Liberal Rep. Weiner Shows Proves What A Weiner He Truly Is – LITERALLY!

It has to be ironic that the two Democrats whose names are euphemisms for the male reproductive organ are now BOTH demonstrated perverts (and of course Barney Frank, the homosexual who just got caught advancing one of his gay lovers for a position at the bankrupt Fannie Mae that caused our economy to implode in 2008, is the other).

Republican Rep. Chris Lee was caught sending a picture of himself shirtless to a woman.  That was so bad that he resigned.  A Democrat won his seat because people were disgusted by the behavior.  But that was a “G” rated picture compared to Weiner’s weiner.

It’s Weiner’s turn to say bye bye because of “Weinergate.”

Here’s the story:

Too many coincidences in Weiner’s tale
By PETER INGEMI
Last Updated: 7:22 AM, May 31, 2011
Posted: 7:21 AM, May 31, 2011

In the New York of the late 1800s, Boss Tweed famously complained about Thomas Nast cartoons: Though many immigrants in the city couldn’t read, even the illiterate could understand “those damn pictures.” Rep. Anthony Weiner and his staff now face a similar problem.

By now, you’ve heard about the Tweet picture sent from Weiner’s account to a young lady named Gennette Nicole Cordova. The congressman has insisted his accounts were “hacked.” Cordova, in a statement released late Sunday night (36 hours after the tweet in question), says, “The account that these tweets were sent from was familiar to me. This person had harassed me many times after the congressman followed me on Twitter.” She also said that her previous tweet, “I wonder what my boyfriend @repweiner is up to,” was a joke.

Such statements notwithstanding, those on the left trying to paint this as a conspiracy must deal with an array of odd elements that an increasingly tech-savvy public may find suspicious:

* Not just the offending picture but most of the congressman’s pictures were removed from the site.

* Not only did the young lady’s Facebook and Twitter accounts disappear from the ’Net (she’s apparently since started a new Twitter account, and may go back on Facebook), but also her bylines on articles in her college paper.

* The congressman made it a point to tweet what time an East Coast interview would be shown in Seattle, where the young lady’s from.

* Cordova reportedly wrote in the college paper in March about Twitter’s verifiable accounts giving access to celebrities.

Coincidences all, but there’s one more that millions of Twitter users will understand best:

On Twitter, famous people tend to have tens of thousands to millions of followers — but they themselves follow only a fraction of that amount.

Rep. Weiner is a man of national prominence, a rising star in the Democratic Party, frequently on TV, a past and likely future candidate for mayor. He knows and is known by thousands of movers, shakers, members of the press and politicians on the city, state and national levels.

Yet, as of yesterday, he was following fewer than 200 others — and, with all those famous folks to choose from, one of the few he followed was Cordova, a 21-year-old college student who lives nearly 3,000 miles away in Bellingham,Wash.

Run that though your head for a second and at the same time remember two important facts about Twitter:

1. If two people follow each other on Twitter, they can send private messages unseen by others.

2. The difference between a direct message, seen by only the recipient, and a public tweet, seen by the world, is a single character.

The biggest problem for Weiner and his defenders on the left is not bloggers from the right. It’s the details of “#weinergate” can be understood by millions of ordinary people in 140 characters or less.

Peter Ingemi blogs at datechguyblog.com. He is the host of Da- TechGuy on DaRadio Saturdays 10 a.m. on WCRN-AM 830 in Worcester, Mass.

Here’s Weiner’s utterly bizarre press conference (it’s 7:30 long, but if you think this guy is actually innocent, maybe you could explain how in a way he refuses to do):

He stuck rigidly to his “If I were giving a speech to 45,000 people” non-analogous “analogy” with CNN. But apparently felt the need to add that a Clinton News Network producer is a “jackass” for actually expecting Weiner to answer an actual question about what he has claimed and what he has tacitly admitted.

Weiner – who refused to state that the picture in question was not actually of him – is calling it a “prank,” which is very different from calling it a “crime” as he immediately did when the story first came out on Big Journalism. And he is now refusing to talk about it any more than his answers to questions he’s done nothing but dodge.

Weiner claimed at first his account had been hacked – which is a federal crime (particularly given the fact that he is a congressman) involving real jail time which would obviously need to be handled by the Capitol Police and/or the FBI. But in spite of the fact that he said afederal crime had been committed against him, he refused to file a criminal report. Instead he called his lawyer – who of course essentially said “Badges? We don’t need no stinkin’ badges!  We’ll investigate this ourselves and tell you exactly what happened.”  And now Weiner – who wanted a federal investigation of Glenn Beck for pitching gold (which has massively increased in value since Beck pitched it, for the record) – suddenly doesn’t want an investigation of what he initially represented as a crime.  He doesn’t think it rises – pun apparently not intended – to the level of national federal resources.

The theory that best fits the facts is that Weiner most certainly DID intend to send this picture, but did not intend to send it to all 45,000 of his fool followers.  We’re finding out that Weiner had a penchant for tweeting young women – such as porn actress Ginger Lee, with whom Weiner exchanged private tweets.  What do you think are the odds that Weiner forgot to change a setting and sent something public what he wanted to send private?

I’ll have to say this: there’s a major difference between liberal women and conservative women.  Liberal women have a depraved tendency (which is probably simply part of the fact that liberals are depraved in general) of being willing to sexually service their idols.  I think of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.  Even the New York Times acknowledged that the guy “smelled as if he hadn’t bathed in days.”  But that didn’t stop liberal women from servicing their socialist star.  I think of “journalist” Nina Burleigh who famously said she would gladly give Bill Clinton oral sex to thank him for keeping abortion legal.  [That’s just one of the reasons that fascists are leftists; liberals are only too willing to go to depraved lengths for their messiahs].  And so we shouldn’t be one bit surprised that Weiner is out advertising his weiner to his fans.

It’s time to retire so you can spend more time with your Tweets, Weiner.

How Obama Managed To Screw Up Even The Killing Of Osama Bin Laden

It’s really quite amazing: Barack Obama is a near-total failure even when he finally manages to get something right.

Obama’s disasterous bungling of the aftermath of the killing of bin Laden makes me think about that proverbial idiot who managed to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs.

From the UK Telegraph:

10 ways Barack Obama botched the aftermath of the masterful operation to kill Osama bin Laden
By Toby Harnden World Last updated: May 5th, 2011

The past few days have seemed like an extended amateur hour in the White House as unforced error after unforced error has been made in the handling of the US Government’s message about the killing of bin Laden.

We should not forget the bottom line in this: bin Laden was justifiably and legally killed by brave and skilled US Navy SEALs. The operation was audacious and meticulous in its planning and execution. President Barack Obama made the call to carry out the raid and his decision was vindicated in spades.

Having said that, the messiness since then has taken much of the sheen off this success, temporarily at least. Here’s a summary of what went wrong once the most difficult bit had been achieved:

1. It took nearly three days to decide not to release the photographs. I think there was a case for not releasing the pictures, though on balance I think disclosure would have been best. But whichever way Obama went on this, the decision should have been made quickly, on Monday. By letting the world and his dog debate the issue for so long and then say no made the administration look indecisive and appear that it had something to hide. It will fuel the conspiracy theories. And the pictures will surely be leaked anyway.

2. To say that bin Laden was armed and hiding behind a wife being used as a human shield was an unforgiveable embellishment. The way it was expressed by John Brennan was to mock bin Laden as being unmanly and cowardly. It turned out to be incorrect and gave fuel, again, to conspiracy theories as well as accusations of cover-ups and illegality. Of all the mistakes of the week, this was by far the biggest.

3. It was a kill mission and no one should have been afraid to admit that. Bin Laden was a dead man as soon as the SEAL Team landed. There’s nothing wrong with that but the Obama administration should have been honest about it rather than spinning tales about bin Laden having a gun, reaching for a gun (the latest) and resisting (without saying how he resisted).

4. Too much information was released, too quickly and a lot of it was wrong. When it made the administration look good, the information flowed freely. When the tide turned, Jay Carney, Obama’s spokesman, clammed up completely. I’m a journalist; I like it when people talk about things. But from the administration’s perspective, it would have been much better to have given a very sparse, accurate description of what happened without going into too much detail, especially about the intelligence that led to the compound (an account which is necessarily suspect).

5. Obama tried to claim too much credit. Don’t get me wrong, he was entitled to a lot of credit. but sometimes less is more and it’s better to let facts speak for themselves. We didn’t need official after official to say how “gutsy” Obama was. Far better to have heaped praise on the CIA and SEALs (which, to be fair, was done most of the time) and talked less about Obama’s decision-making. And a nod to President George W. Bush would have been classy – and good politics for Obama.

6. Proof of death was needed. The whole point of the SEAL operation, rather than a B2 bombing that levelled the compound, was to achieve certainty. The administration has DNA evidence, facial recognition evidence and photographic evidence. Some combination of that evidence should have been collated and released swiftly. It’s not enough to say, effectively, “Trust me, I’m Obama” – especially given all the misinformation that was put out.

7. The mission should have been a ‘capture’ one. Notwithstanding 3. above and the legitimacy of killing bin Laden, I think a capture of bin Laden was probably possible and, in the long term, would have been better – not least because of the intelligence that could have been gleaned from interrogating him and the couriers. My hunch is that Obama didn’t want him alive because there would have been uncomfortable issues to address like whether he should be tried, where he should be held (it would have been Guantanamo – obviously) and the techniques for questioning him.

8. Obama’s rhetoric lurched from jingoistic to moralistic. During the initial announcement, Obama said that by killing bin Laden “we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to”. If Bush had said that, he would have been mocked and laughed at, with some justification. But by today Obama was all preachy and holier than thou saying: “It is important for us to make sure that very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence or as a propaganda tool.  That’s not who we are.  We don’t trot out this stuff as trophies.”

9. Triggering a torture debate was an avoidable own goal. Following on from 3. by discussing the intelligence, the administration walked into the issue of whether enhanced interrogation techniques yielded important information. That was certainly something they could have done without. Politically, it gave something for Republicans to use against Obama.

10. The muddle over Pakistan. Everyone I talk to with knowledge of these things tells me that Pakistan had to have given the green light for the raid in some form. But the Pakistanis, for good reasons, would not want this made public. Rather than say it would not comment on whether Pakistan had harboured bin Laden or was playing a double game, the White House poured petrol on the flames by encouraging criticism of Pakistan. That might have been deserved, but in terms of managing the region it was impolitic. The Pakistanis are clearly riled and the contradictions between the US and Pakistani accounts, again, fuel the conspiracy theories.

All this has meant that this week’s media story has become one about Obama and the White House more than one about the SEALs, the CIA and what killing bin Laden means. That’s exactly the wrong way round.

It’s not enough to say that Obama arrogantly and falsely took too much credit, or even that Obama didn’t give Bush and the programs Bush developed enough credit: Obama personally demonized programs that were essential to finally getting Osama bin Laden, and even launched a vendetta to destroy the professionals who gave us the vital information via his attorney general.

Waterboarding and “enhanced interrogation” were absolutely vital to nailing bin Laden.  Even the career Democrat who was Barack Obama’s handpicked man to run the CIA openly acknowledged that:

Asked by NBC-TV’s Brian Williams about the information obtained from detainees that led to the bin Laden takedown, Panetta replied:  ‘We had multiple series of sources that provided information with regards to this situation.  … Clearly some of it came from detainees [and] they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of those detainees.”

When Williams asked whether “waterboarding” was one of those techniques, Panetta replied:  “That’s correct.”

General Michael Hayden, the career intelligence professional who had directed the CIA prior to Leon Panetta, speaking about the CIA program Obama terminated on his second day as president, had this to say:

Michael Hayden said there is no question the CIA program including waterboarding laid the foundation for bin Laden’s capture.

MICHAEL HAYDEN, FMR CIA DIRECTOR ON FOX NEWS RADIO (via telephone): That database was kind of like the home depot of intelligence analysis. You know, it was incredibly detailed stuff.

HERRIDGE: As for its role in identifying this compound in Pakistan —

HAYDEN: It would be very difficult for me to conceive of an operation like the one that took place on Sunday that did not include in its preparation information that came out of the CIA detention program.

It is a well-documented fact, confirmed by both the Republican- and Democrat-appointed Directors of Central Intelligence, that waterboarding led to the breakthrough that finally resulted in nailing Osama bin Laden.

Barack Obama wants to demonize the people and procedures that led to Osama bin Laden’s killing even as he takes credit for what could not possibly have happened without the people and procedures that he demonized.  It is a disgrace.

And Obama is STILL continuing to persecute the CIA professionals who got us the intelligence that got bin Laden via his attorney general attack dog.  He won’t even so much as talk to Holder about his rabid attack dog’s rabid determination to criminalize the professionals whose work led to the result Obama is taking credit for.  And that makes Obama a disgrace.

Then there’s the fact that so many of the events surrounding Barack Obama were staged propaganda.

Of the famous photo supposedly showing Obama and his national security team monitoring and directing the SEAL Team that got Osama bin Laden, we now know that:

Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, revealed there was a 25 minute blackout during which the live feed from cameras mounted on the helmets of the US special forces was cut off.

A photograph released by the White House appeared to show the President and his aides in the situation room watching the action as it unfolded. In fact they had little knowledge of what was happening in the compound.

In an interview with PBS, Mr Panetta said: “Once those teams went into the compound I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes where we really didn’t know just exactly what was going on. And there were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information.

“We had some observation of the approach there, but we did not have direct flow of information as to the actual conduct of the operation itself as they were going through the compound.”

Which is to say that much of the hubub of Obama as commanding figure was simply staged.  It wasn’t real.

Nor were the photos of Obama’s speech announcing that Osama bin Laden had been killed.

And while a liberal might argue that what Obama did has been done before, my response is that there are times when you’ve got to be real and not propaganda, and this was clearly one of those times.

In light of what George Bush did to create programs, build special operations capabilities capable of performing the Pakistan mission that got bin Laden, and even what Barack Obama said during his campaign for president, the decision to capture or kill Osama bin Laden was a no-brainer.

I mean, just imagine the fecal matter that would have struck the rotary oscillator had it emerged that Barack Obama had known for at least six months where Osama bin Laden was – and refused to get him????

That said, the man acted brainless before the decision to get Osama bin Laden, and he’s clearly returned to his brainless form since.

Democrat Dick Durbin Gives His ‘Legitimacy’ To Terrorists

We are at a point where Democrats ought to have zero credibility, and the worst thing that should ever happen to someone’s reputation would be getting caught with your face in the same picture as a known or suspected Democrat.

But while we OUGHT to be there, we’re certainly not there yet.  There are fools and communities of fools who actually respect Democrats, and stupidly and naively believe they’re decent people.

So, as asinine and in fact as outrageous as it might seem, Democrats can add their “credibility” to others.

But being truly despicable people, Democrats have a tendency to lend said “credibility” to the very worst sorts of people.  Like terrorists.

For the record, I added the labeling to make it easier to identify both the terrorists and the dumbass in the photo.

Here’s a quick description of these guys Dick Durbin says are A-OK in his book:

Pictured with Senator Durbin [that’s the dumbass in the middle] is Jamal Said [the terrorist on the left], an unindicted conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case that led to criminal conviction. Said also reportedly raised money 11 years ago at an Islamic conference by asking for donations in name of a suicide bomber. More recently, he told a gathering of Muslim leaders in 2009, “We need to raise our children to know the martyrs of Gaza.”

Also in the photo [the terrorist on the right] is another unindicted terror trial coconspirator named Kifah Mustapha. According to the IPT, Mustapha serves as an imam for the Illinois Mosque Foundation. Last year days after becoming Illinois first state police chaplain, his appointment was revoked after ties to terror groups became public.

According to IPT, the Mosque Foundation has a long history of ties to terror organizations, even sponsoring a rally for a Hamas operative arrested in Israel. 

So we’ve got the cheerleader for suicide bombers and a guy who wants to radicalize our rapidly growing Muslim inmate population.

The guy who wants to raise money for suicide bombers’ families so terrorists can murder away knowing their families will be taken care of, the guy who wants the children to know these “martyrs” as heroes so the hate can continue to the next generation, is part of a murder plot against Israel’s innocent children going back decades.

And the guy who sought to be a “chaplain” so he could radicalize our prison population is part of a long effort to get the hate of Allah into our prison systems.  From an article in the Oxford Journal titled “Prison Islam in the Age of Sacred Terror“:

Research indicates that Islam is the fastest growing religion among prisoners in Western nations. In the United States, roughly 240,000 inmates have converted to the faith since the 9/11 attacks. According to federal law enforcement, Saudi-backed Wahhabi clerics have targeted these prisoners for terrorist recruitment.

An article on how state prisons are a breeding ground for radical Islam begins:

The four men accused of plotting to blow up synagogues and shoot down a plane all did stretches in state prisons – a major breeding ground for Islamic radicalization.

At least two of the suspects, James Cromitie and Onta Williams, entered the system as Baptists and were paroled as Muslims.

The concern about prisons incubating jihadists has been heightened in the debate over releasing Guantanamo terror suspects to facilities across the U.S.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has called America’s prisons “fertile ground for extremists.”

A 2006 study called “Out of the Shadows” found “tight-knit communities of Muslims in prison are ripe for radicalization, and could easily become terrorist cells.”

And the entire organization for which Durbin is lending his “credibility” is waaaaayyy beyond merely dubious.

Confronted with this, Durbin was unapologetic.  These people are perfectly fine.  What they’re doing is great.  And if you don’t want to be murdered in a giant explosion by a suicide bomber, you’re just a racist anti-Muslim bigot.

So just why do Democrats want to legitimize terrorists who want nothing more than your hot sticky jugular-vein blood all over their filfthy hands?  I now say “dumbass Democrats” rather than just “dumbass Dick Durbin” because this is just so par for the Democrat course.

Here’s Durbin’s rationale, complete with it’s own refutation:

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., in an attempt to address what he claims is an increase in anti-Muslim bigotry, is relying on questionable statistics and a witness with a record of opposing virtually all law enforcement attempts to deal with Islamist-inspired terrorism.

In a statement, Durbin said his hearing Tuesday on the state of Muslim civil rights in America comes “in response to a spike in anti-Muslim bigotry in the last year including Quran burnings, restrictions on mosque construction, hate crimes, hate speech, and other forms of discrimination.”

While hate crime data for 2010 has not yet been released, FBI reports in recent years show no spike in anti-Muslim attacks. Those statistics show 107 anti-Islamic incidents reported in 2009, compared to 156 anti-Muslim crimes in 2006. In both reports, race related crimes dominated, and religiously-targeted attacks involved Jews as victims about nine times more often than Muslims in 2009 and more than five times more in 2006.

Durbin is literally championing the violent Muslims who are victimizing Jews at nine times the rate in America and calling the victimizers the “victims.”

Which is to say, Democrats are consistent, in that they are always fools all the time.

And what is the Fool-in-Chief up to?  He’s joining Osama bin Laden in siding with the Libyan rebels which include al Qaeda fighters, and who are led by Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi – a man who fought Americans troops in Afghanistan. 

No one knows a whole lot about these Libyan rebels, and everything we do know is bad.  Jonah Goldberg quipped yesterdat that this Libyan rebellion is kind of like Pelosi’s approach: “We have to pass this rebellion so you can find out what is in it.”

A Politico story covering Durbin’s hearing said:

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said it wasn’t a response to Republican Rep. Peter King’s hearings this month on post-9/11 Islamic radicalization and terrorism — but it sure felt like it.

And that’s exactly what it was, of course.  And all King’s hearings tried to do was ask a question about the domestic radicalization of American Muslims.  And even the left-leaning Washington Post acknowledged that Democrats embarrased themselves in their coming unglued over simply asking a question and seeking information.

This is not just an unfortunate moment immortalized in a picture.  This is a demonstration of the morally bankrupt philosophy of not only Dick Durbin, but the entire Democrat Party.

And as usual, the mainstream media propaganda does not want you to know which side is right and which side is wrong.

Bill Clinton Gropes Fran Drescher At Charity Event

Somebody somewhere might be surprised: Bill Clinton is still a womanizing cad.

Times Of India: Bill Clinton Caught Groping ‘Nanny’ Star (Fran Drescher)

May 19, 2009

Former US president Bill Clinton met Fran Drescher at the Life Ball charity event in Vienna over the past weekend. And he was caught on camera groping the actress. It seems that he likes to keep his fingers on the pulse of the important issues.

Former president Bill Clinton met Fran Drescher at the Life Ball charity event in Vienna over the past weekend. What happened was an embarrassing brush between the two. The jury is still out on whether giving a hand in this way can happen accidentally.

Drescher is an Emmy Award and Golden Globe nominated American film and television actress, comedian, and activist. She especially endeared herself to her audiences in the television series ‘The Nanny’.

Clinton has been named UN special envoy on Haiti on Tuesday, so it’s perhaps a good time for him to learn to be politically correct.

Fran Drescher is a rape victim.  But Bill Clinton is a Democrat; so his groping incident involving a rape victim is okay.

Let’s see: Juanita Broaddrick credibly accused Bill Clinton of raping her.  There’s no question Bill Clinton had a sexual affair with Gennifer Flowers – and lied about it.  Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle her sexual harassment case against him.  Kathleen Willey was a loyal Democrat and supporter of Bill Clinton until he grabbed her hand and placed it on his genitalia.  And then we all know about how he lied about his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, even calling her a “stalker,” until it was revealed that she had a dress with his semen on it.

In comparison to all this, realize that Larry Craig was axed by Republicans for “taking a wide stance” in a men’s room.  Too bad he wasn’t a Democrat who committed forcible rape; he’d still be an honored figure in politics.

Bill Clinton doesn’t have to worry about his shabby treatment of women.  Because he knows that the National Organization for Women has his back, and will go to the mat to defend him.  In addition to their rabid hatred of babies (girl babies included, naturally), the N.O.W. is almost as evil to genuine women victims of liberal raping, groping, slandering, and demonizing.

And of course he has Hillary Clinton, the Cuckold of State, to brush it all aside as another “vast, rightwing conspiracy.”

Bill Clinton gropes a rape victim, and is punished by being honored as the United Nations special envoy to Haiti.  Lots of women he can molest there, presumably.

In the current news, other liberal “Men at work”:

Alec Baldwin.

MANILA — Alec Baldwin’s joke about getting a Filipino mail-order bride provoked a sharp response in the Philippines, with one senator saying Monday that the 30 Rock star faces violence if he ever visits.

Baldwin, 51, who is divorced with a teenage daughter, said in a May 12 interview on The Late Show with David Letterman that he would love to have more children.

The Emmy-winning actor quipped that he was “thinking about getting a Filipino mail-order bride at this point … or a Russian one.”

Baldwin has been involved in a bitter dispute with his ex-wife, Oscar-winning actress Kim Basinger, over custody of their 13-year-old daughter, Ireland [that would be the daughter whom he called “a little pig”].

Philippine Sen. Ramon Revilla said Monday that Baldwin’s comment was “insensitive and uncalled for” and an insult to millions of Filipinos.

He called the actor “arrogant” and said he is apparently unaware that the Philippines has a law against mail-order brides.

“Let him try to come here in the Philippines and he’ll see mayhem,” Revilla said…

And, of course, the reliably liberal Alec Baldwin believes his own daughter to be nothing more than a “rude, thoughtless, little pig.”

But seriously, who is truly the pig here?

Being a liberal feminist means abusing vulnerable women while attacking successful women like Sarah Palin.

Wow, That Hot Sarah Palin Sure Looks Good In Her… Character

Sarah Palin is a real pretty lady.  She’s got that “hot librarian” thing going on, no doubt about it.

But this former Miss. Alaska runner-up looks best of all where it counts the very most: on the inside.

This woman is simply amazing.  I am looking at her with increasing admiration building toward awe.

This is a woman who – shortly after being elected as Governor – fired the Governor’s chef because “her children could fix their own breakfast and sandwiches.”

This is a Governor who put the private jet purchased by the previous Governor with state money on eBay.

This is a Governor who sold the Governor’s limousine and instead drives her Volkswagon Jetta to work.

This woman is better than any giant-killer; she’s the slayer of the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.”

Last year, this woman “vetoed 13 percent of the state’s proposed budget for capital projects. The cuts, the Anchorage Daily News said, ‘may be the biggest single-year line-item veto total in state history.'”

Now, that is a woman I can look at all day!

Sarah Palin is a pulchritudinous champion of the people against pork, corruption, and pretentious hoity-toity disconnect between leaders and the people they are supposed to serve has a remarkable personal story.  If you read on, you’ll get to see a titillating picture…