I haven't posted in a few days and I must apologize for keeping you in a perpetual state of anticipation. I know that my words of wisdom have become a necessary source of enlightenment in your day to day life, but sometimes it's not about you, now is it?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Aunt Flo(w) attended a town-hall style meeting at a Congolese University in the Democratic Republic of Congo on Monday. She was in a bad mood. Imagine that. A young man from the university got his chance to speak and asked Secretary Clinton how President Obama felt about Chinese financial contracts with Congo. The interpreter dropped the ball and said President Clinton, rather than President Obama, in the translation from the student to Hillary, so she had a little hissy fit. -
"You want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not Secretary of State, I am. If you want my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband." - Hillary Rodham Clinton
Now, in all fairness, the translator was the one who screwed up and said President Clinton instead of President Obama. However, is this how our leading foreign dignitary should address young citizens in a country where she's a guest? That doesn't seem like a very diplomatic thing to do. You can read the brief story of the altercation here. -
I would imagine that Hillary is a little upset about her husband's success in dealing with North Korea last week. This was only a week after the North Korean press issued a lengthy statement about Secretary Clinton and, let's just say, it was not flattering. -
"We cannot but regard Mrs. Clinton as a funny lady as she likes to utter such rhetoric, unaware of the elementary etiquette in the international community. Sometimes she looks like a primary schoolgirl and sometimes a pensioner going shopping." - Foreign Ministry Spokesman for Pyongyang
So somehow, only a week after the North Korean government verbally abused his wife, President Clinton was somehow able to persuade the Socrates of the East, Kim Jong Il, to release two American journalists from a North Korean prison. No one is sure how he managed to do this, but the story can be seen here. (My guess is that Bill agrees with the North Korean government, since he hates his wife's guts, and that allowed them to engage in light-hearted discourse. See, Hillary is still doing her job!) -
"North Korea rejected the administration's first choice for the trip -- former vice president Al Gore, who co-founded the television channel that employs the journalists -- and Bill Clinton left the United States only after North Korea provided assurances that the reporters would be released, the sources said." - Washington Post
Jesus, everybody hates Man Bear Pig. Anyway, I will commend President Clinton on his humanitarian efforts to free the two American journalists, but I am again dismayed that we have our leaders traveling abroad to apologize for the evil empire we call the United States. I'm not sorry for anything...and I won't be. Why should we apologize to little shitheads like Kim Jong Il? He starves his own people to death, but we're the bad guys? Please, help me understand this.
I'm also a bit confused as to why our Presidents continue to appoint women to fill the Secretary of State position. President Clinton chose Madeleine Albright, President Bush chose Condoleezza Rice (after Colin Powell stepped down), and President Obama chose Hillary Clinton. Please don't take this to be a sexist remark...you will see my point momentarily. Below is a description from the U.S. Department of State regarding the functions of the Secretary of State. -
"Congress created the position of Secretary of State on Jul 27, 1789 (1 Stat. 28), as the principal officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs (later renamed Department of State). The Secretary was to perform such duties as the President required, in accordance with the Constitution, relating to correspondence, commission, or instructions to U.S. ministers or consuls abroad, and to conduct negotiations with foreign representatives. The Secretary has also served as principal adviser to the President in the determination and execution of U.S. foreign policy and in recent decades has become responsible for overall direction, coordination, and supervision of interdepartmental activities of the U.S. Government overseas, except for certain military activities." - State.gov
Basically, the Secretary of State has to deal with a mass of foreign dignitaries in various countries all over the world. The problem lies in the fact that a lot of cultures, particularly in Africa and the Middle East, do not have a great deal of respect for women. Doesn't it seem counter-productive to send a woman to speak and confer with a group of people that have little to no respect for her simply because she's a woman? I'm not saying that their thinking is in any way modern or acceptable, but the facts are the facts. Aren't the liberals always crying about ethnocentrism? I'd say sending a woman to have geo-political discourse with a group of men who don't respect her is pretty narrow-minded. Why would they take advice from, or even listen to, an individual they think should be beaten or killed for not wearing a burqa in public? It's common sense people...our leaders are idiots.
Well written! I'm a bit confused by your scathing assesment of the 'msm' a blog or so ago, then this stream of links to the same msm you find so very biased towards the current administration. How can you generally lambaste these information outlets, then use them to support your slant?
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, this was a well-written piece. Up to and including the portion wherein you go cave man with the not-having-a-woman-Sec.-of-State so as to encourage respect for the position in the backward-ass muslim world. Consider this, perhaps those cultures will benefit from exposure to a modern society with intelligent women in positions of power. I realize it's a stretch for the arch-conservatives to imagine a woman not barefoot and pregnant, but try anyway. It's actually kind of exciting.
Quick question for you and your loyal readers...
ReplyDeleteHow do you feel about your brethren pushing, shoving and shouting-down speakers at these 'Town-Hall' metings being held to explain the Health Care Reform Bill? Is this not terrorism of a sort?
I've thought about how I want to approach this topic because there is so much happening at once AND I've been discussing health care for the last two months and I can only say the same things so many times before I just don't want to talk about it anymore.
ReplyDeleteHere's what I think. I think people have every right to outraged and the town halls will not be town halls until this is final, one way or the other. The people showing up to these meetings are not looking for an explanation of the bill. They are looking for a resounding "no I will not vote for the bill" and any other answer will continue to be met with hostility.
The health care industry comprises nearly 20% of the Gross Domestic Product. In the last year, the federal government has taken over the U.S. auto industry, involved themselves in both the banking and mortgage industries, and are now trying to take over the health care industry. The President can say that private insurance is not at risk until he's blue in the face, but the reality is that a government run entity has no overhead. They don't need price controls because their operating costs are our money. This means that they will undercut the insurance companies and everyone will eventually go on the government plan. The President stated that he was for a single-payer system and based upon any of his other ideas of "fairness" and "sharing the goods" I find that he means what he says when it comes to taking the fruits of one man's labor. So, if the federal government in the last year has managed to unconstitutionally infiltrate the private sector, and they have a decision making role over the means of production (which ultimately creates GDP), then capitalism has been partially destroyed and perpetually failing. Regardless of how the left and the media may try to portray this as something other than socialism...it is what it is. I didn't make up the definition...I simply know that they are promoting socialist policies. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...what is it typically?
So, while I think the town-halls are completely unproductive...they're not there to be productive...they're there because they're pissed. I don't know why any person would place their decisions on medical care in the hands of 535 pencil-pushing bureaucrats. These people aren't doctors or nurses or health insurance agents. Why in the hell would they try to overhaul a system that affords 250 million people health care for the sake of 50 million with no expertise in the matter what-so-ever?
I don't think it's terrorism at all. People have a Constitutional right to protest all they want. The only person who has gotten hurt so far is an old man who was protesting the health care reform!
Does it scare you at all that our president called on the unions to attend town halls and run security and asked that emails be forwarded to the white house? What is this, the Gestapo? Can you imagine if Dubya would've done something like that. As I said before, I am against any legislation that takes away my freedom. They have no authority to do the things they are trying to do. That's why people are so mad.
Terrorism is forcing someone to do something against their will through violence or coercion. So, in a way, you could argue that our representatives are the ones involved in terrorism...of a sort of course.
It's OK for the left to scream and cry and hold up signs of Bush as Hitler and the Devil...but God forbid some normal people would be opposed to taxation without representation. What was it that Hillary said about protesting the Bush Administration? -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CzteDucRHo
"Taxation without representation is tyranny." - James Otis
Don't worry, I'm not going to keep picking at it. Just a couple of quick thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI hear you when you describe why people are angry and frustrated. Passionate opinions are something both sides, in the name of civilized behavior, must be allowed and respected by the other side.
But that doesn't mean either group should be allowed to disrupt a public meeting, and get away with invading someone's personal space by pushing, shoving, or screaming in their opponents face. Do you actually mean to say you think that's just fine because the people have a right to their anger? If so, and very many other people feel that way, we have a bigger problem than anyone realizes. Somebody's going to get seriously hurt.
Revolution is one thing. Anarchy is quite another. In your writing, you mention pictures of Bush as Hitler, etc. Bush is not the problem. Not all libs fall back on the Bush-argument. Every day is a new opportunity to scrape off the mess of the last few years.
I fail, though, to see where 'taxation without representation' comes into play here. There's representation, and duly elected by a clear majority. It just happens it's the side you don't like. To claim a lack of representation is upsurd. Or am I missing some greater meaning?
Debate should always be encouraged...peacefully. I don't condone shoving unless shoved first, pushing unless pushed first, or punching unless brought to the point where punches are unavoidable. (If you know the fight is going to happen, you might as well throw first, right?) But that's neither here nor there. I do think we have a bigger problem than anyone realizes. As the population continues to grow, the politicians continue to break people down into small groups that they pit against each other for votes. It's truly not a right vs. left issue. It's the tax-payers against the tax-eaters (the children of the federal government). I'm all for helping the helpless, but I'm not for helping the careless. Why should you or I work a 45-50 hour work week only to receive less than a guy who collects unemployment and works under the table for cash? That's ridiculous...and it happens all the time. Or how about my federal tax dollars going towards a train from LA to Las Vegas or the Jack Murtha Airport in Pennsylvania...why should my tax dollars go to something I will never use? Or how about Social Security...do you think it's fair that I have to pay into a program that will be completely gone when I need it the most? These are all examples of taxation without representation and it's been going on for years and years. Maybe it's just now culminating...I can't be certain...but people are clearly pissed. The Tea Party Protests aren't a bunch of right-wing radicals...they are people with jobs who would rather see the money flow through their communities instead of into the hands of the irresponsible federal government. Don't you find it odd that our politicians always complain about the greedy big businesses, yet are continually striving to be the most corrupt and greedy business in the world?
ReplyDeleteAs for President Obama and the Democratic Congress, you're absolutely right...we do have a duly elected leader. The problem is that people don't educate themselves and they voted for a word "change" and a phrase "yes we can" and those two things can mean anything you want them to. Lenin also used the word "change" on a regular basis to rally the Proles. People were sick of Bush, just like they'll be sick of Obama when the time comes, so they voted for the "anti-Bush" and they really had no idea how far left his policies actually were. If health care reform passes...the Congressional Budget Office predicts that the top earners in New York will be paying 57% in income taxes. Do you think it's ok for a government to take 57% of an individual's paycheck, regardless of the amount the individual makes? I don't know how that can be justified by any means.
How could 535 members of Congress truly represent the opinions and ideals of 300 million people? They can't...and so some of them have stopped trying.
Well said and written. And believe it or not, I agree with every word of it.
ReplyDeleteWhich is not why I'm here. I'm here to be allowed to voice my views as opposed to the views of those I disagree with, without running into some crybaby, narrow-minded cretin (lout) who'll get offended and stew about it, then not return fire. I appreciate your blogsite.