« End The Suffering - LEAVE | Main | An Executive Order - From A Sheriff »
Wednesday
Jan232013

Incompetent Fool

Americans just paid a substantial amount of money to fly Bill Clinton’s pathological power vacuum partner (different than wife) all over the world, as she posed as the US Secretary of State.

And sure, people under her charge were murdered in Benghazi needlessly in the face of a botched response and failed security system to begin with.

Hillary has stalled this hearing beyond the 120 day “Benghazi Technique” so the public would have time to lose interest but she still has to face up to some Republicans who possess more questions than testosterone.

And as part of her weaseling out of responsibility for what she is clearly responsible for, she faced the wimpy horde armed with some 2016 campaign photo-ops.

The interesting pre-planned answer she had ready for special delivery was interesting to me at least:

‘We Have Four Dead Americans…What Difference at This Point Does It Make?’ (120 days)

She may be right if this latest rant was her political swan song, but it isn’t.

So here goes:

Lard Legs was co-president during the botched Clinton Team effort to teach the little, ramshackle church in Waco Texas a lesson. Her team murdered almost 80 men women and children by setting the place on fire, much as Mayor Wilson Goode did in Philly to a group of black squatters, burning down several city blocks and all the evidence.

That incident looks like it didn’t have much of an effect on Hillary, or Bill.

Previous to Waco was Ruby Ridge, where her crack team murdered a mother who was holding her baby. A professional federal sharpshooter agent did that with a sniper shot. A jury set the husband free. He won a subsequent civil case.

So what, lets move on is the Clinton motto.

But couldn’t they even remember that the date the Waco Texas murders happened was on April 19?

April 19, 1995 a crazed bomber, seething from the Ruby Ridge and Waco fiascos of the Clintons blew up a Federal building in Oklahoma. He admits that is why. There is no doubt.

But Hillary forgets or, as I suspect, isn’t smart enough to remember.

Somehow this fool works her way up the liberal Democrat ladder, sucking up any and all prestigious positions the Democrats can hand her until she becomes the figurehead vacationer in chief.

Now one would think, upon the slightest of reflection, that September 11 just might be a day to pay attention to in the way of security – after having your ass handed to you on April 19 twice.

But no, Lard Legs just blunders along, disaster to disaster vacation, to next buffet, to next power Democrat position, blissfully unaware of anything going on – unless it is to advance her career, over our dead bodies.

Incompetent Fool.

Reader Comments (19)

It's the Republicans in Congress who have substantially continually cut funding for much of what our U.S. Secretary of State Department does -- and refused specific requests for more funding for security.

Who are the fools there? That's like gutting your local fire department and complaining that they can't fight all the fires in town quickly enough.

And I've seen attacks by the far-right against the Clinton Administration for years about WACO. That was a most unfortunate incident, from which I think we've learned much, but the President of the United States isn't hands-on for all actions of our law enforcement community. It's a big country, and a big world.

I suspect you know that -- but you see a chance to bash the Clintons and President Obama, so you do. Fortunately, people don't read your attacks that much, and those who do know where from it comes.
January 23, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine
But Ed –
I've been told all along she's wicked pissa smaaat 'cuz she went to some école étudier egg-carton in Wellesley where they protect the lil' darlin's from falling all over themselves and clotting their brains with common-sense. That said, can you imagine having ol' battle ax square off against say it ain't so Joe Biden in presidential primaries? Why, I'd almost pay money to watch that.
– C. dog desperately seeking silver linings
January 23, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterC. dog
"April 19, 1995 a crazed bomber, seething from the Ruby Ridge and Waco fiascos of the Clintons blew up a Federal building in Oklahoma. He admits that is why. There is no doubt."

How do you arrive at the crazed bomber statement?

Eleoin City.
January 23, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterSteven J. Connolly
Steve:

Well, for one, he drove off in a car with no license plate and was caught.

Murdered innocent people, not anyone who killed the people trapped in Waco breathing tear gas as they were cooked to death. I might have some sympathy for him if he went on a eye for an eye, one on one.
January 23, 2013 | Registered CommenterEd Naile
dog:

Should be good!

Lard Legs thinks she IS president, so does Crazy Joe.

Neither will cut a deal - too old to wait eight.

Nice turkey shoot because Obama will have to give one of the fools his campaign machine because:

1. He wants another socialist tool in the White House.
2. Voter lists and volunteers only stay fresh so long.
January 23, 2013 | Registered CommenterEd Naile
Jim:

Enough people read my stuff that you feel the need to try and spin it.

Like this:

Clintons murder 78 men women and children for no reason = the Republicans fault
Clintons sniper shoots a mother for no reason = Republicans fault
Clintons use Oklahoma bombing for political gain = Republicans the target
Lard Legs fires the White House Travel Office employees = Republicans fault
Clinton has Craig Livingston steal 900 FBI files = Repuplicans made her do it.
US officlas and employees murdered for lack of security on 911 2013 = Who cares but Republicans.
January 24, 2013 | Registered CommenterEd Naile
I gotsta know, what's Eleoin City? Some kinda magic decoder ring or secret handshake?
– C. dog
January 24, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterC. dog
dog:

It is a municipality about one mile south of Typoerrorville.
January 24, 2013 | Registered CommenterEd Naile
Jim, I fail to see how any of what you mentioned is relevant in the case of Benghazi. Look at the facts...

Prior to the 9/11 attack the embassy asked for additional protection. They were turned down.

On 9/11 when the attack started they called for help. Again they were turned down.

The attack went on for 7 hours, during which time there was a military base within striking distance of 1 hour away. No help was provided in the 7 hours.

After the attack officials came out claiming it was because of a YouTube video (which the Obama administration knew full well wasn't true).

Lie after lie after lie followed to the point were at today where Hillary is asking what difference does it make.
Do you remember a chant democrats used time and time again claiming it was reason to impeach Bush? Bush lied and people died... remember that one?
What difference it makes is that people died and team Obama lied and continued to lie when they had several opportunities to prevent their deaths. When ANY American dies, it matters.
January 24, 2013 | Registered CommenterRick Barnes
Rick:

Irrelevant to Jim, he is a progressive. That is his religion. He expresses it in all facets of his live.

Up is down, down is up.
Right is wrong, wrong is right.

If one substitutes and automatic reverse opinion from one which normal people take time to, or subscribe to (religion), develope, it is like a free ride in any discussion.

No having to think or prove, just say the opposite of what a thoughtful or educted person would say.

Like a counter-puncher in boxing.

That is why i do not delete Jim.

He is my perfect example.

And does not see it.
January 25, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterEd Naile
What I do see, Ed and Rick, is not only are the two of you -- and many Republicans, Tea Partiers, and other right-wingers -- on the wrong side of history, but you're not reading current history well. And thus, you're destined to continued defeat of your points of view, because you're so unwilling to work with others with whom you disagree.

Granted, there is a pendulum to politics, and 2014 might well be a swing back a bit, similar to 2010. But I doubt that even if the Republicans win the Presidency in 2016 or 2020 -- nationwide there's a pendulum too -- that we'll see a Republican be elected President who has the far right-wing philosophies put forth by the birthers, the "big-weapons-are-our-rights," the homophobic, and the anti-immigrant crowd. American values are better than that.

So you can write your wrath, you can spit out your clichés, you can even try to yell louder than those of us who call for sanity, but we'll win and you won't. You're passing up so many opportunities to join in the discussion for consensus in the meantime, and that's kind of sad. Because you want it all your way and you try to crush others, you won't get anywhere except more exasperated.
January 25, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine
Jim:

I don't need to know that:

up is down and down is up
Right is wrong and wrong is right

I do not discuss anything with liberals or talk to the press.

I write my blogs so others can learn what I have found.

That si why you fel compelled to come here time after time and spin.

(And I know more about how Obama campaigned in this state that anyone you know:)

Its coming!
January 25, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterEd Naile
C'mon, guys –
Jimbo is feelin' a little put upon, a weight as it were upon his narrow, rounded shoulders; a burden about to crush him as reality meats Lib Land, where fantasy flourishes 'till the money runs out.

Perhaps Jimbo can muster the energy and rise to the fly to spell out, specifically, in the two relevant rule books, the provisions for curtailing weapons. Then, for extree credit, tie that specifically to the amendment that prohibited – then didn't prohibit – the production and consumption of alcohol. Might get a bit murky, Jimbo, perhaps you should wear your hip waders. Now if you were really clever, like Troll, ...
– C. dog
January 26, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterC. dog
The relevent rule can be found here:
US constitution Article III section 2 clause :

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another state;--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

What this says is if there are any questions involving rights granted by the Constitution then they are to be resolved by the Supreme Court. It's this article that then allowed for Supreme Court case number No. 07–290 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER. This is the case where the court confirmed the rights of individuals to arm themselves. However, if you read that decision, you can see where Justice Scalia (that bastion of progressive thinking) also confirmed that "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." So he is saying that the government has an interest and a right to reasonably limit what kind of fireamrs "we the people" can have. If there is a dispute, then the Supreme Court has final say as spelled out by Article 3.

As far as the eighteeneth and twenty-first amendments, that is covered under article 5 of the same fine document:
Article V -- Amendment Process

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

I'm not sure how the two issues can be tied together except, of course, that they are both spelled out clearly in the US Constituion. Do I get the extra credit?

P.S. Thanks for the kind words, Dog. I wish I had more opportunity to discuss these issues with you all.
January 30, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterTroll
Nice try, Troll, and you do get partial credit, but all you accomplished so far is that an appointed priesthood is granted mystical powers to invent meanings to hallowed text in order to accomplish their rudimentary measures. Doesn't sound very liberating to me, kinda hierarchal religious in fact – or is that de facto? You still have not demonstrated why a non-enumerated right in Uncle Sammy's Primary Rule Book required amendments to prohibit bad old alcohol, but for an enumerated right, not so much, just a simple majority of morons dictating their usual desires upon us po' plebes.

And, you missed such an obvious contradiction that I'm quite saddened at you not noticing it. Perhaps the elephant in the room is just too big to distinguish trunk from tail? Finally, rights are not granted by constitutions, merely powers to the Grate State. I dun thought you would have learned that in government skool.
– C. dog expects so much more from Troll
January 31, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterC. dog
Now hold the phone there Dog. You seem to be talking out both sides of your mouth. Out one side, you get all moist in the pants about the "hallowed text" saying you can have the bang-bang toys that make you feel manly. But then out of the other side you sneer at the VERY SAME "hallowed text" and it's appointed priesthood when it sets out the rules which allows for the governing of such lunacy. You remind me of those hypocrites who use Leviticus to condemn homosexuality but ignore the parts about no beard trimming and eating shellfish. Selectively choosing from the text is called cherry picking and it is intellectually void. You need to be either all in or all out.

I was curious about the eighteenth amendment as well. Why didn't they just pass a law to ban alcohol? The answer, it turns out, is those pesky states rights and their irritating ability to govern themselves. It seems the only way to get every state to do the bidding of a small group of puritans was to amend the constitution. Otherwise, every state would have had to ban booze independantly and that was just not going to happen. So really prohibition didn't REQUIRE a constitutional amendment; it was just more a more expeditious means to an end.

That brings us to your conundrum about an apparent contradiction concerning the regulation of guns and booze. My answer is that there is NO contradiction merely a change in attitude as time marches on. I think it was inherently assumed when Article III was drafted that the "priesthood" would use current acceptable norms when making their rulings. Things change and attitudes evolve so I think the founding fathers cleverly found a way to allow these changes to be reflected in our laws. It's much like the thirteenth amendment. For many years, it was okay to own a person but as time went on and social norms changed, the mystics enshrined by the constitution applied those social norms to their rulings and decided the amendment did not violate the Constituion. It's time to stop thinking of the Constitution as a snapshot in history and more as a living document that sheperds us through life.
February 4, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterTroll
Big assumption, little guy. Words mean what they mean, and having a priesthood inventing new definitions in contradiction to what the common man knows them to mean is no law, merely a priestly oligarchy that shepherds you into your pen to feel all snug, warm and safe at night. Evidently, the liberatti is not up to the heavy-lifting task of following the rule book anymore, and has the bought-and-paid-for refs make up the rules during the game. Nice system, Troll, till the tide shifts against you. At least you tried to explain away such a craven, corrupt system of juris-prunes.
– C. dog seeking to uplift by separating
February 5, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterC. dog
That's a complete cop out, Doggie. If "Words mean what they mean" then why did we need the 13th amendment to remind us all that slaves were people and deserved freedom too? Why did we need the 15th amendment to remind us that black people are part of "We the people" and deserved to vote? Why did we need the 19th amendment to remind us that woman were people too? Why, previous to 1820, did people have to own land before they could vote? Were not citizens who rented also "We the people"? Why were poll taxes enacted and then declared unconstitutional? Because as time goes on, social conventions change and the law needs to be able to change with it (within the boundaries set out by the Constitution).

I also noticed you ignored the Leviticus analogy. You fail to explain the disparity between how the part of the Constitution that enumerates the rights to firearms is sacrosanct and yet the part that demands the Supreme Court settles any disagreement concerning said rights is, essentially, a violation of itself. That is the very definition of cherry picking.

The issue with your conjecture that the Supreme Court is "a priesthood inventing new definitions in contradiction to what the common man knows them to mean is no law" is defining "common man". Is the antisocial crackpot who lives in his bomb shelter and thinks the things haven't changed in 225 years the "common man"? I would argue no. It's time to poke your head out of the bunker, Punxsutawney Puppy and see the world as it is today, not 200 years ago.
February 5, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterTroll
Are you kiddin' me Troll? You answered my challenge and your questions with exactly what's supposed to happen: amendments, baby, amendments. In case you forgot, my initial inquiry way back when was why the dual citizen treatment between the non-enumerated right of recreational alcohol versus the enumerated right to bare arms shall not be infringed ... but it can be singed by Troll and his cabal of pervs in long flowing black robes.

What aspect of "not be infringed" don't you and the 9 perv priests understand? Even a fourth grader in a non-government skool understands this phrase, but admittedly, I doubt any utes partying hard at the University of New Hamsters would have a clue. Oh, I forgot, you and the other mystics open up constitutions like a whine and let them breath so the vapors provide divine inspiration as to what these words could possibly mean in order to enable the Political Uber Class to "sheapleherd us through life." How could we possibly get from cradle to grave without Nanny Obama's heavy hand prodding and poking us at every turn? Geeze, I thought MA-MA Land was for such docile critters, whereas New Hampshire was populated by a flinty stock demanding to live free.

So spin us another yarn, Troll, to see if you can catch a common man. You've been hangin' out with the developmentally stunted 'utes too long thinking your gossamer retorts would fly in such strong winds. The libotomized utes await instruction from their leaders to parrot what's what. As you are likely aware, to inject the surface treatment into their gray mush, no heavy lifting or washing of brain required, just a light rinse. The common man needs no leader to catch his fish, which, admittedly, is not so common anymore.

I still wunder what's going on under those robes, perhaps incantations to their dual-headed god? Or maybe a group tug?
– C. dog blissfully unchained from Troll's chattel class
February 5, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterC. dog

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.