"I'm In"? No, You're In-Sane. Hillary Clinton, perceived superbitch with principles of convenience, has announced that she is definitely running for President in 2008. She joins Barack Obama and John Edwards as the Democrats' first-announced candidates for the next election (other than the loser John Kerry, who seems to think this time will be different). Have the Democrats lost their minds, or are they just a shill for the Republican Party?
+
The chance that Hillary Clinton, who is widely despised on all sides of politics, could be elected President is about one in 16 billion. That is, an alien from a planet far, far away has a better chance of being elected President than she has. Oh, I'm not saying it's impossible, any more than it is impossible to go faster than the speed of lite. We love the idea of the impossible being possible. So, I could be wrong. I have been wrong on isolated occasions before. Twice, I think. (Once, I thought I had made a mistake, but I hadn't. (Oldie but goodie.) I can't remember what the other occasion might have been.)
+
Barack Obama seems a nice man, whose heart is in the right place. But he's black, young, inexperienced, and hopelessly naive and uninformed. He bleeds for AIDS patients but knows nothing about AIDS. Rather, he believes every single syllable, not just word, that the Republicans who invented AIDS as a sexually transmitted 'disease' say about that obvious drug injury. He won't listen to the President of South Africa, a country that supposedly has a serious AIDS problem, who disbelieves that AIDS has anything whatsoever to do with HIV. South Africa is outside the "AIDS Belt" asserted in the 1980s, and even outside the secondary AIDS Belt posited in the 1990s. Poor South Africans are dying young from the same diseases that have always killed them young, but those deaths are now called "AIDS", a new name for a random, haphazard collection of unrelated maladies that result only from the horrendous health conditions of the Third World.
+
John Edwards seems a fine man, but he's from the South, and the Nation is sick of Southerners running everything. At least Obama and (Mrs.) Clinton are Northerners. Alas, that's the only thing they have to recommend them.
+
Democrats are so completely out of touch with the people of this country that they actually think we want to turn society on its head and have women controlling men. But this is NOT a Radical Feminist society. We DEFEATED the so-called "Equal Rights Amendment", and the bulk of American women, who are not lesbian-feminists, were key to that defeat. Who in his (or her) right mind could believe that a country that rejected Al Gore and John Kerry will accept Hillary Clinton? It's sheer madness, delusional thinking from a party that should seek professional help.
+
Are we ready to elect a black man President? Yes, I think we are beyond ruling out a candidate just because of race. But is Barack Obama that black man? (Well, Obama is interracial, actually. And that's a problem, because the great preponderance of blacks resent interracial sex and marriage fully as much as do the great preponderance of whites.) I seriously doubt that a very young and very inexperienced black man will be accepted as qualified to be President just because he's black. And frankly, that is about as much as he has to recommend him. And what if the Republicans run Colin Powell against Barack Obama? In such a (lite-skinned) black-vs.-black contest, who would win? I wouldn't get one thin dime on Obama.
+
Are we ready to make a woman Commander in Chief of the Nation's armed forces, and give a woman supreme power over men? Hell, no we are not.
+
The history of political dominatrixes in recent decades of world history is dismal. Golda Meir was a monster, a murderess who killed without mercy in unending atrocities against Arabs. Margaret Thatcher — the "Iron Lady" (tho there is little ladylike about the bitch but her hairdo), "Attila the Hen" — was a murderess too, who declared a naval exclusion zone of 200 miles around the "Falkland" Islands (the Malvinas), then perfidiously sank an Argentine warship outside that zone, murdering 323 men. Women presidents/prime ministers in Sri Lanka have been not one whit better than men in bringing peace to that violent island, and women like Margaret Thatcher have done nothing to promote social equality but on the contrary have worsened economic and social disparities among classes. The sole successful woman President of any major country that I can think of in the past 30 years is Corazon Aquino, a U.S.-educated Filipina who led a "People Power" revolt that overthrew a dictator but accomplished absolutely nothing for the poor who constitute the great majority of the people of that wretched archipelago that we abandoned rather than offered statehood. Not good enuf. The Philippines now has a second woman President, who has also achieved NOTHING.
+
Hillary Clinton put forward a universal healthcare plan that was universally denounced as preposterously too complicated to work. Mind you, it was probably not any worse than George Bush's Medicare prescription plan, but we don't really know, because both the Republicans and her own party disowned the plan six minutes after it was announced.
+
Trying to make herself presentable to women who like being women, mothers, and wives, Hillary Clinton — oh, sorry: Hillary RODHAM Clinton; never forget her lesbian-feminist inclusion of her maiden name (which, however, is not her mother's name, but her father's! so much for the sanity of women's retaining their maiden names as a blow for feminism!) — has recently made conservative noises about abortion. No one on Earth believes her. Everyone on the planet believes she is for abortion on demand, at any time — first trimester, third trimester, as the baby is coming out of the womb makes no difference to her as far as anyone can see. She claims to want to make abortion (on demand) legal but rare. What a bunch of bullshit. She actually wants "day after" abortifacient drugs to be available in candy stores and newsstands, the baby-slaughtering bitch. And everybody knows it. She's not fooling one voter. Not one.
+
Who's left? Bore? Not the chance of a snowball in hell. Oh, I suppose I should clarify whom I mean by "Bore". That's AL Bore, not John Bore Kerry. (Good nite, John Bore.)
+
I wish I had $20 million to run for President. Hey, (Saudi) Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud, wouldn't you like to see a pro-Arab and anti-Zionist President in the United States? Well, you're not going to get one from the current crop of Radical Zionist scum who rule both major parties of the United States, but you would with me. And how about you, Sultan of Brunei (that's "Kebawah Duli Yang Maha Mulia Paduka Seri Baginda Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Al-Mu'izzaddin Waddaulah ibni Almarhum Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddien Sa'adul Khairi Waddien" to you, commoner!), surely you can spare 20 million bucks. Hey, you can go halvsies with the Saudi Prince, so it will only cost you 10 million bucks to get a pro-Moslem candidate into the national spotlite.
+
You may not be able to make a campaign contribution as such — tho why the hell not? You think the transnational corporations that contribute to U.S. candidates are American? Be not naive. — but you can certainly make a personal gift to me to be used as ever I see fit. I'm 62 years old and slitely handicapped. What else but a run for President am I going to use $20 million for?
+
A candidate for a major-party nomination needs $60 million. I can do the job with 1/3 the money. First, I can offer myself as a candidate for the Democrats, who need somebody brilliant and strikingly different. If that doesn't work out, 20 million bucks would empower me to get signatures enuf to put my name on the ballot in every state of the Union as the candidate of the Expansionist Party. I'd run on a platform to enlarge the Nation geographically, as to incorporate our present colonies (PR, USVI, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marianas) as states or parts of existing states, and annex Canada as several States of the Union, whose votes in Congress would automatically empower us to enact universal healthcare, withdraw from Iraq, break the back of the Zionist lobby, and pursue further annexations, as of Britain, Ireland, Mexico, the Philippines, Guyana, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Taiwan, and bunches of other places in a gradual, organic outward movement to eventually consolidate all of this benited planet under a single, federal government, in which everyone contributes to the vital decisionmaking of the center but in which as well each state retains substantial local autonomy in matters like criminal law, as empowers everyone to get along within the Nation and impose a restraining hand on crimes against humanity outside the Nation (e.g., Darfur, about which our brave Democrats and Republicans DO NOTHING).
+
The Democrats are a miserable excuse for an opposition party. They bewail Bush Administration moves to escalate the war in Iraq that the people said in November they want ended. Dems say lame, cowardly things like, 'They know we won't cut off funding for our troops in Iraq, so they rush to send more troops into harm's way to force us to fund an escalation of the war.'
+
Any opposition party worth its salt would simply shout, in a rage,

"NO! We WON'T fund your war! NO, we WON'T fund our troops in harm's way. NO! We'll give you ONLY as much money as it takes to EVACUATE the troops from Iraq, not keep them there, in harm's way. GET OUT OF IRAQ or we will cut off all funding for all programs in all departments. We will SHUT THE GOVERNMENT DOWN if you try to escalate the war that the American people told you to get out of! Not one cent will go to your war, nor to anything else in your government until you get the hell out of Iraq! Not one damned cent!"

That is what a legitimate opposition party would do. If the Democrats won't do it, it's time to replace the Democrats with a party that will do what the people want done. If that's the Expansionist Party of the United States, let the Democrats vanish into history like the Whigs.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 3,047 — for Israel.)




- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 11:10 PM