Future Commandress In Chief???
Is it Geena Davis or just Hillary Clinton who thinks she’s President? I’m not sure. Something I’ve failed to understand since 2000 is, though, how given this woman’s political track record she has managed to get any political office higher than dog catcher. Her only history on serious legislation was when she was playing co-President with her husband and attempting to wreck what was left of the private side of the U.S. healthcare system. All she managed to give us was HMO’s. I’ve seen no progress from her as a Senator other than vacillating nearly as much as John Kerry. She seems to embody the word “demagogue” and I’ve petitioned Webster’s to include a little picture of her next to the word. Consider this recent quote on the Port-gate issue.
"I take a back seat to nobody when it comes to fighting terrorism and standing up for national homeland security. Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments. I will be working to introduce legislation that will prohibit the sale of ports to foreign governments."
Yes, she of course has a vast record of fighting terrorism… uh, wait, there was that time…well then there was…uh, umm… yeah. She’s done zip. I wonder what her concern for national security entailed regarding to those hundreds of FBI files on prominent Republicans that White House bouncer-cum-security director Craig Livingstone borrowed and Clinton opponents or the rampant use of the IRS against Clinton regime enemies. Or the fact that her husband and her VP’s Al Gore’s “no controlling legal authority” moneys coming from Red China as well as the dubious transferring of sensitive technology to the Department of Commerce to facilitate their sale to the Red Chinese. I wonder indeed if any of these fiascos are listed in her resume on the internal and external security of the nation.
Don’t count on the press or her campaign mentioning these soon-to-be-forgotten historical events, but I’m thinking that’s the sum total of her “national security” experience, and it’s an abysmal testimony to how pathetic her opinion really is on the subject.
Port Security is also not the issue in this case, but a good demagogue, and Hilly most certainly is a good one, doesn’t trouble herself with facts. Simple omissions will suffice. Port security is and always will be handled by the Coast Guard and Customs/Border Patrol crowd. The U.S. has never outsourced control or protection of our borders to the best of my knowledge. But hey, her statement makes a great sound bite for the antique news.
I'm sure one could make the case that even having "sneaky Arabs" around was enough cause for national security, and both Dems and Repubs are trying to make that case. I know a lot of people are playing the bigot card on both sides of the debate and that's fine, but you must admit some of the arguments against the UAE company are coming off that way. I want to see the enemies of this country dead on foreign shores before they get anywhere near our ports and borders as well, but "national security" isn't a reason to deny a company access just because they're an Arab company. Now, their alleged boycott of Israel is another matter...
I wonder if she’s aware also that many of our port terminals are currently run by foreign governments, from Singapore to China. Again, don’t let facts get in the way of good rhetoric. I’ve often heard during this debate that the only domestic company with the resources and administrative muscle in the U.S. to handle these contracts if they were not managed by foreign conglomerates is Haliburton. While that may or may not be the case, it certainly should give pause to Hilly, whose left-wing crusaders have screamed so loudly about the relationship with the President’s office and Haliburton. She best be careful or the Democratic Undergrounders of the webosphere will start assuming she’s gone over to the “Dark Side”. Oh what a tangled web we weave, eh Senator Clinton?
Consider this just a small commentary on the woman so many seem so eager to be our next President. Demagogues should never have positions of power, because they just use it to seek more power at the expense of those beneath them, which in their eyes is usually everyone else. Hillary Clinton goes beyond the textbook example of a demagogue. She practically is the textbook.
Is it Geena Davis or just Hillary Clinton who thinks she’s President? I’m not sure. Something I’ve failed to understand since 2000 is, though, how given this woman’s political track record she has managed to get any political office higher than dog catcher. Her only history on serious legislation was when she was playing co-President with her husband and attempting to wreck what was left of the private side of the U.S. healthcare system. All she managed to give us was HMO’s. I’ve seen no progress from her as a Senator other than vacillating nearly as much as John Kerry. She seems to embody the word “demagogue” and I’ve petitioned Webster’s to include a little picture of her next to the word. Consider this recent quote on the Port-gate issue.
"I take a back seat to nobody when it comes to fighting terrorism and standing up for national homeland security. Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments. I will be working to introduce legislation that will prohibit the sale of ports to foreign governments."
Yes, she of course has a vast record of fighting terrorism… uh, wait, there was that time…well then there was…uh, umm… yeah. She’s done zip. I wonder what her concern for national security entailed regarding to those hundreds of FBI files on prominent Republicans that White House bouncer-cum-security director Craig Livingstone borrowed and Clinton opponents or the rampant use of the IRS against Clinton regime enemies. Or the fact that her husband and her VP’s Al Gore’s “no controlling legal authority” moneys coming from Red China as well as the dubious transferring of sensitive technology to the Department of Commerce to facilitate their sale to the Red Chinese. I wonder indeed if any of these fiascos are listed in her resume on the internal and external security of the nation.
Don’t count on the press or her campaign mentioning these soon-to-be-forgotten historical events, but I’m thinking that’s the sum total of her “national security” experience, and it’s an abysmal testimony to how pathetic her opinion really is on the subject.
Port Security is also not the issue in this case, but a good demagogue, and Hilly most certainly is a good one, doesn’t trouble herself with facts. Simple omissions will suffice. Port security is and always will be handled by the Coast Guard and Customs/Border Patrol crowd. The U.S. has never outsourced control or protection of our borders to the best of my knowledge. But hey, her statement makes a great sound bite for the antique news.
I'm sure one could make the case that even having "sneaky Arabs" around was enough cause for national security, and both Dems and Repubs are trying to make that case. I know a lot of people are playing the bigot card on both sides of the debate and that's fine, but you must admit some of the arguments against the UAE company are coming off that way. I want to see the enemies of this country dead on foreign shores before they get anywhere near our ports and borders as well, but "national security" isn't a reason to deny a company access just because they're an Arab company. Now, their alleged boycott of Israel is another matter...
I wonder if she’s aware also that many of our port terminals are currently run by foreign governments, from Singapore to China. Again, don’t let facts get in the way of good rhetoric. I’ve often heard during this debate that the only domestic company with the resources and administrative muscle in the U.S. to handle these contracts if they were not managed by foreign conglomerates is Haliburton. While that may or may not be the case, it certainly should give pause to Hilly, whose left-wing crusaders have screamed so loudly about the relationship with the President’s office and Haliburton. She best be careful or the Democratic Undergrounders of the webosphere will start assuming she’s gone over to the “Dark Side”. Oh what a tangled web we weave, eh Senator Clinton?
Consider this just a small commentary on the woman so many seem so eager to be our next President. Demagogues should never have positions of power, because they just use it to seek more power at the expense of those beneath them, which in their eyes is usually everyone else. Hillary Clinton goes beyond the textbook example of a demagogue. She practically is the textbook.
posted by Rob Beck | 4:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home