Posted on 02/13/2007 9:24:39 AM PST by Mia T
STALINIST RISING? 1
|
There are a lot of ways to make a man's death look like an accident, suicide or a street crime. That wasn't the intent of whoever murdered former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko in London. By using such an exotic murder weapon—a radioactive isotope known as polonium-210—his killers sent a message: Don't mess with the powers that be in Russia.
Max Boot |
NEO-STALINIST
hillary clinton is our Putin.
To get a glimpse of her Stalinist proclivities, one need only go back to 2 July 2006. As the country prepared to celebrate its independence, missus clinton stealthily, almost subliminally, was applying the jackboot.
It was clinton's response (by proxy (how else?)) to what was plainly in the field... and what was doubtless in her internal polls: Big problems ahead for the quondam shoo-in. The 'dump hillary' movement within the Democratic Party was getting traction.3, 4
She dispatched longtime clinton operatives, James Carville and Mark J. Penn, to the Washington Post to prop her up yet one more time. The Post Carville-Penn apologia was full of the usual clinton poses, poll-tested phrases and prevarication, but that was not the real story. The real story was the headline: 'The Power of Hillary.'
'The Power of Hillary' had the whiff of raw FBI files and IRS audits. It had the stink of the clinton jackboot.
The message was clear: Be advised! Try to dump hillary and hillary will, quite simply, crush you.
As with Putin and other Stalinists, missus clinton's functional assassination weapons of choice are drummed up charges of tax evasion and character assassination, 9 not necessarily in that order.
The Barrett Report, paid for by The People and redacted by the DC mutual protection racket writ large—which is also, we note (and will remember), paid for by The People—documents the clintons' abuse of the IRS and other clinton abuses of power that were—and still are—routinely used to silence clinton critics.
FAKE OUT
If functional assassination is a clinton staple, the reputation for assassination-in-fact is the clinton coup de grâce.
To make sure their repulation always precedes them, the clintons never miss an opportunity to spread the rumors around themselves. By repeating every allegation of clinton murder and mayhem—while affecting an incredulous air, of course—the clintons intimidate and silence their critics even as they marginalize the enemy.
The outrageousness of the clintons' crimes, actual and apparent, will always work to the clintons' advantage, making the disabling of these flagrant psychopaths all the more challenging.
But disable them we must.
For the children.
December 7, 1941+64
hillary clinton's revisionist tome notwithstanding, 'living history' begets a certain symmetry. It is in that light that I make this not-so-modest proposal on this day, exactly 64 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The context of our concern today--regardless of political affiliation--is Iraq and The War on Terror, but the larger fear is that our democracy may not survive.
We have the requisite machines, power and know-how to defeat the enemy in Iraq and elsewhere, but do we have the will?
In particular, do we have the will to identify and defeat the enemy in our midst?
Answerable to no one, heir apparent in her own mind, self-serving in the extreme, hillary clinton incarnates this insidious new threat to our survival.
What we decide to do about missus clinton will tell us much about what awaits us in these perilous new times.
COMPLETE LETTER
AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL AMERICANS RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton
Dear Concerned Americans,
December 7, 1941+64
Mia T
AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005, 2007
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2007
Why does Hillary like Communism? Because she can be a modern day Caesar.
The only good thing about SHillary wiining is Bill will have to be first lady. LOL! I would still keep him away from the interns.
thanx.
The cowardice and corruption of the political class (and I include the media here) make them unreachable.
But we can reach the uniformed, misinformed and disinformed voters. We must target the demographic clinton is targeting: women, and especially young, single women. I will be posting more on this soon.
Once again, please remove me from your ping list--as I find your outrage at Slick and his wife inconsistent, compomised and very selective--at best (being generous here).
I share your disgust about the damage that Slick and his wife have done to this country. If you knew me personally, you would have a really hard time finding anyone that despised Slick more than I did. Same for his lovely wife.
Having said that, I find your willingness to support for President the most vocal liberal, Clinton-APOLOGIST totally inconsistent with your anti-Clinton postings for the last few years. I would use the term 'hypocrisy', but that probably is a bit too strong. Maybe, maybe not--but I won't use it again.
Don't you see the pathetic irony and INCONSISTENCY in your supporting a Clinton-apologist for President?
At the risk of repeating myself here, let's look at Guiliani's public comments (paraphrasing).
(1) Shortly before his 'last-minute' endorsement of Bob Dole in the 1996 presidential election, [Giuliani] told the Post's Jack Newfield that "most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." No surprise here--as they are both liberals. I'm sure that played really well at the Kos, DU, the DNC, etc.
(2) The Daily News quoted [Giuliani] as saying that March: "Whether you talk about President Clinton, Senator Dole.... The country would be in very good hands in the hands of any of that group." OH REALLY???? I won't even go there.
(3) Combine those two comments with Guiliani's OUTRAGEOUS defense of Slick in the WOT after the Chris Wallace meltdown interview, "I don't blame Clinton. He did all that he could do"! This is the most incredibly OUTRAGEOUS of all his comments!! How could he even say that with a straight (no pun intended) face?
Outrageous, absolutely outrageous. If he really said that (which he did)--why would we expect him to be any stronger in the WOT. I won't 'beat this dead horse' anymore--as I think I covered his DEFENSE OF SLICK adequately the last time I addressed this issue with you.
I hope that someone in the press asks Rudy who he voted for in '92 and '96.
Let me sum up my comments to you with this one statement. I could understand your willingness to support Rudy AFTER the primaries (if, in fact, he is nominated), but your willingness to support him BEFORE the primaries have even begun--totally negates much of the outrage that you have posted about Slick and his supporters in the last few years. The operative word here is "BEFORE". A few words come to mind there, pathetic irony, inconsistency, compromised principles, selective outrage,,,,ok, I won't mention the other. When it comes to your postings about Slick's sycophants and supporters, the term 'double standard' also comes to mind.
You don't need to respond with some 'tortured explanation' of how you feel that Rudy is electable, and Hillary must be stopped, or something along those lines--yada, yada, yada. You could have made the case for him against Hillary AFTER the primaries--not before. Please don't waste your time now.
For the last time, please remove me from your ping list.
The husband would be emasculated in more ways than one... (not that there is much there to emasculate).
Ceiling's finished and I bought the paint for the walls/trim this morn. Wanna know which colors I chose?
I am so sorry, stockstrader.
With all the back and forth we had the other day, I completely forgot to remove you from my ping list. Will do that right now (and will leave my 'why Rudy?' response to my next post, thereby sparing you any additional angst arising out of the supposed cognitive dissonance).
The 'logic' of those refusing to vote for Rudy:
Rudy is a too 'liberal' 'New Yorker' so they will place their de facto vote for missus clinton, a Stalinist New Yorker, albeit fake, (fake New Yorker, not fake Stalinist), who
It does the conservative cause no good to become petulant and self-destructive.
Do conservatives really want
I find it hard to believe that those people aren't able to discern the difference between Giuliani and clinton. Frankly, if true, it is frightening.
I am advocating for Giuliani not because of his ideology. I am advocating for him because I believe he possesses the qualities that this country desperately needs in these perilous times... and because I believe he, unlike all the others, will win.
The other night, I heard a man who is not perfect, but a man of rare intelligence, humility, warmth, competence, strength and leadership.
We will be fortunate, indeed, and our babies, born and unborn, living and not yet imagined, will be infinitely safer, if he is our next president.
Some people I know would dispute that. ;)
of course. :)
Tony is actively pursuing this issue...he is very vocal on his radio show. He is then promoted to Press Secretary. Just thinking aloud here...
P.S. Glad to see you survived the ceiling and Taylor Dayne's swoon factor. ;)
Sounds stunning.
Thanks. After it's finished I'll take a picture or two.
Really? ;(
Looking forward to seeing it.
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.