"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." The Statue of Liberty (P.S. Please be so kind as to enter through the proper channels and in an orderly fashion)

Location: Arlington, Virginia, United States

Friday, February 22, 2008

Leftthink 101

I. Profiles

In the February 17 post ("Billary"), Billary's characteristic way of talking out of both sides of their mouths was discussed, as exemplified by Hillary's desire to discount the numerical, democratic outcome of the primaries by pursuing an unconventional (though not unprecedented) superdelegate strategy while simultaneously calling for the disqualified but pro-Hillary delegates of Michigan and Florida to be seated at the convention because "Every vote counts":

“I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of The People.”

The opportunity was taken there to point out the typical lefty rhetorical tactic of tacking on hyperbolic adverbs to turn the volume up, as posted:
She not only 'believes' in that, but believes 'strongly.' That is a dead giveaway that she believes nothing of the sort, as her pending failsafe plan to subvert the plebiscite via Superdelegate decree will prove...
To elaborate, in order for the irrational, emotionally-driven-and-exploitive lefty to compete head-to-head with the rationality of conservative thought in the political arena, the former has resorted--first as a matter of survival, and then advancement--to lies.

It is not so much a calculating premeditation when debating extemporaneously and put on the spot, but a reflexive way of arguing, as these lies are most often ejected by knee-jerk psychological defense mechanisms, but they make their way into prepared speeches and statements, as well.

Projection is the defense mechanism that first springs forth from the lefty mind and it results in inversions of reality of the type that Milton's Lucifer relished:

"I'll make a hell of heaven and a heaven of hell."

To the mass of the classically-illiterate and easily-led population (as animalized by Orwell), it works, and what was indulged in childhood and adolescence but preserved well into adulthood by the emotionally-retarded and--above all-- egocentric leftist demagogue is then used as a sophomorically-sophisticated offensive weapon and has even been formalized as argument in ways that would make the ancient Greek sophists like Protagoras proud.

Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four "Newspeak" fictionally diagrams such non-fictional formalizations well (e.g. "blackwhite doublethink").

Again, much of those wordgames were originally bred by psychological defense mechanisms, and the lefty uses them in lieu of a sound argument built on logic.

The most common defense mechanism to manifest itself is projection and the resulting inversion, and those serve to quickly exchange qualities and level the playing field, if not actually invert the positions 90 degrees, to wit:

"The American soldiers are 'terrorists' and the Iraqi insurgents are 'Freedom Fighters.'"

Or, put simply:

"Good is bad and bad is good."

Such a switcharoo of fundamental premises is subtle, as it takes place beneath the categorical layers of an intricate worldview (e.g. the Left Hegelian's, who inverted Hegel and influenced Marx), and that inconspicuousness is the only way the lefty can argue "I'm right and you're wrong" without being put in stocks in the public square and being ridiculed by the passing townsfolk.

Another defense mechanism that rears its head is overcompensation (and that is what's behind the hyperbolic adverbs and hysterical exaggeration of--often projected--bad qualities):

"I am PROFOUNDLY sorry."

(Bill Clinton about "misleading" everybody after the DNA on the blue dress told the truth)

"Sorry" won't do (despite "sorry" meaning sorry), it seems. He is "Profoundly" sorry-- which leads one to believe that when he says he's just sorry, he really isn't, or not sufficiently, which leaves the entire sentiment suspect even after attaching superlatives to it (especially when examining just how "sorry" he was since, by his tenacious holding on to power and willingness to launch counterattacks to preserve it--hardly the actions of a penitent--it is hard to determine just what he was sorry for, aside from the obvious failing of getting caught).

What they're doing there is frantically pumping up a hot air balloon to make a small--and often untrue--point get really, REALLY BIG, often to distract from something else, e.g. the untruth of that made VERY true by the adverb, or, when accusatory, their own guilt in embodying that projected quality, making their guilt insignificant by comparison to the hyperbolic projection onto the adversary.

Both--projection/inversion plus overcompensation--were on excellent display during the Clinton and Bush 43 eras, as the most hardcore of Clinton-loving leftists had their voices heard loud and clear and what they said (or didn't say) about one (lefty and liked) president can be compared to what was and still is said about another (conservative and hated) one when involving the same issues (e.g. character, war, the economy, etc.).

cf.: Former President Bill Clinton's compulsive mendacity is well-documented throughout his life. He was finally impeached on charges of self-evident perjury but escaped conviction and removal of office because of his and his supporter's political strategem of demonizing the prosecution (a la the O.J. Simpson defense strategy).

Nevertheless, after he left office and was out of the spotlight, a judge in Arkansas saw fit to strip him of his licence to practice law, punishing him (beneath the public radar) for lying under oath (i.e. commiting perjury).

He was nevertheless welcomed back to the helm of the Democratic Party establishment and was made its "elder statesman."

President Bush's "Sixteen Words" from a State of the Union Address that referred to a British intelligence report about Saddam Hussein's outreach to uranium-rich Niger were sixteen words out of many thousands in one speech and were but one rationale for taking action against a genocidal dictator out of many indisputable ones, yet the childish, Clinton-Loving Bush-Haters--silent when Clinton attacked Iraq on the exact same rationales of clandestine WMD development--snapped (after Joseph Wilson IV lied by saying Bush lied):

"Bush LIED!"

It didn't end there, however. For years afterward (and still flaring up like a rash here and there), it was pounded:

"BUSH LIED AND IS A LIAR!"..."HE'S A LIAR-LIAR-PANTS-ON-FIRE!"..."BUSH IS A LYING LIAR WHO TELLS LIES!" (Al Franken)..."HE IS THE MISLEADER-IN-CHIEF!" (after it was Clinton, not Bush, who infamously confessed "I misled"--but of course, not "lied.")

That's not only obvious--and annoyingly childish-- projection from a shameless crowd that defended--and still defends--the perpetually prevaricating Clinton tooth & nail (and self-evident that the aggressive "Bush is a Liar" propaganda campaign was engineered by vindictive Clintonites in the attempt to drown out the immediately-preceding record of Clinton's serial and Impeached lies), but is overcompensating overkill, as well.

Incidentally, the report by British intelligence still stands.

The overcompensation is necessary to add volume to Bush's pan on the scale in the judgment of history and bring it down while the opposing Clinton pan rises up in the estimate of the good (God bless 'em all) American people (and their legendary short-term memory, if not their bountiful capacity to forgive), who seem to confuse volume with gravity if yelled loud and long enough (while inversely subtracting gravity from silence, which can be the most grave of all if listened to).

And voila: Billary reappears as one who presided over a time of Peace, Prosperity, Government Ethics & Integrity to "clean up the mess" left by a president who has abused the military, presided over a ballooned economy, and is a liar.

A perfect, inverted projection.

Now the two-headed Billary is careful to keep some distance from the typical lefty (who actually has more integrity) and will change colors--and their words-- rightward when politically opportune, but that is because they are in the political sphere of influence.

What they really think, however, can be gleaned from the writings of leftist kindred spirits who are unshackled by the political necessities of Leftspeak and are able to write what they really believe with some consistency (however much consistency the inherent contradictions of Leftist thought allows) in some ivory tower of lefty academia that's not subject to review from millions across the heartland (but now you know why lefty politicians like to keep their college treatises under lock & key).

Nevertheless, however much they try to triangulate and dress and try to speak the part of the wholesome, straight-shooting American, the mind of Billary is a perfected specimen of un-American Leftthink, as just about any one of their prepared--as well as ex tempore-- statements can be analyzed with the tools provided by the analysis above and be shown to be chock-full of multiple projections, overcompensations, and the entire gamut of defense mechanisms that serve as red herrings to distract from the simple truth.

i.e. They lie.

II. Case Study

Just the other morning, in Dallas, Hillary asserted:

You know I made it very clear that this election is about all of you. It's about your futures, your families, your jobs.

What is clear is that, much more often than not, simple and even innocuous sounding statements like that one are rife with the qualities discussed, and look here what that one 23 word statement is loaded with:

(1) "You know I made it very clear":

First off, the gratuitousness of that flags deviousness off the bat.

We expect our leaders to be adults of good character, who tell it like is and not concern themselves with skeptics or enemies parsing what they say and reading into their statements words that just aren't there (they will always do that and never be satisfied).

Like President Bush. His enemies constantly subject his statements to clairvoyant, fill-in-the-blank interpretations when there's not even a blank there to be filled. This is partly because they try to read in their own (projected) malfeasance, i.e. what they themselves would do if they were in the president's shoes in the same context.

In the campaign of 2000, Candidate Bush warned of a looming recession. The Democratic Party (the home of the Leftist) screamed "BUSH IS TALKING DOWN THE GREAT CLINTON ECONOMY FOR POLITICAL GAIN!" while admitting in the process the role of consumer confidence in the economic equation and the influence politicians wield towards that.

Candidate Bush was stating a fact. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan had earlier warned about the "irrational exuberance" behind the trumpeted excesses of "The Clinton Economy" and began fiddling with interest rates in anticipation of the crunch.

Bush was right. And for the entire climb out of the hole left by an imploded Dot.Com balloon, megacorporate scandals (that were birthed and grew during the "Great Clinton Economy"), and 9/11 (preventable if Clinton took serously both of bin Laden's declarations of war against the U.S. and its citizens and took up the foreign offer for his handover, legal niceties be damned) the opposition saw fit to... down the economy.

And they're still doing it.

They themselves demonstrated with the 2000 charge that accused Bush of "talking down the economy" that they were projecting, because that is precisely what they themselves have been doing.

As to Hillary's assertion, one could easily imagine Bush--or any president--saying: "This election is about all of you."

In that hypothetical, however, Bush would feel no self-conscious compulsion to add qualifying assurances like "You know I made it very clear that this election is about all of you."

Have you ever heard Bush say such drivel? Can you even imagine him saying that? It would be uncharacteristic.

However, Hillary felt she had to include such a compounded assertion because she knows that people question her motives. That is indeed an issue which may necessitate addressing to allay such suspicions (not that Bush would care to dignify such suspicions if he knows--and he would know better than anyone else--it's not true), but if she truly is misunderstood and cares for "The People" she is attempting to lord over and felt she had to address a hypothetically untrue perception, she would come out and say something like: "Despite what is being said about me, believe it or not, I know this election is about more."

She came nowhere near saying something of such simplicity that keeps the authority of mind-reading where it belongs: on herself. Instead, she clairvoyantly accused: "You know I made it very clear."

"You know" is most often used by adolescents who are at a loss for words and appeal to the compassion and/or some clairvoyant empathy of their listener to understand what they mean (most commonly rendered as "I mean gosh, ya know?").

An adult in the know may use it an accusatory fashion to a dissembling juvenile, as in "You know you're lying. Now tell the truth."

An adult using it on another adult, however, can be condescending ("I know you're lying so you must know it, too," or "Don't be in denial") and/or an attempt to control by the power of suggestion.

That works effectively on weak-willed individuals susceptible to suggestion and who let others plant "what they know" in their heads (followers one and all, and well-exemplified by the captive audience of animals in Orwell's Animal Farm).

And you know how "clear" it is because it isn't just an opaque kind of clear (though clear means clear), but VERY clear, so you must know that her campaign is for you. It's not only an asserted "fact," but an "obvious" one.

Again, like the hyperbolic adverbs, superlative adjectives are dead giveaways that the fact of the matter is nowhere near the magnitude that is artificially magnified, and is often just a distraction from the fact that the matter's true nature is often the opposite of the way it's characterized.

"Very" clear? Au contraire, it's not clear at all, despite the magnified assertion.

The Left's insistent assertions of "the facts" are often at such a sheer--and obvious-- disconnect from reality that either they themselves consider their audience to be mindless, malleable sheep (who need others to tell them what they "know") or, if they believe what they spew, they do indeed see things backwards.

It must be a mixture of both with varying amounts of respective parts from lefty to lefty.

A prominent example of the lefty assertions of "fact" disconnected from actual reality was the lefty pile-on in 1988 when Bush 41 was gearing up for his presidential run after eight years of Reagan.

Reagan was despised by the left (very much like Bush 43 is today) and they didn't want another 4-8 years of a Republican in the White House, so Bush 41's character was attacked relentlessly before and throughout the primary season.

The charge: He was a "wimp." (i.e. a VERY timid man)

Newsweek headlined the epithet "THE WIMP FACTOR" on it's cover. Popular political Doonesbury cartoonist Gary Trudeau depicted him in his syndicated strips as a disembodied feather.

They pounded that into the culture: Vice President George H. Bush is a wimp.

The facts:

George H. Bush came from a privileged, blue-blooded family that could have assured his safety in WWII.

Instead, he became the youngest pilot in the Navy, was shot down over the Pacific, was rescued by a surfacing submarine, and earned the Distinguished Flying Cross.

He was CIA chief when the American government was making moves and taking gambits against the Soviet Union in the high-stakes chess game of the Cold War that had tripwires of mutually assurred destruction laced across the board.

By the time he became president, his and his colleague's steady work paid off and the Soviet Union was check-mated and the Berlin Wall came down, winning the Cold War without firing a shot.

Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and answered Bush 41's demand to leave with a promise to fight the "Mother Of All Battles."

Bush 41 kicked him out anyway.

Bush 41 celebrated his 80th birthday by skydiving.

Say what you will about the man, but Bush 41 is-- self-evidently and quite simply-- not a "wimp."

And yet...there it was, saturating the culture:


So the caricatures sketched from false premises, the hyperbolic adverbs, and exaggerated "very-very" superlatives are in almost all usage in lefty diatribes either an attempt to artificially magnify the actual diminutive nature of the charge, or that the charge itself is not only false but nearly--if not precisely--the polar opposite of the real nature of that thus characterized.


"George W. Bush has bankrupted America and is presiding over the worst economy since the Great Depression!"


Cyclical, economic downturn aside, the United States of America in 2008--and for years-- has and is enjoying an unemployment rate better than the average enjoyed during "The Great Clinton Presidency" ("Great" only because of the economic expansion brought on by the likes of Bill Gates) from 1992 to 2000 (the tech-driven recovery actually began before Bush "Worst-Economy-Since-The-Great-Depression" 41 left office).

Most economists would agree that we have been at full employment for quite some time now.

The United States today is the wealthiest country in the world and the wealthiest ever in world history.

Say what you will about sub-prime loans, outsourcing, deficit spending, and even recession, you can not honestly liken the new skylines of American cities to Hoovervilles.

e.g: "President Bush is the worst president in American history!"

Now see here: George Bush is "worse" than a President who accomplished zero (like W. Harrison)? Bush is worse than an American president who became a Confederate senator (Tyler)? George Bush appeased and dawdled while the likelihood of mass state secession mounted year after year (like Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan did)? The Union collapsed and a cascade of states simultaneously seceded upon inauguration (talk about Red State/Blue State tensions), and internecine slaughter of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers was allowed to put it back together (like Lincoln)? Bush was Impeached (like Johnson & Clinton)? Bush's pals embroiled him in serious scandal (like Grant's, Harding's & Clinton's)? An economic depression occurred on Bush's watch (like Hoover)? Bush enacted a socialist, government program that arguably destroyed entire generations of minorities, and escalated a foreign war that cost the lives of tens of thousands of American servicemen, and then got squeamish and defeatist about it (like LBJ)? Bush resigned in disgrace (like Nixon)?

Bush is "worse" than Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton?

Now consider this widely-circulated, insistent assertion of "fact" again:

"Bush is the worst president in American history."

He's "the worst" because the Bush-Haters hate him even more than they hated Bush 41, Reagan, Ford, and Nixon and they discount any B.C. (i.e. Before "Camelot") presidency because lefties are temporally egocentric and for them American history began in 1960.

So what leftists assert as "fact"--particularly if it is gratuitously or hysterically hyperbolic and qualified with superlatives (like "very worst")-- is more often than not nothing of the sort, and often the inverse.

So what do we "know" that Hillary has made "very clear?"

"...that this election is about all of you."

She's asserting the opposite of reality. She herself knows that most of the American people now know that this election--as far as Billary is concerned--is primarily about and for themselves. She knows that cat is out of the bag, so she's trying to put it back in by asserting the opposite: "You know that's not true. I'm very clearly doing this for you."

There's more:

(2) "It's about your futures, your families, your job."

What she was doing there was this:

The "you know" and "your futures" and "your families" and "your job" are simply part of a new talking points strategy in reaction not too long ago to Bill's "ME-ME-ME & I & MYSELF and MY Library and MY Harlem office and MY Arkansas governorship, etc. speech in Missouri (granted, it's the "Show Me" state, but...).

That was but another Bill episode that hurt the campaign and sent him into hiding for a spell (Until the next newscycle, whereupon he reemerges pretending that--mutatis mutandis-- the previous buffoonery never happened), but it amplified the growing realization--by most everyone, this time-- that Bill is an egocentric, conceited, self-serving man in love with himself (which was obvious 16 years ago if anybody cared to watch and listen carefully), and Hillary is attached to that.

And so, aware of the growing discernment, Hillary now throws a lot of "yous" around to deflect attention away from the self-centered "ME" that is driving her ambition.

It's true. The increased frequency of Billary's "you" in her speeches began to spike after Bill's Me-speech in Missouri.

Of course, there was something else in operation there. Projection:

"It's about your futures, your families, your job," she championed.

Moreso than Billary's own future, family, and job?

She was projecting. As per the new "It's-All-About-You" strategy, she simply replaced the inherent "Me, My, and Mine" with "You." And not just "you," mind you, but "ALL of YOU."

Yes, "Everyone." It's all about everyone but her. That's the inversion.

So listen well. 23 words can speak volumes and tell you all you need to know:
You know I made it very clear that this election is about all of you. It's about your futures, your families, your jobs.


At the end of last night's debate with Obama, Hillary said:
And, you know, no matter what happens in this contest … I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored. Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people, and that’s what this election should be about.
The audience gave a standing ovation. Hillary's spokesman said it showed her strength and compassion.

Bill said it showed off the real Hillary Clinton.

Really Bill? The real Hillary is a plagiarising copycat?

When Edwards announced that he was suspending his campaign, he said:
But I want to say this to everyone: With Elizabeth, with my family, with my friends, with all of you and all of your support, this son of a millworker’s gonna be just fine. Our job now is to make certain that America will be fine.
This on the immediate heels of her latest campaign tactic to attack Obama's superior eloquence by accusing him of using other people's words.

Has she lost her mind?

Where's Oliver Stone?

DALLAS, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- The Secret Service told Dallas police to stop screening for weapons while people were still arriving at a campaign rally for Barack Obama, a report said.

Hm. I hope those aren't the same cryptofascist agents in Dallas who put the top down for JFK's Lincoln Continental and diverted the car to pass by the Texas Schoolbook Depository window ("at the last minute").

Seriously, on three separate occassions now I've heard people darkly predict that Barrack would be assassinated.

The first time was from someone who I knew was a racist (which is pathetic in this day and age), and I dismissed it as the wishful thinking of his type.

I told him those days are past.

The second time was from a European friend of mine (a Spaniard), a good natured man who predicted that would happen because he didn't have the highest opinion of American culture and came to that prediction because of typically European prejudices against America (e.g. we're racist, violent, etc.).

I told him, too, that those days were past.

Then, on CBS News, anchor Harry Smith stunned Ted Kennedy with a line of questioning regarding the potential for a Barack Obama assassination.

Well. There are always potential assassins out there, for every president (hence the Secret Service) and even presidential primary contenders (e.g. RFK), so politicians--especially lightning-rods for attention like Barrack--should be afforded security in proportion to their prominence and the threat-levels to their personal safety.

However, we have indeed come a long way. African Americans are a visible, contributive, and integral part of American culture, and, IM(not so)HO, attacks on politicians today would far more likely come from unhinged, partisan considerations than superficial ones (e.g. racist motives).

Furthermore, political assassins much more often than not have an anarchist and/or socialist leftist mindset (as presidential assassins and assassination attempters are wont to have, with the exception of the first one, John Wilkes Booth-- who was, nevertheless, a drama-queen equivalent to today's Hollywood Bush-hating liberal-- and Garfields assassin, Charles Julius Guiteau, who was a [Stalwart] Republican but delusional), so I think the Secret Service should still keep most of its muscle behind the hated white guys Bush and Cheney than the beloved populist Barrack.

Those days are past.

A Letter To Victor Davis Hanson

In today's NRO postings, the esteemed Victor Davis Hanson wrote an article ("Yippy Ti Yi Yo, Europe!") about utopian EU realities and referred to the situation in Kosovo therein.

He wrote:
Consider Kosovo again. Europe is invested, quite rightly I think, in promoting its independence. But it is a Muslim country...
I know VDH--no fan of Bill Clinton, and a philhellene to boot (the Orthodox Greeks were sympathetic to the Orthodox Serbs' territorial issues with ethnic Albanians)-- was a strong supporter of military intervention in 1999, presumably on humanitarian grounds, but I wouldn't have thought that such a strong proponent of Western Judeo-Christian integrity supported Albanian, Muslim expansionism in an Orthodox stronghold (particularly since he frequently laments the folly of EU multicultural integration without the proper mechanisms in place for assimilation).

So I wrote him a letter, which may very well never see the light of day, so I reproduced it here to share my thoughts on the matter:

Professor Hanson:

In "Yippy Ti Yi Yo Europe," you opined: "Consider Kosovo again. Europe is invested, quite rightly I think, in promoting its independence. But it is a Muslim country..."

I neither understand your opinion that Kosovo should become independent or your characerization that it is a "Muslim country."

Should the Kurdish section of Iraq be granted sovereignty? And is it a "Kurdish country?" How about Northern Cyprus? And is that a "Muslim country?" Perhaps you are characterizing in strictly demographic terms. If so, how about the Southwestern United States? Is California a "Mexican country?"

They're not quite apples and oranges. The rationales for Kosovar Independence put forth by KLA activists have their origins in the expansionist "Greater Albania" movement, the ideology of which does indeed sound very much like Aztlanist mythology.

And Serbia's cultural claims on Kosovo resonate as strongly as Israel's on Jerusalem, so I trust you understand the sensation of a disconnect I feel here.

End of letter.

As one of Greek Orthodox heritage (and good luck finding many others of a similar conservative mindset and Republican sympathies), I found the agrressive stance against the Christian Milosevic--for the sake of the Muslim narcoterrorist KLA who pursue a dream of a "Greater Albania"-- odd.

True, Milosevic was engaging in ethnic cleansing, but it was in the context of a tit-for-tat turf war that has been going on for centuries.

That's not an excuse to justify the barbarity of ethnic cleansing, but is meant to point out the doubler-standard:

After the empowerment of the Albanian Kosovars (thanks to the 1999 air war on their behalf), they themselves turned around and began engaging in...ethnic cleansing!

While Clinton basked in his military "victory" and enjoyed a dog-wagged, post-Impeachment bump in his approvals, Serbs were murdered in retaliation and their 800-year-old churches torched. In fact, more churches were destroyed since NATO's "peacekeepers" entered Kosovo than were lost under 400 years of occupation by the Ottoman Turks (who weren't too squeamish about destroying the worship centers of Christendom).

The KLA (i.e. Kosovo Liberation Army) financed much of its war effort through human trafficking and the sale of heroin (hence the epithet "KLA narcoterrorists"), and some of its members were trained in terrorist camps run by...Osama bin Laden.

Bin Laden visited the Balkans at least three times between 1994-1996, and while Clinton underwrote the Bosnian Muslim government of Alija Izetbegovic, his embassy in Vienna had given bin Laden a passport in 1992.

Meanwhile, in his self-indulgent, self-congratulatory autobiography My Life, Clinton lists his unilateral, unprovoked bombardment of Kosovo as a "success" (with the high drama of almost depleting the entire active inventory of cruise missiles while Milosevic hid safely behind a Rembrandt the whole time).

And now you have his general Wesley Clark front & center defensively defending the "successful" operation (certainly in the interest of Billary's campaign and her touted foreign policy "experience").

He doth protest too much, methinks...

The strange, double-standard against the Serbs was particularly blatant when Clinton refused to pause bombing on Orthodox Easter (cf. his contemporary respite during Operation Desert Fox--his bombing campaign against Iraq-- for the sake of honoring Ramadan), so something stunk.

Eight years later (last summer in fact), I befriended a Serbian foreign-exchange student who was the lifeguard at my apartment complex's pool, and I took the opportunity to hear his point-of-view. I expressed my belief that we had bombed the wrong side, and asked why he thought the Serbians were demonized so to enable that.

From a sophisticated--perhaps cynical/conspiratorial--European point-of-view, he blamed a cryptic, geopolitical plot that aimed to fracture the traditionally Eastern Orthodox bloc of Balkan countries for the interests of other nations.

I don't know anything about that, but that explanation is as good as any when trying to fathom why on earth are the United States and EU countries like France and Germany, and VDH to boot, promoting Kosovar Independence at the expense of a UN member's sovereignty?

That was all in a pre-9/11 context, during the Clinton presidency, and "seem like far off mountains turned into clouds," as the waking Demetrius characterized the morning after Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, but lo and behold, in the midst of a primary season wherein Hillary waddles around and references the foreign policy "accomplishments" of her faux-husband as hers by osmosis, the good Lord himself, it seems, has condescended once again and stirred a pot for us to smell and remind us what kind of dishes the Clintons had cooked up years ago.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

The Fruits of Clinton's War

MSNBC is consulting Clintonites Wesley Clark and Jamie Rubin for their "objective" expertise on the rioting in Kosovo.

Clark said: "This is clearly the fault of the Serbian government."

Barbara Streisand. It's the fault of the Clintonites choosing to help the wrong side in a tit-for-tat civil war that involved indigenous Orthodox Christian Serbs and Muslim Albanian expansionists so Clinton could compensate for Impeachment by commander-in-chiefing a spectacular air war over Kosovo in the Spring of 1999 to (1) "wag the dog" by aping Bush 41's spectacular show of force in the Gulf War, (2) simultaneously kiss up to the Muslim world in his failed Legacy Quest to bring peace to the Middle East (which would entail Hillary kissing Mrs. Arafat on the cheek and Bill to treat the PLO terrorist Yasser like a foreign dignitary, not that any of that earned any gratitude for America if dancing by Palestinians on 9/11 was any indication), and (3, and the public, rationalizing cover for 1 & 2) force the Serbian Milosevic to stop hitting the Albanians back.

In Clinton's sales job to the American people for the unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation in the heart of Europe (and to be sure, every president has had to make his case to the American people for going to war), Clinton's propaganda machine resorted to hysterical, fear-mongering warnings that (1) WWI was triggered by the Archduke Ferdinand's assassination in the Balkans (so, uh, you know), and that (2) Milosevic could very-well-maybe-so-perhaps-coud-be hiding "dirty-nukes" (i.e. WMD), so it was imperative that we (3) stopped the genocide of Albanians that was likened to the Holocaust (not even close), or else!

(Not a peep from the antiwar crowd for rationalizing a war on bogus and/or highly exaggerated grounds, and bypassing authorization from both the U.S. Congress and the U.N.)

So Clinton got his war (not long after after he whined to his advisor Dick Morris that he wished he had one because every great president did).

Anyay, Kosovo, Serbia, is heavily populated by Albanians (who have their own country, Albania) but Kosovo is to Serbia what Los Angeles--if not New York City-- is to the United States, i.e. an important part of its identity, so Kosovo's declaration of its independence is an outrage to the Serbians.

It is precisely as if the burgeoning Mexican community in Los Angeles reached critical mass and declared independence from the United States.

Meanwhile, the Serbs are being portrayed as the bad guys because they're storming the American embassy, burning the American flag, and waving signs that say stuff like "Down With American Terrorism."

That certainly can't be condoned, but it shouldn't be demonized, either.

Here's what the Serbians suffered because of Bill "Peace & Prosperity" Clinton's desire to unleash American air power on a defenseless people (on behalf of Muslim separatists in a sovereign European Christian nation):

So they're upset with America's one-sided meddling in a centuries-old Civil War against Albanian narcoterrorists (who have since the American-led NATO air attack turned Kosovo into an underground railroad of sorts for al Qaeda) and are lashing out.

The sheer overkill of the air attack in 1999 on a Yugo-producing European country was overseen by Supreme NATO Commander Wesley Clark, hence his own lashing out and his blaming of the righteously-indignant Serbs for blaming him and Bill.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008


Monday, February 18, 2008

Look Who's Talking

The Billary campaign accused Barack Obama of plagiarism because he repeated a clever, rhetorical repartee that Massachussets governor--and his friend-- Deval Patrick used.

That's rich. They're projecting. Bill Clinton has been flagrantly aping JFK since he was 16.

[Barack, though, is guilty of doing same recently, particularly in intonation, and the volunteered contributions of JFK's 79 year old speechwriter Ted Sorenson vicariously puts JFK's scripted lexicon into his mouth: "I've given (the Obama campaign) a phrase or suggestion or two," Sorensen admitted.]

Hillary recently tried to visually plagiarize Maggie Thatcher by wearing her distinctive blue on a primary night.

The Clintons are the quintessential copycats.

While campaignng in Iowa in November, Hillary decided to tell a little story about how she was going to clean up the mess in Washington. She struck her cloying "by-golly-gee" cookie-cutting pose and rested her head in her hand like a beleagured housewife and sighed: "Oh my goodness. I feel like we are going to get into the White House again and we are going to walk around and say where do we start to clean up this mess? Bring your vacum cleaners, bring your brushes, bring your brooms. bring your mops."

That was vindictive plagiarism. When president-elect W was asked what he planned to do on Day One in the Wite House, he quipped: "Give it a good scrubbing."

And W wasn't the one who ejaculated all over the West Wing.

And while Hillary, by the way, went negative with (plagiarized) petty jabs like that, she simultaneously assurred the Iowans: "I'm going to keep running a positive campaign because I think what we need to be talking about is what we are going to do on day one in the White House not what we are going do on a debate stage somewhere."

A few months later, she's now challenging Obama to meet on a debate stage somewhere. (see previous post.)

In another earlier speech, Hillary asserted something like: "If they don't do (this or that), then I...(dramatic pause)...WILL." (applause)

She was trying to play the determined tough gal there but it was a direct plagiarizing of Bill's own cue cards from 1992 when he asserted: "If they (i.e. Bush 41 et al.) won't lead, then I...(dramatic pause)...WILL." (applause)

She has most recently returned to the determined tough gal, "Iron Lady" manifestation, but that's just another mask in response to the discernment of her ruthless, win-at-any-cost ambition, spinning that negative perception into a positive "I'm tough! I'm a fighter!" tenacious one.

That shtick, however, followed her serene, almost Stoic Mona-Lisa-smile pose, which itself followed the soft-spoken, teary-eyed damsel-in-distress spiel, which in turn followed the clumsy attempt to communicate good-hearted cheer but only managing to express a hysterical--and disturbing--cackling.

Returning to her own flagrant, "I...(dramatic pause)...WILL" plagiarism of Bill's speech 15 years ago, perhaps you could dismiss that because it's a husband and wife team, so it's "okay," but Obama and Deval Patrick are buddies, and the former found himself having to answer the same charges of eloquence sans substance that Patrick did, and so felt free to repeat the excellent repartee, obviously with Patrick's knowledge of their origin and assuredly with his blessing, so the Billary campaign is not only projecting it's own plagiaristic character onto an uncredited borrowing from a friend and accusing that as being Bidenesque (if not actually Clintonian) plagiarism, but is getting desperate, which means only one thing: Obama better protect his knee-caps and cover his testicles.

Sunday, February 17, 2008


In 1974, University of Arkansas law professor Bill Clinton said this about President Richard Nixon after the latter admitted to lying about his role in the Watergate coverup:

"I think it's plain that the president should resign and spare the country the agony of this impeachment and removal proceeding. I think the country could be spared a lot of agony and the government could worry about inflation and a lot of other problems if he'd go on and resign."

A quarter of a century later, President Clinton saw fit to fight a $4.5 million investigation and the second Impeachment in American history brought on by charges of perjury, subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice.

Refusing to "go on and resign" himself, the nation agonized and was torn asunder, and the reputations of friends and foes alike were damaged or destroyed, as was the nigh-assurred succession of his vice president, the dignity of the American presidency, cultural virtue, and the integrity of the English language for good measure while "a lot of other problems"-- like al Qaeda, WMD proliferation, and megacorporate fraud and corruption--mounted undeterred due to the primacy of his immediate political survival, all for...

"Just a blowjob?"

For his own political hide and to spite the poetic justice of sharing the fate of the president he had recommended resignation for a quarter of a century before (and for far less mendacity than he himself engaged in as president).

Less than half an hour after he was sworn in on January 20, 1993, with much media fanfare President Clinton issued an executive order establishing what he characterized as "the most ethical administration in American history," a slap at the "corrupt" twelve years of Reagan-Bush and accompanied by his claim that he wanted to "send a signal that we are going to change politics as usual."

By the end of his two-termed tenure, his administration was arguably the most corrupt and criminal in American history, as this rap sheet attests:

Those are but two examples occuring two decades apart which illustrate the characteristic, sheer disconnect between former President Clinton's words and actions, so sheer that one is virtually the photographic negative of the other.

Those two instances are not isolated selections. They constitute a lifelong, repeating pattern and are the result of a compulsive, knee-jerk tendency to project himself and create lies in their purest form: the inversion of reality:

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

It is the same with the other half of the political creature known and feared far and wide as Billary:

Hillary is around a hundred pledged delegates behind Obama. She is behind in the popular votes, and Obama has nearly doubled her in the number of states won. Barring a landsliding, home stretch surge (nearly impossible at this point), Hillary has lost the primary race, but she can still win the nomination by jumping through a loophole in our Constitutional republic, namely, by winning over the Superdelegates.

If Billary succeeds in doing that, there will be turmoil in the upcoming Democratic Convention in Denver not seen since the one in Chicago in 1968, and a fury among the Left not seen or heard since the wake of the Supreme Court's awarding of Florida's electoral votes to Bush in 2000.

It will be agony for the party, but Billary's concern is for themselves first and foremost. Let the pieces fall where they may, as long as they are the last one's standing.

That's not the point here, however. Like the Supreme Court's awarding of electoral votes to Bush, Billary's succesful wooing of Superdelegates would be lawful. We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a pure Democracy by plebiscite, something the crybabies of 2000 seemed unable to grasp (and something the pro-Obamites will fail to accept gracefully if it comes down to that).

The point here is that Hillary herself tried to capitalize on the (un-Constitutional) democracy-by-plebiscite inspired furor in the wake of W's disputed victory and called for the abolishment of the Electoral College:

“I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of The People.”

Note the characteristically Lefty, hyperbolic adverb: She not only "believes" in that, but believes "strongly." That is a dead giveaway that she believes nothing of the sort, as her pending failsafe plan to subvert the plebiscite via Superdelegate decree will prove, but she is selectively asserting that principle once again if it can benefit her elsewhere:

Earlier, the Democratic candidates unanimously signed a pledge that they would not campaign in Florida and Michigan as those states disqualified themselves by straying from the primary calendar and budging in front of the traditionally "First in the Nation" primary states.

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process, and we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role," said Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle.

Florida and Michigan held their contests, anyway. The other candidates stayed out of it, as pledged, but Hillary had her name on the Michigan ballot (vs. "Uncommited") and personally flew down to Florida to campaign.

Having won the disqualified races, she is now pushing for the seating of the delegates from there.

"I think that the people of Michigan and Florida spoke in a very convincing way, that they want their voices and their votes to be heard. The turnout in both places was record-breaking and I think that that should be respected," she told reporters.

Simultaneously, meanwhile, again, she is pursuing a democratically-subversive Superdelegate strategy to win the nomination despite Obama's superiority in number of states won, having the majority of delegates, and even carrying the popular vote.

Meanwhile, the Rev. Al Sharpton said that the Democratic Party would commit a “grave injustice” if it seated the Florida and Michigan delegates at the national convention in Denver- and he threatened a march on party headquarters in Washington...

And these are just the primaries.