Monday, March 31, 2008

And She wants to run Our Government?

Democrat Nominee hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton

There she goes again, she’s never managed, run or been an executive of anything besides this Presidential campaign and she’s in the red again.

Oh, but according to Sen. Clinton she’s “tested and ready” on day one to lead this nation. How long must we endure this assault on our good sense and judgment? Just who do the Clintons think that they are fooling?

Yes I know, I know that there are those who would support Hillary Clinton even if Rev. Jeremiah Wright were her pastor, and even if she is a sniper fire fraud, but come on guys if one of the two reasons (one is her experience the other is she’s a woman) that Sen. Clinton gives as justification for what qualifies her to be President turns out to be phony like for instance her 1996 Hillary and Chelsea most excellent Bosnia Adventure doesn’t that give you pause?

The fact that her Campaign is cash-strapped (again) and not paying its bills is an indication to everyone who is a conscious, sentient human being that Sen. Clinton is not credible even in her claim that only she has the experience to be president.

Clinton's campaign did not respond to recent, specific questions about its transactions with vendors. But Clinton spokesman Jay Carson pointed on Saturday to an earlier statement the campaign issued to Politico, asserting: "The campaign pays its bills regularly and in the normal course of business, and pays all of its bills."—Kenneth P. Vogel

Let’s look at how the two campaigns compare:

The New York senator’s presidential campaign ended February with $38 million in the bank, according to a report filed last week with the Federal Election Commission, but only $16 million of that can be spent on her battle with Obama.

The rest can be spent only in the general election, if she makes it that far, and must be returned if she doesn’t. If she had paid off the $8.7 million in unpaid bills she reported as debt and had not loaned her campaign $5 million, the cash she would have had available at the end of last month to spend on television ads and other upfront expenses would have been less than $2 million.

By contrast, if you subtract Obama’s $625,000 in debts and his general-election-only money from his total cash on hand at the end of last month, he’d still be left with $31 million.
—Kenneth P. Vogel

So based on the facts Sen. Obama has less debt than Sen. Clinton and more net cash reserves so who between the two would you say has the experience to lead this country if running a campaign is any indication of the ability to manage a multi-complex multimillion dollar enterprise?

Sen. Clinton once boasted that she has plenty of ideas yet the country would not be able to afford them all.

That statement is perhaps the only truthful thing that Sen. Clinton has said in this whole campaign.

With her claims of experience gone the way of sniper fire in Bosnia the only reason to vote for Sen. Clinton now is because she is a woman.

How ironic when the feminist movement was principally about making the genders equal while working for a day when gender would not matter. Yet, Sen. Clinton as managed to even set that idea of the movement back 50 years with her use of “Socialist Femi Nazi” gender specific politics.

And she wants to run our Government?


  1. Anonymous6:53 AM

    Hillary is still an improvement over Barack Obama. When (not if) she gets into trouble during her tenure as President, Hillary's self-interest will kick in and she will make moves to protect the Clinton Legacy, AT ANY PRICE.

    At What Price, do you ask? At the PRICE of rehabilitating George Bush and his associates. Hillary will take the credit for the save, but at least there will be a save.

    McCain, though relatively sounder than Hillary, will be stubborn and hard-headed. If the wrong ill comes our way, McCain will bang his (and the collecive American) head against the stone wall until that stone wall falls down.

    As per Obama, he will do little better than Nero, Caracalla, or Elegabalus. He won't know what hit him. unlike the other two.

    Disagreeing with both Thomas Jefferson and Alaphiah, I thing that Obama is drinking something worse than Kool-Ade when he imbibes that toxic Theological Mix of Jeremiah Wright. While last week, I railed against his Liberation Theology, this week, I am railing against his Prosperity Theology.

    Wright lives in an opulent $10 Million home furnished by his congregation. Preachers with such a life-style do do by propounding Prosperity Theology, ie., the more Offerings you give, the more blessings you get. Michelle Obama gave avay a piece of the puzzle with her advice to young people to go into service jobs and stay away from high-paying jobs like Hedge Fund Management. Wright's Theology is that the Leader (Wright) gets all of the gravy at the expense of his supporters hopes, aspirations, and dreams, confirmed by Wright's PARASITIC Prosperity Theology which emphasizes punative double and triple tithing. Let this be unto hima an ANATHEMA!!!

    The point of the last very long paragraph is to illustrate the governing style of an adherant to both Liberation and Prosperity Theology. Expect double and triple tithes (TAXES) to atone for the sin of "PROFITEERING", a practice which most people call "making a decent living". Likewise, I would oppose a Muslim who showed indications of imposing JIZYAH to support the extravagent life styles of governmental and religious functionaries (remember that some Muslims do not separate Church from State).

    I do dread Obama's govening style, based upon his professed religion. Mind you, I am at greatest possible odds against Calvinism, and I would be more bitterly theologically opposed to Calvin Coolidge than to any other US President. Yet I would vote for Coolidge in a nannosecond because Coolidge's Theology translates into industrious laissez-faire Capitalism. I would have accepted Romney, a Mormon, because he would not have tampered with my basic liberties. I am Theologically closest to Hillary Clinton, a Methodist. Though her Methodism would normally signal Free Will and laissez-faire Capitalism, it is her Liberalism I fear.

    OK, Alaphiah. Go ahead and disagree with me. I told you why a Conservative would support her, at least temporarily. It will do McCain some good to know that he as to woo some Conservatives away from Hillary, as perverted as that may sound.

  2. Anon,
    Though it is quite apparent that you are much smarter than Thomas Jefferson and me, the question is (which you faulted to answer because of your staggering prejudices and biases) "based on the facts Sen. Obama has less debt than Sen. Clinton and more net cash reserves so who between the two would you say has the experience to lead this country if running a campaign is any indication of the ability to manage a multi-complex multimillion dollar enterprise?"

    If you, minus your prejudices, still think that Hillary is "still an improvement over Obama" would you please enroll in the first Economics 101 class available.

    No maybe twelve grade high school economics would be more understandable for you!

  3. Anonymous9:50 AM

    Yes, I am prejudiced in that if I thought someones religious beliefs would be of critical impact upon his political beliefs, I would oppose him. For example, Calvin's Geneva is precisely the kind of Theocratic Tyrrany that Thomas Jefferson and myself would strive to avoid. I am extremely prejudiced against John Clavin's COlld Blooded Murders of Michael Servetus and Jacques Gruet. Of course, I know that I would lose my hands, my tongue, and my head during the Friday Afternoon Justice & Decapitation Ceremonies that the Mutawah hold after Jumah. You could say that I get downright bigoted against this king of Religion-based Government.

    My objection to Prosperity Theology is that it preaches that God will bless you in proportion to your offerings, regardless of I Timothy 5:8. When applied to Governing, will Government bless you in proportion to your Tax Contribution, even if you ignore the needs of your dependants to satiate them? Calvin Coolidge's Calvinism, Mitt Romney's Mormonism, or Hillary Clinton's Methodism, by contrast, are non-issues as they do not impact their governance.

    Hillary is running a "Rule of Ruin" campaign. She is solely concerned about her Legacy, the ONLY ITEM on her Governing Agenda. That means that she will make an attempt at Economic Recovery, which is FAR BETTER than the Outright Ruin that Obama Propounds. Hillary would swallow her pride after she fails to call in help from the Bush experts rather than to go down the toilet. I'm saying that she's capable of Repentance, unlike McCain and Obama. Even granting Hillary's Incompetance, I'd prefer that to Obama's COMPETANT application of his own Economic Philosophy.

    As per my Economics Ability, at least I know the difference between Carl Menger and Karl Marx. I have paid special attention to Fritz von Hayek's book, The Road to Serfdom, especially the chapter on "Why the Worst Get to the Top", especially with my Economic Analysis of Prosperity Theology, never mind also that I find Prosperity Theology Biblically unsound. Your Chicago School/Keynesian of Economic Thought may be more Liberal than my own Austrian School of Thought, but it doesn't make it better.

  4. Anonymous10:03 AM

    With respect to McCain's Economics, you will be reasonably well off. McCain has the services of pne of Texas A&M's best Keynesian-Chicago Schoo Economists, W. Phillip Gramm, the former Senator. Gramm was not the best Economist that Texas A&M ever had, partly because he was not of the Austrian School. When Gramm gets into trouble, he has Austrian Friends at Auburn, so don't worry about McCain's "lack of expertise" in Economics. Gramm & Friends will have McCain doing Multiple Linear Regression Models using Three Stage Least Squares and Time Series in no time.

  5. Anon,

    The beautiful thing about it, is we live in a Democratic Constitutional Republic that is secular in law and practice.

    For you to attempt to use Jefferson in your defense is a pathetic self indolence because you’ve proven over time that you know nothing about Jeffersonian philosophy.

    I find the objections to this made up bogeyman of Obama’s alleged religious beliefs are a convenient veil to cloak latent and not so hidden racial and religious hatred that are attempting to be projected on Obama by race and religion baiters.

    The type of self condemning statements that you’ve employed, speak-to an underlying seething of religious and racial bigotry that guarantees continued hatred in this country for the next 100 years.

    Obama is not the threat. You are! People like you who believe that they know someone’s heart, who believes that they know how religion is supposed to be practiced for everyone, are the fascists not Obama.

    I’m not voting for Obama but I damn well will not lower myself to this race and religious baiting that you and people like you are employing.

    And now that it is on record that you’ve admitted your prejudice you may as well own up to your religious bigotry and fascist attempts to force your religious beliefs on the rest of us.

    As for me I will not vote for Obama because of his Liberal ideologies and I believe unlike you I am well within the Constitution for my opposition of him whereas you are not.

  6. Anonymous11:06 AM

    So I take it that you approve of Calvin's Geneva or a Prosperity Theology-based Government?

    You can't be serious!

  7. Anonymous11:21 AM

    Tell me, do you also approve of the fact that the Islamic Government of Turkey foists their STOOGES upon us to be our Patriarchs?

    There are certain lines between Church and State that must not be crossed. Obama seems too willing to do so.

    This shall never end until the Sacred City of Constantinope is FINALLY Liberated!!!

  8. Anonymous11:52 AM

    Do you also approve of Calvin's Geneva, a Theocracy that saw Jacques Gruet and Michael Servetus executed because of John Calvin's religious Convictions impacting upon Government?

  9. Anonymous12:55 PM

    Is it Bigotry to object to a Religious Theocracy that roasts dissenters like Jacques Gruet like Pigs after TORTURING them?

    Is it Bigotry to object to being taxed for "religious reasons" such as "Prosperity Theology" or "Jizyah" to defray the costs of an opulent lifestyle of expensive liquor, wild women, and lavish furnishings?

    Is it Bigotry to denounce a religious leader's usupation of basic Human Rights just to "liberate the poor" and enrich themselves ?


  10. Anonymous5:38 PM

    You say I'm Bigoted? Here is some reading material on Prosperity Theology for you:

    Tell me how anyone who builds his life upon such a Theology isn't going to project it upon his philosphy of governing, and in turn, how is such a philosophy ever going to amount to anything positive or edifying?

    I don't want Obama [or fellow white proponent Jim Bakker, if you want to try to still exploit the Race Issue] restricting my Economic or Religious Freedom with such Doctrine.

  11. Anonymous9:38 PM

    You have falsely accused me of misunderstanding and misinterpreting Jefferson with respect to Religious Oppression.

    Well, read it and weep [from ]

    Thomas Jefferson
    (1743-1826; author, Declaration of Independence and the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom; 3rd U.S. President, 1801-1809)

    Convinced that religious liberty must, most assuredly, be built into the structural frame of the new [state] government, Jefferson proposed this language [for the new Virginia constitution]: "All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution": freedom for religion, but also freedom from religion. (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 38. Jefferson proposed his language in 1776.)

    I may grow rich by an art I am compelled to follow; I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take against my own judgment; but I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve and abhor. (Thomas Jefferson, notes for a speech, c. 1776. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 498.)

    Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible to restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; ... that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; ... that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy [sic], which at once destroys all religious liberty ... ; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities ... (Thomas Jefferson, "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia," 1779; those parts shown above in italics were, according to Edwin S. Gaustad, written by Jefferson but not included in the statute as passed by the General Assembly of Virginia. The bill became law on January 16, 1786. From Edwin S. Gaustad, ed., A Documentary History of Religion in America, Vol. I (To the Civil War), Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982, pp. 259-261. Jefferson was prouder of having written this bill than of being the third President or of such history-making accomplishments as the Louisiana Purchase. He wrote, as his own full epitaph, "Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, And Father of the University of Virginia.")

    What would Jefferson say about Calvin's Geneva?

    1787 Nov. 13. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." (to W. S. Smith, B.12.356)

    and of Calvinist Theology
    [from ]

    "The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words."

    I appologize for underrating Jefferson.