Sunday, June 14, 2015

Democrat Males—Do not Apply!

A strange though predictable thing has happened on the way to the democrat candidate-nominating process, to wit, that neither party honchos nor the pundits have considered that the nominee could be male. When doubt has been expressed about Hillary Clinton's chances account, for instance, her proclivity for deviousness (humongous outright lies or governmental emails on a personal computer/server, with a third already erased), attention has turned automatically to Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts senator and former Harvard Law professor, known for her bogus claims about Indian heritage. Is there no democrat man up to the job?

Clinton is embroiled in the Clinton Foundation so-called fund-raising activities, tagged by some as influence-peddling on a gigantic scale, not to mention personal enrichment. The millions both she and hubby Bubba have been paid for “speeches” are so transparent as to require uber-professionally structured spin, lest the great unwashed catch on to the subterfuge.

Ms. Clinton is holding no press conferences of substance, lest someone ask about these shenanigans, some involving inordinately wealthy Middle East partners in who have bottomless pockets. This money comes from countries in which women are treated as chattel, but never mind that...the cause is righteous. When Ms. Pelosi became speaker again in 2009, she made much of the fact that a grandmother would straighten up the place, warm-fuzzy goodness transforming the nation.

Women HAVE made great gains in the last 20 years not just in government but across the board in the professional areas—medicine, legal, judicial, education. They were supposed to bring goodness and light to the country and above all – HONESTY. They've proven to be as greedy, opportunistic, and dishonest as men. Men, especially white men whose forefathers made this nation what it is (for good or ill but at least powerful and prosperous), have made every effort to surrender, lest they be called chauvinists or, worse, politically incorrect deniers of the god Diversity.

This segues into the difference between men and women. Women are unalterably (but unfairly except for a handful) connected with the “oldest profession,” the selling of the body for money. The men sell their bodies for the battlefield, which promises no personal profit but a grim chance for death. No one with at least half-sense believes that the current drive to put women in combat is any more than potentially deadly recognition of the god Diversity, with an impossible unisex as normal and unavoidable catastrophic military consequences.

The tone is set through the media not just in entertainment venues but in the supposedly “serious” news outlets. The girl-anchor/commentator crowd shows as much thigh and cleavage as possible, not to sell their bodies but to command attention not to news but to themselves. The one consistent exception is Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren, who looks serious while handling serious subjects. In other words, the news-ladies still consider themselves as sex objects more than as journalists. Compare their appearance with that of the suit-tie-coat-mode of the men anchors/newsmen to get the picture.

So...why is Hillary Clinton a shoo-in? With regard to the above, she would say, “What difference does it make?” She has absolutely no bona fides for the presidency. She owes everything in her political adventure to the simple fact that she married Bill Clinton. As a senator in a hearing including David Petraeus as a witness, she told the general he could not be believed (ironically, perhaps her crowning achievement in matters of integrity); as state secretary, she was complicit in the unprovoked U.S./NATO rape of Libya, with much blood on her hands, not to mention her Rose Garden lie about Benghazi, the lie she even repeated privately and with total insensitivity to the survivors of those killed in that massacre.

The country deserves better—man or woman. She has the inside track because she has the blocs to guarantee it – nearly all blacks, women up to age 35 (they vote), Hispanics, and the 47% of households that pay no taxes but vote how to spend other people's money. But a democrat man, especially one with military experience, could get most of that vote, too. Surely, the Democrat Party can come up with a believable candidate even if it might be male. Hillary in the Oval Office is bizarreness stretched past snapping.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

No comments: