongdoings.

Everyone knows that Hillary has been known to bang back a few cold cervezas.

During the Summit of the Americas in Colombia, she even went clubbing and tore up the dance floor doing a rowdy rhumba. Come to think of it, the former first lady also got a little wild and woolly in Pretoria, South Africa, bumping and grinding with a large woman dressed in what appears to be South African garb.

But come on people, drugs and prostitutes? Really? The only way that would be possible is if Huma Mahmood Abedin, Hillary’s right hand woman, took her Lil’ Tweeting Weiner along on some of those trips.

Either way, as hard as all this is to believe about a pillar of integrity like Hillary Clinton, the DSS did cite eight instances of misconduct that included assertions that a “State Department security official in Beirut ‘engaged in sexual assaults’ with foreign nationals hired as embassy guards.”

There was also a charge that members of Ms. Rodham Clinton’s security detail “engaged prostitutes while on official trips in foreign countries.” The report called the problem “endemic.”

DSS agents reported that they were told to back off of investigations of high-ranking State Department members.

For example, investigators claimed they were told to stop – no pun intended – “probing the case of a U.S. ambassador who was suspected of patronizing prostitutes in a public park.” It’s no secret that ‘probing’ is a favorite pastime of Bill Clinton, and public parks, as in Fort Marcy Park, hold a special place in Hillary’s heart. So in some ways the report does make sense.

Apparently, after one ambassador, who shall remain nameless, had his illicit behavior made public, sort of like Bill Clinton, the offender was permitted to return to his post. After all, why should his having “routinely ditched…his protective security detail” in order to “solicit sexual favors from prostitutes” impact an individual’s reputation or ability to continue in his or her position as a public servant?

In fairness to the former Secretary of State, there are two possible scenarios that could explain these situations away. The first is that none of this is true. Rather, the same “vast right wing conspiracy” that vindictively attempted to destroy her husband may still be harassing Hillary Clinton.

The second one is that hubby Bill “I Did Not Have Sexual Relations and I Did Not Inhale” Clinton went incognito and did double duty shielding his beloved bride from potential harm.

Therefore, Bill Clinton heading off dangerous drug dealers and prostitutes could ultimately be what exonerates Hillary Clinton’s State Department from all wrongdoing.

Obama’s Campaign Bus Parks on Top of Hillary

Originally posted at American Thinker

Americans are supposed to believe that it took one full month for the “smartest woman in the world,” Hillary Clinton, to figure out that the “buck stops” with her?  What was she doing from September 11 to October 15?  Trying to figure out whether to go to Peru, trim her overgrown locks, or visit her daughter Chelsea for an extended fall weekend?

During the 2008 Democrat presidential primary, Hillary Clinton had quite a different opinion about where it was the “buck” stopped.  Referring to herself at a rally in Missouri, Clinton said, “I believe we need a president who believed what Harry Truman believed.  That buck stopped in the Oval Office.”

As we all know, Hillary never made it to the Oval Office.  Instead, for four years, Mrs. Clinton has circumnavigated the globe on Barack Obama’s behalf looking like a bedraggled grandmother in need of a nap.  Finally, when the red phone did ring at 3:00 am at the White House, Hillary was in a different time zone, and Obama was probably at a Hollywood fundraiser.  Now, weeks prior to an election in which Barack Obama appears to be quickly losing his grip, Hillary crawls out from under the bus where Obama tossed her and addresses the deadly assault in Benghazi:

I take responsibility [for the four deaths in Benghazi]. I’m in charge of the State Department’s 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn’t be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They’re the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision.”

I take this very personally. So we’re going to get to the bottom of it, and then we’re going to do everything we can to work to prevent it from happening again, and then we’re going to work to bring whoever did this to us to justice.

Why would Hillary shoulder the entire blame?  Didn’t the Obama administration initially blame the September 11 murders on a band of armed rabble-rousers who spontaneously stormed the consulate and then tortured and killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens, computer expert Sean Smith, and security contractors Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods to avenge the Prophet Mohammed over a low-budget video mocking Islam made by an American?

That explanation made about as much sense as saying that 3,000 people died on September 11, 2001 as a result of the attackers being offended that they were denied peanuts on flights out of Boston, Newark, and Washington, D.C.

After swearing for a couple of weeks that a California videographer was to blame and after testimony by State Department employees that indicated that requests for more security had been rejected, the Obama administration finally conceded that the attack on the consulate was a coordinated terrorist attack.

All this apparently tickled the hell out of Joe Biden’s funny bone during the vice-presidential debate.  The vice president said that the White House was unaware of the requests to enhance security at Benghazi.  From the looks of things, it appears that Vice President Joe Biden’s loose lips were the catalyst that finally motivated the White House to find another fall guy (or gal) to cover for their glaring ineptitude.

The White House responded to Joe’s latest gaffe by saying that the jocular vice president did not know of the requests because requests for security are traditionally handled by the State Department.

So nearly seven days after Biden revealed that those in charge haven’t a clue, Hillary Clinton comes to the rescue by explaining that “[i]n the wake of an attack like this, in the fog of war, there’s always going to be confusion.”  Someone should tell Miss Hillary that there would be no fog of war if a powerful nation like the United States had strong leaders that fight a war to win.

Nevertheless, Hillary has decided to take the fall by saying, “And I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence.  Everyone who spoke tried to give the information that they had.  As time has gone on, that information has changed.  We’ve gotten more detail, but that’s not surprising.  That always happens.”

Umm, Mrs. Clinton, wouldn’t you agree that in this situation, it depends on what the definition of “intelligence” is?  A humbled Clinton then said that “[w]hat I want to avoid is some kind of political gotcha or blame game.”  So by taking the blame, Hillary shielded Barry.

At this late date, Hillary’s mea culpa sounds more orchestrated than the attack in Benghazi. Did the secretary of state also speak with Christopher Stevens’ father, who refused say who he would be voting for come November 6th, but who did say he doesn’t want his son’s death politicized?

“I know that we’re very close to an election,” Hillary explained, saying “I want to just take a step back here and say from my own experience, we are at our best as Americans when we pull together. I’ve done that with Democratic presidents and Republican presidents.” The question is whether Hillary is “stepping back” or stepping forward over a cliff.

Let’s face it: despite the controversy, Hillary and Bill Clinton still do have their sights set on a presidential run in 2016 and would never do anything to jeopardize that dream.  Hillary Clinton is not about to endanger 40 years of toiling for a position where she’d finally be the one answering the phone in the White House at 3:00 am, especially just to save Barack Obama’s bungling neck before an election.

Therefore, it appears that Hillary and Bill Clinton have decided that it would be politically expedient to “pull together” with a pusillanimous Democratic president running for re-election whose “war on women” now includes running over his secretary of state with his campaign convoy.

The only explanation is that Hillary Clinton is hoping that by volunteering to be a buck-stopper, she’ll be perceived by the American people as an honest, trustworthy, responsible leader.  In turn, Barack’s butt may be covered for another couple of weeks and, with any luck, those tire marks from the bus that’s rolling over her will fade before 2016.

Liberal Lynchers and Other Purveyors of Perfection

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

If a conservative threatens the left, or more specifically, if the conservative is a black male who is perceived to have strayed off the Democrat homestead, the left has a method to discipline wanderers that includes dredging up offended women to hurl unsubstantiated accusations against men whose reputation and moral character are generally unscathed.

Based on a “right to privacy” mindset, liberals of both genders rolled their eyes whenever the subject of Clinton’s adulterous behavior was broached.   Yet those who applauded a debauched, cigar-smoking President who had messed around with an intern in the Oval Office suddenly become holier-than-thou when the finger of unconfirmed sexual impropriety points in the direction of a black conservative politician.

The most recent scandalous charge to arise is against Republican presidential nominee frontrunner Herman Cain, whose conservative message, if it catches on in the black community, threatens to shake the foundation of Obama’s African-American base.  The accusation?  Herman supposedly sexually harassed “at least two women in the 1990s.”

The alleged offense took place around the same time that present-day sanctimonious liberals were busy defending Bill Clinton’s cavorting with a woman in a blue Gap dress instead of his wife, the woman in the blue pantsuit.

Now, the very people who waved off Clinton’s misbehavior seem more than willing to believe 20 year-old accusations leveled against a faithful family man by a couple of nameless, faceless, now- middle-aged opportunists.

It must be that the left, desperate to stop the runaway Cain train, felt it was time to pull out of the shadows not one, but two women to accuse Herman Cain of “sexual innuendo and physical gestures,” although the affronted parties did admit Cain’s actions were not “overtly sexual.”

Supposedly, the National Restaurant Association’s CEO’s offending comment was: “You are the same height as my wife.” Based on the benign nature of the statement, Mr. Cain could have asked the duo if they wanted extra cheese on their pizza and the left would have found a way to twist the comment into a sexually insulting remark.

In response to the charge, Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon said the politically liberal press is “dredging up thinly sourced allegations.” Gordon contended that the report includes “unsubstantiated personal attacks” and said that the left, unable to attack Herman Cain’s policies or message, is “casting aspersions on his character and spreading rumors that [when they were made] never stood up to the facts.”

Truth is, what’s going on has nothing to do with the left’s concern for female sensibility, nor is the debate over whether Herman Cain is guilty of making a bawdy comment in the 1990’s (something every adult, regardless of gender or political persuasion, has done).   Instead, the Cain controversy has everything to do with Democrats sending a message to their African-American constituency.

Herman Cain’s accomplishments, life and message are alien to everything conveyed by the left to those trapped within a system that ensures Democrat political power.

Clearly Cain, who boldly claimed he left the “Democrat plantation long ago,” needed an attitude adjustment. Thus, what better time to drag out the political execution playbook and commence with the “high-tech lynching” that Herman Cain predicted would be forthcoming.

The tactic is not a new one, and black politicians should pay heed to the predictable response that takes place when men like Herman Cain point out the futility of liberalism.   When a black conservative gets too close to the truth, the response on the left is to attempt to destroy the character and reputation of anyone who might successfully influence wavering blacks to ideologically stray.

In the Democrat economy, conservative principles, especially those espoused by a wildly successful self-made black leader whose political style is charming and natural, threaten Democrat control over millions of Americans held captive for generations to an entitlement system surrounded on all sides by barbed chicken wire provided compliments of liberal policy.

Black conservatives who refuse to be tamed open the gate and show a way towards freedom for those held in economic and social servitude for generations.   Which is why those notorious for ignoring well-documented sexual impropriety by an undisciplined philanderer like Bill Clinton feign piety over unproven sexual allegations against black conservatives like Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain.

Thus liberal lynchers, well aware that baseless accusations go a long way toward marring the reputation of political opponents, are more than willing to place the rope of false accusations around the neck of any black man refusing to submit to the status quo.

As a means of corralling potentially uncooperative black voters, Democrats publicly prod wandering black conservatives back toward the plantation with unfounded threats and allegations that place the guiltless on the defensive.  Therefore Democrats, who typically stand in solidarity with morally bankrupt liberals, are more than eager to use contrived righteous indignation as a means to execute the type of “high-tech lynching” that every black conservative poised to assume a position of power is eventually destined to endure.

Partisan Heartbreaker Tom the Petty

Originally posted at BIG Hollywood

In an effort to further promote the message of love, peace and the type of compassion intrinsic to all dedicated liberals, Alec Baldwin, a paunchy comedian with anger issues, called attention to what he feels is Michele Bachmann’s inability to articulate by inarticulately spewing obscenities in the Minnesota congresswoman’s direction by way of Twitter.

Within seconds of Michele announcing she’d decided to launch a bid for the Republican nomination for President of the United States, it became clear that not one iota of liberal negativity toward conservatives has abated.

Over the past few days, the rock world has joined the fun by publicly stepping forward in an effort to send a message to the latest object of targeted political ridicule, Michele Bachmann. The goal is to drive home the point that liberal rock musicians disapprove of both Bachmann’s politics and audacity in thinking she actually has a chance to send honorary rock star Barack Obama back to Chicago.

Following Alec Baldwin’s Twitter tirade, Tom Petty, a Mad Hatter in sunglasses, decided it was his turn to deny Bachmann, without explanation, the use of one of his hit songs. Petty is so anti-GOP he forbade Michele Bachmann from playing  “American Girl” as a musical backdrop to her announcement to run for president.

Apparently, the last thing Tom Petty wants to be associated with is writing the signature anthem that could accompany a female Republican candidate on the trip from Minnesota to the White House.  So, to prevent that from happening, the rocker sent a three-word message to Michele: “Cease and desist.”

It’s doubtful that Tom Petty would decline $275 per person ticket proceeds based on who concertgoers supported in the last election. Yet, rock musicians who refuse, due to partisan politics, to let conservative candidates use songs for campaign backdrops forget that many of their fans are conservatives.

It’s no secret; Tom Petty isn’t a fan of the Right. When George W. Bush ran for governor of Texas, the genial GW pulled a Michele Bachmann and complimented the songwriter by using “I Won’t Back Down” as a campaign song. The unappreciative Petty had his publisher warn the campaign that using the ballad could send a false impression (Heaven forbid) that Petty endorsed Bush, and ordered the gubernatorial team to pull the song.

Tom Petty is one of a large herd of liberal singers and songwriters who sell their wares like capitalists on steroids to anyone and everyone, but when a conservative candidate identifies with one of their songs, out of fear of being perceived as leaning to the right hawkers of concert T-shirts and tacky glassware suddenly become all partisan and possessive.

Yet when Democrats like Black Socks Spitzer of New York and John ‘My-Wife-Has-Cancer-While-I’m-Having-an-Affair’ Edwards used Heartbreaker music as campaign anthems, Tom the Perpetually Petty fully endorsed both Lotharios using the extremely apropos “Won’t Back Down” ditty.

The “You Can Call Me Al” and “Don’t Stop” crews are proud to have signature songs associated with Al ‘Crazed  Sex Poodle’ Gore and impeached adulterer Bill Clinton, but Sarah Palin shaking hands and hugging babies in time to “Barracuda” irked female rock group Heart so much the duo threatened a lawsuit if Sarah didn’t pick another tune.

Truth is, in the world of rock and roll, the liberal malady is endemic. In the 1980’s Bruce Springsteen took on the Gipper over Reagan’s use of the song “Born in the USA.” During the 2004 presidential election, in an effort to save the USA from a second Bush term, Bruce partnered with über-liberal left-wing group MoveOn.org to headline a star-studded caravan of whiners in a Vote for Change Tour.

The 2004 MoveOn.org/rock-and-roll effort failed and Bush won reelection, which proves there are more Republican voters than liberals realize.  If, as a group, conservatives boycotted downloading music from iTunes and stopped buying concert tickets, many artists who feel comfortable insulting Republicans for sport would definitely take a hit in the pocketbook.

Then again, one has to wonder if someone like Bruce Springsteen even comprehends the concept that the people he slurs with his political invectives have the monetary power to affect The Boss’s bottom line.  After all, didn’t Springsteen say Obama “speaks to the America I’ve envisioned in my music for the past 35 years?”

Even still, the liberal Step Away From the Song list goes on and on: Pretty boy Jon Bon Jovi told Sarah Palin not to use “Who Says You Can’t Go Home.”  The Foo Fighters and Van Halen dissed John McCain; Bruce Hornsby felt Sean Hannity’s use of his song “The Way it Is” shouldn’t be the way it is; and rock group Rush informed Rand Paul he’s no “Tom Sawyer.”

By now, Republicans should know better than to provide ammunition for the left by failing to stringently follow copyright laws and respect property ownership rights. Yet, a politically partisan situation still presents an opportunity to learn a profound lesson for those on both sides of the political aisle.

Liberal musicians should understand that having a fan base largely made up of those without the ability to pay $1.99 to download a song or lay out close to three bills for a concert ticket isn’t going to ensure their rock star lifestyle for very long.

For those heartbroken by Petty Heartbreaker, conservatives must take their eyes off the “Yes We Can” free-for-all where liberal politicians sway and wave in time to music amidst showers of balloons filled to capacity with Democrat hot air.  It’s time to realize the same standard does not and will never apply to Grand Ole or Tea Party candidates. Just because liberal musicians become gazillionaires with the help of Republican fans doesn’t mean those same rich rock stars will show appreciation by treating conservative candidates with respect.

For those on the right, the salient point is this: liberal politicians are never denied rights to artists’ theme songs; quite the contrary, they are encouraged to use them. Conservatives politicians should not be so naïve as to assume similar rules apply to the likes of Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann.

With that in mind, Bachmann and Harley-riding Barracuda Palin should rethink forgoing the mud wrestling fight Michele claims the media is itching for and hit the ring to work out which lady will seek permission to claim Carrie Underwood’s “All-American Girl” and whose anthem will ultimately be conservative rocker Kid Rock’s “Born Free.”

 

A Party of Political Peacocks

Originally posted at American Thinker

Testosterone-driven men don’t usually think of themselves as peacocks, but riding around in sooped-up cars, sporting pumped-up pectorals, donning flashy clothes and looking for opportunities to display cash-stuffed money clips in public are some of the many ways male humans fan out their showy feathers to catch the attention of female peahens.

In nature, peahen gals are attracted to the most ornate male peacock – or the guy toting the most bling. Year after year during breeding season, to draw a mate peacocks return to the same location. The peafowls congregate close together and treat foraging peahens to a buffet featuring a spectacular courtship dance.

After the show, the grey and brown peacock hiding beneath the most glorious feathered fan usually garners extra attention from the ladies. The male peafowl with the greatest number of eyespots on his feathers gets to swagger away accompanied by a harem.

“The collective name for a group of peacocks is a party,” and in politics former President Bill Clinton and Congressman Anthony Weiner turn out to be two of the best examples of a ‘party’ of peacocks. Both men have proven notorious for coming up with creative techniques to capture female attention. Neither Clinton nor Weiner flutter their tail feathers, produce rustling sounds or flaunt quivering fans, but in lieu of spectacular plumage, both have exploited positions of power in an effort to seduce women.

To attract females, “The degree of tail ornamentation that a peacock displays is its primary means of sexual communication.” For the human male, especially in politics, power and prestige can provide all the ‘tail ornamentation’ men like Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner need.

In the hope that their political status would attract females who normally would give neither one so much as a gander, philandering birds-of-a-feather Bill and Anthony have both utilized the plumage of their positions to compensate for deficits in character, fidelity, and honesty.

Wasn’t it on the wings of power that the country’s most notorious adulterer honked his way from the Arkansas governor’s mansion straight into the White House? All along the route, Bill Clinton managed to issue continual mating calls while enveloped in a showy garment of political peacock feathers.

Throughout his political career Clinton sought every opportunity to gather unto himself a gaggle of women.  From naïve Paula Jones, who was confronted in a hotel room by a governor without pants to Kathleen Willey, a woman who Clinton likely felt should feel honored to be ambushed by a president and subjected to a “hug, kiss” and unappreciated groping.  Pea “foul” Clinton apparently was under the impression that the trappings of power were an impressive enough show of feathers that Willey would agree to submit right there on the couch in the president’s private study.

What Clinton found out was that peahens sometimes choose to mate, while others walk away, thus prompting the male to start the dance all over again. Undeterred for years, the ever-prancing, smooth-strutting Clinton performed his courting dance in the same locale. The then-president unfurled a feathered plume called the Oval Office, which finally succeeded in attracting an immature peahen named Monica Lewinsky who, once inside the infamous cigar bar, managed to make history by willingly participating in telephone sex, nine furtive trysts, and a salacious scandal of massive proportions.

Thirteen years after William Jefferson provided Monica with a stack of dry cleaning bills, in order to attract his own bevy of females underling Anthony Weiner decided to follow ‘party’ suit and did a ton of peacock strutting himself, and did it while occupying a seat in Congress representing the good people of Brooklyn and Queens New York.

Luckily for Weiner, female “peahens build nests on the ground, lay three to five eggs and raise their peachicks without help from the peacock.” In fact, while Weiner’s pregnant wife Huma busily prepared the nest to receive offspring, morally bankrupt breeder Anthony was stocking his harem with porn stars, nursing students, black jack dealers, 21-year-olds, and even allegedly grooming a 17-year-old peachick for possible future use.

Congress became Anthony Weiner’s attention-getting ticket.  Weiner made a few “high-pitched squawking sounds” and fanned a few look-at-me-ladies displays on the House floor with a follow-up exhibit in the basement gym at the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, DC.  The New York congressman was so consumed with the mating dance he disrespected a federal building and snapped nearly nude photos of himself using the Congressional gym as a backdrop.

Sans an array of upright barbules, Congressman Weiner posed in front of a mirror doing what a peacock does, stepping side to side, forward and backward in a half-naked mating dance, ‘sexting’ pictures taken on what could turn out to be a government-issued Blackberry.

Bird enthusiasts know from their observations that a proud peacock is able to “hold his fan of display feathers up for a very long time.” In a few of Weiner’s self-portraits the congressman was also seen proudly holding his own ‘display’ for ‘a very long time,’ as well as Tweeting juvenile photos of himself over the Internet in a backwards baseball cap.

Although androgen-drenched men have a tendency to fan various types of feathers to attract female attention, adulterous men of power like Bill Clinton are notorious for finessing influence to benefit themselves sexually.  However, the vision of Anthony Weiner primping in front of a congressional gym mirror with a towel cinched around his waist while grabbing himself takes peacock strutting and plume parading, even in Washington DC, to a whole new level.

Truth is, after all the bravado America now knows that even the fanciest of feathers fall short of expectations, because plumage is superficial and only impressive from one angle. In the end, at a very great price, the faux feathers donned by the Clinton/Weiner peacock ‘party’ managed to deliver both men just two things: short-lived pleasure and permanent disgrace.

‘Stand by the Man’ dressed in the tighty whities

Huma Abedin, aka Mrs. Anthony Weiner, has dropped off the map for a few days.

Apparently Huma, embarrassed wife of the seriously disturbed New York congressman, has been squirreled away somewhere seeking marriage counseling from mother Hillary.

Could it be that the distraught Mrs. Weiner hasn’t changed out of sweatpants and flip-flops for days, while trying to makes sense of how “Tony-the-Twitter Tiger” could humiliate her this way?

Hillary, a pro at dealing with betrayal issues, has agreed to take a few days out of her busy schedule to selflessly dedicate herself to helping her personal assistant deal with the pain of rejection, humiliation, disappointment and the shock of seeing pictures of her husband’s manhood plastered all over the Internet.

Putting it all into perspective, it’s probable Hillary counseled  Huma that when weighing fidelity against political power – political power wins every time!

Chances are Madame Secretary has been coaching Weiner’s woman and explaining to her that riding through this type of trial is kind of like surfing a big wave in Hawaii weighed down by a polyester pants suit.  It’s a tad shaky at first, but once you get your footing,  its smooth sailing all the way through to a  Haiti Relief Fund appointment  for hubby and a high-level Cabinet position in a Democratic administration for wifey.

In between weepy hug sessions, to help Mrs. Weiner rebuild self-esteem, Hillary could have shared pointers such as repeating tried-and-true Stuart Smalley affirmations like: “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough and doggone it people like me.”

Minnesota Senator Al Franken aside, it’s highly probable that after emptying the wastebasket of 4 or 5 boxes of Kleenex, and liberally applying a gallon of Vaseline to Huma’s red, peeled nose, Hillary knew that if her assistant was going to be there to tell her never to put that ridiculous  banana clip in her hair again, it was time to pull out the big guns.

Based on Hillary’s “Stand by Your Man” history the former first lady may have uncovered a secret weapon residing inside a wig box and on a sachet-scented hanger tucked within the dark recesses of her Chappaqua closet.  A weapon so powerful it may hold the key to getting Huma out of those sweat pants and back into a power suit.

Over the years, due to compulsive Slick Willy’s unmentionable relapses Hillary has maintained her steely composure, drawing strength from an unknown source, not once, but many times over. Nobody knows for certain, but Hillary may have carefully laid her treasure on the bed and told Huma she was about to be let in on something more confidential than the nuclear codes President Clinton lost while in office.

With that in mind, it’s not hard to imagine, Hillary reverently opening a circular box, carefully taking out a blond, 1960’s ash blonde wig and, like a crown, placing it on Huma’s raven colored head. Or, picturing the former first lady unzipping a garment bag, shaking out a pinkish/orangish sequined/tight-fitting sheath, and asking Huma to scurry off and shimmy into it.

It’s also easy to see Huma emerging from the bathroom, dressed in Hillary’s outfit, looking more relaxed, and despite her Saudi American heritage, strangely similar to country singer Tammy Wynette.

At that point, it’s not impossible to believe Hillary reassured Huma that she learned the hard way that when a powerful woman is forced to endure a husband whose hobby, rather than Bocce ball, is marital infidelity peace does not come by way of prayer, divorce proceedings, or from blaming Republicans for a cigar-smoking husband’s philandering ways, but from heading downstairs to the porch and quietly singing a song that holds clear directives for the future.

A song whose words, may  remind Hillary of  her innate ability to overlook Bill’s raunchy antics, of how much she loves the old slime ball, and how desperately a woman can desire  the title: ” Leader of the Free World”  not be tainted by perceptions of a womanly lack of forgiveness.

And so, in an effort to make short work of a long week,  Huma in a humongous blonde wig and a glittery  sequined dress may have also headed toward Hillary’s lonely porch and competed only with evening and the crickets given Mrs. Clinton’s 30-year long spurned woman ritual a Hillary-endorsed, “Stand by Your Man”-Mrs. Weiner whirl.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew[/youtube]

 

Weiner the Womanizer

Originally posted at Daily Caller

Anthony Weiner (D-NY), one of the most arrogant, self-impressed individuals ever to occupy an office on Capitol Hill, was caught with his pants down in the truest sense of the word.  When Representative Weiner stepped behind the podium to address his Twitter picture controversy, he looked like he was going to explode from humiliation.  Seeing a person so demoralized caused my kinder, gentler self to actually have a millisecond of pity for the New York congressman.

It was uncomfortable to watch a sniveling, visibly disgraced Weiner admit that he lied about sending lewd pictures of himself to young women.  However, my strange sensation of sympathy quickly dissipated, because the whole sordid skivvy-Twitter incident confirmed what I’ve suspected for a while: Anthony Weiner oozes with contempt toward women, and that contempt manifests itself in many different ways.

Take for instance Kirsten Powers, the Fox News analyst who once dated Anthony Weiner.  Powers called Weiner “very sweet, very funny,” and “very charming.” After three months, Kirsten found out the hard way that Anthony is none of the above. Powers said she was “shocked when [Weiner] broke it off. I think he’s the only guy who ever dumped me!” said Powers.  “I think he probably dumped many girls. I don’t think it was that big of a deal.”

Weiner has prided himself on being a smarmy, imperious, liberal know-it-all that speaks to political adversaries, especially the female ones, in a debasing manner that borders on verbal harassment.

In interviews and press conferences, the pushy, smirking Weiner has rudely tried to set the rules, even calling reporters “jackasses.” The congressman’s body language implies that whomever he’s debating is beneath his exalted self.

For years, Weiner has played Democrat pit bull on Fox News, sparring with America Live host Megyn Kelly. Whenever Ms. Kelly disagrees with Weiner’s rabid liberalism, the congressman attempts to steer the conversation by pummeling the Fox anchor with an assault of interruptions and insulting comments. In one contentious interview, as soon as Megyn gained the upper hand Weiner responded by demeaning her professional skills, telling her, “This is the way interviews work, you ask the questions and then I get to answer.”

On more than one occasion, Weiner has also subjected congressional colleague Michele Bachmann (R-MN) to similar disrespect when debating the debt ceiling, spending, and tax cuts. Seething with condescension, Weiner once attempted to set Bachmann up by mockingly asking her trick questions to try to trap her and make her look foolish.

Now, after years of Anthony Weiner accusing everyone of lying, it is revealed that the self-righteous Democrat congressman broke his marriage vows to wife Huma Abedin, the longtime personal assistant of another woman also humiliated by a sex scandal.

During Weiner’s apologetic press conference, the public found out his indiscretion was probably not a surprise to his wife.  The New York Representative confessed to the press that in an outpouring of soul-mate honesty he had discussed his lack of Twitter decorum with his wife-to-be prior to their wedding. Then after the honeymoon, while Huma was tailing Mrs. Clinton, contemptuous Weiner was tailing attractive young women on Twitter and Facebook.

In fact, when the Weiners married last year, former President Clinton, the king of all womanizers, officiated at the ceremony. Although Bill Clinton doling out wedding blessings is like David Hasselhoff being a guest speaker at an AA meeting, during the Muslim/Jewish ceremony the ex-president did share some prophetic wisdom gleaned from personal experience: “Marrying a politician can be tough because it’s easy to distrust them, whatever their religion.” Amen to that.

Huma should have heeded Bill’s insightful counsel because while she was busy assisting Hillary, Internet security specialist Anthony Weiner was home, snapping suggestive pictures of himself and sending them to 198 women, some of whom may turn out to be teenagers.  Weiner disrespected women who were total strangers by having phone sex with these female “friends” and burning up the social network in an attempt to cultivate self-gratifying cyber- sexual relationships with people he’s never even met in person.

After being busted by Andrew Breitbart, the only journalist brave enough to do the work the left wing media refuses to do, Weiner immediately exhibited additional contempt – this time for the truth, Huma, his constituents, and the public. The disgraced congressman lied not once, but repeatedly, until he was cornered with proof of his salacious escapades – photos, phone records, and a multitude of women stepping forward to tell the story that the congressman, supposedly out of humiliation, refused to admit.

Yet, after all of that, it was at the podium that Weiner’s condescending aggression made itself crystal clear:  After the congressman, in a Jim McGreevy moment, admitted his weakness and that what he did was immoral and hurtful towards his wife, he shifted into his standard conceited operating mode and announced he had no plans to step down – a revelation more shocking than the shot of Weiner in tight boxer briefs.

And so, the most disturbing aspect of this lurid story is not the congressman’s bawdy behavior online, but his insolence toward the American people, toward Congress, and toward the state of New York. Despite his admission of guilt, Weiner’s thorough contempt for women has not vanished; it’s been expanded to include the rest of America.

 

Who Will Be America’s Next Ambassador to Venezuela?

Originally posted at American Thinker

Recently, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez praised Barack Obama for making both him and Fidel Castro look conservative by comparison.  Chávez enthusiastically called Barack “Comrade Obama!”  Hugo’s affectionate approval was based on Obama “nationalizing … General Motors.”  In fact, Hugo even gave a shout-out to Castro about Barack, saying, “Fidel, careful, or we are going to end up to his right.”

Hugo gushed when Obama suggested an Air Force One stopover in Caracas.  President Chávez said he would love to team up with Obama to “construct a new world order” and treat him to a hug and a large helping of “socialist arepas.”  An impromptu landing in Venezuela comes with benefits besides lunch because the Venezuelan dictator successfully “abolished term limits and shut down independent media outlets,” two potential techniques for Obama to consider prior to the next few election cycles.

For that reason, the recent blow to Hugo and Barry’s solidarity couldn’t have come at a more inopportune time.  In a matter of seconds, the relationship went from Chávez inviting Obama to join him for corn-based pancakes to laying down the ambassadorial gauntlet by forbidding Obama’s nominee for envoy to Caracas from setting foot in Venezuela.

The cause of the dispute?  Larry Palmer told a “Senate confirmation hearing that Venezuela harbored leftist guerrillas from Colombia and that its military was under Cuban influence.”  Those candid observations caused the Venezuelan president to react in an extremely inhospitable way toward Mr. Palmer, leading to the announcement that Chávez would “veto” Obama’s nominee.

Mr. Chávez interprets criticism as discourteous and expressed that “[i]t would be an indignity if [he] allowed [Palmer] to come to Venezuela.”  Chávez emphatically swore, “Well, [the U.S.] can do whatever they want, but this man is not coming.”  Chávez even challenged Obama, asking, “How do you expect me to accept this gentleman as ambassador? He disqualified himself, he cannot come as ambassador.”

One dares not express an opinion that would indicate that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is anything less than an earthly Eden.  In fact, in response to Palmer’s comments, Hugo dared Washington to “cut diplomatic relations” with his country and to “expel” Venezuelan ambassador Bernardo Alvarez Herrera.  Consequently, Herrera’s visa was promptly revoked, and the diplomat was sent back to South America.

Let’s remember that Chávez “packed [Venezuela’s] Supreme Court and the army with his supporters, seized control of the country’s wealth, and introduced a penal code that criminalizes dissent.  Anyone who opposes Chávez faces violence or prison.  Hence, it would be in Mr. Palmer’s best interest if he steered clear of Caracas lest he meet with an untimely, albeit certainly accidental, end.

State Department spokesman Philip Crowley expressed “regret” over the Venezuelan government’s decision to withdraw consideration of Palmer’s post and “hinted it may name a new ambassador, noting that Palmer was never approved by the Senate.”  According to Philip Crowley, “[w]e will have to renominate an ambassador candidate.”  Asked if there could be a nominee other than Palmer, Crowley replied, “These are issues that we will be evaluating, you know, with the New Year.”

Well, the New Year has arrived, and an opportunity to mend fences with the Venezuelan dictator has manifested.  In lieu of Larry, Chávez submitted a list of formidable candidates that would reignite high-level diplomatic communications with the U.S.

Chávez’s personal favorites for ambassador include “alternate candidates … Sean Penn and Bill Clinton.”  In addition, Chávez suggested the U.S.-hating anarchist and his special friend, linguist Noam Chomsky, as well as controversial Marxist director Oliver Stone.

Chávez said, “I hope they name Oliver Stone. I’ll suggest a candidate … Sean Penn, or [Noam] Chomsky.  We have a lot of friends there.  Bill Clinton!”

Consider the diplomatic possibilities.  “Dead Man Walking” Sean Penn could address Caracas being one of the most dangerous cities in the world and speak about the futility of maintaining an “annual murder rate … in excess of 135 per 100,000 population.”  Sean, aka “Harvey Milk,” could also address Venezuela’s ongoing discrimination against the GLBT community.

Despite Venezuela’s human rights abuses, Noam Chomsky could continue to promote “survival” over what he perceives to be the U.S.’s “quest for global hegemony.”  In addition, Chomsky could succinctly articulate with superior linguistic acumen the “better world” in which Venezuelans reside.  Noam has said that visiting Venezuela is “exciting” because it is there that he “can see how a better world is being created.”

Oliver Stone is another ideal pick.  Friend-of-Hugo Oliver could gain further insight from Chávez on improving the American economy and in turn assist Obama in advancing the socialist agenda at home.

Oliver directed South of the Border, “a film that [drew] attention to the social improvements ushered in by Chavez, who … nationalized parts of Venezuela’s economy, including important bits of the oil sector and big chunks of the banking, electric and steel industries.”  The Marxist film director believes that “[y]ou hear all the criticism, all the exceptions to the rule, but generally speaking the economy has surged in Venezuela from 2003 to 2008 … This is a story that people don’t know.”  Thus, Oliver’s primary role could be remediating the reputation of misunderstood “Leftist Menace” Hugo Chávez.

Then there’s Bill.  Chávez mentioned he had a friendly meeting with Secretary of State Señora Clinton at Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff’s inauguration ceremony over the weekend.  It was there that Hugo asked about [Hillary’s] husband Bill.

“Slick Willy” is a gregarious type whose name usually evokes spontaneous affection from women as well as international tyrants.  This is not for nothing, but if diplomatic efforts fail, at least cigar aficionado Clinton can assist Venezuela’s endeavor to resurrect the Crispin Patino line of fine Venezuelan cigars here in the U.S.

Missing from the ambassadorial assemblage was bloated up-and-coming politician and star of “30 RockAlec Baldwin.  Although Chávez didn’t mention Alec, the Long Island native told CNN’s disgraced New York Governor Eliot Spitzer that he’s “very interested” in a political run.  When asked about a foray into politics, left-winger Baldwin said, “It’s something that I’m very, very interested in.”  Baldwin maintains that elected leaders should be “people who have not lost sight about what the middle class in this country is.”  What better way for a labor union/ACORN/progressive Working Families Party coalition favorite like Alec to break into politics than by acting as an emissary to “working family”-friendly Venezuela?

Baldwin, although not “diplomatic” in the traditional sense, is fearless when it comes to verbal reprimand.  If the United States does not comply with Chávez’s edicts, Baldwin could administer authoritarian correction and, on behalf of Hugo, rebuke America for being a nation populated with capitalistic pigs, or what Baldwin might define as “a rude, thoughtless little pig” with no “brains or … decency.”

In the end, removing Larry Palmer from contention for envoy to Caracas may ultimately benefit Venezuelan-American relations to a level never imagined.  A contingent of potential ambassadors made up of Marxist actors, pudgy liberal comedians, communist apologist/directors, libertarian socialist linguists, and an impeached ex-president with a penchant for fine cigars could provide the opportunity for Obama to rekindle a beloved friendship and finally share that steamy pile of totalitarian tortillas with like-minded comrade and reconciled socialist/soul mate Hugo Chávez.

%d bloggers like this: