Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Clinton’s Caboose Campaign

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?

Boldfaced Liberal James Lee

Every once in awhile a bonafide nut case makes an appearance on the scene and succinctly articulates what liberals intrinsically accept as true.  At the center of a recent hostage crisis radical environmentalist James Lee, although unhinged, embodied the true spirit of liberal ideology.

If the staid mask were removed from the contingency of liberals presently in charge of the nation, Americans would be shocked to see a saner version of James Lee, but nonetheless just as dangerous.

Lee admitted that the inspiration to shoot up the NBC/Discovery Channel came from the always debonair, immensely respected environmental icon and planetary preacher ex-vice president Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth.” Lee’s muse recently instigated the lunatic fringe by saying that the climate crisis “is still growing because we are continuing to dump 90 million tons of global-warming pollution every 24 hours into the atmosphere — as if it were an open sewer.”

In response to Gore hysteria, Lee penned a revealing save-the-planet misanthropic manifesto whose content sounds strangely similar to the left’s political platform.

James Lee submitted a written diatribe to a television network he viewed “as a purveyor of ideas he considered environmentally destructive.”  Sound familiar?   Lee’s irate inventory included dictatorial demands to integrate propaganda and mind control into Discovery/TLC programming.

The gunman’s suggested indoctrination station readjustments included network support for mass human sterilization, military disarmament, and radical environmental awareness.

In addition to the obvious “big three,” Lee hit upon familiar liberal themes such as demanding the Discovery Channel help “correct and dismantle the dangerous US world economy,” focus on anti-capitalist and Darwinian theory, and above all do away with any mention of what Lee called “disgusting religious cultural roots and greed.” Religious faith and individual success are two notions liberals, through legislation not guns, are attempting to eradicate via secular-socialist policy.

Lee suggested “forums of leading scientists who understand and agree with the Malthus-Darwin science and the problem of human overpopulation.”  Malthus believed if need be population growth could be curtailed by “resorting to reduced health care, tolerating vicious social diseases or impoverished living conditions, warfare, or even infanticide.”

To discuss the link between over population and pollution, Lee’s proposed forum would welcome scientists such as John Holdren, Obama’s Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.  In Holdren’s book Ecoscience, co-authored with Malthus aficionados Paula and Anne Ehrlich, Holdren exhibits zero regard for ethical consequences and makes “how to limit human population” central to the discussion. “Leading scientist” Holdren is so committed to limiting reproduction that the Obama Science Czar even suggests forced sterilization, adding sterilants to drinking water and the food supply, or possibly enforcing government “implantation of contraceptive[s].”

James Lee’s rant hit upon many topics but centered mostly on what the madman coined as “parasitic babies.” Quite a shocking term, but then again isn’t our esteemed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in “awe” of the pioneer of “parasitic baby” disposal, eugenicist and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger?  Didn’t America’s former First Lady proudly accept the Margaret Sanger Award?

Margaret Sanger said the following:

The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.

In full concurrence with both Hillary Clinton and Margaret Sanger, the late James Lee’s manifesto recommended the following:

All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs’ places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it.

Based on Hillary’s lauding comments concerning Sanger, James Lee and the occasionally more coherent Clinton are on the same eugenic page.  Take the crazy mask off James Lee and what do you find?  None other than a liberal woman in an aquamarine pantsuit, respectably touting the same leftist ideology as a lunatic in a baseball cap.

James Lee also included in his raging Discovery Channel demands an opinion on war and military technology.  Lee recommended “All programs promoting war and [war] technology … must cease.” The guy pointing a gun at a hostage suggested “solutions to solving global military mechanized conflict… instead of just repeating the same old wars with newer weapons.”  Lee’s opinion was in accord with Obama’s view on war and disarmament and an unrestricted pacifist “solution” called negotiating with dictators.

Wasn’t it candidate Barack Obama who promised to end “misguided defense policies” and “slow our development of future combat systems?” Then, after being elected, wasn’t it Obama who proceeded to sign a nuclear arms reduction pact with Russia?

James Lee would surely agree with the President’s inspirational disarmament exhortation that reminds those who believe in a strong military presence that “There is violence and injustice in our world that must be confronted.  We must confront it not by splitting apart, but by standing together, as free people.”

In between raving about liberal mainstays like “stopping the human race from breeding…disgusting human babies,” attacking oil and deriding capitalism, defined by Lee as a “disastrous Ponzi-Casino economy,” Lee expounded on the same tigers Obama’s daughter Malia supposedly begs her father to save.

Lee reminded the Discovery Channel that beside exterminating babies, nothing is more important than saving “lions, tigers, giraffes, elephants, froggies, turtles, apes, raccoons, beetles, ants, sharks, bears, and of course, the squirrels.”

The pervading thread throughout the whole invective was a guttural cry on behalf of a dying planet. Lee appealed to the Discovery Channel to lead the way in finding “solutions for global warming, automotive pollution, international trade, factory pollution and the whole blasted human economy.”

President Obama maintains, “If the international community does not act swiftly to deal with climate change that we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe. The security and stability of each nation and all peoples—our prosperity, our health, and our safety—are in jeopardy…And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.”

In essence, President Obama concurs with a “crazed eco-terrorist.” James Lee’s left-wing agenda and determination to force the Discovery Channel to indoctrinate the masses just shows that the hostage-taker wasn’t tuning in to the right cable station.  It’s too late now, but over at MSNBC Lee would have found out that liberal allies in the Democrat Party are diligently committed to bring to pass a world vision that even a dead gunman could have heartily endorsed.

Blame Biden for Obama’s troubles? – American Thinker – August 11, 2010 August

Originally posted at American Thinker Blog

Obama’s free fall continues as the President’s hair turns gray right before America’s eyes.  Now the political party famous for shunning personal responsibility is desperately searching for someone other than Barry to blame.

It’s obvious, desperate people do desperate things and right now desperation is afoot in Democrat circles. As a result, “the most likely victim appears to be gaffe-prone Vice President Joe Biden, who has become the focus of speculation that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just might replace him on the 2012 Democratic ticket.”

Virginia’s first African-American former governor Doug Wilder admitted that, without a scapegoat, favored son Barack is in danger of losing the next election.  Wilder suggests the “audacious change” of choosing Hillary as a running mate in 2012.

Wilder laments,

Since the heady days of the 2009 Inauguration, middle-class independents have grown increasingly distant from Obama. Working-class voters – always more enamored of Clinton – have grown even more wary and distrustful of the Chicagoan. Both voting blocs pose the danger of serious defection in 2012. Without their support, Obama cannot win.

Doug Wilder doesn’t blame Obama’s failed policies, elitist attitude or refusal to listen to the American people.  Instead hapless fall guy and faithful train rider Joe Biden is faulted.  The former governor charges Biden with “undermin[ing] what little confidence the public may have had in him.” Wilder then suggests Obama jettison Joe and enlist Hillary as a 2012 running mate.

Wilder believes that, unlike Biden, Hillary has performed her role as Secretary of State well, asserting “Clinton has been nothing but a team player who has earned good marks since being asked to serve as secretary of state.” Doug Wilder is firmly convinced having Clinton on the presidential ticket “would revive the Democratic Party and reestablish … working-class voters who found her appealing during the 2012 primaries against Mr. Obama.”

Thus, a dismal letdown of a President will attempt to wangle another victory on the back of the woman in a salmon-colored pantsuit.  Hope is grownup Hillary will answer 3:00 a.m. crisis calls, freeing up Barry to do the salsa with Thalia.

Liberal “pundits jumped on Mr. Wilder’s comments and expressed near-universal approval.”  MSNBC’s Chris “I felt this thrill go up my leg” Matthews stopped hyperventilating about Obama’s speaking ability long enough to moderate a panel discussion to bandy about the Clinton VP suggestion.

“Howard Fineman of Newsweek said Mrs. Clinton would likely accept second place on the 2012 ticket “in a second,” better known as a New York “carpetbagger” minute.

New York magazine reporter John Heilemann said the major obstacle would be to “figure out a way for Biden to slide aside happily.” Heilemann suggested Mr. Biden replace Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State, which would deliver to the larger global community the folksy warmth the world presently lacks.

Heilemann contends Obama might want “a steadier hand at his side for his re-election campaign.” Heilemann predicts Republicans are going to speak the truth and say, ‘Look, you hired this guy. He was too young for this job. He didn’t know what he was doing. He didn’t have the experience, and look what’s happened.'”

Liberal consensus appears to be that truth telling about Obama will place Mama Hillary in an ideal position to rush in wearing a pair of sensible pumps and save the Democrat day.

Even so, there is one key question the Hillary-for-VP supporters failed to address:  If Obama/Clinton actually win the 2012 election, how well will Barry govern the nation after spending every night sleeping with his eyes open?

The Gilded Age of Clinton

I have to preface what I’m about to say with, “I don’t care how much the Clinton’s paid for Chelsea’s custom invitations, even if they were $150.00 apiece.”  Really, I don’t care if the wedding of the century costs $10 million dollars instead of the reported $3 to 6 million.

To Mr. and Mrs. Mark Mezvinsky a heartfelt “Mazel Tov.”

The problem with the gala affair is the ongoing hypocrisy that permeates the air around liberal purveyors of social justice who continue to foster class warfare and stir up jealousy between rich, middle-class and poverty-stricken people. When it comes to how advocates for the underclass comport their personal lives, the most ardent defenders on the left of the underprivileged seem to rival Aristotle Onassis in lifestyle.

Take for example Chelsea Clinton’s upcoming wedding where $675,000 dollars worth of air conditioned glass tents will face the river on the $12 million dollar, gilded age Astor Estate.

Yet, a Clintons blood relative Macy Clinton, who lives on food stamps, will not be attending. Much to their dismay, many of Friends of Bill, better known as F.O.B who donated millions in money and time, didn’t make the cut to what the Clintons are calling an “intimate affair.”

Instead, Hill and Bill will host tony friends like Oprah Winfrey, Barbra Streisand, Steven Spielberg and Ted Turner and influential dignitaries like British Prime Minister John Major and historian Doris Kearns Goodwin.

Amidst the glitz, glamour and champagne toasts one can’t help but recall Hillary lecturing America on the inequity of the widening gap between the rich and the poor, while expressing “her vision of the Western Hemisphere becoming “a model” for cooperation…for its long-term commitment to closing wide economic inequalities.”

One way to relieve economic burden off the lower and middle class is for politicians like Bill and Hillary Clinton to pay their own way. It remains questionable whether the brides mother and father, who have largely earned hundreds of millions of dollars off the backs of taxpayers and political devotees, are actually paying the tab for 500 close friends at $6,000.00 a head for catering alone.

Bill claims to be footing the bill, but history tells us William Jefferson is not exactly a bastion of veracity.

One sign that the Clinton’s may be the recipient of political perquisites is the news that the power couple won’t be paying for extra safety measures. Instead, the expense will be a coerced wedding gift from the taxpayers of Rhineback, NY to the Mezvinskys.  The economic-equity-Clintons are shamelessly passing a collection plate and 8,000 residents of the town where Chelsea and Mark’s wedding is being held are being forced to contribute $.31 cents apiece to ensure the lavish affair is safe.

The Secretary of State chides the affluent for not contributing enough and laments that the “rich are getting richer,” all while living the life of a billionaire elite. A quarter of a million dollars in floral arrangements and a potential Oscar de la Renta wedding gown in no way displays a way of life sensitive the widening gap between the upper and lower classes.

Instead, Hillary Clinton frivolously spends millions on a one-day event, while lecturing America about equity and giving more. How long will the proletariat be subjected to standing on the side lines as gilded horse drawn carriages pass by ferrying charlatans like Bill and Hillary Clinton, a corporation in their own right, on their way to a multi-million dollar wedding after lecturing the nation about the evils of wealth?

Combat Blumenthal the Chameleon – American Thinker – May 22, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker Blog

The White House has publicly stated Connecticut chameleon Richard Blumenthal’s Vietnam veteran pretense is no big deal.  For Democrats, the motto is, “Whatever it takes to get elected.”  And if the victory vehicle includes stretching the truth, don’t the ends justify the means?

Blumenthal… found himself on the defensive when the NY Times reported … he had repeatedly claimed that he had served in Vietnam. Blumenthal was in the Marine Reserves during the Vietnam War, but did not serve in Vietnam. Blumenthal says he misspoke about his record unintentionally and that it happened only a few times out of hundreds of public appearances.

If Blumenthal was thinking on his feet, the attorney general should have feigned a head injury to explain poor memory and a shaky grip on the facts.

Unlike Blumenthal, President Obama has mastered the practice of false pretext. So it stands to reason, if charades work for Barry, camouflage should also work for other Democrats running for public office.

Barack pretended to be politically moderate, experienced, post racial, as well as the human embodiment of hope and change. So why shouldn’t fellow Democrats follow the Leader’s lead? Because Barry Soetoro, which is Obama’s real name, has proven to be none of those things.

It works like this, politicians spend a season observing the American electorate and taking copious notes to determine what the public esteems, after which a false persona is fashioned upon the values observed.

Take for instance, as a precursor to seeking the Democrat nomination for President, Hillary Clinton moving to NY from Arkansas. Donning a Yankees cap and running for office in the Empire State, swearing the whole time to never run for higher office then, after becoming junior Senator, running for president.

Or how about a closet Democrat from Pennsylvania running for Senate as a Republican and then governing like a Democrat? Then, when the state shifts left, changing parties in hopes of winning the next election.

In fact, if planning to run for President of the United States, there’s even room for dodging Constitutional restraints, just hide your birth certificate and refuse to produce the original.

If biracial –procure minority votes by distancing yourself from familial, Caucasian heritage. Identify only with African roots and promote yourself as the first, Black, historic…whatever.

Obama was schooled in Indonesia, changed his birth name to an Islamic name then, for political expediency, joined a racist, anti-Semite church pretended to be Christian, ran for office, got elected, after which he never set foot in church again. So why can’t “Nutmeg State” soldier Blumenthal pretend to have participated in combat with the Viet Cong?

Blumenthal impressed potential voters by pretending to be veteran because the attorney general knew Americans respect military service. The Vietnam War has emotional influence over baby boomers, so Richard chose Vietnam.

And what’s the big deal anyway?  If double-dealing “happens only a few times,” misspeaking “unintentionally” shouldn’t be held against a potential candidate’s character –just ask Barack, I mean Barry.

Obama aka Soetoro spokesperson Robert Gibbs, when asked about Blumenthal pretending to experience Apocalypse Now style combat in Vietnam, replied, “I have not heard anything from the (White House) political shop that would lead me to believe anything other than our continued support.”

Maybe what the indomitable Gibbs meant to say was, “I have not heard anything from the White House that would lead me believe or recognize anything even remotely resembling the truth?”

Cartoon by cartoonist SooperMexicon

Dis-Charm or Dis-Arm the Sandbox Bully


I long for the 1980’s when a rugged, rough and tough cowboy was in charge. Now we live in a new age of appeasement where an angry, disdainful, flippant, egotistical President is extending the hand of peace to world dictators, blaming America for being everything he is, which is  “derisive, dismissive and arrogant.

I remember in the mid-eighties I took my two children roller skating. On a Monday evening in April, my ten-year old son and eight-year old daughter were lacing up their roller skates, while the four-manual Wurlitzer console piped organ was pumping out “Manic Monday” by the Bangles. Simultaneously, Ronald Reagan was in the process of negotiating with the Libyans, with 66 American jets. The subject of the discussion… he wasn’t going to tolerate any level of threat to Americans saying, “When our citizens are attacked or abused anywhere in the world on the direct orders of hostile regimes, we will respond so long as I’m in this office.”

At that time, the Libyans were becoming more of a terrorist threat to the world. They had claimed responsibility for the bombing of a West Berlin disco, killing over 100 people, 40 of whom were American citizens. Ten days later, fighter pilots dropped bombs on Tripoli targeting Kaddafi’s family and killing his 15-month old daughter, Hanna. Reagan went right for Kaddafi’s heart and drove a stake right through it, which is the way you deal with terrorist vampires.

Reagan made sure, before our jets left Libya that the condition of Kaddafi’s coordinated terrorism efforts were in the same state as his compound, severely damaged. One year later, even the New York Times reported that Kaddafi had a reduced profile in terrorism. Brian Jenkins, terrorism expert said, ”The bombing did do one thing – it changed the equation… there is a cost to be paid if one gets caught blatantly sponsoring terrorist actions, and that cost can include military action.”

Fast forward 23 years and on  April 5th North Korea initiates act an of blatant terrorist-type taunting by testing their missile delivery system for a nuclear weapon with a three-stage rocket launch over Japan. What did our new President do in response to Kim Jong- Il’s defiant exhibit of non-compliance to the world community? Well…have you ever been to a playground and watched uncomfortably as a 3 year- old throws sand in the other children’s eyes, while the tot’s mother sits on the side lines saying things like, “Johnny, stop it or you’re really gonna get it?” Johnny, terrorizing the entire sandbox, looks up at his mother, grabs another handful of sand and chucks it into his playmate’s eyes, mouths and hair. Johnny’s mother rises about a half an inch off the park bench, finger pointing at the pint-sized horror saying, “Johnny, I really mean it, if you don’t cut it out, I’m coming over there!” Little Junior insolently glares back at his mother and starts to kick sand all over the place with a huge, evil grin on his face, “I’m not kidding Johnny. OK no ice cream for you!” Every person on the playground stares, mouths agape at this absurd interaction, wondering why this beaten down woman doesn’t grab the rebellious monster and follow through on all her hollow threats.  Leaving the park, Mommy has ice cream eating Johnny in tow.

That is what we all witnessed when Kim Jong-Il disregarded the threat of consequences emphatically proclaimed by Mr. “Tough” Dad, Barack Obama and “You’re going to get a time-out,” Mom Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State . Hillary stated that, “This provocative action in violation of the United Nations mandate will not go unnoticed and there will be consequences.” Translation: “Kimmy,  I’m watching you. If you pick up that sand, after I told you not to, you’re really going to  get it” Kimmy throws the sand and Mama Hillary does nothing. An entire sandbox full of children are blinded and spitting sand, while the Administration sits back,  in feigned, “…do you believe this kid” frustration, yelling from the park bench offering false, vacant threats. Papa Obama responds by saying, “North Korea broke the rules [duh!]… this provocation underscores the need for action…Kim Jong honey, do you want a cone or a cup?”

On April 15th, on the anniversary of the Libyan strike, if  President Reagan was here  just as he was 23 years ago, he would not be offering prior warning, participating in discussion, apologizing for America’s past injustices or hoping that an insane, rouge dictator would soften up and change his mind. Next Wednesday, if Ronald “Cowboy” Reagan was in the White House, Kim Jong-Il would receive a real spanking in front of all the kids on the playground and would find out the repercussions of disregarding his warnings by threatening our nation and it’s allies.

Reagan would neutralize Kim Jong-Il, as both a threat and a problem, and the rest of the world would have a very vivid, firm example to refer to when contemplating throwing sand in our direction. Instead, the rest of the hostile world is standing back watching and thinking, “Hmmmmm, if  he can get away with that maybe we can too” and before you know it we’re lost in a raging sandstorm.

Newt Gingrich said matter-of-factly, in classic Reaganesque style, that he would have “disabled” the missile. “One morning, just like 9/11, there’s going to be a disaster.” No Newt, not if Obama has anything to say about it, he’s planning to offer North Korea both Alaska and Hawaii if they promise to behave and never to do that again.

Barack Obama has decided on a “We are the World” strategy to disarm the globe of nuclear weapons, while Kim Jong is climbing the missile tower to personally sign, pat and kiss the side of the missile. “President Barack Obama set out his vision for ridding the world of nuclear arms on Sunday, declaring the United States ready to lead steps by all states with atomic weapons to reduce their arsenals .” Obama emptied his hands of sand just hours prior to the North Koreans picking up a big handful and throwing it right in his face. I guess Barry thought we were going to tell little Jongy to play nice and he was going to say, “Oh, alright I will.

Obama thinks he can load up his teleprompter with niceties and dis-charm his enemies with platitudes and a Colgate smile. His weapon of choice are caring words, welcoming vibes and assigning blame to our nation every time he steps out on the world stage. Obama falsely believes that if he joins the fraternity and agrees with Kim Jong-Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez’s opinion of America, he will somehow make them lay down their weapons and animosities toward us. He refuses to acknowledge that he too will be culpable in helping to fuel their hatred and desire to see us annihilated and destroyed.  Our own President’s words will be their justification if they succeed.

Naïve, dangerous, inexperienced, idealistic and untested at best! Obama thinks taking the sandbox out of the park is the answer. What he has overlooked, however, is that out-of-control bully Johnny has his pockets filled with gravel and rest assured, little children, he and his gang will be returning to the park to “play.”  When Johnny and his posse come back to take us on, we’re going to find ourselves empty handed and unable to defend our nation against the world’s most brutal dictators and tyrants.

President Reagan, I wish we could send Barack Obama back to Chicago and you were here to protect us from these bullies!

Copyright 2009 Jeannieology. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

Hillary’s Mexican Blame Dance


Hillary Clinton has a unique way of removing responsibility from the guilty and censuring the good guys. She is a master of excusing culpability from the offender and in some cases blanketing blame on the innocent.

The U.S. Secretary of State granted dispensation to drug cartels, during her Mexico visit, by intimating that she doesn’t hold them solely responsible for trafficking drugs and butchering one and other in their widening drug war. She blamed, as the culprit, the “insatiable” American appetite for drugs. Her comments managed to excuse drug lord violence by implying the result of U.S. drug demand would naturally be fierce, bloody competition between cartels for turf and power.

Hillary Clinton neglected to suggest the possibility that cartels have an even greater “insatiable” appetite for power, money, violence and control making them primarily responsible for 6,300 drug related killings. Who does she suggest drove the getaway car when murdering gang members threw hand grenades into the Mexican consulate, New York City cab drivers?

Remember when Bill Clinton was found to be involved in a sexual liaison with a 22- year old White House intern? Hillary blamed the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy’s desire to see her husband undermined for his awkward situation.  Even after his affair was revealed, she neither apologized for her statements, nor acknowledged Bill’s inappropriate behavior.

The media’s breathless aspiration to see Obama become the Democratic presidential candidate was Hillary’s excuse for her presidential campaign’s collapse. Not once did she own up to her own quest for presidential power or embarrassing foibles such as her false claim she was targeted by sniper fire in Bosnia as a potential cause of Clinton induced fatigue among the press corps.

South-of-the-Border, Hillary criticized the U.S. for “much of the violence ripping through Mexico.” She failed to cite that immigration trade is “dominated by professional smugglers who move humans and drugs north using vehicles stolen by organized gangs. Coincidentally, Phoenix, Arizona, the seat of illegal immigration, also has the highest rate of auto theft in the country. 

Selling illegal import to a small percentage of the American population is not a new phenomenon.  Maybe Hillary was unaware that as far back as 1922 it was reported that one in every hundredth person was believed to be either a dealer or user. For many decades drug smugglers have ushered illegal goods across the Rio Grande on pulley lines from Mexico.

In response to violence spilling over the border from Mexico “Washington plans to ramp up border security with a $184 million program to add 360 security agents to…step-up searches for smuggled drugs, guns and cash.” Sadly, while Hillary was busy blaming the United States for bloodshed and mayhem in Mexico, Phoenix Sheriff Joe Arpaio was investigated by federal authorities for abusing the civil rights of illegal immigrants captured while smuggling drugs across the border into Arizona.

Does Hillary also hold the United States culpable for methamphetamine labs being forced into Mexico because we“… successfully cut off the chemicals used to make meth in the US…pushing them across the border?” The pattern seems to be if you obey the law you’re branded by some liberals as a problem. The law keepers are pressured to retreat and then blamed for the deteriorating situation.

Hillary addressed further concern, during her Mexican visit, about U.S. responsibility for outfitting drug lords with night goggles and body armor, which under girds cartel potency enabling them to “… out gun law enforcement officials.”  The United States Secretary of State impugned Americans for arming gang members, who beheaded captured Mexican military, but thus far has failed to address disturbing reports that radical Islamic terrorists are presently being trained on American soil.

Sheik Muburak Gilani, founder of Muslims of America has openly stated that they, “…are fighting to destroy the enemy… evil at its roots and its roots are America.” A recently released documentary reveals that this group “… teaches American students to operate AK-47 rifles, rocket launchers, and machine guns mortars and explosives; how to kidnap and kill Americans and how to conduct sabotage and subversive operations. Who will Hillary fault if one of these fiends takes out a 747 with a shoulder-to-air rocket missile?

In Monterrey, Mexico, there was someone who was notorious for a different kind of addiction, the late Manuel Uribe, the fattest man in the world. Hillary blaming the United States for Mexico’s violent drug war is like blaming Manuel’s 1,235 pounds of morbidity on someone with an “insatiable” desire to force feed a grown man. In order to go out-of-doors, Manuel’s compulsion required his method of transportation be a flatbed truck. Similarly, as a result of Mexican drug lords craving for blood-money, power and violence, the same type of vehicle was required to collect 1,235 pounds of Mexican military corpses, beheaded by cartels vying for domination of the smuggling route.

Hillary Clinton has a habit of emphasizing the lesser issue while excusing the greater offense.  When addressing the European Parliament the Secretary of State recently expressed the Obama Administration’s sentiment to “Never waste a good crisis.” By vowing to never squander a crisis, Hillary has the option to choose whether to censure or extol the United States of America on a largely hostile world stage. Our Secretary of State should never use her position to defend criminal behavior by third world perpetrators, especially by undermining the American people in the eyes of the international community.

Copyright 2009 Jeannieology. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

%d bloggers like this: