Is It Just Me?

Everyone is having sphincter spasms over Hillary Clinton’s email scandals, possible Russian hackers, and Wiki Leaks. Congressional committees have been having a hissy fit over Hillary’s (mis)handling of classified information.  When they do get a batch of emails to examine, they’re redacted to the point that they are worthless.  This crap is laughable to me.  All the secrecy, and cloak and dagger maneuvering, keeping everything hush-hush, all while POTUS announces to the entire world precise info on air strikes, places we’re going to attack, exactly when we will attack, or withdraw, number of troops in a given area, etc.

None of this was ever about our Nation’s Secrets.  It’s all about Clinton secrets and all the quid pro quo deals.  Millions of dollars went into the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary signed over 20% of our uranium to Russia.  Hello!  “In exchange for a favor from The State Department, we’ll pay Bill Clinton $750,000 for a speech.”  These are the types of secrets they’re trying to guard. 

The concern about the handling of ‘classified documents’ and possible hacking is laughable, when you consider the fact that none of the people managing Hillary Clinton’s servers ever had any kind of security clearance; not Brian Pagliano, not Justin Cooper or Paul Combetta from Platte River Networks, not even anyone at Clinton’s law firm, whose lawyers supposedly read and checked for classified info on all of her emails. So, Hillary’s servers, and her emails, have for years, been available to any Tom, Dick or Harry who was the least bit curious.  So, what were they trying to keep secret?  Oh yeah, yoga positions and recipes.  Riiight!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

President Hillary v. ISIS

 

Have You Hugged A Terrorist Today?

Attorney General Loretta Between Meals Lynch said, “The best way to fight terrorism is with love and compassion.” Hillary said, “We need to respect our enemies and be able to empathize with them.” So how would President Hillary Clinton deal with ISIS? A conversation with ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi might go something like this:

Hillary: “Mr. Baghdadi, you are one of the greatest terrorists of all time and we, in the United States, respect that.  I was glad to learn that you are paying your Jihadists above minimum wage.”

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi: “I am pleased that you have recognized my abilities, and I hope you understand that our goal is to kill all Americans and Jews. By the way, you can just call me Al.”

Hillary: “Well, Al, we can totally appreciate your malevolence toward non-Muslims, your need to behead innocent people, and your penchant for stoning women to death. These things are part of you storied culture, and we respect that, but do you think we might be able to find some middle ground; like putting a mutually agreed upon cap on beheadings, for example? What if you limit your beheadings to one per month? Would something like that work for you?”

Baghdadi answers, “If you would send us one Republican each month, that might work.”

Hillary: “Al, I can certainly empathize with that feeling. I’ll see what I can do, if you will do me one favor. Please tell all of the Americans that have converted to Jihad, and are fighting for you, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is willing to accept them as members and fund a pension plan for them. I just wanted you to know that we respect you and fully understand your hatred of America. We’ll talk again soon.”

 

 

Republicans Are Racists and Democrats Are Ideologues. Really?

I was just thinking back to the Clarence Thomas hearings, when the Democrats pulled out all the stops and went after Clarence Thomas with the gusto of a Zumba freak. It was character assassination to the max.  They vilified the man; I could be wrong, but I don’t recall any Republicans accusing the Democrats of racism.  According to the Republicans, the Dems weren’t going after Thomas because of his race; it was pretty much accepted that it was about ideology.  Yet when I voiced my opposition to Barack Obama, I was immediately accused of being a racist.  In fact, everyone who opposed Obama was labeled a racist, by the left.  It could not possibly have been about his college records being sealed, or the fact that he had Marxist leanings and zero executive experience, or that he declared his intention to fundamentally transform the United States of America (he didn’t say into what), or any of a myriad of flaws in his background.  No, no, one’s opposition to Obama was solely about the color of his skin, according to the Democrats.

I consider anyone who uses a person’s race as consideration for making a decision, yea or nay, to be a racist. I have no idea what the percentage may be, but I am reasonably sure that Obama got millions of votes because of his race.  ‘White guilt’ had  reared its ugly head in 2008, and there were a lot of people eager to demonstrate their innocence.  So, the irony is; the real racists (the ones who used race as a reason to support Obama), were calling me a racist, even though my objection to Obama was purely ideological, and had absolutely nothing to do with race.

I mused about the Clarence Thomas hearing in my book, ‘Half of America Is Nuts and They Were Allowed To Vote’, so I offer this excerpt, as a bit of comic relief:

       –That was supposed to have been a hearing, but they never tested Anita’s hearing. The whole thing could have been a series of misunderstandings.  Maybe Anita simply didn’t hear exactly what Judge Thomas said, half the time.  I mean, he might have said, “I’m concerned about the public care of my folks”, and she thought he said, “I discern a pubic hair on my coke”.  He could have said, “I like for my women staffers to have larger desks”, and she thought he said larger breasts.  At lunch time he might have suggested, “Let’s take out Long John Silver”, and she thought he said Long Dong Silver.  The whole thing could have been a series of misunderstandings.  And as a side note; what was Ted Kennedy doing at those hearings?  Having Ted there was like having  Hillary Clinton speak at a memory seminar.- 

Better Wetter Water

On TV last night, there was a commercial advertising some kind of Amish tonic they claimed “made water wetter”. I think the market for this kind of product will be huge. Can you see a brand name like ‘Better Wetter Water’, with a sales pitch like this?
 
If you drink ‘Better Wetter Water’, you won’t drink as much water, because our water is wetter. Everyone wants wet water. When you take your first bath in ‘Better Wetter Water’ you will feel exhilarated. Fire departments are raving about ‘Better Wetter Water’, because they can put out a fire in less time, using less water. The wetter the water, the better the water. Farmers have been waiting for ‘Better Wetter Water’ for years. Order today, call GET-WET-FAST. Operators are standing by now. Your beautiful 1,000 gallon ‘Better Wetter Water’ designer storage tank will be delivered to your yard within 10 days. Our most popular storage tank is Dumbo the Elephant, followed by Rosie, our giant pink flamingo tank, and of course the kids love our Bullwinkle tank. You will be the envy of your neighborhood. If you order now, we’ll send you a second tank free. Just pay shipping and handling.  Call now, GET-WET-FAST!
 
GDavidHoward.com

How To Write in Hillaryspeak

“After I never said that the Trans-Pacific Partnership was the gold standard, and when I didn’t say that I am in favor of open borders, I was misquoted, and taken completely out of context, in both cases. People hear what they want to hear, and what they want to hear becomes what they think they remember they actually heard, when in reality, what they heard wasn’t what they wanted to hear. I always try to say what I think the listener wants to hear, even though what I’m saying isn’t necessarily what I believe, because I have learned that integrity and truthfulness are not only over-rated, they can get you into a lot of trouble. People who understand what I’m saying and master these strategies make excellent journalists and politicians.”

GDavidHoward.com
Twitter.com/lafftiluhurt
https://www.facebook.com/funniestmanalive/

Lie, Cheat and Steal

When Bill and Hillary left the White House in 2001, they stole furniture, artwork and china, which they were forced, later, to return.   People who have integrity, good value judgment, and honorable intentions don’t steal.  Hillary Clinton is not a person with good morals.  In my opinion, she is a terribly dishonorable person.  I’d be willing to bet her childhood nickname was “sticky fingers”.

 Everyone knows, by now, that Hillary is also a serial liar. That is, everyone except Hillary.  Talking about her trip to Bosnia, Hillary said, “I remember landing under sniper fire, there was no greeting ceremony, and we had to run to our vehicles with our heads down.”   After being shown the video of her exiting her plane in Bosnia, and being greeted by a throng of reporters, dignitaries and well wishers, and certainly, no sniper fire, she said that she “misspoke”.  According to Random House College Dictionary, misspeak is a verb which means to speak, utter, or pronounce incorrectly. By the very definition of the word, she didn’t misspeak; she lied.  So, she even lied about lying.  She lied about misspeaking.  Hillary Clinton would tell a lie, even if the truth was a better joke.

 I think she’s been lying about her own name. She claims she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary, who conquered Mt. Everest.  The problem I have with this claim is that Sir Edmund Hillary was a virtual unknown until he did, in fact, climb Mt. Everest, but Hillary Clinton was almost six years old when Sir Edmund Hillary made his incredible quest, and became a man of renown.

People who lie and steal are also prone to cheating, so suspicions about her possibly wearing a hearing device during a debate, or being fed debate questions in advance, or bribing women to make false claims about her opponent; none of these things, if they were to happen, should come as a surprise to anyone.

 

GDavidHoward.com

Twitter.com/lafftiluhurt

https://www.facebook.com/funniestmanalive/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What happened to the presumption of innocence?

In what looks like a carefully planned, coordinated, and well timed attack by several women, making unsubstantiated allegations, obviously designed to derail Trump’s campaign, some people are presuming Trump’s guilt, not his innocence; with no evidence, no witnesses, no proof of any kind.

Lesson learned: if you can get enough like-minded people to make allegations that are similar to yours, you can destroy any person you decide to target. It’s up in the air as to how many accusers is “enough”.  The number seems to be somewhere in the area of six, or more.  I’m not sure who sits on the rules committee, and decides how many accusers are required for a conviction, or if there are any guidelines for a final judgment.  It’s been rumored that if they can get twelve more accusers, for a total of twenty, Trump will be required to debate Hillary Wednesday night, while wearing a purple tutu, ballet slippers, and a cap that says, “I’ll show you mine, if you’ll show me yours”.

 

GDavidHoward.com

Twitter.com/lafftiluhurt

https://www.facebook.com/funniestmanalive/