Date: 24 Jan. ‘09
To: www.Alumnishockerblackandgolds.com
Political Snippets
• January 14th 2009 McClatchy Newspapers writing for their Wichita Eagle paper: “Clinton signals new approach” article.
∙ “[b]lasting the Bush administration’s handling of foreign affairs and vowing to improve American’s standing around the world” Hillary exhibits her unquenchable ego and high opinion of her own heretofore rather unremarkable achievements, other than being an anointed democrat elected by the vast majority of liberal welfare queen dims and Porto Rico FALN terrorist supporters from a state with massive problems dominated by and controlled by liberal dims. And this notwithstanding her massive failure to stuff national universal health care down our throats at the start of the Clinton administration.
∙ Says the wizard of smarts: “I believe American leadership has been wanting, but still wanted.” Well, I don’t know Hillary. Seem to me like we have had substantial support for our endeavors around the world, including the Brits, Australians, and many others. But then “wanting leadership” is subjective. It all depends upon what kind of leadership is in question. And, we all understand that if it does not meet the brain dead liberal dim lemming opinion test, then it can’t qualify for leadership.
∙ Says the egoist: “Clinton, the junior senator from New York, signaled her intention to shift U.S. foreign policy from the go-it-alone uni-lateralist approach that marked President George W. Bush’s first term. Instead, she said, Obama’s State Department under her leadership will take a more comprehensive approach.” Lets see, various countries committed troops to Iraq, but that must have been a “go-it-alone uni-lateralist approach”, in the liberal dim view of her highness Hillary. But even if it had been only the U.S. in Iraq, a more comprehensive approach, by definition, would be two or more countries, like for example, the U.S., the Brits, Australia, etc.
∙ Next the wizard of smart, as Procurator Litis, promulgates her teaching instruction, thus: “We must use what has been called ‘smart power’, the full range of tools at our disposal,” she said, while preening herself. “With ‘smart power’, diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy.” The statement falsely assumes no diplomacy was ever used by the Bush administration. Secretary of State Rice didn’t exist, and if she did, she never did anything. But now the wizard of smart, will use “smart power”, that only dims know about and know how to use. So, on behalf of Obama, Cleopatra Hillary, will either suck up to foreign powers, and do their wants and desires; or she will use her “feminism” and noted charm and charisma to persuade the Julius Caesar’s and Mark Antony’s of the world to do exactly as Obama and Cleopatra instruct them.
∙ During the campaign between Obama and Hillary: “[f]oreign affairs was the main field of battle. Clinton had called Obama naive and unprepared to handle the international dangers that the new president will face.” Now it is Obama either has gained infinite wisdom in foreign affairs, or he has implied said: alright witch [the reader is invited to determine if it is just a mis-spelling, or whether a metaphor is meant, or both], you think you are so smart on foreign policy, I’ll make you Secretary of State, and thereby get you out the Senate where you no doubt would try to screw up my national universal lack of health care plan.
∙ Hillary: “[n]oted that she and the president-elect are committed to ending the war in Iraq with a reasonable withdrawal of troops ...” Now lets see, Obama and Hillary are going to claim they ended the war in Iraq. I must have missed something. Seems to me the successful surge has fundamentally ended the war in Iraq, and we are just basically providing police security until the Iraqis themselves can take it over in every province, not just the provinces we have already withdrawn from and turned over to their control and policing.
∙ “To drive home the Obama-Clinton unity, the secretary of state-designate offered a not-so-veiled dig at Bush [Please note that it is not president Bush for the scribblers of the national press]. ‘The president-elect and I believe that foreign policy must be based on a marriage of principle and pragmatism, not rigid ideology; on facts and evidence, not emotion or prejudice,’ she said.” We are all to believe that president Bush’s foreign policy, in part keeping us safe from foreign terrorism for the last 7 years, was just rigid ideology. Now it is the dim foreign policy by dim definition, will be based upon principle and pragmatism, not rigid ideology; upon facts and evidence, not emotion or prejudice. We all know the dims never do anything based upon rigid ideology, emotion, or prejudice. If republicans conduct foreign policy, why its rigid ideology, but when the dims - masters of brain dead ideology – conduct foreign policy, why its just principle and pragmatism, based upon facts and evidence. Well now lets see: The first day in office Obama ordered the military to shut down GITMO within a year certain, without any consideration of what is to be done with the terrorists, in face of the fact that past terrorists released have returned to bombing and killing Americans. This is called and we are to believe, principle and pragmatism based upon facts and evidence, and not at all rigid ideology. Without question, an Ipsa Dixit based presidential order, based solely on ideology on the first day of the job. We all have a lot to look forward to the next four years under this petrified mind ideologue leadership.
• KPTS CH 8-1 airs the Guin Eiffel program “Washington Week”. It’s the liberal view of how to present a “fair and balanced” political opinion program. You start with 5 liberals, the moderator Guin Eiffel posing questions and issues in a liberal bent fashion, then calling on each of 4 liberal peas in a pod to march forth with their profound opinions, limited of course to the brain dead liberal lemming infinite wisdom of the day. The perpetrators on the last show were: Guin Eiffel; Karen Tumulty, Time magazine; Dan Balz, Washington Post; Martha Raddatz, ABC News; and Pete Williams, NBC News. If any of these folks ever entertained a conservative view point on any issue, and let it be known, they would instantly lose their jobs. The closest anyone came to voicing a fact contra to the dim templet, was Karen Tumulty’s admission re GITMO – and the unconsidered fact that Obama had announced his presidential order to shut down GITMO without considering what to do with the terrorists – : “Well, some of these people are dangerous, so he should get Justice involved.” If Obama shuts down GITMO in one year as he has ordered, I would suggest we move the terrorists to Guin Eiffel’s back yard, and let her entertain them on her “Washington Week” program. Perhaps I should have said, that we move them to the White House and let them camp out in the Rose Garden. That way they would be handy for Obama to include them in his circle of dim advisors. Will the first man who wants these killer terrorist in his state, please stand up and hold up his hand.
Perhaps some left wing ideologue dim will be kind enough to oblige, and maybe even invite them to stay at his house.
• British Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, in a 3 Feb. 1960 speech to both Houses of Parliament in Cape Town South Africa:
∙ “Our justice is rooted in the same soil as yours – in Christianity and in the rule of law as the basis of a free society.”
• John F. Kennedy in his inaugural speech on 20 Jan. 1961:
∙ “For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago....And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe – the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God....In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course....And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”
∙ John F. Kennedy was a democrat. By Kennedy’s measure, and by Barack Hussein Obama’s stated policies, Obama could not be a democrat. But since Obama is the present leader of the democrat party, what then do you suspect the democrat party has become, and what name can we give it to distinguish it from the historic democrat party who’s guiding principles are no longer reflected. You may be a democrat today, but if so, you could not have been, consistent politically, a democrat in Kennedy’s time.
Fred Marrs