I could be referring to so many things: excess plastic surgery; gross obesity and death-camp “svelte;” Boy George. Hillary Clinton.
I saw today in the National Enquirer that Hillary is a “confirmed” lesbian and travels with girlfriends including The Hoom aka Huma Abedin. Scoff if you will, but the National Enquirer is one of the most accurate gossip magazines in the US and always scoops the others on big news. It used to be far less reliable until Carol Burnett sued the pants off the gossip rag. Ever since then, if something scary and utterly bizarre, like Bruce Jenner turning into a hideous woman, has appeared in National Enquirer, it inevitably ends up on the mainstream front pages. In fact, Politico.com is running a series of photos of the two women together with the title, “how close are Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton?” Nothing at all racy in the photos, but that question made me wonder if they, too, were insinuating something. In fact, a search of the internet shows this to be the topic du jour. But to quote some shrill harridan, “what difference does it make?” I’m going to make a giant assumption that Hillary’s alleged sexual appetites won’t turn off her fans in the almost entirely Democrat lesbian community or among the generally desexualized or oversexualized and certainly anal retentive left.
On the other hand, surely she’s about to be given the hook and hauled off to prison for:
a) hiding subpoenaed records in her own personal closet forever before being outed by a female assistant who obviously was not taken by Mrs. Clinton’s charms;
b) successfully defending a pedophile rapist in her first idealistic youth and then gloating about what a cake walk it was;
c) lying to her superiors on the Watergate Committee while trying to remove Richard Nixon from the Presidency for lying;
d) profiting knowingly from narcotics activity and drug-money laundering, in Arkansas and beyond;
e) corrupt trading;
e) wiping out four years of official U. S. Government records concerning the affairs of the United States Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in clear violation of the law, and after those communications had been subpoenaed by Congress;
f) all of the above and much, much more.
It doesn’t look that way. It appears that Mrs. Clinton is waaaaay above the law, up there with her husband and Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and that verminous weasel Harry Reid (The Good Mormon). I’m still counting on Trey Gowdy to be the outstanding prosecutor he is and zap her on the feloniously deleted government records. I sense a kindred spirit there.
The exterminator came by today, waging the endless battle against Florida insects. This guy and I always chat about politics. He’s what I consider a true centrist, a stubborn guy who likes to consider things and make up his own mind. He said Rand Paul, my favorite, will never get elected by the Republicans and my broken heart and I agree he is probably right. He wondered what I thought about Hillary’s chances of getting the nomination.
I said it looked that way, but one never knows. One lefty chiropractor acquaintance with whom the Bug Guy engages in barter trade (“roaches for realignment”) had said he was voting for Hillary, who was just what the country needed, a woman. It was her right to be president as a woman. The exterminator asked him if that meant that using sex as a criterion was good or bad, or if it maybe was only good when it served your larger interest and not that of the other guy? Good one, I offered. Of course it didn’t sway the argument. The same guy thought Obama had a right to be president because he was black. Not honorable, uncorrupted, knowledgeable and fair-minded, not even a demonstrable US-born citizen, but black. Same for Hillary. Who cares if she’s an unindicted felon?! What’s the difference?
Now we hear that Mrs. Clinton, her morally lax husband, their homely daughter, and IN PARTICULAR their very own money-making Foundation are going to continue taking foreign donations. Hell, no, they’re not killing the golden goose. Those Foundation funds are beautifully expungable and after accidentally getting commingled with those of the Hillary campaign all records could easily disappear. The Clintons threw the public a crumb, agreeing to say a polite “no more, for now” to the Saudis and to everybody but a small number of very rich countries, some of them actually Socialists, as is Mrs. Clinton. I’m impressed, aren’t you? The only good thing is Norway’s income is way down with the falling oil prices. They won’t have so much money to funnel to her via the Foundation. (The wife of a Norwegian military official once told me the rest of the world ought to get to vote in US elections since the US told everybody else what to do. I’m sure she would send in her five euros.)
The Republican field is pretty good aside from their uniformly bellicose foreign policy. (Well, we can’t yet throw in Rand Paul.) They all spout the usual nonsense about carrying the flag for civilization, democracy, freedom, and Niceness. The problem is the “little” wars are multiplying and the Big War, the One that is really going to End All Wars, threatens on multiple fronts. The deeper we involve ourselves in other peoples’ wars, the more impossible it is to withdraw. And needless to say, the money and power interests get bigger and fatter, too, feeding on all this endless conflict. The old military-industrial complex that Eisenhower spoke of. (If you live in the DC area you’ll get it — the place has burgeoned and grown like a tick off the taxpayers’ blood. Every retired General has at least an office there and increasingly the metropolitan population lives off the government.)
As for their domestic platforms, I am still waiting to here what those are. Nobody seems to be making Obamacare much of an issue. I do applaud the House repeal of the estate tax, let’s hope the Senate acts quickly and we can all enjoy another self-righteous bit of blather from The Empty Suit about “fairness” (highway robbery) as he vetoes the bill.
One last word on another picture that’s not so pretty, this one the latest blast of Cold War hysterics from the US Pentagon: our military leaders have expressed to the Russians and the world their indignation that the Russians had acted dangerously and provocatively and aggressively when US spy planes were flying “in the Baltic” in international waters. What isn’t stated is that the US spy planes were spying on Russia along its adjacent border, as we assume we aren’t spying on Latvia. NATO considers Russia to be rude in telling NATO jets unambiguously to buzz off. But here’s a question: why is it that when Russia is, say, steaming through the English channel en route to its own war games in the North Atlantic, a la NATO in the Black Sea, that NATO and its leading member-state hawks fan the flames of hysteria and portray Russia’s passage as threatening? If it is truly threatening, then just think how Russia feels about US spy planes, sent from half a world away, patrolling its borders? Threat or no threat?