The Audacity of that Hopeless Reprobate Clinton (HRC)

What seems to be missing from the discussion of what Mrs. Clinton has been up to is the utter audacity, chutzpah, of the woman.  Here we have someone, the Prince Charles of American politics as I have previously referred to her, whom we all know has lusted for the power of the presidency since, well, at least 2007.  This person had to have known for sometime now and particularly during her time at the State Department, that she will run again for the office.  And yet, with the run likely being a near certainty (with the possible exception being for her health), she knowingly, willfully and with reckless disregard for security, setup her very own email server in Chappaqua.  This, necessitated by the single “fact” that she didn’t want to carry more than one mobile device.  Who, out there, actually believes this?


More well-qualified people will inform us about the legal ramifications of what she has done so, let’s focus for a minute on what it suggests.  What it shows is a person who simply does not believe that the law and rules should be an impediment to her ambitions or personal interests.  The “smartest” woman in the world had to know that her use of a personal server would become public or at minimum, that the risk of this exposure could be problematic and yet, she forged ahead in the unprecedented manner (nevermind the spin from her eunuchs about Colin Powell, etc.).  So, what made her do it?  Did she really think it was not a problem (knowing differently and again, presumably, knowing the security risks), did she think it would have been kept hidden or did she do it because she thought there was no downside at all?  We have to eliminate the first of these because, surely, someone would have advised her that the security risk alone was not worth it (it is simply unbelievable that Mrs. Clinton has actually attacked the Chicoms for hacking into the US Government protected OPM database and yet, some how, we are to believe that her little server in Chappaqua escaped attention).  This leaves us with either the thinking that the server would have been kept secret (willing accomplices in the media) or that the risk of exposure and potential damage from it were far outweighed by whatever there was to gain; that is, carrying only one mobile device, does anyone believe this?

If you don’t, you have to think what this says about Mrs. Clinton and what it’d mean if she has unfettered and fully confidential access to the levers of power in Washington, D.C.  The audacity of this person and her history (and we only need go to the infamous Youtube/Benghazi lies for affirmation) should disqualify her from even running for the presidency in the minds of most fair and serious minded persons.  Mrs. Clinton needs to understand that at some point, her baggage will and should make a difference.

By the way, when she relaunches her campaign (inevitably), this should be her calling card:
 hrc_relaunched

New Trump and Hillary Logos…

Trump’s:

triumph

To be clear, it says: “I TRUMP TRIUMPH” or simply “TRIUMPH” over “H.”  “H” being, well, see below…Any other interpretation of this is NOT intended.  This is not an endorsement of the man (not yet, anyway) but rather of his fighting spirit which has been severely lacking in the Republican party.

Hillary’s:

hill2

Before charges of sexism, war on women, etc. are made, let’s be clear: the letters H (Hillary) and O (Obama) obviously and coincidentally spell the word “HO.”  The intent of the logo is NOT to suggest that Mrs. Clinton is one in the normal sense of the word…of course, in the political sense, the word is applicable; as it is to 99% of all politicians.

Unsolicited Advice to Republicans: Grow a Pair (or Borrow Nancy Pelosi’s)

This was originally posted on 1/30/2014 but a re-post was thought necessary on the eve of “Executive Amnesty.” Let’s see, on the one hand we have elected Democrats and indirectly, Gruber’s “stupid people” who support them, egging on the President to “go big” with his theft of power and disregard for his constitutional duties and the constitution itself and on the other hand, we have the rest of the American people who recently voted to stop all of this and yet, the RINOS are wavering. But, let’s see how this plays out.

From 1/30/2014:

Again, on the amnesty issue. The previous post (see here: https://mononymous1.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/the-broken-windows-theory-now-applies-to-government/) commented on how the Democrats wield power. The President is playing a dictator with absolutely no regard for the constitution and the case has clearly been made about their use or abuse of power. In this regard and in particularly with respect to amnesty; the dimwitted Republicans need to take a page out of Nancy Pelosi’s playbook. Their simplest approach to amnesty and indeed, on any other issue, should be WWNPD if the situation were reversed – meaning, what would the Democrats do if they were opposed to amnesty with a Republican Senate and President? Do they think, for instance, that NP as Speaker, would be entertaining any of these considerations right now? The answer: hell no.

They might have, for example, passed a border security bill first and send it over to the Senate where it’d probably die. They would then go into the election saying, “Hey, we started the process but the President and his party refused to take action on the first step. Don’t blame us!” They could then go on to explain why border security is an extremely important first step and try to rally the country in getting something done about it. Perhaps they’d even go on to warn that, unlike the Obamacare monstrosity that has spawned so many unintended consequences, a “comprehensive reform” bill of 2000 or more pages is absolutely not the way to go. They could then point out that the President has seen fit to act unilaterally on enforcement of laws, has been busy using regulations to circumvent them, that these things are not acceptable and that this is yet another basis for refusing to act on a total reform package because, simply put, he cannot be trusted.

But no. In their typical spineless fashion, the Republicans are willing to cave to whatever unseen forces guide them because it certainly isn’t the will of their constituents. It is still quite interesting as to what these unseen forces are. Where are the “conservative” members of the House and why wouldn’t they come out and expose what is going on here? Anybody, somebody, grow a pair or borrow Nancy Pelosi’s!

So, Rep. Gowdy (R-SC), If “Comprehensive” is Latin…

for “lots of bad stuff” in legislation; what is “Omnibus” if not damn near the same? Therefore, can the American people count on you to show some leadership and oppose the current omnibus spending bill that will continue to fund “lots of bad stuff” including Obamacare and whatever “amnesty” is pending? Sir, just demand that we follow the usual but now forgotten process of passing separate appropriations bills and let the Senate fail to act or let the president veto them. It is clear that the public will support the House’s actions if the reasons are made clear.

Well?

Reference interview/video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqO1VdrS7kc

Gruber’s Gruesome but Right

Prof. Gruber’s admission that passage of Obamacare depended on the “stupidity” of the American public should come as no surprise to anyone; the man should be applauded for his candor.

Examining the answers to the following questions would suggest that he was and is absolutely right. It is the dependency on the existence of these people that has kept the Democrat party in power; it is their base, it is to whom they appeal and the rest of us, while living in this country, simply pay the price for their voting habits .

So:

(1) how did “hope and change” work
(2) how did President Obama, after promising to “transform” and “redistribute,” win in 2008
(3) in spite of his government’s record, how did he win a second term in 2012
(4) why did the “war on women” work; how did “binders full of women” get to be more important than Benghazi in 2012
(5) what else would explain the herd mentality of entire groups of people (journalists, minorities, etc.) that drives them to vote for Democrat candidates, repeatedly and with the same outcomes
(6) related to item 5, what else but the belief that there exists mass stupidity among her largely black audience would drive Michelle Obama to tell them in the lead up to the last election, “And that’s my message to voters, this isn’t about Barack, it’s not about person on that ballot– its about you. And for most of the people we are talking to, a Democratic ticket is the clear ticket that we should be voting on, regardless of who said what or did this– that shouldn’t even come into the equation.”  In other words, blindly do what I say.
(7) what else would explain the rise to Speakership of Nancy Pelosi
(8) how did Michael Moore and those of his ilk become rich?
(9) what possible reason is there for the existence of TMZ, Access Hollywood, Entertainment Tonight and assorted gossip magazines, e.g., “People,” etc.
(10) related to item (9) what else drives the obsession with celebrities, including sports figures and yes, in general, sports. Relatedly, why do grown men wear “Jeter” or “Manning” or whomever else apparel?
(11) what audience is there for the mindless and utter crap that is broadcasted on daytime television
(12) why do advertisements for products with the words “actor portrayal” clearly indicated work
(13) what else drives young women in NYC to wear jeans/pants of a particular shade of blue or for that matter, what makes any person a fashion, trend or any kind of follower
(14) days before the 2014 elections, why did a video of a woman being “catcalled” become viral and receive coverage over a broad spectrum of the media
(15) what else would enable the rackets of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton
(16) why is it that the greatest country in the world cannot have elections without fraud, glitches and voter IDs when we demand the same across the globe with Jimmy Carter as observer
(17) why is Hillary Clinton qualified to be POTUS? That’s right, we have lowered the bar and the “glass ceiling” with it but the fact that she will now be touted as the most “experienced” candidate – probably in the history of the republic, no less – by the very same people who gave us a president with absolutely no experience at running anything, is yet another sign of the level of stupidity Democrats can count on.
(18) why else would people cede their power for decades to the government and the media
(19) what has enabled the states to cede their power to the federal government
(20) why does the global warming/climate change hoax continue to perpetuate? How many Prof. Gruber’s are involved?
(21) why is President Obama able to distance himself from all the scandals that have plagued his administration.
(22) on what foundation was the Occupy Wall Street operation built
(23) Why do anti-war protesters become latent during Democrat presidencies
(24) Why are there people who still believe that the federal government can do anything efficiently or effectively except through coercion?

This list can go on but we have a general sense of what’s going on here. The final question, however, is this:

(25) why does it seem that folks are more outraged about Prof. Gruber’s confessions than they were about “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” and all the other failed promises of the abominable law? In the light of the professor’s revelations, the most relevant question to ask is, “what did the President know and when did he know it?” The evidence suggests that the President was fully aware and an active participant in the fraud being perpetrated on the American people; this is where the real outrage should be directed. But, what is anyone going to do about it?

Which is a good segue to Executive Amnesty or President Obama’s ultimate “FU” and revenge against the American people and particularly, those who dared to vote against his policies and party recently. It is not clear that defunding the operational aspect of it will work because USCIS could simply pass on the cost to mint new documents to the amnesty beneficiaries – which is what they normally do, anyway. The Courts might have a say about the legality of the EO but perhaps a more effective way to deal with the matter is for the Republican party’s leaders and those looking at running for nomination to be president to step forward right after the EO is issued and say some or all of the following: (1) with a potential Republican president the EO will be voided on Jan 20th, 2017 (2) those who benefit from the amnesty will NEVER be put on a path to citizenship – per existing law and (3) by registering for the amnesty’s benefits, you are telling the government who you are, where you live, etc., and this may make deportation later easier. The impact of these comments may depress interest in the offered “amnesty” which should make it easier to undo later on.