Posts Tagged ‘met privately’

Joe Biden Meets With Pope Francis: The Cynic’s View

September 28, 2015

I start writing this acknowledging that I don’t know the future and I can’t look within the souls of men.  Which means I could be wrong.

But I DO know how cynical Democrats are.

I also know the following facts: that Joe Biden’s son died.  That as he was dying, he allegedly told his father this:

Joe Biden’s dying son, just before he succumbed to brain cancer two months ago, begged his father to make him a promise — to run for President.

“Dad, it’s who you are,” Beau Biden reportedly told his dad, his face partially paralyzed and his vocabulary slipping.

The dramatic death bed exchange was revealed in a piece published Saturday by New York Times’ columnist Maureen Dowd.

One question being how did Maureen Dowd of the New York Times learn of these words?

I also know Joe Biden has been saying some version of this multiple times:

Ahead of Pope Francis’ visit to the United States this week, Biden told a Jesuit magazine that it remains a family decision. And the family is not there yet.

“I mean, I’ve just got to be certain that if I do this, I’m able to look you in the eye and everyone else and say I’m giving all my passion, all my, all my energy and will not be distracted. And secondly, equally as important, the other piece is: Is this moment, is this the best thing for the family as a unit?” Biden said in the interview with America magazine published Monday.

Biden remarked that he has known “almost every person” who has made a White House bid since he was 29 years old, and the decision always hinges on “personal considerations.”

“Your whole family is implicated. Your whole family is engaged. So for us it’s a family decision, and I just have to be comfortable that this will be good for the family,” he explained.

“We’re just not there yet and may not get there in time to make it feasible to be able to run and succeed because there are certain windows that will close. But if that’s it, that’s it. But it’s not like I can rush it. It’s not like it either happens or it doesn’t happen. I know that’s not satisfying to anybody, but people who have been there, I know they understand,” the vice president said.

And I also know that whether Joe Biden runs is a function of Hillary Clinton’s dwindling poll numbers as any pretense to that woman having any honesty or virtue whatsoever becomes more and more of a pathetic joke:

WASHINGTON — As Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign struggles with sliding poll numbers, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s exploration of a presidential candidacy is taking on a new seriousness.

Mr. Biden has been in contact with donors who could help finance a campaign, eyeing major contributors to President Obama and pillars of his own fund-raising network: trial lawyers, Jewish leaders and Greek-Americans. On Thursday, the vice president, who is not known for aggressively courting donors, spoke to George Tsunis, a Long Island developer and longtime supporter, who raised more than $750,000 for the Obama-Biden ticket in 2012.

“I think he is doing the prudent thing, which is to look at it and lay down some groundwork should he run,” said Mr. Tsunis, saying that Mr. Biden is aware that Mr. Tsunis will help him if he enters the race.

At the same time, some Democrats supporting Mrs. Clinton have quietly signaled that they would re-evaluate their support if Mr. Biden joined the race.

Does Joe Biden circle over Hillary Clinton’s head like the proverbial vulture, waiting for her campaign to reach the death  point when he can swoop in?  Or is America supposed to believe that yesterday Joe Biden didn’t have the fire in his heart to be president, but today he’s had a quiver in his liver that he is now truly ready to face the pressure of being the leader of what little is left of the free world (and the free America, for that matter)???

I mean, how do you say, “Yesterday, I wasn’t ready to be president.  It would be wrong for me to be the leader of the free world.  I’m just not ready.”  But then say, “But that was yesterday.  Now you should trust your children’s lives to me because the quiver in my liver cannot be wrong.”

I mean, what’s the hook that changes a man from not being ready to having the fire in his heart to tirelessly serve his nation with his whole heart and all of his energy?

What can generate such a transformation, such a change of heart?

Well, I think – being incredibly cynical about just how incredibly CYNICAL depraved Democrats truly are – that it would take a private meeting with the pope for a “good” Catholic who has supported murdering more than sixty million innocent babies but doesn’t believe in murdering them on Sundays, to manifest such a change that we can all believe in.

And what a heartwarming story, right?  I mean, overwhelmed by the tragedy of his loss, a devout Catholic man loses his heart.  But then finds it again in the wisdom and love of the Pope.  And in that heart-to-heart he finds his heart again, finds his drive, finds his passion reignited.

It’s like Rocky, only with a politician rather than a boxer.

I’m just telling you that if Joe Biden announces he’s going to run, and announces that his meeting with the Pope influenced his decision, that this was planned from the moment that he first found out the Pope was going to visit and he was going to be able to lead the American delegation at the departure ceremony of the Pope (and get that private meeting that would become his hook):

Emma Green of The Atlantic writes:

And before he took off, he had a private meeting with Joe Biden. We all know what happened last time he met with a political figure at a turning point in his career … Anything you feel moved to share, Mr. Vice President?

I think this has been scripted for months.

We continue to learn damn near every day that pretty much in every way imaginable, Hillary Clinton has lied to us about her emails and her private server that she used to conduct all her business.  We learned just a couple of days ago that her claims that she turned over all of her work-related emails before she tried to wipe her server after it was subpoenaed by Congress, and in particular that she had absolutely, without any question, on her word of honor turned over all of the emails related to the Benghazi attack, were both lies:

However, Clinton has maintained that she delivered all the “work-related” emails to the State Department. The State Department, in turn, has said that it provided all emails related to the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya in 2012, to a House select committee currently investigating the attack and Clinton’s role in the response.

According to news reports Friday, evidence suggests that neither of those claims is necessarily true.

A story by the Associated Press says the Pentagon discovered an exchange of emails between Clinton and General David Petraeus from early in her tenure at State, while he was leading U.S. Central Command. The emails were forwarded by the Defense Department to the State Department and are not among the emails that Clinton turned over to State earlier this year.

Even if the content of the email is innocuous, the revelation that there were work-related emails that Clinton did not turn over to State will raise the question of what other correspondence might have been withheld.

In addition, the State Department admitted Friday that it had not provided the House Select Committee on Benghazi with all of the emails related to the attacks that Clinton had turned over. According to The Daily Beast, the State Department on Friday informed the committee that they would be delivering a “handful” of previously undisclosed emails. The number of emails in that so-called handful? 925.

We learned a couple of days before that that Hillary Clinton had been lying when she told the world that she turned over her emails to the State Department as nothing more than part of a routine request, rather than she being the subject/target of an investigation:

Throughout the controversy over her use of a private e-mail system while she was secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton has described her decision last year to turn over thousands of work-related e-mails as a response to a routine-sounding records request.

“When we were asked to help the State Department make sure they had everything from other secretaries of state, not just me, I’m the one who said, ‘Okay, great, I will go through them again,’ ” Clinton said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “And we provided all of them.”

But State Department officials provided new information Tuesday that undercuts Clinton’s characterization. They said the request was not simply about general rec­ord-keeping but was prompted entirely by the discovery that Clinton had exclusively used a private e-mail system. They also said they first contacted her in the summer of 2014, at least three months before the agency asked Clinton and three of her predecessors to provide their e-mails.

“In the process of responding to congressional document requests pertaining to Benghazi, State Department officials recognized that it had access to relatively few email records from former Secretary Clinton,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement e-mailed to The Washington Post. “State Department officials contacted her representatives during the summer of 2014 to learn more about her email use and the status of emails in that account.”

The American people are only BEGINNING to learn about the incredibly INCOMPETENT and CRIMINAL STUPIDITY of Hillary Clinton.  Consider a story that came out earlier this month:

One of the most serious potential breaches of national security identified so far by the intelligence community inside Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private emails involves the relaying of classified information concerning the movement of North Korean nuclear assets, which was obtained from spy satellites.

Multiple intelligence sources who spoke to The Washington Times, solely on the condition of anonymity, said concerns about the movement of the North Korean information through Mrs. Clinton’s unsecured server are twofold.

First, spy satellite information is frequently classified at the top-secret level and handled within a special compartment called Talent-Keyhole. This means it is one of the most sensitive forms of intelligence gathered by the U.S.

Second, the North Koreans have assembled a massive cyberhacking army under an elite military spy program known as Bureau 121, which is increasingly aggressive in targeting systems for hacking, especially vulnerable private systems. The North Koreans, for instance, have been blamed by the U.S. for the hack of Sony movie studios.

Allowing sensitive U.S. intelligence about North Korea to seep into a more insecure private email server has upset the intelligence community because it threatens to expose its methods and assets for gathering intelligence on the secretive communist nation.

“While everyone talks about the U.S. being aware of the high threat of hacking and foreign spying, there was a certain nonchalance at Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in protecting sensitive data that alarms the intel community,” one source familiar with the email review told The Times. “We’re supposed to be making it harder, not easier, for our enemies to intercept us.”

This woman screwed America in ways we’ll NEVER know given her paranoid secrecy and her worse-than-Nixonian determination to be above the law and above the transparency of petty mortals.

The fact that Hillary Clinton isn’t already in a prison cell charged with treason against the United States of America is all the proof you need that the Obama Administration is THE most rabidly partisan entity that ever existed in the face of the earth.

So the question is whether Joe Biden runs because even though his heart and his head aren’t in the most important job on earth, because it’s better that a Democrat destroy America than that a more fit Republican whose heart and head ARE in the right place to lead get the job.  Or he needs to have a dramatic hook to convince us all that he’s ready to lead and lead for the right reasons.

Enter his meeting with the Pope.  And the Hollywood script written by Hollywood liberals just writes itself.

Don’t forget the way that story was framed:

Ahead of Pope Francis’ visit to the United States this week, Biden told a Jesuit magazine that it remains a family decision. And the family is not there yet

Ah, but what about DURING and BECAUSE OF the Pope’s visit?  “Ahead of” the Pope’s visit, Biden “isn’t there.”  But don’t you worry: because a miraculous healing event will happen and Biden will suddenly be spontaneously healed BY the Pope’s visit.  Because that’s what the cynical Democrat script calls for.  And Biden will somehow find his fire, just when he needs to, just short of too late.  Almost as if it were on cue according to the script.

Is that as cynical as it gets?  Yeah.  But every time I’ve ever thought Democrats couldn’t get more cynical, they’ve surprised me.  These people are liars to the cores of their roach souls.  And the more they talk about God or transcendent things, the more you can know they’re lying in the most cynical, depraved way much the way Obama looked at us all and lied when he told us that as a “Christian” he believed in the sanctity of marriage as the union between one man and one woman when in fact he didn’t.

I mean, let me put it this way: can Democrats develop genuine spiritual convictions?  Maybe.  But just not to anywhere near the extent that pigs can develop genuine wings and fly like falcons.

We’ll see if I’m right in the next few weeks.

 

 

Advertisements

Hypocrite Obama At It Again: Attacks GOP Leader For Wall St. Meetings Even As His Chief Of Staff Does Same Thing

April 21, 2010

Let’s see, the definition of “hypocrite“: a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives.

Yep.  That’s pretty much Barry Hussein – our hypocrite in chief – in a nutshell.

Obama Calls Wall Street Meetings ‘Shocking’ as Rahm Emanuel Meets with Wall Street Investors
by  Connie Hair
04/20/2010

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel met with Wall Street investors Sunday, the night before his boss, President Obama, criticized such meetings with Wall Street investors.

In Los Angeles trying to help Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) boost her sagging senatorial campaign that is in serious trouble, Obama Monday called such Wall Street meetings “shocking.”

“The Senate Republican leader, he paid a visit to Wall Street a week or two ago,” Obama said.  “He took along the chairman of their campaign committee. He met with some of the movers and shakers up there. I don’t know exactly what was discussed. All I can tell you is when he came back, he promptly announced he would oppose the financial regulatory reform.  He would oppose it.  Shocking.”

Just one day before, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was meeting with Wall Street “movers and shakers” working out the finer details of the Democrats’ Wall Street reform that sets up a permanent taxpayer-funded bailout structure for “too big to fail” companies.

How is that NOT hypocrisy?  “How DARE you do the same thing my guy just did!  How DARE YOU!!!”

So what is really “shocking” is just what a loathsome, lying, hypocrite demagogue our president is.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had absolutely every right and reason to meet with the Wall Street figures, given the fact that he had been blasting the $50 billion in “too big to fail” bailout money that the Democrat legislation had stuffed in it.  That was so heinous that even Obama was trying to strip out the uber-obvious unpopular bailout cash for Wall Street big boys.  Obama said he would onlyonly sign a bill if it passed the test of putting an end to bailouts; this bill contains a gigantic bailout slush fund – and promises many more bailouts to come.  And there is other bad news in that power-grab Obama calls a bill.

Hey, Barry Hussein, how about if we ask one of your Democrats how he feels about that fifty billion bucks that McConnell had been outraged about.  Ask your fellow Democrat how HE feels about your turd of a bill:

(As Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), a Democrat member of the House Financial Services Committee, told the Politico yesterday that even if the $50 billion bailout slush fund currently in the bill were stripped out, “The Dodd bill has unlimited executive bailout authority. … The bill contains permanent, unlimited bailout authority.”)

The Washington Post reports:

“As President Obama prepares to deliver a speech in New York later this week that will attempt to align his administration squarely on the side of American taxpayers furious with Wall Street, his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, met privately on Sunday night with some of the city’s top investors,” The Washington Post’s Jason Horowitz and Michael Shear report. “At a private cocktail reception at the Park Avenue home of investors Jane Hartley and Ralph Schlosstein, Emanuel joked about how each of the 60 guests should take a work of art home before speaking seriously about the administration’s commitment to regulation reform.”

Perhaps Obama didn’t get the Rahmbo memo?

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blasted Democrats for their support of the $50 billion Wall Street bailout fund from the Senate floor today:

“It is important for the country and taxpayer that we get this right, that we put them before politics.  That’s why I was disappointed to read that Senate Democrats are refusing to drop the $50 billion bailout fund — a fund that the Treasury Secretary himself opposes — unless Republicans pay a price for taking it out. This is exactly what Americans don’t like about Washington: when one side tries to ‘get’ something for doing what they should have done in the first place.  If everyone agrees it should be dropped, then it should be dropped.  And if Senate Democrats think it should stay, then they should explain why they think the Treasury Secretary was wrong when he said that this bailout fund ‘would create expectations that the government would step in to protect shareholders and creditors from losses.’

“Both sides have expressed a willingness to make the changes needed to ensure without any doubt that this bill won’t put taxpayers on the hook for future bailouts of Wall Street banks. Let’s just do that.”

Apparently Mitch McConnell is suffering from something slightly worse than Stockholm Syndrome, given the fact that he seems to think the depraved demagogues across the aisle actually have a “willingness” to make “changes needed.”  That just isn’t the way Democrats roll, Mitch: rather, they try to shove through one hard-core partisan bill after another, and then demonize and demagogue anybody who points out what’s wrong with the crap they’re pushing.

You should really KNOW that, Mitch.  After all, Barry Hussein just literally got through doing that very thing to you.

The often-way-too-infuriatingly moderate Susan Collins explained what was wrong with the Democrats’ thrust-into-our-face financial overhaul bill this way:

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS, R-ME.: I don’t think you do it by creating a moral hazard, by putting a big fat fund out there in the first place that tells financial institutions don’t worry, you can engage in risky practices, high-risk products, there is going to be a fund, there it is, $50 billion all ready to bail you out.

But Democrats LOVE moral hazard.  They LOVE rewarding the people who created the mess we’re in to begin with.  And those morally hazardous special interests KNOW it: that’s why Goldman Sachs was the SECOND BIGGEST FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTOR TO OBAMA DURING THE CAMPAIGN.  It’s also why John Paulson, the slimeball investor who made billions screwing America by getting investors to buy investments he was betting would fail, was a major Democrat donor and major supporter of Democrat Chuck Schumer.

Charles Krauthammer points out the fundamental power-grab that this bill truly is:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: I think what is so interesting about the bill that is now proposed is that it is Congress once again voluntarily emasculating itself.

The bailout as proposed in the bill would allow the executive branch on its own, without appropriation from Congress, any approval from Congress, to seize, essentially seize a firm it designates again unilaterally as systematically risky, take it over, have the treasury back all of the bad loans, and then have the Fed print the money to pay them off.

Now, when we did the Chrysler bailout, or the bailout of TARP, which we had in 2008, we had to get the Congress along. This is an interesting and I think a disturbing trend where so much arbitrary power is not only in Washington, but not only in the executive, there is no checks, no balance.

That means you get a few powerful people in Washington, secretary of the treasury, head of the FDIC. You walk into a large institution and say we might designate you systematically risky. We want you to do “x,” “y” and “z.” I can assure you they will do “x,” “y” and “z.”

And that’s what happens in Putin’s Russia when he takes over oil. That’s not the way it should be. Congress ought to stay engaged, and that it’s willingly giving up its prerogative is remarkable.

As usual, Democrats are counting upon outright lies and demagoguery to sell a truly terrible bill.  They present the facade that they are against Wall Street – even though Wall Street has been lining Democrats’ pockets with millions and millions in contributions, and even though Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel came out of Goldman Sachs – and that Republicans are somehow opposing everything that is good and right by standing against Obama’s next Washington power-grab.

The fact of the matter is that the biggest and most scandal-ridden Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs would BENEFIT from Obama’s “regulatory reform.” That’s because the president would have so much power to dole out bailouts and benefits to the most politically-connected Wall Street power-players.  Big Wall Street firms would be able to benefit from low interest government loans and undercut smaller and less politically-connected firms.

To quote the president of Americans for Tax Reform:

The new bank bill would institutionalize more bailouts. No longer would congressmen vote on bailouts, they would be run by bureaucrats and flow automatically from the pockets of taxpayers to the pockets of banks that contribute enough to the Chicago political machine to make the list.

Do you actually want that?  You are literally enabling Obama and Democrats to receive millions and millions of dollars in campaign contributions to help them win reelection even as they give huge Wall Street firms billions and billions in future rewards courtesy of taxpayers.

Please don’t believe the constant stream of lies that spew out of the mouth of your hypocrite-in-chief.