Originally posted at American Thinker blog
Recently, children at Long Branch Elementary School in Virginia gathered around President Obama’s feet at a book reading and heard there is no Santa Claus when he said: “Not everybody is as lucky as we are. There are a lot of kids out there who may not be able to get a lot of presents for Christmas because their parents don’t have a lot of money.”
Granted, it is good to remind children to be grateful for blessings and to be mindful of reality and those less fortunate. However, one can’t help but wonder how Barack reconciles his own family’s in-your-face extravagance while burdening middle class seven year-olds with guilt at Christmas.
While Barry urged wide-eyed tots, looking forward to Christmas presents under the tree, to “have fun” – but not so much fun that they forget the “Tiny Tims” of the world – Michelle was loading up an Air Force C-40B because she couldn’t wait a couple of days to start an extravagant Hawaiian vacation.
Barack decided to postpone the trip so he could deliver coal in the stocking of the military just in time for Christmas and oversee Congress ramming through the ultimate Christmas special: “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”
Lord knows, Michelle won’t tolerate being kept waiting, as evidenced the night of the White House Christmas party when Obama handed over the press conference reins to Jolly Ole Bill Clinton to rush off to meet Michelle under the mistletoe, dressed in an economical $2,500 secondhand frock.
Barack knows if he’s late Michelle will leave without him, which is exactly what she did. Michelle intended to get every second of well-deserved vacation time – two weeks is two weeks and not a second less. So Shelley packed up the girls and the dog and departed as scheduled, leaving the President behind to do as much damage as possible before the end of the year.
“Mrs. Obama’s decision to go without the president forced her to take a separate plane, meaning two flights instead of one are needed to ferry the First Family to their vacation destination.” At $6,330 per flight hour for a 10-hour flight, the first lady gave nary a thought to $63,000 in additional expenses billed directly to taxpayers, such as the parents of the children Barack was reminding to be cognizant of the less fortunate.
The whole operation will be repeated when Barry flies into Hawaii via AF1 to meet the wife and kids. “Since the cost of moving the entire family together on Air Force One would not likely have been much different than that of taking just the president, the first lady’s trip is a $63,000 add-on.”
By leaving early on her own aircraft, Michelle, who epitomizes someone who “spend[s] time thinking about the less fortunate,” incurred even more than a $63,000 get-the-First-Lady-to-the-luau-on-time/Christmas-in-Hawaii expense, especially if “logistical support operation[s] – including a retinue of Secret Service agents” are added to the tab. Not to mention the “Sasquatch-sized carbon footprint … commandeering her own jet to take her to Hawaii” imposed on the environment.
Nonetheless, to appear less extravagant, Mrs. Obama sacrificed by taking a modestly sized high priority transport instead of sending AF1 back and forth like a shuttle bus to pick up presidential vacationers. In other words, Michelle roughed it for the cause!
Meanwhile, while the kiddies in Virginia see visions of impoverished children instead of sugar plums dancing in their heads, in a “trio of multimillion dollar beachfront homes” the “Obama family and friends will be [spending] Christmas and New Year’s” in the lap of luxury, spending lots of time “thinking” about the less fortunate.
Recently, the highly controversial WikiLeaks document mega-dump exposed confidential diplomatic secrets to an already unstable world. Disquieting revelations that “American and British diplomats fear Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme could lead to fissile material falling into the hands of terrorists or a devastating nuclear exchange with India” surprise no one. However, the leak that America’s most famous woman scorned dared to probe into the marriage, relationship, and emotional stability of another female leader is downright mind-boggling.
Talk about audacity. Among the documents Wiki made public was a stunning communiqué from the office of Hillary Clinton asking the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires to “delve into the psyche” of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, current Argentine president and widow of late President Nestor Kirchner. Hillary Clinton, possessor of a mind so twisted that she can justify a marriage to a proven serial womanizer, has the nerve to inquire into the status of another woman’s psyche?
The cable, sent at 2:55 p.m. on New Year’s Eve, and originating in the department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, asked a series of other probing questions as part of what it said was an attempt by her office to understand “leadership dynamics” between Kirchner and her husband, former President Nestor Kirchner.
Psyche probes aside, presidential aspirations may explain Hillary’s inordinate and demeaning interest in Argentina’s first elected female president. Much like the Clintons, the Argentinean political power couple met when Cristina was still in law school. In 1975, both the Clintons and the Kirchners wed and went on to practice law.
When Nestor’s term ended, Cristina ventured into politics and was elected to the Argentine National Congress as Deputy and Senator of Argentina. Mrs. Kirchner then made a successful run for the presidency, and in 2007, Nestor officially settled into Bill Clinton’s dream job of First Gentleman.
By way of WikiLeaks, Hillary-the-voyeur was caught trying to decode the “mindset of Kirchner’s husband, who was [Cristina’s] closest adviser prior to his death” (which, by the way, was from natural causes, not a spousal reaction to philandering). The confidential documents embarrassingly expose the former First Lady’s imperious insolence, overlooking as she does the perverted mentality of her own husband while exploring the “mindset” of someone else’s.
Furthermore, one can’t help but ask: How does Hillary Clinton, of all people, have the effrontery to inquire into the “leadership dynamics” of any married political team?
Instead of evaluating the Kirchner marriage, it might do the snooping Secretary of State good to spend some time in Chappaqua contemplating how a woman could suffer the humiliation of a dysfunctional, adulterous relationship and choose to publicly weather disgrace in order to retain power and political prestige.
Some of the Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner questions Hillary posed included “How does stress affect her behavior toward advisors and/or her decision making? What steps does Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner or her advisers/handlers take in helping her deal with stress? Is she taking any medications?”
Every one of Hillary’s personal inquiries is strangely similar to the ones Americans struggle to push aside on the rare occasion that Mrs. Clinton stands awkwardly alongside America’s most famous Lothario in public.
Leaked classified documents indicate that marriage/relationship expert Hillary Clinton “saw Kirchner and her husband as perhaps prone to emotional instability,” which would be laughable if it wasn’t so detrimental to diplomatic relations. It would be interesting to know how Hillary would diagnose a woman who on national TV maintained that a “vast right wing conspiracy” targeted an innocent man — even after investigators swabbed a DNA match off an unmentionably stained blue dress.
In the name of healing diplomatic relations, maybe Cristina could reciprocate by inquiring of Hillary how one endures the pain of 35 years of repeated marital infidelity. Mrs. Kirchner might choose to rephrase Hillary’s questions in the following way: “As he’s matured, has the former president demonstrated a greater tendency to drift between extramarital affairs? What is the most common trigger that stimulates Bill’s abnormally large libido and/or inability to remain faithful?”
Hillary, nose pressed up against the window of the Casa Rosada, has been smudging up the political windows trying to figure out if Cristina de Kirchner views “circumstances in black and white or in nuanced terms[.] Does she have a ‘strategic, big picture outlook’ or does she ‘prefer to take a tactical view?'” Based on the pointed nature of the questions, maybe, for a minute there, Hillary mistakenly addressed her own reflection in the window.
Known to be “thin-skinned and intolerant of perceived criticism,” Hillary Clinton also accused the Kirchner government of what both Hillary and Bill have been repeatedly guilty of — thin skin and intolerance toward criticism. These character flaws may soon rear their ugly heads as Hillary is asked to respond to accusations of sanctioning espionage.
Surprisingly parallel political histories and, for whatever the reason, Cristina’s unhindered ascent to the presidency may be the underlying factors in Hillary Clinton’s quest to figure out the psychological makeup of a woman whose marriage somehow managed to both survive and produce two presidents. Secretary of State Clinton, above all, is well aware that regardless of mental or marital health:
No modern-day couple in a democracy has carried out a comparable transfer of power, and certainly not in Latin America. In the four and a half years of Mr. Kirchner’s presidency, the couple, affectionately known as “the penguins” — a reference to Mr. Kirchner’s Patagonian home state of Santa Cruz — evolved into Latin America’s Dynamic Duo, power brokers who held sway over a country of 40 million people.
Clinton’s probing questions are clearly more pertinent to her own psyche than to Mrs. Kirchner’s. The irony is that the dysfunction Hillary secretly sought to uncover in Argentina actually resides within Clinton herself — in the peculiar psychological makeup of a woman who endures a political marriage of convenience to a man with deep-seated pathological problems of his own.
Fortuitously, Hillary Clinton, aka the “smartest woman in the world,” as Secretary of State is banned from participating in political activity during the midterm elections. Not to worry, Madam Secretary’s husband, better known as “Don’t Stop Thinking about Tomorrow” Bill, is busily working the campaign circuit sans and quite possibly on behalf of Hillary.
Supposedly in support of Barack Obama’s failed fiscal policies, William Jefferson Clinton has taken a reprieve from philanthropic efforts like “running a global charitable foundation,” and instead is “deploying himself on a last-ditch, dawn-to-dusk sprint to rescue his beleaguered party.”
Bill Clinton is a Democrat Party rock star. The impeached president is even gaining popularity with clueless Republicans cursed with short memories. Clinton has managed to obfuscate intense character flaws and lapses in moral decorum by hanging around Bush the elder, recovering from heart surgery, caring for Haitian earthquake victims and, as the father of the bride, biting his bottom lip while walking Chelsea down the aisle.
Interestingly, Democrat leaders in Washington DC have not orchestrated Clinton’s foray into campaign rehabilitation. Anxious to reach out and touch the public, Clinton was “deployed by no one but himself.” Bill packed his own ditty bag, or as he says, “loaded up and started strolling around.”
Clinton’s modus operandi is to rush to the rescue and pretend the effort is for the benefit of the party. However, wily Willy always manages to elevate himself by pointing out that those he represents require the “North Star” of the Democrat Party to commandeer a botched undertaking.
If there is one party boy who knows how to endure a battering and still hold on to the goodies, Bill Clinton sure does. In fact, Bill recently expressed to friends that he “is baffled…Democrats have failed to articulate a coherent message on the economy and, worse, have allowed themselves to become ‘human piñatas.’”
While purporting to be on the side of Obama, couched within Clinton’s rhetoric are what appear to be subliminal messages that call attention to Obama’s lack of success.
Take for instance Clinton stumping in the State of Washington referring to voter angst by telling voters not to “…take everything that’s not working right now and put Patty Murray’s face on it.” Referencing “not working” in any context is an odd choice of words with Obama-driven unemployment presently at 9.6%.
Clinton’s idea of bolstering Democrats is to warn voters that “The worst thing you can do right now is bring back the shovel brigade to start digging the hole again.” Bill Clinton mentioning “shovel” is another peculiar reference, especially in a time when 6.1 million unemployed Americans are buried beneath a job crisis Barack claims comes devoid of an available shovel.
Recent Clinton campaign encouragement included reminding those sitting on bleachers alongside cardboard cutouts of Bill Clinton that America is enduring a time where “More than 10 million of us are living in houses not worth as much as our mortgages and we can’t move like we used to do because our credit would be toast for a decade.”
Adept at appealing to enamored audiences, Bill maneuvers around a podium like a slick Lothario wining and wooing a woman before making a move. Unlike Barack Obama, Bill Clinton distinguishes himself by speaking extemporaneously without a teleprompter and rarely refers to notes.
While campaigning, a fully confident Clinton “speaks infrequently with the candidates – in some cases not at all before showing up for an event.” The reason? Although Bill touches upon “local issues defining specific races,” the former president spends ample political promotional time encouraging voters to vote for Harry Reid (D-NV) by “wax[ing] nostalgic” about the Clinton years.
Moreover, Bill never squanders an opportunity to support Barack Obama by pressing the flesh. In a fashion similar to a Kathleen Wiley counseling session, Bill recently encouraged voters to vote Democratic by “wrap[ping] his arms around folks and listen[ing] for cues about what ails America.”
Coupling an odd mix of self-promotion with the fine art of verbal cuddling, theoretically Clinton is attempting to defend Barack’s honor. Nevertheless, and despite “packed legions of supporters” cramming into “basketball arenas, college quads and airport hangers” for Clinton, Obama/Democrat candidate hype is quickly growing stale and enthusiasm for Democrat campaign rallies is waning.
Even if it is all about him, apparently Bill Clinton is no longer a powerful enough presence to muster the fervor needed to save the Democrat Party. For some reason Clinton, who has been “Summoned everywhere – no matter how hostile the territory,” is beginning to “feel the pain” of rejection by associating himself with an out-of-favor Obama, whose shortcomings Clinton manages to intimate, in a roundabout way, every chance he gets.
Of late, crowds are so unenthused that Clinton, while attending a recent campaign at a Detroit high school, due to an “anemic… turnout at the rally,” was stuck giving a stump speech to part-time grannies from the guidance counselor’s office. It is hard to argue Democrat enthusiasm is meager if the 42nd President of the United States, a man who “used to command a full house wherever he went,” is being forced to schmooze cafeteria ladies in Ruth Buzzi hairnets because the Clinton presence no longer adequately obscures the Obama fiasco.
In response, a perceptive Clinton campaign rebuke comes to mind where clever Bill managed to simultaneously excuse and call attention to Obama’s ineptitude by chiding impatient Democrats saying: “I’d like to see any of you get behind a locomotive going straight downhill at 200 miles an hour and stop it in 10 seconds.”
Clinton’s insightful analogy makes one wonder why he has gotten behind a similarly out-of-control Obama locomotive. Is Bill, in 10 seconds, attempting to salvage what appears to be unsalvageable, or is the ex-president merely fueling a runaway train off the tracks in hopes of one day ushering the Clinton caboose straightaway into the station?
Originally posted at American Thinker blog
Democrats are about to be trounced in the midterm elections, and if the pundits are correct the emergency brakes are about to be slammed on Obama’s out of control liberal agenda. In response to the predictions of a Republican tidal wave coupled together with lack of enthusiasm for the Democrat party and Barack’s policies, the President is stumping for Democrat candidates as if his life depended on it.
The Democrat Party is certainly giving it their all. Stumper/early voter Michelle Obama is showing up all over America. Nuclear-code-loser Bill Clinton has found his way to “95 campaign stops for 65 candidates.” Clinton is so committed to the cause that the former president isn’t even deterred by venues only 1/3 full.
And then there is Barry, who is busy burning tax payer-purchased jet fuel and whipping up the base from Delaware to Boston, Ohio to Portland, Oregon, Seattle, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Minneapolis and finally to Providence, Rhode Island.
Barack Obama appears to be acutely aware that the upcoming midterm election is firming up to be a referendum on his Presidency. Couple that with Obama not taking kindly to criticism let alone an electoral rebuke and the situation is becoming explosive.
Consequently, Obama is revealing himself as a master of verbal thuggery, adept at instigating adversaries with extreme comments that can be interpreted in more than one way. Barack Obama couches intense statements in double entendres to provide, if challenged, an “I didn’t mean that” way of escape.
With each stop along the Get out the Vote tour, and the closer it gets to November 2, an increasingly irate Barack Obama appears to be ramping up the rhetoric and attacking Republicans with increasing “gusto.” Apparently, dredging up George W. Bush must be getting old because America’s “post racial president” decided it was time to say something truly outrageous.
After refusing to endorse his party’s gubernatorial candidate and being told by Rhode Island Democrat Frank Caprio to “take his endorsement and shove it,” Obama kicked it up a notch and played the Rosa Parks card. That’s right – Obama, America’s first African American president, decided nothing else was working and utilized the opportunity to stir up memories of Jim Crow and discrimination against black Americans.
Beating the blame drum, the President said, “Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out.” Barack finished the “driving into a ditch” comment, with a stunning remark, “Now that progress has been made we can’t have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”
How much more provocative a comment could anyone make? Does Barack believe in political segregation? After lauding Rosa Parks for her “solitary act of civil disobedience” for refusing to sit in the back of the bus, Obama now relegates political adversaries to a seat viewed as a place of banishment for those rejected by an obviously politically prejudiced president.
There is no denying that Obama is attempting to reenact an “established rule” and send the political adversaries of the Democrat Party to the “back of the bus.” The President’s pathetic political ploy isn’t going to work, because just like Rosa Parks, the American people – regardless of race, creed or ideology – are weary from two years of Obama’s liberal policies. Next Tuesday Americans will take a seat in the front of the bus and don’t plan to surrender that seat to Barack Obama or anyone else.
According to recent scientific studies, “a third of all mammal species declared extinct in the past few centuries have turned up alive and well.” In fact, “Some of the more reclusive creatures managed to hide from sight for 80 years only to reappear within four years of being officially named extinct in the wild.”
The idea of wiped out flora and fauna reappearing may enthuse worried conservationists. However, if species in the animal kingdom are able to resurface long after apparent extinction, then a similar threat looms when attempting to oust politicians from perches, lairs and feathered nests.
Long believed-to-be-departed mammals suddenly appearing in the wild, if theoretically applied to politics, generates apprehension for those hopeful that the Democrat majority will be permanently expunged from the Congress, Senate and White House. Yet despite the possible threat, it is comforting to know that at least the late great Robert “White Hood” Byrd (D-WV) and Teddy “Cape Lion of the Senate” Kennedy won’t be gracing the hallowed halls of power ever again.
Nevertheless, there are still quite a few never-say-die liberals haunting the political scene, leaving left-footed Demosaurus prints all over a right-of-center country, not to mention the criminal and the ethically challenged still eagerly planning to make political comebacks, i.e. former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.
Presently, there are numerous examples of politicians who ought to have been gone long ago being sighted around Washington DC. Take for example, Jimmy “Red-cockaded woodpecker” Carter intermittently surfacing to hammer away at race issues and dead Kennedys. And let’s not forget the indomitable Bill “Ozark Hellbender” Clinton. Clinton turns up in diverse locations leaving a unique scent on everything from humanitarian causes to campaign stops for vulnerable incumbents. Recently, Clinton the preservationist stumped for at-risk Congressman Barney Frank and zealously attempted to save America’s “Queen Conch” from impending doom.
Even elusive political relic Michael S. Dukakis, former Massachusetts Governor and failed 1988 presidential nominee, visited the White House offering strategy advice for the midterm elections. Dukakis, like the shy okapi, “vanished on the wildlife radar for decades.” Dukakis was nowhere to be found, and then suddenly reappeared like a cloven-hoofed okapi, leaving left-leaning imprints on the surface of the 2010 mid-term election.
In fact, the newly compiled list of mammals “back from the dead” reads like a who’s who of fossilized Democrats yet to be added to a certified roster of vanquished politicians.
Topping the list is the “Cuban Solenodon,” a species similar in nature to Progressive incumbent Alan Grayson (D-FL). The perpetually “rat-like” Grayson crawled out from a campaign hole to accuse Tea Party activists of being “people who… [25 years ago]… were wearing sheets over their heads.”
Grayson, complete with “scaly tail and toxic saliva,” is poised to be unseated in Florida’s Eighth Congressional District by Daniel Webster, who Grayson recently called Taliban Dan. Florida voters should take heed; extermination at the polls is necessary to guard against a future Cuban Solenodon-style Alan Grayson comeback.
Revitalized rats aside, hope prevails, because “Many scientists believe the world is going through a new ‘mass extinction’ fueled by mankind – and that more species are disappearing now than at any time since the dinosaurs vanished 65 million years ago.” In theory, scientific predictions bode well if applied to the next two elections where mankind-caused ‘mass extinction’ is a needed remedy to depose ancient Demosaurus’ presently in power.
Even more important than mass-, permanent is necessary because according to scientific studies, “More than a third of mammal species that have been classified as extinct or possibly extinct, or flagged as missing, have been rediscovered.”
Another mammal rebirth is the Christmas Island shrew. Presently America is looking forward to removing the gavel from the liberal grip of Nancy Pelosi, who is one helluva prehistoric shrew herself. For the last four years, the Capitol building has been subjected to “high-pitched” Speaker squeaks throughout the rotunda. Thus, a majority of voters appear to be of the opinion that it’s time for Nancy to tunnel under a rock and stay put.
If polls are correct, habitat-dependent Pelosi is one step from demotion to an aisle seat. If all goes according to predictions, for the next State of the Union address, the Shrew will officially be de-perched and seated in the spectator section amongst the rabble.
Dr. Diana Fisher, of the University of Queensland, Australia, claims that in the animal kingdom, “Mammals that suffered from loss of habitat were the most likely to have been declared extinct and then rediscovered,” a precedent Ms. Pelosi will likely attempt to emulate.
In addition to the rats and shrews, back from obsolescence are flying foxes. For wildlife lovers, a bat revival is a wonderful development, but spells disaster in the political realm. Roosting in the Senate is a colony of Democrat grey-head flying foxes. To name a few: Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Blanche Lincoln (D-AK), Patty Murray (D-WA), and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD). In the House, endangered flying foxes include the vulnerable Betsy Markey (D-CO), Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), and youngling Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ).
Each and every Democrat woman in the House and Senate is inarguably more batty than foxy, larger than life, and personally responsible for causing America to cry out for permanent flying fox extinction.
One male casualty of primary banishment is a scaly chameleon named Arlen Specter (D-PA). Other vulnerable endangered species include Senator Harry “Devil’s Hole Pupfish” Reid of Nevada, Russ “Warbler” Feingold of Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania’s “Eastern Mud Salamander” Joe “Refused to be Bribed” Sestak.
Scientists contend that “Species spread out over larger areas [are] also more likely to be wrongly classified as extinct.” Across the nation, from New Hampshire to California liberal Democrats are experiencing varied levels of political endangerment. Categories range from “critically endangered” to “conservation dependent” to a Pat Leahy (D-VT) “near threatened” leaving ultra-blue Chuckie Shumer (D-NY) and Daniel Inouye (D-HI) secure and “least concerned.”
“According to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 22 percent of the world’s mammals are at risk of extinction.” Democrats are acutely aware that political extinction looms. If Republicans pick up the predicted 10 seats in the Senate, 17% of Democrat Senators stand to be driven out. If at-risk Democrats lose a possible 50 seats in the House, 20% will be consigned to exile, after which “Devil’s Hole” Harry and Speaker Shrew will officially be categorized as critically endangered/soon to be extinct politicians.
However, in nature, “the complete data-set, 67 species that were once missing have been rediscovered,” which in politics is a phenomenon that must be prevented at all costs. A species cannot survive without an intact habitat. Dr. Fisher maintains that it’s unlikely endangered species “would have survived had [habitats] been cleared,” which is precisely why it’s time to clear havens occupied by mammals bearing Democrat markings. Ejecting the left from safe and protected native areas is the first step to ensuring extinction.
Flourishing Conservative philosophy has the muscle to choke off liberalism, ensuring the left is powerless to “gradually regenerate.” In turn, officially dismissed politicians will be discouraged from returning to Washington DC to reproduce and rekindle a predatory political genus that would benefit the nation much more by remaining extinct.
Originally posted at American Thinker
America should hand it to Bill Clinton. The man is the master of manipulation, an oratorical genius. Clinton can use words to turn the argument around like no one else on the planet. Ex-President Clinton is able to parse language in such a way that after he is done playing with your head even the meaning of the word “is” becomes debatable. Bill Clinton is so good that a whole generation of people actually believe sex isn’t sex.
Moreover, in the midst of playing lexicon Twister, Clinton somehow always includes in everything he says self-aggrandizing subliminal messages that relate to how people should view the extremely put-upon and misconstrued Bill Clinton.
At Senator Byrd’s funeral, Clinton met the challenge with courage and ventured forth where no eulogizer dared go. Bill “humanized” Byrd by brazenly bringing up what every person was thinking, but no one had the chutzpah to broach.
In the bright morning sun, Clinton strode first to the podium and then drew Byrd’s mourners into the woods of West Virginia to talk about the scary white guys in big pointy hoods and long robes who burn crosses at family barbeques.
That’s right — while everyone else was tearfully avoiding Robert Byrd’s association with a racist lynch mob, Clinton lauded the deceased Senator by way of mentioning his “brief” involvement with the Ku Klux Klan and actually found a way to portray Byrd’s Klansmanship as an example of moral fiber.
Clinton justified Byrd’s involvement in the Knights Party, USA as a logical stepping-stone to elected office. Then the perpetually self-absorbed Clinton used the event to align himself with the 92-year old senator’s fleshly struggle. Bill related from personal experience the deep concepts of repentance, redemption and the imperfection of man.
According to Clinton, if a person is trying to get elected beating up innocent black people, that should not disqualify them from the job even if it includes joining a white supremacist group known to kill people based on the color of their skin, religion or sexual orientation.
America’s original Man from Hope, speaking on behalf of the late Senator Byrd, said the following, “He once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan, what does that mean? I’ll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollows from West Virginia. He was trying to get elected.”
The former president’s statement can only mean if you aspire to political office, all bets are off and if serving the public is the ultimate goal, then the “end justifies the means.” After the “trying to get elected” comment, was Bill squinting because the sun was stinging his blue eyes or was he scanning the mourners’ faces to find Hillary?
Once again, Bill exercised the fine art of talking about one thing while actually referring to himself, which henceforth and in perpetuity should officially be called a “Clintonentendre.” Disgraced politician Bill Clinton felt no shame dragging a dead guy to the plinth to use as a prop to garner sympathy for his poor, often misunderstood self.
America’s very own empathetic bottom-lip-biter, supposedly referring to Senator Robert Byrd, said
“And maybe he did something he shouldn’t have done and he spent the rest of his life making it up. And that’s what a good person does. There are no perfect people. There are certainly no perfect politicians.”
Thus when recapping Bill Clinton’s touching eulogy for “Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV)” the following points would be the highlights:
If you hail from a small town and aspire to high political office, it’s perfectly acceptable to lynch black people if it ensures getting you elected.
People do things they shouldn’t do. Such as having “fleeting” perverted sex in the Oval Office with interns and then denying it, followed by contorting the English language like Houdini hanging upside downattempting to escape from a straightjacket. Topped off by perjury, impeachment, and spending two decades masquerading as a statesman, i.e. not “making up for it” but rather “making it up.”
Just because an individual once led the local chapter of a group that calls for the extermination of “dark-skinned people, Jews, Catholics and gays,” or you’re a lecherous sex fiend who disgraces the office of the president, it doesn’t mean you’re not a “good person.”
And, if anybody out there dares judge a president with a sex addiction or an ex-Ku Klux Klanner who just wanted to serve the public by running for office, Bill Clinton defies all accusers: “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone.”
Bill’s clarifying but confrontational words challenged those critical of the late Robert Byrd for aligning with a factionthat, if given the chance, would string up the guy sitting next to Joe Biden on the dais who, as the first black president, is overseeing the lynching of America.
Former President Bill Clinton’s acclamations for Senator Robert Byrd served as a reminder that even good men have been known to utilize a burning cross to light a Gurkha cigar or two, because in America “There are certainly no perfect politicians.”
Over the last several months, Polanski, the “Oscar-winning director of “Rosemary’s Baby,” “Chinatown” and “The Pianist,” has lived under house arrest in connection a 33-year-old case where the director drugged, plied with alcohol and raped a 13-year-old girl.
Polanski pleaded guilty in 1978 to unlawful sexual intercourse with the child. “But after a judge said he would renege on the plea bargain, Polanski fled to his native France and has been a fugitive since then.”
Over three decades the impact of Polanski raping a child has slowly been watered down by the Swiss, the French and even Hollywood. In some venues, Polanski’s actions seem to be considered more creative predilection, than punishable perversion. Fellow pedophile Woody Allen opined in Polanski’s defense, “He’s an artist, he’s a nice person he did something wrong and he paid for it.”
Presently, while fighting extradition, more Polanski prey has inconveniently stepped out of the shadows. It appears an alleged victim claims that in 1983, like Samantha Geimer, she too was “sexually abused in the director’s apartment.”
British actress Charlotte Lewis said the filmmaker abused her “in the worst possible way.” If given an opportunity, Polanski might like to respond to Lewis’s accusation by clarifying that, “the severity of the crime could depend entirely on the definition of ‘worse possible way’.”
Regardless, Mr. Polanski may have some explaining to do because after twenty-seven years Charlotte, “provided evidence to … the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office.” Could it be that Miss Charlotte may have also been the proud possessor of a blue dress from the Gap?
Roman Polanski is the worst king of predator. Men like Polanski use positions of power to selfishly manipulate and misuse the naïve. If Charlotte Lewis’s allegations prove true, at some point a star struck lass apparently put faith in a man who recognized a schoolgirl desire to be a movie star as an opportunity to molest a child.
Three decades later, Polanski seeks pardon, and Lewis wants justice. Charlotte said “I have lived with the effects of [Polanski’s] behavior ever since it occurred.” Why did the British actress wait so long? Maybe someone gave Charlotte the same dressing down Juanita Broderick allegedly received on behalf of Bill Clinton to keep her mouth shut about Polanski’s perversion?
Grown and mature Ms. Lewis heard Polanski’s “legal team is portraying his previous offense against a minor as an isolated instance.” Charlotte’s deep seated wound proves such is not the case.
Lewis’s lawyer, Gloria Allred said she doesn’t plan legal action right now, but believes the allegations would be relevant when and if Polanski is sentenced. Maybe Hollywood supporter, Harvey Weinsteinwill host a combination Free Mumia Abu-Jamal and Roman Polanski fundraiser to cover the director’s legal fees.
Lewis claimed, when being assaulted at sixteen years of age, Polanski, “just said very coldly, ‘If you’re not a big enough girl to have sex with me, you’re not big enough to do the screen test. I must sleep with every actress that I work with, that’s how I get to know them, [it’s] how I mold them’.”
If Polanski is extradited, Charlotte Lewis’s testimony could prove detrimental. However, if the jury is manned with starlets and based on the director’s legendary Svengali influence, Roman Polanski might emerge from the whole seedy ordeal one of many sexual predators elevated to the position of ambassador to the world.