Friday, April 24, 2015

When is Enough Enough?

According to the New York Times, while she was Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton gave the Russians special consideration in at least one uranium deal in exchange for enormous amounts of cash.

"After their purchase of a major Canadian mining company with world-wide holdings and dealings, the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton."

It turns out that Hillary Clinton’s uranium scandal is much bigger than Whitewater or Hillary’s emailgate or any of her other crimes and unethical behaviors. It is, in fact, so egregious that, if proven in a court of law, would be worthy of extended jail time, that is: her dealings were 100% illegal. 

They also have dealt a stunning blow to national security. Major donors to the Clintons sold half of America’s uranium to Russia. Uranium used for nuclear weapons.

And liberals want her to be the next president.

That figures.

"We are the one we've been waiting for." Barack Obama

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Chaos in the World

It was an interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews broadcast on the network Tuesday evening. President BO (the amateur president) said "there's a lot of tumult and chaos around the world right now."

To which Chris Matthews responded, "Another area I know you care about, I certainly do, is Africa and on your feelings about watching those refugees, 950 people drowning, just trying to find a life. And then also Kenya, a country we all care about, very moderate country, pro-Western, getting terrorized as college kids, who are the hope of their families, getting killed because they're Christians."

"Look, it's a heartbreaking situation," President Obama said. "There's a lot of tumult and chaos around the world right now. And part of our goal, as the world's leading superpower, is to work with partner countries, to try to resolve conflicts, to be ruthless in going after terrorism, but we're not going to do that by ourselves and we're not going to do it just by deploying more Marines in every country that has these problems."

"We're seeing some success; in other areas, we're still having problems," Obama said. "Somalia is actually improving from where it was 20 years ago. But it's still not where it needs to be and it still has these hotbeds of terrorist activity that spill over into Kenya."

What I like best is "ruthless...but..." There are some areas in which we will be "ruth," not "ruthless." 

As liberals always do, let's just change the meaning of  "ruthless."

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines RUTHLESS thushaving no pity: Merciless, cruel.
That definition is pretty strong. Either President BO (the amateur president) does not know the meaning of the word or he changed its definition to fit what he intends to do: NOT MUCH.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

How to Dodge a Question and Look Stupid Doing It

NBC News reporter: “…How do you win this time? What’s your strategy?”

Hillary Clinton: “I’m havin’ a great time. Can’t look forward to any more than I am. Thank you.”

So, if I understand Ms. Clinton correctly, she will win by having a great time. Wow! That’s related to strategy isn't it?

And she’s looking forward, but not to any more than she is.

If you’re a liberal, that probably makes sense. To the rest of us, it is gibberish.

“Thank you.” At least that part is close to coherent, if somewhat unrelated to strategy.

Yep. This is the woman we want as president. She fits right into the Obama narrative…right?

Watch her here.

Monday, April 20, 2015

Didn't I Tell You?

A new study conducted at Harvard University shows that in America, Liberals have a significantly lower IQ than Conservatives. The study was conducted on 100,000 registered voters in 40 different states over the last twelve years, and has concluded its results.

The first part of the study lists the correlation between political beliefs and intelligence. Subjects of the study were chosen at random and requested to come to an unmarked van to take a test and answer some questions for a reasonable amount of money.

Of the 100,000 people, there were people from many doctrines, from conservative to liberal to Marxist to fascist. 

Socialists came out on bottom, with an average IQ of 87. 

The second worst were Liberals and then Marxists, with 88 and 89 respectively. 

Conservatives received an average score of 110, which is significantly above average. However, the conservatives did not score the highest. 

The holder of second place were Communists with an average I.Q of 115, and the first place was apolitical people who did not follow any specific doctrine, who received a whopping score on average of 135. (You are not required to read or accept this part of the report.)

Other parts of the study included the daily activities of the various people based on their doctrines. 

Apparently, Liberals are five times more likely to commit a crime, steal or cheat on a test than anybody else except for Socialists, 52% of which have committed a major felony while being watched. 
Conservatives not only did not commit any crimes, but they actually prevented them, as the few events where a Conservative was threatened by a thief or mugger was hindered by a concealed handgun.  
Also, Communists are the most likely to commit rape or sexual assault, second to socialists.
The study was conducted in other countries as well, where 81% of Muslim Extremists admitted to following the Liberal doctrine and idolizing President Barack Obama. 
The study was conducted by a group of roughly 900 different scientists across the country over the past twelve years, each one taking on a little over a hundred people per person.

Sunday, April 19, 2015