Debating The One with her Pants on Fire

Through the magic of technology, Bill Whittle answers the prevarications of the Democrat ‘front runner’. Beloved she is not, but her Nero complex may be enough to finally bring our country to its knees, the very position where so many in the world think we belong.

Americans aren’t worried about the coming “election”. We know it’s as rigged as money and mortal threats can make it. No, it is the après-election that has us concerned. If she machinates a victory, we will be ruled by an Obama-droid who has undergone surgery to remove the charm. We remember the first Clinton reign: rule by grifters with long memories. They don’t need an Enemies List – those huge crowds are inscribed forever on their hard drives. On the other hand, a scrap of foolscap on which to write the names of their friends would be useful.

As for the numerous U.S.- haters who would love to see America knocked out of position? With the “election” of Mrs. Clinton,, they may well get their wish for an end to American hegemony. But given the rule about vacuums, these folks ought to consider whether or not they’ll like any better whatever entity will rush in to take our place. My preference would be Russia, but it’s China and the Saudis who already own much of our real estate. Perhaps they can rule together. Instead of ObamaCare, we’ll have ChinaCare. Death Panels won’t be necessary or needed.

As for us average Americans, “electing” Hillary Clinton will prove what many have long claimed: we really are a banana republic headed by a tin-pot tyrant who raids the Treasury for her ‘friends’…while her consort hunts for a safe space in the Big House for himself and his cigars. Perhaps the Map Room, under the table? For sure, Hillary don’t need no maps to craft her foreign policy. Some scalpels, maybe, and a Catherine wheel or three.

8 thoughts on “Debating The One with her Pants on Fire

    • Well, it certainly can’t hurt, Frank.

      I often think that things like blizzards are the result of the accumulated focus of many fervent ten year-olds who so devoutly desire to stay home from school and play in the white stuff for a few days.

      Thus, focused prayer may indeed be an option to consider.

      Thank you for your link to Fred on Everything. I’ve been reading him off and on since before the intertubes got going…so, of course, when I clicked on the link I had to spend a while cruising the pages and catching up on Fred. Do you remember when he used to do ride-alongs with the police and report back to us? Fascinating stuff, but if we read it now we’d only be reminded how much the world has changed … and won’t be changing back in our life time.

      Here’s a good link,

      Though I’m not sure if that piece is from the 1980s, or whether it’s Fred’s report or Walter Williams…it’s still instructive.
      [The rest…mercifully redacted for verbosity. Maybe a post on Fred soon, instead…]

  1. Bill Whittle speaks well and persuasively, as always. I think he’s too ready to dismiss the idea of profit sharing, however; not everyone is inclined or able to buy shares in the company they work for.

    In the 1970s I worked for the John Lewis Partnership, a highly successful retail chain in the UK. The “Founder”, John Spedan Lewis, who inherited the business, was concerned that if captalism did not reform, it would be seriously threatened by communism, so he turned over his (majority) shareholding to a trust for the workers (it took a special Act of Parliament, around 1929), and devolved some powers (not sufficient, imho) to bodies elected by them.

    A different age, perhaps, and the Partnership has to invest its pension scheme in other, conventional limited companies, but a noble attempt, and the employees (“partners”) have a strong incentive to look after the interests of the organisation by giving good value and service, since they share directly in the profits.

    • Sears Roebuck had profit-sharing for its employees (one was ‘invested’ after a certain number of years – three, I think). So did Penney’s.

      Retail sales as a career has changed so much that I doubt they can do so anymore — though I don’t *know* that since I’m no longer acquainted with anyone in the field.

      It may be that Walmart has a similar arrangement. Until she retired, a relative of ours worked there for some years and with her growing seniority came some additional benefits – e.g., when her husband moved for his job, she was able to apply at one of the local Walmarts where they were moving. She briefly worked below her grade but when a job to her liking that was her grade level became available, she applied and got it.

      I think many large companies must do things in a similar fashion.

  2. Bill should try the Situation Room. Hill’s only been there once in the last 24 years, a photo op May of 2010.
    When I hear some say their tired of that U.S. being the world’s policeman I always ask whom they would like to take that role, because someone most certainly will. They usually zip it and walk away. Sometimes they’ll respond, “The U.N.”, at which point I laugh and walk away.
    As to China care, I can see the Republicans rushing to improve it for us. The Chinese will probably allow them to insert coverage for the final bullet, so they can claim their the Party of families.

    • The neocon argument is that the US has to act as the world’s policeman. Another way of putting it is “invade the world, invite the world”.

      The alt-righter, Paleoconservative, or classic liberal will say “why should be be the world’s policeman? Let someone else jump down that bottomless rabbithole”.

      In fact, the US blundering attempts at empire-building have been an almost unmitigated disaster. See the results of Hillary Clintons Secretary of State reign. Hillary is a fervent globalist, world policeman type. She will talk tough with Russia, build missile emplacements on the very borders of Russia, and proposes negotiating with Russia on when Russia will allow us to shoot down their planes.

      The fact is, the US persists in overturning functional, dictatorial regimes in favor of the democracy that works (more-or-less) for us, but is totally inappropriate for much of the rest of the world. They, and we, would have been far better off if we just took a lasse-faire attitude towards anything done by other countries that doesn’t directly threaten our security and possibly our commerce.

  3. As an Australian, viewing the U.S election campaign from afar so to speak, I view Hillary as a very dangerous individual, as whatever happens in America will have a knock on effect.
    That being said, should I ever need to buy a bad used car, Hillary is the one to see.
    Anyhow all the best to our American friends on N0vember 8, that are not under the spell of the wicked witch.

    • Thanks.

      We do have two potential bright spots if Hillary gets elected.

      1) She has absolutely no intention of keeping her promises once in office. Her supporters are banking on her honesty and sincerity in doing what she says she will do.

      2) She is servant to the highest bidder. So far, she is beholden to the Saudis and Soros. But, there seems no reason in principle why a billionaire who is opposed to provoking nuclear war with Russia would not be able to make a bid of his own.

      I think the spectre of lying politicians has been unjustifiably maligned when you consider politicians with a platform as bad as Hillary.

Comments are closed.