Positively Republican puts it well:
The guy accused of extra-marital affairs (and vehemently denies the accusations) drops out to endorse the guy who admits to extra-marital affairs.
People immediately jumped all over Cain due to his issues with other women. No one really wants to think about Newt and other women. But it all goes back to the denial factor. People just don’t like being lied to. If Clinton had owned up to Lewinski, there would have been no real story. People would have laughed it off and that would have been the end of it. People didn’t care at all that when Clinton was running and he had sexual harassment suits out the wazoo. That’s what eventually led to Clinton’s “other woman” problems as well. It got to be such an issue that it was never about the lies to cover it up, it was “all about sex”. Anyone over 40 remember that line? Fast forward about 20 years, Cain gets into pretty much exactly the same predicament. Except of course, there’s no lawsuits at this point in time, just a bunch of accusations. But, I haven’t heard “it’s all about sex” one single time. I haven’t heard a word from Hillary about the “vast right-wing conspiracy”.
For some reason none of that applies for Herman Cain.
Anyone care to guess why?
Bet it’s the “R” word.
I’m not defending Cain, I’m chastising media. Ethics is not a one-party issue.
Never was.
Particularly, he’s concerned that Tea Party and right-wing rhetoric will fuel the flames for domestic terrorism attacks like the one in Oklahoma City fifteen years ago.
First, a history lesson. Murrah was not a reaction to some right-wing media show. It was a reaction to the Waco, Texas massacre. It was a very direct reaction. The government attacked Waco, Timothy McVeigh struck back in Oklahoma City. If Bill Clinton wants to use Oklahoma City as an example, so be it. But, get it right. It was not an example of a lack of government censorship, it was an example of an overly-imposing ruthless federal government. Using Timothy McVeigh as his example, it can be argued that so long as the federal government doesn’t massacre 75 innocent women, children, and men, we should be safe.
Second, the hypocrisy on display is galling.
If Nancy Pelosi doesn’t agree with you, you’re un-American.
If you disagree with her, you’re a Nazi.
If you don’t think Obama’s telling the truth, Hank Johnson says you’re a white hood wearing racist.
And of course, we have to have some anti-Zionism.
Bill had no comment on any of those comments. And, there are lots more of them from the left.
Now, this is the stuff that many conflicts have been made from. It split our country in half for four years, and has created deep wounds for two hundred. It has created problems for mankind throughout history.
What has not created problems throughout history is people speaking out freely about practices their government does that they don’t agree with.
So, Bill, you’ve got it about as wrong as you can get it. Sure, the right-wing has said some inflammatory things, but the left wing is saying much worse right now and they ARE the government. Big difference.
TMZ.COM is running a very peculiar picture:
In case it’s not too clear, that’s SUPPOSEDLY John F. Kennedy chillaxin while FOUR, count em, FOUR, babes frolicking naked. Cool huh? Well, under some circumstances it would most definitely be. However, SUPPOSEDLY, at this time, his wife was in the hospital struggling to deliver a still-born baby. The baby died August 23, 1956. This does look like summer. And, JFK did return to be with her from a yacht vacation in the Mediterranean. This rumor is not new. The pic is. How the pic wound up with TMZ is vague. But, it certainly looks sorta kinda like JFK, and the boat definitely resembles the Honey Fitz ( Manitou ).
The trim, the glass front, the framing. It fits. Given his reputation, that fits too.
I would have tucked this away on Moonagewebdream, but the ramifications of what might have been if this pic had surfaced at the time are too immense. Think about it.
For starters, JFK was not well liked within his party. He was not their chosen son. He was not their preferred presidential candidate. He was up and coming in 1959. Emboldened by being young and brash, JFK, pretty much the face for Robert Kennedy, took on the established Democrat leadership in a move they didn’t expect. Emboldened by his increasing popularity, Robert Kennedy made a gamble that probably cost him and John their lives. He offered the VP spot to Johnson.
Now, if this picture had been floating around at the time, things probably would have been a lot different. And, I do mean a LOT. Given Massachusetts’ odd penchant for adoring bad characters, he would have probably stayed in the Senate. There he would have continued to have been a junior senator throughout the 60′s.
Some things would have been a LOT different. Some people speculate that the election was stolen from Nixon and that if anyone other than Kennedy had run they would have lost to Nixon. I don’t think so. This would have predated the primaries, and therefore the primaries most likely would not have split the Democrat party as bad as it did. In the Democrat primary, Kennedy only got about 62% of the vote. In the general election, he only got 49.7%. If the Democrat party had been more unified, it would have been a wide margin. This was due in some part to Kennedy’s religion. Being a non-factor if Johnson had led the ticket, I think Johnson would have won handily. However, you would not have had the famous Kennedy-Nixon debate. Maybe Nixon would have done better without that. But, toss in 10% boost in Democrat support and I think Nixon would have been toast.
Lyndon Johnson would have been President 1960-1964. Things would have been a LOT different.
- Kennedy tried to policy-wonk Vietnam and got us into an arrangement that was unwinnable by relying on the South Vietnamese government to control our troops. I don’t think Johnson would have ever gotten himself into that predicament. My gut feeling is he would have been more compelled to fight a war to win from the start. If that’s true, 1968 would have been a hell of a lot different.
- Kennedy wasn’t the only champion of minority rights. A lot of people were. The deaths of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr. sparked riots and distrust that last a generation. This picture could have prevented all of that and allowed the process that Johnson was already supporting to continue peacefully and at a controlled pace. Instead, their deaths ignited a powder keg that no one had an answer to.
- Kennedy ignored white racism. Johnson went after it. He confronted the KKK on national television and outed them for what they were. The effect of what the Kennedys did was it pushed minorities into a position they weren’t comfortable with, and whites resented. It didn’t address the wrong attitudes of the whites or blacks. It just forced them into situations of confrontation. Johnson’s allies were addressing the attitudes of whites and blacks. I think things would have progressed a lot smoother, and more amicably if Kennedy had never been president.
- Johnson had pushed through Medicare and Social Security. Public health care was being debated when Johnson chose not to run in 1968. Health care, due to the Vietnam War, Cold War, and other issues, became a distraction to Nixon. If Johnson wasn’t so demoralized by the protests of a war that might not have been happening, we might very well have had public health coverage already.
- Following up on the previous paragraph, Nixon and Gerald Ford would never have been President.
- If Ford had never been President, Jimmy Carter would have lost.
- If Jimmy Carter had lost to a more conservative president, Ronald Reagan would never have replaced Carter in 1980. And, we would never have had the Iran Embassy takeover or the Community Reinvestment Act.
- If Ronald Reagan hadn’t been President, George HW Bush would never have been Vice-President, and therefore President.
- Bush begat Clinton due to his political ineptness. We would never have had the internet since Al Gore would never have been VP without Clinton. Additionally, I’ve argued that if a more security minded person had been president as opposed to a policy wonk and social liberal, 9/11 would never have happened along with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Both were our “friends” until Clinton.
- Clinton begat George W. Bush due to his, well, Kennedyesque actions with women.
- And, George W. Bush begat Barack Obama because he became such a lightning rod for liberals, following his perceived efforts to emulate a Reagan that never would have occurred.
Pretty heavy stuff huh? Instead of all that happening, this pic apparently became a joke for a car dealer for 40 years.
OK.
Ohh-kayyy was right:
No sooner than TMZ ran the story, The Smoking Gun fired right back with the original, confirmed by Playboy. Most reports are quick to point out that it wasn’t JFK on the boat. He was shot in 1963, the pic in 1967. No word yet on how much TMZ paid for the crinkled up Playboy spread. I’m scouring Hustler for Ronald Reagan look-alikes tho.
28
Dec
A while back I bitched and moaned about Obama‘s seeming attacks on the CIA and appointing a guy who has advocated rights moreso than security in charge. What I was getting at is it seemed he was making the huge mistake Bill Clinton made that led to 9/11. It was referred to as “the wall”. In Clinton’s case, he so neutered the FBI that it became basically useless on a national level. Although they had information that could have prevented 9/11, Janet Reno and Jamie Gorelick did not allow that information to be shared or pursued.
When Obama took over, he immediately attacked the CIA. He did it very publicly, he did it very directly. He personally did it. The message was clear, they were not an integral part of his administration. in November the US Embassy in Nigeria was notified by a father that he felt his son was a threat. The son was placed on a terrorist watch list, but not on the no-fly list. In simple terms, he became considered by the US government as a terrorist who was trusted enough to fly freely around the country. A few days ago, he tried to blow up a US airplane landing in Detroit.
Janet Napolitano attempted to explain what happened this way:
I kid you not. She really did say this on national television.
OK, this is where I would draw the line. A Father reporting his son is about as credible as I need. If he says he’s a terrorist from Nigeria, that’s all I need to know. He just doesn’t need to be flying around in the US. He can argue his case in Nigeria if he wants. That’s not Obama, Napolitano, or Panetta’s style apparently. Give the benefit of the doubt to the terrorist over the statement of the non-terrorist. That makes all the sense in the world for people who’s only mission is protecting citizens of the United States.
During the campaign, John McCain stated Obama was weak on national security. I agreed with him based on past Obama statements. I think it’s simply a matter of time before one of these terrorists get it right because of the attitude of the Obama administration. We had warnings about the shooter at Fort Hood, we had warnings this guy was a terrorists wanting to attack the US. Nothing was done in either case. What do you think?
20
Nov
I try to come up with witty post titles to show how clever I am. However, in Eric Holder’s case this week, he’s got me. There are so many choices to pick from I get a brain freeze simply trying to pick one, or two, or three.
Now, I’m not stupid, and most people aren’t. People are scratching their heads trying to figure out what’s going on with this guy. I’m not. It’s quite clear to me. And, it’s fairly clear to some others:
That’s the key right there. So, keeping that in mind, some of what’s going on makes sense. Now, in addition, you have to toss in a little history as well. There are some similarities already occurring that I think need watching.
In the late 90′s, as the Clinton presidency was winding down, there was an attack on a US military ship. A seemingly invincable navy ship was almost sunk by a handful of guys on a little boat. In 2009, a US military base is attacked by one guy with a gun. In both cases, there were multiple casualties. In both cases, the attack was announced in advance. In both cases, one segment at least of the US intelligence community knew what was going on and did nothing about it. When everything was researched, the problem seemed to be that one element of the intelligence community was not allowed to share information with the others. The common thread according to me? Jamie Gorelick. Gorelick and Janet Reno gutted the CIA. In 1997, Eric Holder replaced Jamie Gorelick under Janet Reno.
In 1980, as a special prosecutor, Eric Holder was partly responsible for the decision to indict several legislators in the ABSCAM investigation. The one person they decided not to, Jack Murtha. They skewered the legal system by labeling Murtha an “unindicted co-conspirator”. Look that one up in the legal books.
In 1997, it was Holder’s recommendation to allow Kenneth Star to expand an investigation that previously had been limited to possible illegal business dealings by Hillary Clinton, to include possible perjury charges against President Clinton regarding lying about a civilian sexual harassment charge. The special counsel would serve seven years with investigations into Whitewater, Vince Foster, and Monica Lewinsky. There of course, was no legal predecent.
In 2001, in Clinton’s last days, Holder recommended Clinton pardon Marc Rich. Rich was the star of a completely unprecedented number of presidential pardons that included drug dealers, terrorists, rapists, you name it. There of course was no legal precedent for such a mass pardon.
The reason I go into his sordid past is because it paints a picture of a person who literally just makes it up on the fly. There was no legal reason to tag Murtha as an “unindicted co-conspirator”. There was no legal reason to allow Starr to change an investigation into one issue and then suddenly jump to another unlrelated issue. There was no legal reason to pardon the hundreds of people Clinton pardoned. However, in all cases, there were political reasons to do it.
Now, we’ve got the bizarre charade that has been Holder defending his decision to bring terrorists into New York City to stand trial in civilian court for what most perceive a purely military issue.
Where to start? Sheez.
OK, so Holder doesn’t know the precedent of when the first military prisoner was tried in civilian court. Big deal huh? ( Answer, never. ) OK, so Holder doesn’t know if a military prisoner is to be given Miranda rights or not. ( Answer, obviously, if tried as a civilian. ) And, Holder doesn’t think pre-judging the outcome of a trial won’t affect the outcome of the trial ( Answer, he just invalidated the entire trial. ) Some would argue Lindsay Graham’s a jerk. That makes it all OK. However, Graham’s a former JAG. He knows military law. Holder doesn’t.
But, it got even more absurd.
I was thrilled to see someone finally publicly ask how you could be more likely to get a conviction in civilian court when the defendant has already pled guilty and asked to be executed? How would he be more likely to be convicted in a court that requires Miranda rights than a court that does not when he was never given those rights? How could he possibly be more likely to be convicted in a court that allows plea bargains as opposed to a court that does not? And, what’s the point of even having a trial if Holder KNOWS he’ll be convicted? Bigger question, what does Holder do if KSM is not found guilty? You can not hold a person indefinitely in civilian court. Unless they find him guilty, he has to be freed. And, even if they do find him guilty, what if it’s not life? Stranger things have happened in civilian court. Bottom line, Holder could not come up with a single reason to justify his decision to force these people into civilian court.
On and on it goes. The charade just keeps getting more bizarre.
The problem is Obama and Holder made their decision simply to attack Bush when it was politically expedient. They had nothing to lose fighting Bush then. Problem is, they have no way to back down. Obama’s backing Holder, but he has no logic either.
Biggest issue I see here? Holder’s whimsical decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City is, according to Holder, not posing a threat to the people of New York City. Not only is he ignorant of the law, he’s totally clueless about history as well. There is precedent for trying terrorists in US courts. The key difference here is these people were captured in combat, on foreign soil. Terrorists are a different matter. In July 2001 a terrorist was found guilty in abetting the attack on Khobar Towers. The sentencing date was set for September 19, 2001. The terrorist was Usama Bin Laden. The location was the Federal Courthouse in New York City. Within blocks of the World Trade Center.
- So, you’ve got Holder guaranteeing a conviction in civil court for a non-citizen who has not been served his civil rights. How many problems do you see with that?
- You’ve got a situation where militants are cherry picked to which court they go. How many problems do you see with that?
- You’ve got Holder assuring us that the chance of conviction is greater in civilian court than it was in military court regardless of the fact a conviction has already been acheived in military courts?
- You’ve got Holder assuring us it poses no threat to anyone, regardless of the fact a similar situation resulted in 2,000 people being killed.
- And what scares me most, you’ve got an Attorney General who feels the law is what he wants it to be at any given moment and no one seems to care.
I’ve stolen that title from Classically Liberal. It’s not really the point I’m shooting for, but it’s close enough and the article is a riot. A lot of people have been claiming Obama’s socialist. I have for that matter. However, people supporting Obama have dismissed those claims as rhetoric. However, Obama’s White House PR person recently spoke of her admiration for Chairman Mao. Members of the Democratic Socialists of America are all over Obama’s Cabinet. So, there’s definitely a strong socialist streak in The White House and Congress right now. A lot of people are saying “so what?”. They’re claiming blurting out the S-bomb is just a scare tactic and those mentioning the S-bomb are radical right wing terrorist wannabes. Well, there’s a little more to it than that.
There are two types of people when discussing socialism. There are those who know what it is and its place in history, and those that don’t. That’s it. Some think they do, but, they still don’t. Now, regardless of taking sides, which anyone who knows me knows which side I’m on, the fact is still very simple that socialism is what it is and making the accusation that Obama is socialist is black and white. Socialism is what socialism is. Calling it something else or denying it doesn’t change what socialism is.
So, let’s run with the assumption that Anita Dunn gets her wish and Obama suddenly eschews the values of Chairman Mao. We’d have to look at history to understand why some people would fear socialism. Not the Communism part which freaks everyone out, but the socialism part. Socialism is defined by Dictionary.com as:
- a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
- procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
- (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Now, if you’ve got your own personal definition of socialism, stop here and go away. You’ll understand why if you do proceed. The shining example, as brought to our attention by the White House expert on Chinese Communist socialism, per Anita Dunn, is to stare adversity in the face and do it anyway.
That is very stupid. Dangerously stupid. Anita Dunn cites the fact Mao came from basically nowhere and took over China eventually. That’s all fine and good, but that has nothing to do with the political system she’s eschewing. Once Mao did take over, he initiated a chain of events that a lot of people have cited, but few have actually explained why. The problem with socialism is it is a top-down management style. All decision making is made by the government. Now, Obama and his bunch are saying this is good because all businesses are greedy and the government is not. However, the government doesn’t always get it right either. I cite Mao’s China from 1948-1952 as only one of the many examples of why socialism fails.
Mao was a moron, plain and simple. He believed that various Marxist principles could be used to produce bumper crops. Since the Maoists said that solidarity of the people made the people stronger, then the same applied to grains. Thus growing grains tightly packed together would make them stronger, not destroy crops. This was just one area where the Maoists tried to apply “scientific Marxism” to the physical laws of agriculture—applications that failed over and over.
So these experiments were dismal failures. But such failures are not enough to lead to a famine. Other factors come into play. One such factor was the fear of the dictator. Mao’s ideas failed but no one wanted to tell him. Tyrants could easily confuse the message with the messenger. So the incentive was to lie.
Local bureaucrats, instead of admitting that crops had been reduced, decided to write reports claiming that crops had increased. Those reports went to the superiors. The superiors, not aware of how much of the report was bluster, combined these exaggerated reports together. And they, thinking the reports were accurate, saw no harm in making them look even better by increasing the crop yields. And so it went. As the “data” accumulated it appeared that scientific Marxism was a success in agriculture. The top echelon of Mao’s China got reports that made them very happy.
Desperate for hard currency the Chinese officials decided to take advantage of their bumper crops and sell them outside China. So they confiscated a large section of what crops did exist for export. This meant that food was scarcer at the local level as the farms were depleted of their stock to fill the quotas for export. A year goes by and the next set of reports have to be prepared. Again no one wanted to be the first to prick the Maoist bubble. Nor did anyone want to report they had failed, not when everyone else was apparently so successful, as the reports clearly indicated. So once again they took the figures from the year before and added a bit to them. And the process repeated itself.
At the top levels of the government Communist officials received more data, carefully collected from across the country, indicating an even larger crop than the year before. So the quotas for export were increased.
More food was confiscated. But a problem arose. You can’t confiscate food that doesn’t exist. Authorities scoured the countryside and couldn’t find the crops that supposedly existed. The conclusion they drew was a simple one: the farmers were greedy, counter-revolutionaries who had obviously hidden the bumper crops. They were attempting to sabotage the revolution. So the officials, convinced the farmers had hidden food somewhere confiscated all the food they could find—which was actually all the food there was. The farmers had no hidden stocks, the data was wrong. The cumulative effect of lots of small distortions produced a massive error which resulted in the deaths of millions.
No one has a clue how many people starved to death in China from 1948-1952. Estimates generally range around 30 million, give or take 20 million or so. The reason they don’t know is because in socialist China of 1948-1952, crops counts were important, deaths not.
All thought it all, Chinese propaganda were telling people their government is good, the farmers starving to death were doing so because they were hiding their crops. No one questioned Mao’s claim that the greedy were starving to death by the millions. Even to this day, Anita Dunn apparently doesn’t.
OK, so you’ve got two situations here already. You’ve got me, who knows what socialism is, and knows the ramifications of socialism. Then, you’ve got Anita Dunn, who idolizes Mao for something he didn’t say or do.
Dunn claims he rose up against the Chinese government. Fact is he was groomed by the Chinese government and military to be leader. He did lead some revolts, but during the early part he kept his day-job as, get this one folks, a union organizer. He left that position to join an already occurring revolt. He rose to power not on intellect, as Obama’s peeps would have you believe, but on sheer brutality. The stories of Mao’s military torture tactics are stuff you don’t even see in gore movies.
Now, we’ve experienced this kind of top-down bureaucratic pandering that’s caused us all kinds of issues. Let’s go back eleven years. In 1996, President Bill Clinton attacked Iraq without any seeming provocation. He was under investigation. However, his justification was that Iraq was interfering with the United Nations inspections teams so that he could build weapons of mass destruction. This came from a report George Tenet presented to Congress. Clinton would do it again in 1998. Of course, he had “credible evidence” that Hussein was once again trying to amass WMD’s. Using the “evidence” Tenet presented to Congress, George W Bush invaded Iraq in 2003. Almost immediately Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats claimed they had been lied to. Not by Clinton, or by Tenet, but by Bush. A few years later the conclusion was that there never were any WMD’s in Iraq. This is just another example of socialist pandering resulting in horrific results. Now, in this case, the “evidence” Tenet had was justification to go to war with another country. OR, Tenet’s evidence was fabricated to impress his boss. OR, Pelosi lied when she said Bush lied. Bottom line, the “evidence” was collected by the President, used by the President, then used against his opposition by constantly changing. And no one asks a question. The very bottom line is this manipulation of facts by Tenet/Clinton cost a lot of US soldiers’ lives. It’s no different than Mao starving greedy farmers to death. Neither should have happened, and only happened because of information distorted to please the top dog. In China, there was no media to question Mao’s blatantly stupid moves. In the US, there is. However, if that media chooses not to ask any questions, it’s no different than Mao’s China.
Nancy Pelosi is sure of two things:
- No Democrat has ever done anything deceptive or the least bit beyond reproach. Ever.
- All Republicans and the CIA have lied to her. A lot.
Which leads to the obvious conclusion one has to come to when they see headlines like this:
Shortly after seeing a headline like this:
That maybe it’s not the CIA agents “misleading” Pelosi, but rather someone who looks an awful lot like this guy:
One Democrat is a confessed liar, the other one is the one I’m talking about. Ya think Nancy would ever admit that?
Nah, she’ll just claim Leon Panetta has another big lie he’s been telling her for a decade. He’s really Republican.
Sonia Sotomayor, in a move to appease those criticizing her ethics, quit the Belizean Grove. Now, the problem she’s got is this just looks stupid to me, and some others. What’s the point in quitting AFTER membership becomes an issue? I mean, really? What’s the point? It’s already an issue, you honestly agreed with their agenda enough to join in the first place, and, quitting after the issue was raised just makes you look very shallow. Being a member was the damage already done. Abandoning them because the membership was exposed makes it look even worse. Should have just toughed it out at this point. I mean, are you going to quit being a female Latino because some people questioned your comments about being a better judge than white guys? It just don’t work that way. Once a member of something, in the political world, always a member. Bob Byrd to this day is still discussed about being in the KKK. That was supposedly sixty years ago when he quit. So, Sonia, you will always be attached to the Belizean Grove even if you quit when it was politically convenient.
So, now that the lifelong tether has been established, I had to wonder what this apparently all girls club was all about. This is their mission statement as best I can tell:
Having observed the power of the Bohemian Grove, a 130-year-old, elite old boys’ network of former Presidents, businessmen, military, musicians, academics, and non-profit leaders, and realizing that women didn’t have a similar organization, Susan Stautberg and 26 other founding members created the Belizean Grove, a constellation of influential women who are key decision makers in the profit, non-profit and social sectors; who build long term mutually beneficial relationships in order to both take charge of their own destinies and help others to do the same.
Members are highly accomplished leaders in a wide venue of fields, are dedicated to giving back to their communities, have a sense of humor and excitement about life and are willing to mentor and share connections. With this vision in mind, members are invited not only for their professional accomplishments but also for their generosity and compatibility.
The Grove is an international nurturing network that helps women pursue more significant dreams, ambitions, purposes, transcendence, and spiritual fulfillment, while also opening up more leadership opportunities to these women of diverse backgrounds, talents, ages, and skills. The Grovers are leaders from 5 continents, from profit, non-profit and social sectors. They are heads of major government agencies, businesswomen, military officers, academics, non-profit leaders, musicians, authors, diplomats, design gurus…
In retaliation of a perceived “elite old boys network”, they decided to form an “elite old girls network”. Simple enough. From reading, this was how some honorary members of the past described the elite old boys network:
- “That’s where all those rich Republicans go up and stand naked against redwood trees right?” – Bill Clinton
- “The Bohemian Grove, that I attend from time to time — the Easterners and the others come there — but it is the most faggy goddamn thing you could ever imagine, that San Francisco crowd that goes in there; it’s just terrible! I mean I won’t shake hands with anybody from San Francisco.” – Richard Nixon
- Jack London was a member and occasional visitor. He later wrote a book about a few idiots who ran the world.
Other sources of information include references to gay orgies, KKK-like attire, sacrifices to pagan gods ( owls ), and of course, a planning session for the New World Order. Other crazier stories involve animal shape-shifting and worse.
But, the big picture is you had to be elite by someone’s definition. Once you acheived that level of being elite, then all the trappings of the Bohemian Grove were yours.
That is apparently what the Belizean Grove aspired to emulate.
That is apparently what Sonia Sotomayor sought to emulate as well.
So, this is becoming kind of scary. Not only is Sonia Sotomayor a sexist and racist, she’s apparently a gay orgy kind of chick with a lust for younger babes, and either is a shapeshifter, or can get animals to do it ( I was fuzzy on that part ). And, to top it off, being a member of the New World Order, she’s from another planet and wants to kill off about seven billion people by 2012.
I just don’t think Obama thought this out too well.
18
Mar
This video has been sent to me about a dozen times now. I still enjoy it. There is some question as to whether Bill’s snubbing Hillary, or Hillary’s snubbing Bill. Me? I think it’s obvious Hillary can’t wait to get her some, well, you know, better paying job ( yeah, that’s it ). Decide for yourself:
Hillary throwing her husband under the bus for the highest bidder at the time just doesnt’ surprise me. So, there really is nothing suspenseful here. Until, you look, a little closer…
What is that on Obama’s back?
Now, I’ve heard he’s big on teleprompting, but somehow sticking it on his back just doesn’t seem to help much. Unless, of course, it’s for whoever is behind him. I dunno who’s behind him tho. So, I’m still left clueless.
Anyone got any idea what that is?
( The “Kiss me, I’m with stupid” idea is mine alone, ok? )
( Also, the “Obama is a robot controlled by Dick Cheney” idea is mine as well. )
OK, I got this email. I thought it was kinda funny:
1947
Some of you will recall that on July 8, 1947, a little over 60 years ago, witnesses claim that an unidentified flying object (UFO) with five aliens aboard crashed onto a sheep and cattle ranch just outside Roswell, New Mexico. This is a well known incident that many say has long been covered up by the U.S. Air Force and other federal agencies and organizations.
However, what you may NOT know is that in the month of April 1948, nine months after that historic day, the following people were born:
Albert A. Gore, Jr.
Hillary Rodham
John F. Kerry
William J. Clinton
Howard Dean
Nancy Pelosi
Dianne Feinstein
Charles E. Schumer
Barbara Boxer
See what happens when aliens breed with sheep?
I certainly hope this bit of information clears up a lot of things for you. It did for me.
No wonder they support the bill to help illegal aliens!
Now You Know.
Now, knowing that peeps here get all bent out of shape if I post an obvious funny without doing scads of research to debunk it, I did. Here’s the result:
- Al Gore – 3/31/48
- Hillary Clinton- 10/26/47
- Bill Clinton – 8/19/46
- John Kerry 12/121/43
- Howard Dean – 11/17/48
- Nancy Pelosi – 3/26/40
- Dianne Feinstein – 6/22/33
- Charles Schumer – 11/23/50
- Barbara Boxer – 11/11/40
Now, what makes this email plausible is they all ( excepting Bill Clinton ), seem so alien most of the time. That’s about all I have to say about that. However, the research for this project yielded this little gem:
