It is looking more and more as if the Democratic candidate for President in 2016 will, indeed, be Hillary Clinton. Surprise, surprise! Also see longstanding 'bear defecates in woods' theory.
The only thing I can see that MIGHT stop Hillary from running would be issues with her health.
Never mind Benghazi, the mainstream Media is already running interference for her on that and can be expected to smother any other scandal that may arise. Hillary will be, as was Obama, THEIR candidate and they will pull out all the stops to get her elected to the office of President.
Hillary is, like Champ, a Marxist. She loves and craves power as much as, or more than, Champ. She is relentless and ruthless. Make no mistake, Hillary's political philosophy is slightly to the left of the late Ho Chi Min. She will make the perfect female dictator. I would actually prefer a Pol Pot analogy.
Another troubling thought: If Hillary is elected there will be no chance of getting ObamaCare repealed unless the Republicans manage to get a veto proof House and Senate. Remember--before there was ObamaCare there was HillaryCare. Author assumes Pubs actually desire a repeal.
Remember, too, in 2016, Hillary will be 69 years old--with health problems. You may recall that she remarked that John McShame, who was 70 when running against Champ, was too old to be president. FDR entered his second of four terms in a wheelchair and very much enjoyed deep sea fishing.
More troublesome, however, is her health. Just a few months ago, Hillary was treated for a blood clot on the brain. We were told at the time that it was due to a concussion she received as the result of "a fall." Later, we learned, this was not the first blood clot for which she has been treated.
It has also been noted that former President, Bill Clinton, has health problems of his own having undergone two heart surgeries in less than ten years. And he remains at risk. Some question of his health would become a distraction for Hillary as President. Only a couple of hours for the funeral, should he pass on. She'll no doubt be texting from graveside.
Now--it is extremely important we recall her health on the auspicious occasion of her running for President of the US.
Consider this from the Washington Post dated January 2, 2013, and written by Chris Cillizza: "1. Clinton would be 69 years old if she runs in 2016. (Her birthday is Oct. 26, 1947.) That's the same age Ronald Reagan was when he was elected president in 1980. Reagan remains the oldest person ever elected president. (John McShame was 72 when he ran--and lost--in 2008.) Another great J.D. Longstreet article and priceless blended photo.
#2
I'd say no guts, but more ambition and more power hungry. Zero just wants the power but doesn't really get his jollies using it. She wants to grind anyone and everyone that doesn't worship her into the dust.
#3
Of course, there is the governor of California, our beloved Moonbeam, who can claim actual experience at governing. Not that he's been particularly good at it and he's got to be as old as the hills himself. But he could raise the question: Besides marrying Bubba, what has she ever done?
#4
Not that I want this guy to be president. Don't get me wrong, folks, he's not what you call handsome, but OTOH, he's not butt ugly and sickening the way Hildebeast is.
#5
Gov Moonbeam was borin in 1938 - almost ten tears older than the Hildebeast.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
02/20/2014 12:57 Comments ||
Top||
#6
If one were able to pay close attention to the comings and goings at the White House, the potential candidate whose time is spent with ValJar will be the odds-on favorite. Besides being the seat of power and fear in this administration, she knows where all the pay-off deals are and what keys to control key sectors of the Dem Machine have been used. Obama merely disgusts me with his arrogance, shallow thinking and ego, but ValJar, she is frightening, and dangerous!
[DAWN] GIVEN the threats to the media from various actors -- chiefly extortionists and religious Death Eater groups -- Monday's attack came as no surprise. A bomb went kaboom! near the gate of the building that houses the offices of Business Recorder and Aaj TV in Bloody Karachi ...formerly the capital of Pakistain, now merely its most important port and financial center. It is among the largest cities in the world, with a population of 18 million, most of whom hate each other and many of whom are armed and dangerous... ; another that targeted the premises of Waqt TV and The Nation and Nawai Waqt newspapers was defused. While no group had grabbed credit at the time of writing, the attacks will no doubt aggravate existing fears, especially as the latest incident follows the killing of three employees of the Express Media Group last month. The responsibility for their deaths was claimed by the proscribed Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistain, that reissued a 'fatwa' against the Pak media some weeks ago. Not only that, the group also prepared a hit list naming some journalists and publishers, from owners and anchors to field staff. The 29-page fatwa accused the media of siding with "disbelievers" and, to quote Khalid Haqqani, deputy TTP chief and one of the edict's main authors, of "continuously lying about us and our objectives".
From the state and its representatives there has been only a muted -- if any -- response to the increasing dangers from various groups that the media must contend with. This has turned an already fraught situation into one of grave proportions, for it sends out the signal that journalism can be silenced -- whether by organizations that deal in terror or others that imitate their methods -- with impunity. Yet what is at stake is of critical importance: the ability to faithfully and accurately inform. Freedom of speech already stands greatly compromised in a country where a large section of society has followed the slide to the extreme right; the list of things that can no longer be safely referred to is growing longer. When the state stands by as media houses face those who use terror tactics to muzzle journalists, it adds significantly to the vulnerability felt by the latter. While the state must support media houses and the latter themselves must take security measures, it is also important that a collective voice is raised by the journalist community against the growing threats. Unless journalists are unified, the media's hard-won liberties will be lost.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/20/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Mods, please delete the above posting. It was posted to Fred's piece in error. My apologies.
Mark Steyn outlines the chilling fact that government even writes about the press, which it has no business doing under any circumstances, regulations or no. This is fascism is big bold letters.
From TFA:
The litigious Fake Nobel Laureate Michael E Mann will be heartened to discover that "the environment" has been identified as a Critical Information Need. So the government monitor in your local newsroom will be tracking how the station covers "the environment", what resources it devotes, the prominence it gives to stories, etc. But what if you're a news editor and you happen to disagree that "the environment" is one of the eight most Critical Information Needs. What if you happen to think that "runaway public debt" or "the vulnerability of US diplomatic facilities in Libya" is a more Critical Information Need than "the environment"? What government bureaucrat do you go to to see about getting the federally-mandated Critical Information Needs changed? Or does it require a constitutional amendment?
The state has no business determining which news stories have priorities over others, and certainly no business sending monitors into newsrooms to ensure compliance - because the essence of a functioning press is not what the state decrees the citizen has a "critical need" to know but what it doesn't think he needs to know. Why should "Social Solutions International" get to determine "the critical information needs of the American public"? And why should the government get to enforce them?
#4
It seems that a critical information need (CIN) of any media would be to determine "How the hell to keep the govmint out of the process?" Currently we have a MSM that Joseph Goebbels would be proud of.
#2
Seems to be his desired state of mind, 'cause reality is so icky.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
02/20/2014 7:08 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"Those who turn away from fighting evil need to be aware, that the notion of evil as dark is actually the opposite of the truth. Evil is so bright, that people can't stare at it with their eyes. It's blinding; so people look at other things. Instead of fighting evil, they fight carbon emissions.
#4
But the fact is, Kerry is an empty suits empty suit, and the only thing about him that should be taken seriously is his career as a gigolo.
Ouch. That hurts. Got to agree with Howie Carr. Our Secretary of State is vacuous. I often wondered how he got 59 million votes in the 2004 election. A few more stolen votes and he would have been in the WH. That is a scary thought.
#5
An anecdote. When Kerry was running for president, his campaign train was scheduled to run through Lawrence, KS, location of the University of Kansas. Student held a rally in anticipation of a train whistle speech. Not only did the train not stop, but they had no intention of stopping. There was much howling from Kerry supporters. Now before takes the route of well a democrat candidate had no business stopping in Kansas that particular year (even though Sebelius won re-election that year) there is a huge bloc of students from major states, especially Minnesota, who were attending KU. The mistake was so egregious that ASAP Edwards was sent back to Lawrence to make up for the obvious and avoidable oversight.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your Secretary of State.
#7
He won't be president. Neither will Hillary. Democrats (almost) never nominate the next guy in line. Gore was an exception. Usually it is "someone else", an unknown from out of the blue (Champ and BJ Clinton being obvious examples).
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The lapdogs are going along with it, are they not?
