"I support the poor but not the war on poverty."

8.25.05 | JohnLongIsland, Mia T

[Mia T]

"I support the poor but not the war on poverty."

by JohnLongIsland + Mia T, 8.25.05

If you want to attend ex-President Clinton's upcoming conference on solving global poverty, you better not be poor yourself.

The web site for the so-called "Clinton Global Initiative" - set for Sept. 15-17 in Manhattan - is hawking tickets for $15,000 a-piece. For that princely sum, "participants will play a role in deciding on the programs that the Initiative will fund throughout the year."

"This nonpartisan conference will bring together a diverse and select group of current and former heads of state, business leaders, noteworthy academicians, and key NGO representatives to participate in a series of dynamic interactive workshops," the web site claims.

"The group will strategize on the best methods to reduce poverty; use religion as a force for reconciliation and conflict resolution; implement new business strategies and technologies to combat climate change; and strengthen governance."

The ex-president himself - who used to say he was obsessed with getting Osama bin Laden - says he's found a new obsession.

"In my life now, I am obsessed with only two things," he now insists. "I don't want to anybody die before their time and I don't want to see good people spend their energies without making a difference."

Attendance at the CGI is supposedly by invitation only. But for those willing to pony up the $15 large, Mr. Clinton is apparently willing to make an exception.

The CGI web site notes:

"If you have not received an invitation and would like to see if you are eligible to attend, please complete this form and a representative of the event will contact you."

Clinton Charging $15,000 for Poverty Conference
Tuesday, Aug. 23, 2005 12:37 p.m. EDT
NewsMax.com

 

this is just like the concert they had last month its a big feel good do nothing bash.

the MSM media should have cameras in every corner and show the whole event as it will expose the debauchery, decadence and total non regard for the poor and the poor's problems of the left.

Its like i support the troops but not the war. the new leftist phrase should be:

"i support the poor but not the war on poverty."

JohnLongIsland

 

 

^{Q ERTY6}bump

 

 

 

support the poor but not the war on poverty."

This analogous formulation exposes the speciousness--the absurdity--of the left-wing red-state-imperative impresa: "I support the troops but not the war."

Engineered specifically to conceal the sedition in the sedition, this left-wing shibboleth exposes the ease with which the American Left, for power, will trade away our national security as if it were cattle futures or some other fungible commodity.

Although she baked no cookies, didn't do illicit land or cattle deals and stood by no man, hillary clinton starred in the triple role of the Cook, the Thief and his Wife. Her lover was played at once vaporously and in workmanlike fashion by the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt, with Janet Reno, between her stints rendering intermittent injustice for the Husband, as the reliable stand-in. Sidney Blumenthal was the stand-in for the Cook and Craig Livingstone the stand-in for the Thief. The last-minute addition of Christopher Hitchens as the snitch was a stroke of absolute genius notwithstanding its cerebral accident, its predictable-if-perfect pitch (and its facile alliteration).

Although Act I had no rating, the new clinton soccer-mom directive will require a photo ID for any viewer without independent proof of illegal alien DNC <-> DNA sequencing.

In Act II, rabid anti-clinton voters, roughly 33% of the U.S. populace according to as-yet-unpodded pollsters, become increasingly aware that they are disappearing in droves and being replaced by alien pod replicas which have their physical attributes but lack all anti-clinton affect.

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.

THE ALIENS
COPYRIGHT MIA T 1999, 2005

"I support the troops but not the war."

If [bill clinton's] postmodern poppycock sounds familiar, that's because it is. The American Left today exhibits -- and is crippled by -- the very same political and cognitive postmodern incapacity and dysfunction.

Listen to the Left. Listen to Kerry and Gore and Pelosi and Kennedy and [either] clinton and Soros and Moore and their complicit friends in the media. (How DARE The New York Times bury on page 16 the photos of the seven terrorists believed to be in the U.S., plotting an even more horrific 9/11? How DARE they?) You will hear the same alternative "truths," the same alternative selves, the same alternative moralities.

• They still refuse to accept the War on Terror as war, not crime.

• They still refuse to accept the War on Terror as a global, irreducible war, not a collection of discrete civil conflicts.

• They still refuse to understand that the war in Iraq is not an "optional" war apart from the War on Terror, but is, in fact, the War on Terror's lynchpin.

• They refuse to understand (or refuse to admit) that "support for the troops" cannot be independent of support for the war effort and support for the commander in chief.

They refuse to accept the fact that their jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding and abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans.

THE LEFT'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting
the terrorists and imperiling all Americans₂

Just like the Left vis-à-vis the troops in the war on terror, the Left not only wants the poor to lose the war on poverty, the Left is pulling out all stops to make certain the poor will achieve that end... and achieve it before the next election cycle.

 

If leftist pandering keeps the disenfranchized down in perpetuity, clinton pandering, ("it's the economy, stupid"), kept the middle and upper classes wilfully ignorant for eight years.

And ironically, both results (leftist social policy and the clinton economy) are equally illusory, fraudulent. It is becoming increasingly clear that clinton covertly cooked the books even as he assiduously avoided essential actions that would have negatively impacted the economy--the ultimate source of his continued power--actions like, say, going after the terrorists.

Mia T
HILLARY IS NIXON-PLUS ^{part 2}
BEWARE THE SYNERGY
Nixonian paranoia and fascistic mindset combine with
clintonian megalomania, ineptitude and, most important, easy betrayal of America
to make hillary clinton deadly dangerous for us all.

A constituency that is poor, ignorant and in servitude is a must if the moribund Left is to have any chance of surviving, never mind regaining power.

LUCINDA FRANKS: I think you're wrong because, after about two years of -- of working on this, you know, on and off, I think the president -- that the teenage culture caused the president's behavior in the way he behaved in -- with the oral sex.

 

BILL O'REILLY: I think you're crazy, Ms. Franks, with all due respect.

Fellating Kids and clinton Degeneracy: The Revisionism Begins

 

 

"Be Liberal, Live in Ignorance and Servitude"

by Gail Wynand

Liberals have always had problems figuring out causation. They believe for example that because people who smoke (sometimes) have higher rates of cancer than people who don't that smoking CAUSES cancer, worse, they believe that if people get cancer it is the fault of the "tobacco companies" (i.e., caused by the manufactures of tobacco products). They further believe that the remedy for this fault is that billions of dollars in "damages" should be transferred from the wealth of stockholders in tobacco companies to a handful of plaintiffs lawyers including the First Lady's relatives and others closely associated with the Democratic party. And they believe, apparently, that if young people are now experimenting with sex at early ages and with more profoundly explicit practices than in past years, and that if the President of the United States decides to enroll a young intern in rendition of such services to his middle aged libido resultantly staining both her dress and America's reputation, that a spontaneous wave of teenage sex experimentation, sucked (sorry) the poor middle aged chief executive into its vortex.

Deducing causation in most events takes deliberate, focused, thought, insight, and a disciplined intelligence that doesnt skip foundational indoctrination (aka actually studying in school). Causation of the diseases associated with cancer is highly complex and to a large degree still unknown. That smoking is probably not healthy for you is well known. That a middle aged chief executive, Yale Law School graduate, former professor of Constitutional Law and State Attorney General should be responsible and accountable for his own actions including HIS perjury and obstruction of justice would seem axiomatic to all but a liberal who has the capacity to adopt causationally convenient theories based solely on tangential proximity to the event under examination rather than through any rational analysis of the importance or significance of the asserted cause to the event. Thus, "guns" are used in some murders therefore, to a liberal all "guns" should be either banned or kept in locked safes with trigger locks so as to disarm the law abiding public and eviscerate their legally recognized right to effective self defense.

Quite simply, one has to be pretty stupid or very corrupt or both to be a liberal, at least and for sure to be a Clinton supporter. But it is worse than that, one also has to deny the importance of human consciousness and free will. That is, a Clinton defending liberal apparently believes that childhood psychic trauma, teenage sex trends (remarkably and largely only rampant among the social classes targeted by liberals for social intervention for the past 40 years) and the power of "addiction" which used to be considered merely "habituation" in more stalwart times, are more significant than free will in determining human conduct.

Clearly someone should notify America's founders that they have erred... men are not deserving of self-government, because clearly self-government is nothing more than the aggregation of all our psychic traumas and libidinal confusions.. and look where that has gotten us...one Clinton leaving the white house and one aiming for the US Senate for the State of New York... perhaps the liberals ARE onto something? But no, study the last two Clinton elections carefully... this most shameless and shameful American President is the product of plurality (less than majority) votes obtained through the gile and intrigue of an elitist cabal of intellectually impaired and ethically corrupt media manipulators aligned in effect with the electoral tampering of one man, H. Ross Perot, who although he occasionally gave a good speech was still intelligent enough to know his only role was to twice deny the conservative majority of American voters a first choice for President. And now even as Evita determinedly grasps for the Security Power and Influence of the Senate seat, one sees in her early campaigning the overriding awareness that her only hope is the sowing of confusion and ignorance... the demonization of a long time public servant whose accomplishments are towering, the pandering to the lowest and most depraved and corrupt anti social organizations and figures (no not the mob, the teachers unions and Mr. Sharpton). Arm in arm this body of liberal enthusiasts march forth to assure that America continues to be contaminated and disabled by their control of government into the 21st century... arrogantly and in complete disregard of truth, rationality, or the notion of liberty... they pound at the very gates of freedom, threatening to burn (redefine to mean the opposite of what they say) the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address and replace them with their own Orwellian Banners of "community" "children" "education" "fairness" and all the other focus group tested liberal-illogicisms. But the translation exists and when the alien identifying sunglasses are donned all of their slogans can be seen to read "Be Liberal, Live in Ignorance and Servitude"

 

solving clinton poverty 

 by Mia T, 8.23.05

 

If you want to attend ex-President Clinton's upcoming conference on solving global poverty, you better not be poor yourself.

The web site for the so-called "Clinton Global Initiative" - set for Sept. 15-17 in Manhattan - is hawking tickets for $15,000 a-piece. For that princely sum, "participants will play a role in deciding on the programs that the Initiative will fund throughout the year."

"This nonpartisan conference will bring together a diverse and select group of current and former heads of state, business leaders, noteworthy academicians, and key NGO representatives to participate in a series of dynamic interactive workshops," the web site claims.

"The group will strategize on the best methods to reduce poverty; use religion as a force for reconciliation and conflict resolution; implement new business strategies and technologies to combat climate change; and strengthen governance."

The ex-president himself - who used to say he was obsessed with getting Osama bin Laden - says he's found a new obsession.

"In my life now, I am obsessed with only two things," he now insists. "I don't want to anybody die before their time and I don't want to see good people spend their energies without making a difference."

Attendance at the CGI is supposedly by invitation only. But for those willing to pony up the $15 large, Mr. Clinton is apparently willing to make an exception.

The CGI web site notes:

"If you have not received an invitation and would like to see if you are eligible to attend, please complete this form and a representative of the event will contact you."

Clinton Charging $15,000 for Poverty Conference
Tuesday, Aug. 23, 2005 12:37 p.m. EDT
NewsMax.com

Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs; Hillary is getting $8 million dollars for hers, for a total of $20 million. Not bad for a couple that for eight years swore under oath they couldn't remember anything.

anonymous

 

 

HALF A HOUSE, HALF A BRAIN
Why we were compelled to hit on Simon & Schuster, our personal agitprop-and-money-laundering machine
(YOO-HOO Mrs. clinton: A '68 Mustang is not exculpatory)

by Mia T, 1.29.03

PUFFY-faced polemicist Christopher "Hellbound" Hitchens claims Bill Clinton is a "lousy crook."

... He rips into jokes about President Bush's intellect as "another liberal snig that annoys me a lot these days," adding, "The fact has to be faced: the intellectual candlepower of this administration is a great deal brighter than the Clinton administration . . . [and] the level of professionalism is very much higher."

hitchens on the clintons

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

Upstaged, clinton Recycles Tired Canard, Tries New Revisionist Tack

 

by Mia T, 11-03-03

 

Biography lends to death a new terror.--Oscar Wilde 

 

 

Hypocrisy abounds in this Age of Clinton, a Postmodern Oz rife with constitutional deconstruction and semantic subversion, a virtual surreality polymarked by presidential alleles peccantly misplaced or, in the case of Jefferson posthumously misappropriated...

Mia T, THE OTHER NIXON

 

 

 

Yesterday, Daniel Patrick Moynihan died. Today, the clintons are arrogating his soul. Hardly surprising. In 1999, the clintons were not at all shy about seizing his still-warm senate seat.

One has merely to recall the Jefferson double-helix hoax to understand that posthumous misappropriation is, for the obvious reason, the clintons' preferred method of legacy inflation….

Standard-Issue clintonism

If misappropriation of Jefferson's alleles hinged on a broken line of descent, misappropriation of Moynihan's endorsement depends on a broken line of dissent. Like Sally Hemmings' progeny, Moynihan's later acquiescence is of dubious lineage

Mia T, Moynihan Myths

 

hat is surprising about the clinton-Dole C-SPAN pas de deux is not that clinton demagoguery had gotten so old. What is surprising is that the tautological, specious, gasbag sort of banality that had always been the hallmark of clintonspeak was ever considered interesting or credible in the first place.

The 60-minute C-SPAN reprise of the 60-second 60 Minutes clinton-Dole flop confirmed what the 60 Minutes separate-stages format had plainly suggested: that bill clinton would be wise never to share the stage with Bob Dole.

Bob Dole displayed an easy wit; clinton served up faux-folksy bromides laced with underlying rage, seasoned with stale carnard-cum-corollary for good measure.

The canard: If a crook doesn't make a profit, then it's not a crime.

The corollary: The government should pursue a crook if, and only if, the crook's take exceeds the government's cost to nail him.

hillary talks: ON CLINTON "FINANCES"

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

Casuistry in the service of clinton revisionism....

Posthumous misappropriation is, for the obvious reason, the clintons' preferred method of legacy inflation. While downward revision ("defining deviancy down") is the classic clinton m.o., (see Jefferson double-helix hoax), clinton, exposed, is now arguing the obverse; the double negative offers the illusion of a higher ground.

If the purpose of the canard and corollary is to nullify Whitewater, the purpose of the claim that Ulysses S. Grant was unfairly maligned is to point the clinton hagiographers in the direction of the nonjudgmental... and the non sequitur.

That is, if Grant was unfairly maligned as a drunk, then, according to clinton deconstructionist logic, it follows that clinton was unfairly maligned as a rapist, traitor, perjurer, suborner of perjury, cheat, obstructor of justice, abuser of power, psychopath, corruptor of children, murderer, incompetent, utter failure, proximate cause of 911... take your choice.

While it is true that The Gorelick Wall was the convenient device of a cowardly self-serving president, The Wall's aiding and abetting of al Qaeda was largely incidental, (the pervasiveness of the clintons' Nobel-Peace-Prize calculus notwithstanding).

The Wall was engineered primarily to protect a corrupt self-serving president. The metastasis of al Qaeda and 9/11 were simply the cost of doing business, clinton-style.

Further confirmation that the Wall was cover for clinton corruption:

• Gorelick's failure to disclose the fact that she authored the memo that was the efficient cause of 911
  

• Gorelick's surreal presence on the 911 commission investigating Gorelick's Justice Department, a maneuver that effectively removes from the universe of witnesses a central witness, Gorelick, even as it uniquely positions a central player, Gorelick, to directly shape the commission's conclusions. (Is there any question which two people are responsible for Gorelick's insertion on the commission?)

Conversely, that it never occurred to anyone on the commission that Gorelick's flagrant conflict of interest renders her presence on the commission beyond farce calls into question the commission's judgment if not its integrity. Washington's mutual protection racket writ large, I suspect....

The Gorelick Wall is consistent with, and an international extension of, two essential acts committed in tandem, Filegate, the simultaneous empowering of the clintons and disemboweling of clinton adversaries, and the clinton Putsch, the firing and replacement of every U.S. attorney extant.

... Once the clintons' own U.S. attorneys were in place, once the opposition was disemboweled by the knowledge that their raw FBI files had been in the possession of the clintons, once domestic law enforcement was effectively blinded to foreign data by Gorelick's Wall, the clintons were free to methodically and seditiously and with impunity auction off America's security, sovereignty and economy to the highest foreign bidder.

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

Reverse Gorelick
by Mia T, 4.15.04
QUINN IN THE MORNING (ESSAY DISCUSSED)
(MP3, REAL, WINDOWS MEDIA, WINAMP)

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?

by Mia T, 8.18.05

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
thanx to jla and Wolverine for the audio

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

THE LEFT'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans₂


WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?


Why hillary clinton should never be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office... or any position of power--THE SERIES
REASON 1: MISSUS CLINTON HIRED JAMIE GORELICK


sandy berger haberdashery feint
(the specs, not the pants or the socks)


BILL CLINTON'S CINDY SHEEHANS (courtesy Sean Hannity)


BIN LADEN FINGERS CLINTON FOR TERROR SUCCESS (SEE FOOTAGE)
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE


"SONNY" CALLAHAN + BILL CLINTON'S CINDY SHEEHANS


BILL CLINTON'S CINDY SHEEHANS (courtesy Sean Hannity)


THE ROOTS OF CINDY SHEEHAN
(COURTESY JAMES TARANTO VIA RUSH LIMBAUGH)

[nmh]

Thanks for posting.

You did allot of work.

I will be reading through all of it.

Have a great day!

[Mia T]

ping

[Sam Cree]

Cute phrase!

[Mia T]

I thought it was great. It's JohnLongIsland's creation.

[Mia T]

You too! thanx :)

[andyandval]

No blood for Burgers!

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

bump

[Jet Jaguar]

BTTT!

[the tongue]

No blood for olive oil!!

[.cnI redruM]

Bill Clinton, like a lot of The Left, loves the poor when they're far away and a theoretical concept. However, there are probably very few Conservative Christians on The New London, CN Town Council and we all saw how the Clinton SCOTUS Appointees voted on Kilo v. New London.

[Eagle of Liberty]

Had an analogy while I was listening to a lady on Hannity trying to explain that we have spent so much already on Border Control and none of it is helping. She actually said that since it is not helping, we should just stop spending the money.

My analogy would be this: We have also spent a lot on the homeless and the problem just isn't getting any better. We should just stop.

[bmwcyle]

bttt---The Clinton threat still looms.

[mc5cents]

I support drugs but not the war on drugs!

[beyond the sea]

The group will strategize on the best methods to reduce poverty; use religion as a force for reconciliation and conflict resolution

"use religion as a force for reconciliation and conflict resolution" --- tell that to the Islamists.

[JohnLongIsland]

the best thing about these bashes is they all get
doggie bags worth about $10000-$12000 to take home with them with gifts donated from tiffanys, coach, rayban, etc.
It's a great advertising gimmic
I could see mr. bill going to africa and telling some kid:
"here kid put some salt and pepper on my rolex and eat it."

[TBP]

We declared war on poverty; poverty won.

That's two wars LBJ lost for us.

[Mia T]

 

 

 

No blood for olive oil!!--the tongue

bump!

OIL FOR BLOOD
(IT WAS NOT 'GOING TO WAR WITH IRAQ' THAT WAS 'ALL ABOUT OIL,' BUT RATHER, 'NOT GOING TO WAR WITH IRAQ')

by Mia T, 12.08.04

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic

pourquoi la gauche est dangereuse pour l'Amérique

 

by Mia T, 5.15.04

 

 
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

 

 

 

As long as you've got a rich man on your arm, you don't need a big bag.

Elizabeth Rickard

 

 

 

The $100 billion Iraqi Oil for Food program was by far the largest relief operation in the history of the United Nations. By extension, it's rapidly becoming the U.N.'s largest-ever scandal....

Those included rewarding friends and allies world-wide with oil allocations on very favorable terms, as well as extracting large kickbacks from oil traders and suppliers of humanitarian goods....

There can be little doubt that U.N. mismanagement contributed greatly to the negative perception of the anti-Saddam containment policy. There is also little doubt that the reward and kickback scheme--as well the possibility of exposure--was a factor as some countries weighed whether to back U.S.-led regime change in Iraq. There is even reason to suspect that some of the Saddam friends and allies who benefited may have been members of the U.N. Secretariat.

Oil for Scandal
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:01 a.m.

 

eave it to the French to make pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic all the rage.

They and their moneygrubbing, Oil-for-Food defrauding cohorts abroad, and their power-hungry would-be terrorist sympathizers here, are all sporting "THE LOOK."

(How many of those oh so trendy Kerry-clinton-Kennedy hate-America, blame-America-first sound bites will Al-Jazeera broadcast today?)

The trusty triad's half-truths, exaggerations and outright lies, confounded by fog of war, vagaries of peace and uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds, remind us that things are not always what they first seem. The UN Oil-for-Food scandal, for example, has shown us it was not "going to war with Iraq" that was "all about oil," but rather, "not going to war with Iraq." The Left, we now see, had that one, (as they have most things), exactly backward.

The dernier cri of seditious and corrupt Leftists everywhere, pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic renders the Left, irrespective of policy, no less dangerous to Western civilization than the terrorists they aid and abet.