politicians
On Sep 21, 9:59 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
>
> *The Revenge Of The HillBillies?
> *September 20, 2011
> by Robert Ringer <http://www.personalliberty.com/author/robert-ringer/>
>
> Early in 2009, I started writing about the possibility of the HillBillies --
> the world's first and only two-for-the-price-of-one political combo --
> challenging Barack Obama once it became obvious to a majority of the
> anesthetized public that the would-be emperor had no clothes.
>
> Don't get me wrong. BHO has accomplished almost everything I expected of
> him: universal healthcare; a trillion-dollar stimulus giveaway; debt-ceiling
> increases that have brought the United States ever-closer to default;
> business-crushing regulations intended to bring the private sector to its
> knees; encouraging union thugs to engage in violent uprisings from coast to
> coast; appointing far-left radicals to important positions in the White
> House; sending a thumbs up to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and the PLO,
> while constantly chastising Israel. There's no need to go on, as your own
> list is probably longer than mine.
>
> But now Chairman Obama is in danger of stumbling before he can carry the
> ball across the left goal line and declare victory over America. Witness the
> humiliating Democratic defeats in Nevada and New York City's District 9. The
> Solyndra scandal is threatening to spin out of control. Obama refuses to
> utter a word about Jimmy Hoffa's introducing him at a union event in Detroit
> by saying, "Let's take these (Tea Party) sons of bitches out and give
> America back to an America where we belong." The list goes on. The next
> thing you know, the world may even find out that Laura Ingraham was right
> about the White House garden being just another example of Obama
> razzle-dazzle.
>
> As James Carville said in his recent warning to Democrats, "It's time to
> panic." And that, I think, is where Obama's weakness lies. When panic sets
> in, he comes across as a frustrated, tantrum-throwing child; and each time
> he does, it awakens another batch of "independents" from their "yes we can"
> coma. To put it mildly, it's childish to go on tour and shout "Pass this
> bill" to audiences of college kids, but when you yell it out more than 100
> times in a week, it's beyond childish; it's pathetic.
>
> Enter the HillBillies and, yes, when you buy one, you do get the other one
> for free. It's getting late in the campaign game and, granted, it's a tough
> decision for them to make, but they have to do it relatively soon if they
> really want to have the opportunity to finish trashing the White House
> (i.e., when they move out for the second time).
>
> If Hillary announces, it will be one of the biggest bombshells in modern
> political history. It will also tear the Democratic Party apart.
> Nevertheless, I believe she would beat the current White House Grand Mufti
> rather handily.
>
> Why? Because there are enough rational Democrats out there who know that not
> only is their party going to lose the White House in 2012, they also are in
> danger of losing their own seats. That creates a strong motivation to
> distance themselves from Obama and fall in line behind savior Hillary.
>
> Now for the bad news: If Hillary did secure the Democratic nomination, she
> would probably beat either Rick Perry or Mitt Romney in a landslide. Like
> Obama in his stealth 2008 campaign, she now has most of the public
> completely fooled. The majority of Americans no longer see her as a radical
> 60s hippie who came to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue focused on implementing her
> own version of universal healthcare but, rather, as a moderate, well-meaning
> liberal.
>
> They forget that she's the sweet little gal who once said, in a campaign
> speech, that she would *take *$5 billion from oil companies that's right,
> *take it *(as in, force) * *and use it for whatever. And if she can take
> money that belongs to oil companies, she certainly can take it from you.
>
> The public has already forgotten her abstract progressive rants about
> "environmental rights," "I can create shared prosperity," and "It takes a
> village." Hillary would still move to the left if she got into office, but
> slower and smarter than the current Emergency-in-Chief. She may not have
> gone to a church for 20 years where the pastor shouted such goodies as "G__
> damn America" week in and week out, but she is a dyed-in-the-wool believer
> in the collective over the individual.
>
> That said, I hasten to add that she is also something else: totally amoral.
> Hillary and hubby have clearly demonstrated that they will do anything,
> anytime, anywhere, to anybody if it's in their best interest.
>
> A lot has happened in the movie-like saga of the HillBillies over the past
> decade, not the least of which is the discovery of how nice the payoff can
> be when you succeed in the capitalist system in fact, more than $100
> million worth of nice.
>
> On the road to weaving hippie values into government at the highest levels,
> the Clintons found that wealth and prestige are not all that hard to get
> used to. Hobnobbing with the rich and famous among Washington's elite and on
> New York's Upper East Side is something one learns to tolerate, even if he
> or she starts out as a genuine flower child.
>
> What I'm saying here is that when push comes to shove, Hillary's ego and
> materialistic instincts might just win out over her desire to be a model
> "new American progressive." After all, that "shared prosperity" schmaltz is
> really just for the dolts who are looking for more government handouts. I've
> always believed that, behind the flowery phrases, Hillary actually harbors
> an enormous contempt for the lower echelons of society.
>
> What I'm talking about here is a $3 million wedding for daughter Chelsea,
> $250,000 speaking fees as far as the eye can see and invitations to royal
> dinners as a normal way of life. Speaking of $250,000 speeches, you and I
> may have thought that we'd never live to see it, but the fact is that Hubby
> Bubby, the first of two world-class bull slingers from Hope, Ark., is now
> the face of the Democratic Party.
>
> People have short memories. They've apparently convinced themselves that his
> cigar tricks in the Oval Office were nothing more than a collective
> aberration. Groper Bill is now a revered elderly statesman. Like it or not,
> he and Hillary have morphed into an elite establishment couple.
>
> All this means that if Hillary does challenge Obama and ends up back in the
> White House, she might just drop the "taking from the oil companies" blather
> and posit herself as the great middle-of-the-road state capitalist. Sort of
> a female version of John McCain or Orrin Hatch.
>
> Sure, the U.S. will still eventually go under, because neither the
> mathematical realities nor the entitlements that drive them can be overcome
> by anyone especially a politician. But if businesses are fooled by Hillary
> into believing otherwise, the free market is so robust that entrepreneurial
> activity could postpone the inevitable for another couple of decades.
>
> That's important, because in a couple of decades the world will look much
> different than it does today. Depending on how things unfold with the Tea
> Party, we might even have a civil war that ends with the good guys winning.
> Or perhaps there will be some other solution preferably one in which
> government is relegated to a minor role in society that we can't see from
> our present vantage point.
>
> The Marxist crowd knew from the moment they gained control of both houses of
> Congress and the White House that they were unlikely to get another
> opportunity to finish the job if they didn't move quickly. That's why the
> left's leading nut case, Paul Krugman, recently said, "I'm trying to make
> this progressive moment in American history a success."
>
> Ironically, it was none other than James Carville (the guy who now is
> warning the Dems that it's time to panic) who predicted after the Democrats
> won it all in 2008 that the Democratic Party would rule for 40 years. For a
> long time, I thought he would have to eat his words, but if Hillary
> challenges Obama for the Democratic nomination, he might just turn out to be
> a prophet albeit via a route he probably didn't think possible.
>
> Having said all this, for those of us who are still intent on resisting a
> left-wing police state in America, I think we would be wise to be careful
> what we wish for. Obama can be beaten, but probably not Hillary.
>
> http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/government/the-r...
> ****
>
> __._,_.___
> Reply to sender<beow...@westerndefense.net?subject=Re%3A%20The%20Revenge%20Of%20The%20HillBillies%3F>|
> Reply
> to group<grendelrep...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20The%20Revenge%20Of%20The%20HillBillies%3F>|
> Start
> a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/grendelreport/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdXYzMW1...>
> Recent Activity:
>
> Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/grendelreport;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbWk2bjcxBF9T...>
> MARKETPLACE
>
> Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get
> the Yahoo! Toolbar
> now.<http://global.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15ootlsij/M=493064.14543979.14562481....>
> [image: Yahoo!
> Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNm5wYTljBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycEl...>
> Switch to: Text-Only<grendelreport-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>,
> Daily Digest<grendelreport-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>•
> Unsubscribe <grendelreport-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>•
> Terms
> of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
> .
>
> __,_._,___
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment