Posted on 02/24/2004 5:16:20 AM PST by Mia T
|
|
If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.
Mia T, June 9, 1999 |
The Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent2
|
|
||||
|
by Mia T, 4.6.03
Mia T, June 9, 1999
Al From is sounding the alarm. "Unless we convince Americans that Democrats are strong on national security," he warns his party, "Democrats will continue to lose elections."
Helloooo? That the Democrats have to be spoon-fed what should be axiomatic post-9/11 is, in and of itself, incontrovertible proof that From's advice is insufficient to solve their problem.
From's failure to fully lay out the nature of the Democrats' problem is not surprising: he is the guy who helped seal his party's fate. It was his Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that institutionalized the proximate cause of the problem, clintonism, and legitimized its two eponymic provincial operators on the national stage. The "Third Way" and "triangulation" don't come from the same Latin root for no reason.
That "convince" is From's operative word underscores the Democrats' dilemma. Nine-eleven was transformative. It is no longer sufficient merely to convince. One must demonstrate, demonstrate convincingly, if you will… which means both in real time and historically.
When it comes to national security, Americans will no longer take any chances. Turning the turn of phrase back on itself, the era of the Placebo President is over. (Incidentally, the oft-quote out-of-context sentence fragment alluded to here transformed meaningless clinton triangulation into a meaningful if deceptive soundbite.)
Although From is loath to admit it -- the terror in his eyes belies his facile solution -- the Democratic party's problem transcends its anti-war contingent.
With a philosophy that relinquishes our national sovereignty -- and relinquishes it reflexively… and to the UN no less -- the Democratic party is, by definition, the party of national insecurity.
With policy ruled by pathologic self-interest -- witness the "Lieberman Paradigm," Kerry's "regime change" bon mot (gone bad), Edwards' and the clintons' brazen echoes thereof (or, alternatively, Pelosi's less strident wartime non-putdown putdown)… and, of course, the clincher -- eight years of the clintons' infantilism, grotesquerie and utter failure -- the Democratic party is, historically and in real time, the party of national insecurity.
The Democrats used to be able to wallpaper their national insecurity with dollars and demogoguery. But that was before 9/11.
addendum 12.13.03:
Note in particular Madeleine Albright's shocking reason given at the time of the USS Cole attack why the clinton administration should not respond militarily. It tell us everything we need to know about the clintons. It tell us why clinton redux is an absolutely suicidal notion.
Notwithstanding their cowardice, corruption, perfidy, and to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, their essential cluelessness, the clintons, according to Albright, made their decision not to go after the terrorists primarily for reasons of their own legacy and power. The clintons reasoned that inaction would MAXIMIZE THEIR CHANCES TO RECEIVE THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. No matter that that inaction would also maximize the terrorists' power, maximize America's danger.
For more than a half decade, the Clinton administration was shoveling atomic secrets out the door as fast as it could, literally by the ton. Millions of previously classified ideas and documents relating to nuclear arms were released to all comers, including China's bomb makers.
William J. Broad
But it is Broad's failure to fully connect the dots -- clinton's wholesale release of atomic secrets, decades of Chinese money sluicing into clinton's campaigns, clinton's pushing of the test ban treaty, clinton's concomitant sale of supercomputers, and clinton's noxious legacy -- that blows his argument to smithereens and reduces his piece to just another clinton apologia by The New York Times.
But even a Times apologia cannot save clinton from the gallows. Clinton can be both an absolute (albeit postmodern) moron and a traitor. The strict liability Gump-ism, "Treason is as treason does" applies.
The idea that an individual can be convicted of the crime of treason only if there is treasonous intent or *mens rea* runs contrary to the concept of strict liability crimes. That doctrine (Park v United States, (1974) 421 US 658,668) established the principle of 'strict liability' or 'liability without fault' in certain criminal cases, usually involving crimes which endanger the public welfare.
Calling his position on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty "an historic milestone," (if he must say so himself) clinton believed that if he could get China to sign it, he would go down in history as the savior of mankind. This was 11 August 1995. (There would be an analogous treasonous miscalculation in the Mideast: clinton failed to shut down Muslim terrorism, then in its incipient stage and stoppable, because he reasoned that doing so would have wrecked his chances for the Nobel Peace Prize. Indeed, according to Richard Miniter, Madeleine Albright offered precisely the Nobel-Muslim factor as a primary reason for not treating the bombing of the USS Cole as an act of war.)
It is precisely the clintons' bin-Laden-emboldening inaction to the attack on the USS Cole and the clintons' bin-Laden-emboldening token, ineffectual, August 1998 missile strikes of aspirin factories and empty tents that eliminate "bin-Laden-emboldenment avoidance" as the rationale for the latter decision and support "wag the dog," instead.
Taken together, feckless clinton inaction and feckless clinton action serve only to reinforce the almost universally held notion: the clinton calculus was, is, and always will be, solely self-serving.
In the case of the non-response to the attack on the Cole, an unambiguous act of war, the clinton rationale, according to no less than Madeleine Albright, was a clinton Nobel Peace Prize by Arab appeasement. i.e., a clinton Nobel Peace Prize by bin-Laden-emboldenment.
And in the case of the curiously-timed, ineffectual (and, therefore, bin-Laden-emboldening) token missile strikes, the clinton rationale was Lewinsky-recantation distraction -- clearly not bin-Laden-emboldenment avoidance. (This is not to say there wasn't a Nobel factor here, too. Obsolete intelligence, bolstered by the redundancy of a clinton tipoff, ensured that both bin Laden and the Mideast Muslim ego would escape unscathed.)
Mia T, "WAG THE DOG" revisited
WASHINGTON -- Two Norwegian public-relations executives and one member of the Norwegian Parliament say they were contacted by the White House to help campaign for President Clinton to receive this year's Nobel Peace Prize for his work in trying to negotiate peace in the Middle East.
Clinton Lobbies for Nobel Prize: What a Punk
AIDES PUSH CLINTON FOR THE NOBEL
Mia T, Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers
|
|
|
Hillary is getting ready for 2008. She rides in her armored protection as she charms the masses. Heaven help us. ---bmwcyle |
|
I don't think "charm" is the cockroach's strong suit. ;) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
copyright Mia T 2004 |
"neocommunist political movement, a tipsy-topsy, infantile perversion of the Marxist-Leninist model, global in scope, beginning in the post-cold-war, unipolar 1990s, led by the '60s neoliberal baby-boomer "intelligentsia," that seeks power without responsibility, i.e., that seeks to dilute American power by concentrating power in said '60s neoliberals while yielding America's sovereignty to the United Nations..."
Another tragedy in this.....the innate, incarnate hypocrisy of these "60s neoliberal baby-boomer ''intelligensia''". How they've held back, held down, and used African-Americans. And despicably, did it intentionally, in order to maintain power over them.
Remember "the silent majority"? Nixon named us, the media made fun of unsophisticated, uneducated, unhip, us. We almost gave in to the "60s intelligensia", and almost without a fight, until Reagan, and until Clinton galvanized us. How close we came, it's scary.
If a white person was walking down the sidewalk, a black person had to get off the sidewalk so the white person could walk by. There were laws which prohibited Blacks to look at white people in the eye, and a black person could be sent to jail for "assault (reckless eyeballing)." ... Blacks who dared to challenge the rules were lynched by the thousands. Men and women were lynched. Lynchings were public events and white men, women and children went to watch Blacks being tortured and burned or hanged... Whites literally got away with murder for killing "uppity" Blacks. Historical Backdrop to FREEDOM SONG "When 'Queen Hillary' walks down the hall, you're not supposed to look at her. You're actually supposed to go into an office if there is one nearby. She doesn't want staff 'seeing' her. And I know she sure as hell doesn't want to meet you or any other staffer!" "You have to be kidding me!" John replied. "No, we got the word at a staff meeting. It's true. Look around. Do you see anyone else in the hall?" John looked around and sure enough people were starting to emerge, like prarie dogs peeking out of their burrows after a hawk had flown past. Gary Aldrich, "Unlimited Access" "I'm doing my chores for Hillary Clinton." RON BROWN (ON HIS COMMERCE-DEPT CRIMES) TO NOLANDA HILL "I will not go down alone." RON BROWN (DAYS BEFORE HIS DEATH, ON HIS PLEA AGREEMENT WITH THE DOJ) TO BILL CLINTON
"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." Ironically, the logic of this pronouncement by Martin Luther King would, in short order, be refuted by the sad reality of his own lynching. King's hope was misplaced and his reasoning was circular. The resultant rule of law relied on by King presumed an adherence to the rule of law in the first instance. Adherence to the rule of law is not something normally associated with the clintons. Moreover, racial and ethnic disrespect, intimidation, exploitation and hate have always been a fundamental clinton tactic and the reflexive use the "N"-word and other racial and ethnic slurs, an essential element in the clinton lexicon. When the "first black president" and his wife ran Arkansas, the NAACP sued them for intimidating black voters at the polls. But it is the clintons' refinement of the DNC drag and drop that is, arguably, the most insidious and repugnant application of their special brand of race-hate politics. Drag and drop is a vote fraud technique by which unwitting, unwilling and/or illegal voters -- typically inner-city blacks and other minorities -- are literally dragged into the voting booth and told where to mark the "x" -- often multiple times per election. Drag and drop does not merely undermine and corrupt our system of government. Drag and drop is not merely illegal and exploitive. Drag and drop is racist and dehumanizing. Calculating a black man's worth to be 5/3 of a vote is no less racist, and arguably more so, than calculating his worth to be 3/5 of a white man; the latter is demeaning, but the former is dehumanizing. In the senate race against Rick Lazio, it is widely understood that the drag and drop, (followed by the OLD ANGLE / NEW SQUARE / OVAL OFFICE SCHEME ) was clinton's vote fraud technique of choice used to overcome her low poll numbers, high personal negatives and consistent public failures. "UPPITY" BLACKS AND THE CLINTONS The Ron Brown death and the clinton legacy of lynching represent the pernicious endpoint, but the history of clinton race-hate politics is replete with a reflexive 'disposal' of 'uppity' blacks from to Marian Wright Edelman to Lani Guanier to Jocelyn Elders to Carl McCall... To former Atlanta Mayor Maynard Jackson. The clintons' anointment of their man, Terry McAuliffe, to the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee didn't merely force Maynard Jackson to the back of the bus. It pushed him off. Two Degrees of Segregation: Al Sharpton, Donna Brazile, Carol Moseley Braun and the clintons The announcement that intellectual and ethical lightweight, Carol Moseley Braun intends to run for president raises the same fundamental question that hillary clinton's looming presence does: "What the hell is this moribund loser doing in the political arena, anyway?" In order to better understand the easy entry of Moseley Braun into democrat field, clinton-clinton precedent (president!) and the field's increasingly circus-like quality notwithstanding, one must consider the precipitating acts of Al Sharpton and Donna Brazile. The Al Sharpton candidacy, by definition, disturbed both the clinton calculus and literati sensibilities, inspiring an immediate if ineffectual Tawana-Brawley deathblow attempt by leftist media. Sharpton's response was swift and sure. He warned that the next time the media asked him about Tawana Brawley, he would invoke the clinton scandals and the media's apparent lack of interest in same when questioning hillary clinton. (Surely the clintons' rapes and other predations would trump this quaint little hoax...) Sharpton's Harlem office effectively burned to the ground the next day--an accident they say--but he was not deterred. The media, however, apparently were; they quickly buried Tawana Brawley beside Juanita Broaddrick, somewhere in that dark recess of expediency called access journalism. If the clintons wanted Sharpton out because of the sheer embarrassment of him before his salvo, they now would be satisfied with no less than Sharpton's head. Donna Brazile was to neutralize (decolorize?) Sharpton by creating black favorite son candidates in every state of the union. It seems that Brazile ultimately thought the better of it, warning that dem dissing was demonstrably dumb, that Sharpton could, a la Jesse Jackson, lure crucial black voters back into the democrat fold. So how then to siphon off the black votes that will go to Sharpton? Enter clinton lackey, Carol Moseley Braun, nothing more than a cynical extension of clinton drag and drop and legacy of lynching.
clintonism and the theology of contempt
an Extension of clinton drag and drop and legacy of lynching
Mia T, November 2000 (sometime before the-first-Tuesday-after-the-first-Monday)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
neocommunist political movement, a tipsy-topsy, infantile perversion of the Marxist-Leninist model, global in scope, beginning in the post-cold-war, unipolar 1990s, led by the '60s neoliberal baby-boomer "intelligentsia," that seeks power without responsibility, i.e., that seeks to dilute American power by concentrating power in said '60s neoliberals while yielding America's sovereignty to the United Nations, i.e., while 
