Sunday, October 14, 2007

Two-Faced Hillary

Two Hillarys

The megawattage of Hillary’s smile depends on your usefulness to her ambition.

Crazy Mr Hsu gets the grin worth nearly a million dollars. What a shame Hillary had to give it all back. Those mean old campaign funding laws.

General Petraeus, on the other hand, gets the back of her hand for what she called his “dishonesty.”

Now that slur, coming from either of the Clintons, is hubris to the nth degree.

Two-faced Hillary,
She of forked tongue
Who can speak “southren”
To black Baptists
And venom to our heroes.


Tread lightly. Our next president may be a battleaxe.

Just drop by and tell us to which country you are planning to emigrate in January, 2009.


Hat tip: RP



[that’s all]

26 comments:

Robohobo said...

I am not going anywhere. I will bury the guns in the backyard along with the ammo stash. I have a couple of bait guns they can 'have'. I will do my best to protest the growth of the US 'Democratic' comintern. I will fight them as best I can. Years ago I made an oath:

"I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD."

When I got my DD214 there was not anyplace saying that I was released from that oath. When I got my "Honorable Discharge" certificate from the Department of the Army there was nothing in the letter or the cert saying that I was released from that oath. Bet most of you never thought of it all that way did you?

"...AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC..."

'Nuf said.

A Jacksonian said...

Mind you, Hillary didn't give it all back and looked for anyway she could to retain it or get some that she had given back returned to her...

We have major problems in the West, in that our educational institutions, media and political class have removed basic understanding of Western civilization from the population. If they don't teach it to you, then you can't forget it. If they don't talk about it, you don't know it exists. And if it doesn't exist then politicians are left with the *present* and no past to use as guide.

Hillary Clinton is an outgrowth of this... but the problem is endemic across the West. We know longer adhere to civilized standards and so we are losing civilization. That will be the end of us, left unchecked, and tyranny and despotism the result. When you are too effete to uphold civilized standards because they might just take some work, then you are looking to have your rights removed and get measured for shackles by those willing to do such work upon you.

I also swore Oath to the Constitution and uphold that. And the Law of Nations upon which it rests, along with the Black Book of the Admiralty. These are mentioned directly and indirectly in the Constitution and I must uphold those to be civilized, also. And they make what we have in the West special beyond all other things.

Not that you were taught those things or hear them talked about or find politicians that understand them....

ricpic said...

Dare I say it? Hillary's a woman (sort of). Women cannot be objective about any person or thing.
Marvelous creatures in the private sphere but disastrous in the public sphere.

Dymphna said...

ricpic...

No, you daren't say it. I am *not* going back to the kitchen, bud, so forget it.

In fact, I'm hoping the women's vote will defeat her. I don't know any woman who likes HRC (I'm sure the "C" part of her monogram would get shoved down the oubliette as soon as she was sworn in).

BTW, I'm quite "objective" though I did think Einstein, et al did a good job of putting paid to the hypothesis that anyone can be *truly* objective.

Mrs. Happy Housewife said...

Emigrate? Not a chance. Even if Hillary is elected, America will still be the greatest nation on Earth. Her husband couldn't change that and she can't either.

atheling2 said...

I am a woman, and I have to say that I agree somewhat with ricpic.

I know MANY women who will vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman, and not based on her credentials or positions on the issues. I live in a town that fancies itself as a "mini SF", so you get the picture.

Secondly, with a few stellar exceptions, like Margaret Thatcher, Queen Elizabeth I, et al, many women have been dismal in the political sphere. The rise of political correctness (which Florence King rightly identifies as "female sensitivity writ large") and multiculturalism coincide with the rise of feminist studies. Back in the 18th century, Jane Austen used the coinage "missishness" as a state of being primly offended. This state has entered the political arena and has been proven disastrous for our society.

I started to wake up to the idea of how feminism is destroying our civilization when I saw a female Hollywood star gushing about why she voted for Bill Clinton: he was just sooooo "cute"!!!

Made me start to question universal suffrage.

atheling2 said...

mrs. happy housewife:

I'm sorry to disagree with you.

Hillary Clinton is a socialist. She will pattern our economy, society and political sphere like Europe, which is falling apart.

Don't think for a moment that this country can't be destroyed. Benjamin Franklin himself said "You have a Republic; if you can keep it". He was well aware of how precarious a foothold freedom has in the world.

Subvet said...

I'll be sticking around. Stock up on ammo and get a few more guns. A few years back I'd have said only survivalist nuts talk like that. Things are certainly different.

God bless the Founding Fathers for the 2nd Amendment. It won't last long if Shrillary gets elected but it'll last long enough.

songdongnigh said...

I'll second Robohobo and A Jacksonian and add:

It is better to die on ones feet than to live on ones knees.

Here is the military Code of Conduct which should also be the Civilian Code of Conduct as there is longer such a thing as “behind the lines”.

I
I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
II
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.
III
If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
IV
If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
V
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
VI
I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

Dymphna said...

"feminism" and women are not coterminous, thank heaven.

Feminism as we know it is a miserable distillation of feelings of superiority decked out in the robes of equality,along with resentment, envy, righteous vengance, and an almost total ignorance of history or anthropology.

Hillary is certainly one of its prime examplars.

Normal women, however, have sometimes served quite well in public office. I don't think Elizabeth II is represetative of that ilk, however. What she has let happen in her country without speaking up about it, is shameful. Queen Margrethe II, of Denamrk, *has* spoken up forthrightly about what has happened in her country. Quite a difference.

Men are more represented in the public sphere because there are more of them with the necessary drive to attain prominence than there are women with such needs. OTOH, men are also over-represented in the bottom of the pile -- in prisons and mental hospitals.

Speaking in broad generalities, the majority of women don't have the agression/drive to attain prominence or disregard the law. In fact, the majority of women I've met in prison are there because they were aiding and abetting some man.

However, that doesn't mean women don't *belong* in the public sphere or that they can't ever be "objective." Following that idea to its logical conclusion, you are left with its corollary --that men can't be "subjective." Neither statement bears up under experience.

In fact, ricpic's contentioon re women denigrates men as much as it does women.

atheling2 said...

Dymphna:

I was referring to Elizabeth I, not Elizabeth II.

Agreed, that not ALL women are subjective and that all men are objective. However, a preponderance of gray does not negate the existence of black and white.

I also agree that many women don't have the drive... it's biological, I think. Endocrinology is a young science, but we can safely say that testosterone is more aggressive than estrogen.

atheling2 said...

I don't plan to emigrate.

I plan to fight.

bernie said...

Re testosterone is more aggressive than estrogen: I heard that the reason you never see Hillary wearing a very short skirt is that you'd be able to see her testicles if she bent over.

R. Hartman said...

"...AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES..."

If you take this literally it's going to be hard to fight Hillary should she become POTUS; she'd just order you to stand down...

Tapio said...

http://www.turunsanomat.fi/kulttuuri/?ts=1,3:1005:0:0,4:5:0:1:2007-10-15,104:5:492322,1:0:0:0:0:0:
The link tells a story about finnish artist, Antti Majava, who has put black fabric cube in the center of Place de Martyrs square over the statue of martyrs.

I find this puzzling since artists are usually leftists and maybe he is also but this serves double purpose and by artists own words he tries to encourage belgians to think about their independence.

Maybe he thinks he is trying to make a point which is more complicated than the statemens which are delivered by clothing naked statues of women into burkha, however i fail to see any difference.

If i were belgian, i'd be kind of glad of that art since it might wake up lots of people to think is this really what we want.

In the finnish article theres no mention of mecca while the similarity is obvious.

I could translate the article if i had the time but i believe you can find english articles about it from english news services.

Dymphna said...

aethling2 and bernie:

You're right. It's a matter of testosterone, but it's also more complicated, I think. We are hard-wired for different tasks. It would be the end of the species if women were explorers, etc., since they are needed for reproduction and nurture of the next generation. Without that, no more explorers.

To think of it experientially, imagine the waste of women if the Vikings sent them out on those long voyages...imaganie the societal turmoil if the left-behind men had nothing to do because the women were out doing it...which is what these nut-jobs who try to micromanage businesses would attempt to have us do.

I wonder if any correlation exists between female employment and male crime. If I had the stats, I'll bet I could build a case for it just by studying the time after the Civil War and forward, when bllack women could get domestic jobs but black men were hard put to gain meaningful employment.

The larger society realilzed that it was necessary to keep men subservient if they wanted to maintain the status quo.

Today, that legacy is lived out in the pernicious dole, which gives women money and food stamps for children. Patrick Moynihan warned us it would destroy the black family, and he was right.

Thanks for making your point re hormonal differences.

pleas said...

Please tell me where in the link you provided, the word "dishonesty" appears. Can you actually show that Clinton used that word, applied to General Petraeus?

By the way, I think the General is great. I'm just only concerned here with accurate reporting - I couldn't find the word you ascribe to the candidate in the article you linked.

Dymphna said...

pleas--

Here is the passage from the editorial in the Post I cited:

But Clinton not only couldn't bring herself to criticize it*, she also attacked Petraeus' honesty: "The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief," she huffed to the general Tuesday.

Telling someone that their reports require the "suspension of disbelief" is Political Speak for "you lied." To attack someone's honesty is to call them dishonest, no? If not, what is it??

*the "it" referred to above was Clinton's "pointed refusal" to criticize the disgraceful Moveon.org ad in the NYT which attacked Petraeus both as a man and a soldier.

Clinton can't afford to alienate moveon.scum because it forms a large part of Democrat base she needs to win.

Is it necessary to say "she attacked his honesty" instead of "she called him dishonest"? That's a bit subtle, imho.

Dymphna said...

More from the editorial on Clinton's remarks to Petraeus:

On the merits of Sen. Clinton's attack on Petraeus' report, we wonder:

* Does she have specific data to refute the general's numbers?

* Can she explain why someone like him would risk his career and reputation and lie to Congress?

* Will she show how the two intelligence agencies that vouch for him erred - or, worse, conspired with him to deceive the nation?

Of course not. On all three counts.

But Hillary's slur was an effective way to provide aid and comfort to MoveOn. "There is no greater slander to a soldier than an accusation of betrayal to his nation" [John McCain].

pleas said...

Thanks for your comments!

In other words, Clinton never really used the word "dishonesty" herself. It was the New York Post that put that harsh spin on her words, saying she had attacked the General's honesty.

The reason I brought this up is that when quotation marks are used with regard to statements made by a person, they imply a direct quote. All you had to do to maintain accuracy was to drop the quote marks - no need to be "subtle", as you put it.

Actually, her entire speech (and the Petraeus reply) is available at:

www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0907/Clinton_Believing_Petraeus_and_Crocker_requires_willing_suspension_of_disbelief.html

By the way, you might want to take a look at "suspension of disbelief" - Coleridge's phrase - at:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief

The Clinton-Petraeus exchange has already made its way into there!

atheling2 said...

pleas:

She called him a liar.

She is not fit to be commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces.

The Clintons have long been contemptuous of our military, and Hillary just re-affirmed it.

And the military dislikes the Clintons.

pleas said...

Dear atheling2:

The usual definition of a liar is someone who habitually and knowingly tells lies. Did Clinton accuse Petraeus of that? I don't think so.

Let's take an illustrative example - say that you come up to me and say "Chevies are the best car made." I look at you, and shaking my head, say, "No way you'll get me to believe that - I say Fords have been always better".

Now, when I say I don't believe you, I'm not calling you a liar. I'm merely stating that I have another opinion, and that it would take a lot more than what you have said to shake my belief. I have not, by saying so, ascribed any motivation to you. You might be misinformed with your facts, you might base your claims on sentimental reasons, or many other grounds, none of which imply that you are bending the truth, or deliberately trying to mislead me. Conceivably, you might even be right, and I myself wrong. Nonetheless, I differ with you strongly, and I say that. By doing so, I'm not calling you anything; I'm merely stating that my own opinion differs.

If you can't see that, you must have a lot of problems at church picnics.

Dymphna said...

pleas --

The example you use to compare what Clinton said to Patreus -- i.e., two people discussing their *opinion* about cars -- is a categorical error. These two situations -- car opinions vs. a carefully prepared report -- are simply not the same. It trivializes the General's work and is disingenuous.

Clinton, hanging suspended by her disbelief, used politico-speak to call the General a liar in the matter of his report to Congress. She did not call him a habitual liar, which seems to be your only allowable definition for that term.

I repeat: as the Post noted at the time:

* Does she have specific data to refute the general's numbers?

* Can she explain why someone like him would risk his career and reputation and lie to Congress?

* Will she show how the two intelligence agencies that vouch for him erred - or, worse, conspired with him to deceive the nation?

Of course not. On all three counts.


Clinton was out to slur the General and she succeeded. Anything else is merely semantics.

You may have the last word if you wish, but I'm done with the argument. You have not presented any facts, just opinion. As did Mrs. Clinton.

Have at it.

pleas said...

Dear Dymphna:

Thank you for the opportunity to reply. This will also be my final contribution to this interesting exchange.

I would like to mention the following:

First, my definition of the word "liar" – as usually meaning a person who habitually and knowingly tells untruths – is straight from the dictionary (the three-volume Webster's Third New International, to be specific). It is the given primary meaning – coming before the single other definition provided for the word (the rather self-evident "one that lies"). In other words, my meaning is the standard one for the word.

Second, I assume that by "categorical error" you are referring to the concept "category mistake" aka "category error" aka "type-mistake" (that last term after Russell). One place succinctly defines this as a "semantic or ontological error by which a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property". I see nothing in my illustration that contains a category mistake, by that commonly accepted definition.

Now, when I gave my example with the cars, it was for the purpose of showing that when somebody disagrees with someone else's opinion, even strongly (as Clinton did with the General), this does not logically entail that a claim is being made about that person's moral character, or truthfulness, or integrity – as many people here seem to think, and the NY Post would like us to believe. (Scientists disagree strongly all the time, but we don't consider that to be a case of one calling the other a liar, just because of wide public differences in opinion.)

To separate the "dishonesty" usage claim for analysis from the question session in the Senate (an emotionally charged theme, I think, for many of the readers here), I used a trivial example – a technique widely employed in philosophy for such purposes. There is nothing inappropriate in doing so. My choice of example had nothing to do with the veracity or any lack thereof of the Petraeus testimony, and I think it rather unfair of you to claim that I was trivializing his document.

As I see it, the answer to my original plain question regarding Clinton's choice of words during the Senate question session is settled: nowhere did she call Petraeus "dishonest" or a "liar", nor were such terms implied. These are claims imposed on her statements by others with a political ax to grind. She certainly had differences of opinion with some aspects of his testimony, though. Spin versus spin, as I see it.

I highly recommend to all a reading of the General's testimony, and also a viewing of the polite (by Senate terms) Clinton questioning of the next day in its entirety. It's fairly clear that like my former commanding officer Jay Garner, Petraeus is taking the rap for the Bush administration's errors.

By the way, should Petraeus pull off what now appears to be an impossible pacification program, he would certainly get my vote for President further down the line, if he ever got around to running for that office. I always go with anyone who can exercise pure magic!

falcon_01 said...

Mine was just:

"I, (Full Name) having been appointed a (Rank) in the United States Air Force, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, SO HELP ME GOD."

I've made the point elsewhere that the oath never expires.
I'm with robohobo, subvet, and songdongnigh.
As far as "orders" from treasonous higher ups- that's garbage! Unlawful orders that violate the Constitution are just that, unlawful. It is our honor-bound duty not to follow unlawful orders, even if they come from the top. In any case, the Codes of Conduct are clear.

USpace said...

Hillary is evil. Stalin believed he was 'doing the right thing' too.

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
elect women presidents

who cover for their husbands
who rape other women


if you're MAD
punish America
- VOTE for Hillary


http://absurdthoughtsaboutgod.blogspot.com/
.