Posts Tagged ‘statement’

Not A Criminal, Just An Incompetent Fool: I Demand To Know Why ANYBODY Thinks That Hillary Clinton Is Fit To Be President

July 7, 2016

Right now, FBI Director Comey is appearing before the House of Representatives in an emergency meeting designed to basically find out just WHAT THE HELL.

It’s just remarkable to me to listen to the Democrats pretend that there’s actually nothing to see here, folks, so please kindly shuffle out of the way and vote for Hillary in November.

FBI Director Comey himself in his Tuesday statement blew up a number of false Hillary Clinton statements made to the American people (and if that link vanishes here’s another one).  Without any legitimate question, it is now established as a FACT that Hillary Clinton not only lied but repeatedly lied to the American people about literally every single facet of her secret server system and the fallout it’s discovery by Republicans entailed.

“When you mishandled classified information, did you know at the time that what you were doing was unlawful?”  That’s the standard that FBI Director Comey is claiming he took regarding whether or not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.  When you were bludgeoning your neighbor to death, did you know it was wrong at the time you were doing the bludgeoning?  He is reading a specific intent into a gross negligence statute that is NOT in that statute.  Which is to say that he is without any question rewriting the law.  We further discover the strange fact that “Washington Has Been Obsessed With Punishing Secrecy Violations — Until Hillary Clinton.”  It is unprecedented for an FBI Director that is not a prosecutor to take a public stand that “no reasonable prosecutor” would prosecute this case.  Particularly given how many prosecutors including (according to Comey’s testimony today before Congress) many of his own personal friends fundamentally disagree with that position, claiming HELL YES they would prosecute.  You add to that the chain of “coincidences” that led up to this refusal to prosecute: President Obama on March 10 that what Hillary did was “careless.”  Lo and behold it would be that EXACT same word that Comey would conclude from his “investigation.”  You have to comprehend the impropriety of Obama putting his finger on the scale.  Also, prior to FBI Director revealing his conclusion of his “investigation,” we have Obama publicly endorsing the subject of a criminal investigation on June 9.  How would that NOT influence the career government investigators who work for Obama’s regime?   Then we get the revelation of a secret, not-disclosed until a local reporter got a tip and forced its disclosure, of a highly inappropriate meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.  It is quite possible that the purpose of that meeting was for Bill to inform Loretta that she would stay on as Attorney General in an unindicted Hillary Clinton Administration.  As a result of the widespread distrust of that meeting, Lynch said she would accept the recommendation of the FBI.  But the FBI itself had been impugned by that secret meeting: because FBI agents were participating in attempting to cover up that highly inappropriate secret meeting by not allowing any pictures and ordering people nearby to put away their cell phones.  And so you’ve got Comey’s boss having put her thumb on the scale as well.  There was simply no question whatsoever that every single superior of Comey up the chain had made their preferences crystal clear regarding what his “findings” ought to be.

We also know that it is now a matter of settled fact that Hillary Clinton “mishandled information” – specifically top secret, classified information included special compartmented intelligence.  Without any question, for instance, Hillary Clinton gave secured information to individuals who did NOT have the proper security clearances, which is a crime.  These individuals include some of her staff and even personal friends outside the State Department but also include her numerous lawyers who did not have security clearances to follow Clinton’s instructions.  The Clinton campaign has publicly maintained that Hillary’s “attorneys had individually read every email to determine if it was a government document or personal correspondence.” The Clinton campaign has publicly maintained that “Every one of the more than 60,000 emails were read. Period.”  There is absolutely no question whatsoever that her attorneys who did NOT have security clearances were at least handed the content and allowed to read and search for whatever they wanted; she gave them access to what they should by law not have been allowed access to.  But Comey in his testimony before Congress today stubbornly maintains that Hillary’s “intent” was to get good legal representation rather than to violate the law.  Which has been his reasoning process in quibbling over every single indicting detail.  When the better way to phrase it would be “her intent was to violate the law to help her get good legal representation.”  May I offer an analogy of robbing a bank in order to obtain the money to pay for my attorney in a different criminal case?  Would you seriously argue with FBI Director Comey that my “intent was to get good legal representation” rather than to break the law???  She was breaking the law for her own personal needs and her own personal convenience.  That has been her pattern all along.  And to argue that “it wasn’t her intent to break the law,” but rather it was merely her intent to get whatever the hell she wanted is maddening.

Try this trick on the freeway, kids: tell the officer who pulls you over for going 140mph, “But officer, my intent wasn’t to break the law; my intent was merely to get to my destination faster.”  Because in the bizarre universe of Hillary Clinton, that would actually WORK.

I personally think that there were ALL KINDS of shenanigans to obtain a foreordained conclusion regarding whether Hillary would ever be indicted by an administration with Obama at its head, but let’s just set that aside for the sake of argument.

There’s nothing we can do about it.  We have a legal system filled with double-standards where the privileged get treatment that others outside of that elite class will never receive.  And this case is a blatant example of it.  So let’s accept that double-standard and accept the total lack of justice in America today and move on.

Reps. Jason Chaffitz and Trey Gowdy today set the basis for the crime of lying to Congress.  Because Hillary Clinton was under oath when she testified before Congress and if she told the truth to the FBI behind closed doors, there is little question now that she told lie after lie after LIE to Congress with the American people watching.  But that is for another day.

I further said in conclusion in my last article that the thing I would MOST like to see is the transcript of the FBI interview.  Given that Hillary made factual lies in virtually every single statement she made throughout this investigation – including laughably that she even WAS under criminal investigation – I would like very much to see her answers to FBI questions compared to her previous statements made to the American people and made under oath to the people’s representatives in Congress.

Comey is basically saying that Hillary did ALL KINDS of egregious things, but he couldn’t prove she knew beyond a reasonable doubt that she KNEW that she was doing egregious things.  He said that she was “extremely careless” in his statement on Tuesday and exposed THE most classified information within the United States government to hackers and hostile foreign governments.  For the record, today Comey stated again that Hillary was “extremely careless” and added the phrase “that she was negligent” in his testimony before Congress.  In his statement on Tuesday, Comey acknowledged that it was entirely possible that “hostile actors” and “sophisticated agencies” gained access to our most vital secrets.  Comey pointedly admitted that there was no question whatsoever that hostile actors HAD been proven to have gained access to the people whom Hillary was using her secret server to communicate with:

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account. — FBI Director Comey, July 5, 2016

Which takes it to the realm of DOCUMENTED FACT that classified material fell into the hands of hostile actors and/or sophisticated agencies as a result of Hillary’s secret server system.  And so anybody who wants to continue to maintain the façade that Hillary Clinton did not put our national security in jeopardy is simply a liar at this point.

In today’s testimony before Congress, FBI Director Comey referred to Hillary Clinton’s private server as “an unauthorized server.”  Hillary Clinton had lied to the American people claiming it “was allowed” but no, it is now a matter of settled fact that it was NOT allowed and it was unauthorized and Hillary lied when claiming that what was in fact NOT allowed and which was unauthorized was allowed and authorized.  Further, in answering the specific question, “What was protecting that unauthorized server?” Comey’s answer was “Not much.”  She didn’t have even the most rudimentary security.  Comey stated categorically that it would have been far better had she used a GMail account – which can be hacked for $129.  And Comey stated that Hillary didn’t even have anywhere near THAT security on her unauthorized secret server!!!  His precise words: “None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”

Let’s get past Hillary Clinton’s oft-repeated lie to the American people and let’s get past Comey’s bizarre reasoning in sparing her from indictment and just ask some questions that every American ought to be asking.

You need to understand that Hillary Clinton was a lawyer herself.  She worked at a top law firm in Arkansas.  Her husband served as the Attorney General for that state.  She later spent eight years in the White House.  Then she spent eight years as a United States Senator, serving on subcommittees including the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities and the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support.  For the record, she also served between 2001 and 2009 as a commissioner on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.  All that before serving as the Secretary of State.

Democrats – including Obama and Hilary Clinton herself – proudly maintain that she is THE most experienced and THE most qualified candidate for president in the entire history of planet earth.

And the obvious question ought to be: then how in the hell did she NOT realize what she was doing, such that she did not have “intent,” as FBI Director Comey maintains in refusing to indict her???

But now get to the basic heart of her argument before the FBI when she answered their questions that clearly fixated on Hillary Clinton’s “intent.”  There is absolutely ZERO question that she broke laws, violated rules, ignored procedures, was “extremely careless,” and yes, “negligent.”  In today’s statement he told Congress that he believed Hillary lacked “sophistication” to know what she was doing was criminal.  Hillary Clinton isn’t merely grossly negligent; now and forever she will be the living, breathing poster  hag for gross negligence.  You will look up “gross negiligence” in a dictionary and see her name in the definition.  In his July 5 presentation, FBI Director Comey stated that “There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”  So we have it as a factual statement of public record that Hillary Clinton is NOT a “reasonable person” and pointedly did NOT act as a “reasonable person” would act in her position.  So what did Hillary, a lawyer prepped by a battalion of lawyers, do?  They basically steadfastly maintained that Hillary Clinton did not understand what she was doing; could not comprehend the ramifications or effects of her actions; was not competent to form the “intent” that Comey was determined had to be found.

In other words, to put it bluntly, Hillary Clinton maintained that she was simply not competent to understand or comprehend what she was doing.  So no matter how many violations of law, she shouldn’t be charged.  “Not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect,” essentially.  Hillary Clinton and her battalion of lawyers are claiming that her stupidity exonerates her.  And FBI Director Comey agrees.

If she had so much as had a clue that no, you shouldn’t install a secret, unauthorized, unclassified server in a bathroom closet somewhere in Denver; no you shouldn’t totally fail to have even the most rudimentary security for such a secret, unauthorized, unclassified server in that bathroom closet in Denver.  Yes, as a matter of fact, I DID know that I was sending and receiving not merely hundreds but actually thousands of classified emails, including emails at the very highest level of classification the government has.  If she had acknowledged ANY of that or similar admissions, she would have been nailed to the wall like a bug in an entymologist’s collection.  Which isn’t a bad analogy for what a prosecutor ought to be: a BUG hunter.

Hillary Clinton before the FBI says, “You can’t charge me; I had absolutely zero clue what I was doing was actually wrong.”

Hillary Clinton before the American people says something about 20 trillion percent different: “I am THE most experienced, most qualified, most competent technocrat who ever lived.”

Here’s the essence of my point, boiled down: the two above claims are mutually and inherently self-refuting.  They cannot possibly both be true in any universe.  At least one of them must be patently false.

If Hillary Clinton is in fact competent, then she is a criminal who happened to successfully game the system and a pathetically naïve FBI Director.  She is like the child who murders her entire family and then successfully sobs for the judge that he should have leniency and mercy on the grounds that she’s an orphan who has no one to turn to and no one to care for her.  She belongs in prison if she is in fact in any way, shape or form competent.  And it was nothing short of a fundamental miscarriage of justice that she was not prosecuted for her many crimes and her many lies as she tried to cover up her crimes in the court of public opinion.

If on the other hand Hillary is what she maintained to the FBI, then she has absolutely no business EVER being allowed anywhere NEAR the presidency of the United States of America.  She had the briefings and the training but she simply lacks the capacity to comprehend that training any better than an orangutan.  You can’t actually ever hold her accountable because she isn’t smart enough to be accountable.  And she’ll be THE most fascist president we’ve ever had because she has already demonstrated a pathological need for HER secrecy even as she cavalierly dismisses the need for the NATION’S secrecy.  I wouldn’t even wish her ilk on a nasty, third world banana republic, let alone the most important nation in the world.

And one of the two paragraphs above – and quite possibly BOTH of them – is true.

That’s what we need to point out and keep pointing out.  Get past the Comey crapball.  Get past the Loretta lynching of the justice process.  Fixate on the fact that what she did makes her absolutely unqualified on THE most fundamental level of national security to even be allowed to ever work in government again, let alone be president.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

International Scholar Ajami Explains How Obama Is Failing Re: Iran

June 23, 2009

There is no question that Barack Obama has been widely criticized for offering weak statements on a developing Iranian situation with demonstrators literally risking death to protest what they view as a

While women are being gunned down in the streets, Obama has said he doesn’t want to “meddle” in Iran.  While such women and hundreds of thousands of others are demonstrating and even dying for their vote of Mousavi to be counted against the man whom the Iranian mullahs put in power (Ahmadinejad), Obama has publicly claimed that there is no difference between the two.  And while the Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a progressively harsher and more lethal crackdown on his people, Barack Obama has taken the Ayatollah’s side, claiming:

President Barack Obama says he believes supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has deep concerns about the civil unrest that has followed the hotly contested presidential election there.

Obama repeated Tuesday at a news conference his “deep ir own, concerns” about the disputed balloting. He said he believes the ayatollah’s decision to order an investigation “indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns.”

The Iranian Ayatollah really isn’t that bad of a guy.  You heard it from Barack Hussein first.

It’s not a question as to whether Obama has been tepid in his response to the mass demonstrations in Iran; it is OBVIOUS he has been tepid.  To date, he has delivered three statements on Iran — having been forced to make the third, somewhat more strongly-worded statement, as a result of Congress’ display of unity in its resolve to stand with the Iranian people.  His first statement delivered on June 15 was simply pathetically weak.  Pure and simple.   And even the French and the Germans have shown more moral backbone and more moral indignation than Barack Obama.

When a French president displays moral outrage, while an American president displays political appeasement, it is more than a shame: it is an absolute abdication of leadership.  And, even worse, when an American president is behind Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in exhibiting moral courage, it is truly a sign of the last pathetic gasps of a fading republic.

No, the question isn’t whether Obama is being tepid; it’s merely a matter of asking why he is being so incredibly tepid.

The reason, from all accounts, is that Obama (cynically if realistically) expects the Iranian leadership to prevail in this current struggle, and he doesn’t want to antagonize the Iranian regime in a way that might undermine his subsequent efforts at the direct negotiations he campaigned on.  That, and he doesn’t want to be accused by the Iranians of “meddling” when that has already been proven absurd: the Iranians have ALREADY accused us of meddling whether we have been or not.

I would argue that Ronald Reagan’s “meddling” when he called the Soviet Union “an evil empire” and when he  said, “Mr. Gorbachev: tear down this wall!” are what is in order.  It isn’t “meddling” to call a spade a spade.  It is hardly “meddling” to decry in the strongest of terms the absence of liberty and freedom in support of a demonstrating people who clearly yearn for them.

We can never know what would have happened had we only done something that we were too timid to do.  It is right to stand with the Iranian people against an evil and unjust system; it is wrong to cynically play realpolitic in the faint hope of having that same evil and unjust system offer a diplomatic bone down the road.

But, getting back to the main point, are Obama’s concerns that he might undermine future negotiations with Iran valid?

I would argue that Obama’s whole project of attaining success through diplomacy with Iran was a fool’s project to begin with.  We are talking about a regime that has based itself for over 30 years on conflict with and opposition to “the Great Satan”, America.

At no time during the Obama presidency have they demonstrated any willingness to cease their efforts toward nuclear weapons.  They simply have no reason to do so.  And there is virtually no reason to believe that Barack Obama will be able to give them one.

By any realistic expectation, Obama’s policy of diplomacy and negotiation with Iran has ALREADY FAILED, as even the New York Times recognizes.  There is nothing left in terms of hopes of future negotiation breakthroughs to hope for.  If nothing else, how is Obama going to personally meet with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or the Ayatollah Khamenei, when the fundamental legitimacy of their government is in such open question?

An insightful article by one of the premier experts on Iran offers insights on precisely how and even why Barack Obama has failed on Iran:

JUNE 22, 2009

Obama’s Persian Tutorial: The president has to choose between the regime and the people in the streets.

By FOUAD AJAMI

President Barack Obama did not “lose” Iran. This is not a Jimmy Carter moment. But the foreign-policy education of America’s 44th president has just begun. Hitherto, he had been cavalier about other lands, he had trusted in his own biography as a bridge to distant peoples, he had believed he could talk rogues and ideologues out of deeply held beliefs. His predecessor had drawn lines in the sand. He would look past them.

Thus a man who had been uneasy with his middle name (Hussein) during the presidential campaign would descend on Ankara and Cairo, inserting himself in a raging civil war over Islam itself. An Iranian theocratic regime had launched a bid for dominion in its region; Mr. Obama offered it an olive branch and waited for it to “unclench” its fist.

It was an odd, deeply conflicted message from Mr. Obama. He was at once a herald of change yet a practitioner of realpolitik. He would entice the crowds, yet assure the autocrats that the “diplomacy of freedom” that unsettled them during the presidency of George W. Bush is dead and buried. Grant the rulers in Tehran and Damascus their due: They were quick to take the measure of the new steward of American power. He had come to “engage” them. Gone was the hope of transforming these regimes or making them pay for their transgressions. The theocracy was said to be waiting on an American opening, and this new president would put an end to three decades of estrangement between the United States and Iran.

But in truth Iran had never wanted an opening to the U.S. For the length of three decades, the custodians of the theocracy have had precisely the level of enmity toward the U.S. they have wanted — just enough to be an ideological glue for the regime but not enough to be a threat to their power. Iran’s rulers have made their way in the world with relative ease. No White Army gathered to restore the dominion of the Pahlavis. The Cold War and oil bailed them out. So did the false hope that the revolution would mellow and make its peace with the world.

Mr. Obama may believe that his offer to Iran is a break with a hard-line American policy. But nothing could be further from the truth. In 1989, in his inaugural, George H.W. Bush extended an offer to Iran: “Good will begets good will,” he said. A decade later, in a typically Clintonian spirit of penance and contrition, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright came forth with a full apology for America’s role in the 1953 coup that ousted nationalist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh.

Iran’s rulers scoffed. They had inherited a world, and they were in no need of opening it to outsiders. They were able to fly under the radar. Selective, targeted deeds of terror, and oil income, enabled them to hold their regime intact. There is a Persian pride and a Persian solitude, and the impact of three decades of zeal and indoctrination. The drama of Barack Obama’s election was not an affair of Iran. They had an election of their own to stage. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — a son of the Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolutionary order, a man from the brigades of the regime, austere and indifferent to outsiders, an Iranian Everyman with badly fitting clothes and white socks — was up for re-election.

The upper orders of his country loathed him and bristled under the system of controls that the mullahs and the military and the revolutionary brigades had put in place, but he had the power and the money and the organs of the state arrayed on his side. There was a discernible fault line in Iran. There were Iranians yearning for liberty, but we should not underestimate the power and the determination of those moved by the yearning for piety. Ahmadinejad’s message of populism at home and defiance abroad, his assertion that the country’s nuclear quest is a “closed file,” settled and beyond discussion, have a resonance on Iranian soil. His challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, a generation older, could not compete with him on that terrain.

On the ruins of the ancien régime, the Iranian revolutionaries, it has to be conceded, have built a formidable state. The men who emerged out of a cruel and bloody struggle over their country’s identity and spoils are a tenacious, merciless breed. Their capacity for repression is fearsome. We must rein in the modernist conceit that the bloggers, and the force of Twitter and Facebook, could win in the streets against the squads of the regime. That fight would be an Iranian drama, all outsiders mere spectators.

That ambivalence at the heart of the Obama diplomacy about freedom has not served American policy well in this crisis. We had tried to “cheat” — an opening to the regime with an obligatory wink to those who took to the streets appalled by their rulers’ cynicism and utter disregard for their people’s intelligence and common sense — and we were caught at it. Mr. Obama’s statement that “the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as had been advertised” put on cruel display the administration’s incoherence. For once, there was an acknowledgment by this young president of history’s burden: “Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons.” No Wilsonianism on offer here.

Mr. Obama will have to acknowledge the “foreignness” of foreign lands. His breezy self-assurance has been put on notice. The Obama administration believed its own rhetoric that the pro-Western March 14 coalition in Lebanon had ridden Mr. Obama’s coattails to an electoral victory. (It had given every indication that it expected similar vindication in Iran.)

But the claim about Lebanon was hollow and reflected little understanding of the forces at play in Lebanon’s politics. That contest was settled by Lebanese rules, and by the push and pull of Saudi and Syrian and Iranian interests in Lebanon.

Mr. Obama’s June 4 speech in Cairo did not reshape the Islamic landscape. I was in Saudi Arabia when Mr. Obama traveled to Riyadh and Cairo. The earth did not move, life went on as usual. There were countless people puzzled by the presumption of the entire exercise, an outsider walking into sacred matters of their faith. In Saudi Arabia, and in the Arabic commentaries of other lands, there was unease that so complicated an ideological and cultural terrain could be approached with such ease and haste.

Days into his presidency, it should be recalled, Mr. Obama had spoken of his desire to restore to America’s relation with the Muslim world the respect and mutual interest that had existed 30 or 20 years earlier. It so happened that he was speaking, almost to the day, on the 30th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution — and that the time span he was referring to, his golden age, covered the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the American standoff with Libya, the fall of Beirut to the forces of terror, and the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Liberal opinion would have howled had this history been offered by George W. Bush, but Barack Obama was granted a waiver.

Little more than three decades ago, Jimmy Carter, another American president convinced that what had come before him could be annulled and wished away, called on the nation to shed its “inordinate fear of communism,” and to put aside its concern with “traditional issues of war and peace” in favor of “new global issues of justice, equity and human rights.” We had betrayed our principles in the course of the Cold War, he said, “fought fire with fire, never thinking that fire is quenched with water.” The Soviet answer to that brave, new world was the invasion of Afghanistan in December of 1979.

Mr. Carter would try an atonement in the last year of his presidency. He would pose as a born-again hawk. It was too late in the hour for such redemption. It would take another standard-bearer, Ronald Reagan, to see that great struggle to victory.

Iran’s ordeal and its ways shattered the Carter presidency. President Obama’s Persian tutorial has just begun.

Mr. Ajami, a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is the author of “The Foreigner’s Gift: The Americans, the Arabs, and the Iraqis in Iraq (Free Press, 2007).

It is more than fitting that, in an article that is ostensibly about Barack Obama’s poor handling of the Iranian election opportunity, Dr. Ajami should begin and end with Jimmy Carter.  Because we truly have seen much of Barack Obama’s native and failed policies before in the person of Jimmy Carter.

The biggest problem facing Barack Obama is that he is viewed – and I believe very rightly – as weak.

Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire” – and he defeated it without even having to fire a shot simply by forceful and continuous confrontation.  George W. Bush called Iraq, Iran, and North Korea “the axis of evil” – and he defeated one of its members and replaced it with a stable democracy (over Barack Obama’s opposition, by the way).

Barack Obama is viewed by rogue regimes as being unwilling to go to war to stand up for American policy or American values.  He will pursue negotiation and diplomacy come what may – and in so doing allow tyrants to take advantage of the United States.

That is why “North Korea’s Kim Jong Il has challenged President Obama more in four months than he did President George W. Bush in eight years.”

Bottom line: with a Reagan, or with either Bush, dictators knew that there was a point beyond which they dared not go, lest the U.S. unleash its might upon them.  They have no such fear about Barack Obama, and for good reason.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Calls Sarah Palin “Shrill”

September 3, 2008

CNN brought this little factoid up.

Apparently, Harry Reid is a bit of a mysogenist, continuing the narrative of a sexist meltdown within the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

CNN: Harry Reid releases statement, attacking Palin’s speech as “shrill”..

The talking heads are somewhat aghast, noting the sexist implications of the term “shrill”..

Shrill?  (Allow me let my inner female out for a moment): EXCUSE ME ???

During Wolf Blitzer’s program, Campbell Brown led several other CNN talking heads in having a real problem with a derisive term that is almost always exclusively applied to women.

Suggested bumper sticker for Democrats: “HAVE YOU TRIVIALIZED A WOMAN TODAY?”

I’m sorry, but these recent tactics against Sarah Palin just SO makes me want to start trivially dismissing every liberal woman I meet in as chauvinistic and patronizing a way as I can muster.  I mean, clearly, the way they’re targeting Sarah Palin as a woman, we should dismiss women as lightweights who are not possibly up to the job.

Should I dust off Barack Obama’s “Sweetie“?

How does the Obama-Reid one-two punch sound: That’s okay, sweetie, calm down.  Don’t be so shrill.

Don’t you worry, conservative gals; I’ll never stop treating you with the respect that you truly deserve.