Author: Poetrooper

Over at American Thinker this morning is an article by Rick Moran recounting the results of a visit to Rutgers University by a conservative speaker. Milo Yiannopoulis, a tech editor at Breitbart News spoke to these special snowflakes and so traumatized them that this transpired:

“Students and faculty members held a wound-licking gathering at a cultural center on campus where students described feeling scared hurt and discriminated against,” as a result of hearing the Breitbart editor’s views.

“One student at the event told the Targum that they ‘Broke down crying,’ after the event while another reported that he felt ‘scared to walk around campus the next day.’ According to the report, ‘many others’ said they felt ‘unsafe’ at the event and on campus afterwards.”

“‘It is upsetting that my mental health is not cared about by the University,’ said one student at the event. ‘I deserve an apology; everyone in this room deserves an apology.’”

“A number of organizations were at the event to offer support to the poor traumatized students.”

Just consider that some of these wusses could end up being military officers although with their leftist indoctrination, it’s doubtful. And if you want to see how threatening this ogre, Milo Yiannopoulis is, just Google his name.

Go read the entire article at American Thinker.

Yesterday Thomas Lifson wrote of a university study that demonstrates that the world’s deserts are greening due to higher atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide – that same atmospheric carbon dioxide that has hysterical global warmists wringing their sweaty hands and crying that the sky is falling. Reading that blog post brought to mind another study referenced by Lifson some months ago – a Yale study that upwardly revised the total estimated tree count in the world from 400 billion to 3.04 trillion, a game-changing increase.

Most likely some of that higher tree count overlaps with the expanded greening of the deserts, certainly in the outer fringe areas. But the bottom line is that there are a lot more carbon dioxide-breathing, oxygen-exhaling life forms on this planet than all these so-called climate change computer models had programmed into it when they were developed to predict the future climatic conditions of this planet.

If these computer models used “settled science’s” accepted figure of that time of 400 billion trees in this world breathing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, then their input was so incredibly far off base as to render their projections of worldwide heating and subsequent human disaster worthless. An extra 2.6 trillion trees can suck up a whole lot of all those tons of anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide that was programmed into those models. It just could be that the famed hockey stick has just taken on the predictive dimensions of a hockey puck in all those elaborate equations.

So could someone please give Cheryl Crow a heads-up that there are a whole lot more trees than the poor girl believed when she publicly pledged to use a single panel of toilet tissue for her most intimate cleaning purposes? Bet those musical dudes who ride on her biodiesel bus, or Uber, or whatever she’s using for transport nowadays would sure appreciate it.

Countdown till some pointy-headed liberal professor produces a study that predicts with absolute certainty that mankind is endangered by trees taking over the world: ten…nine…eight…

Crossposted at American Thinker

There’s been endless speculation for years about whose bed post Hillary hangs those pants suits on and if you even think to say Bill’s you’ll likely get hoo-hawed outta the room. But we’re not going any further in that vein; it’s the political bedpost where Hillary discards her duds that interests far more of us than her personal peccadilloes. When you see a true power-couple like Bill and Hill leave the world’s most prestigious job in serious debt and then just a few years later posting a net worth north of a hundred million, you tend to get curious as to who’s been financially sleeping around.

When the distaff half of that couple is a presidential candidate, the public’s curiosity expands so as to overflow the void created by the Clinton’s Omerta-like silence on the subject. Questions are being asked and answers demanded. The media’s glib explanation for the Clinton’s miraculous wealth is speaking fees, and therein lies the rub. A hundred million bucks constitutes either one helluva lot of speeches at a reasonable rate or much fewer speeches at an exorbitant, some might even say an extortionate, rate. This being the Clintons we’re discussing, we can easily assume the latter with little fear of being disproved.

We now know that Bill received $1.5 million for a series of what are being called question and answer sessions with executives of Swiss banking giant UBS when that organization was being threatened by the American IRS. The American secretary of state, who just happened to be Bill’s wife, helped work a deal which got UBS off the hook and deprived the U.S. treasury of untold millions in avoided taxes. And of course we can assume that the subsequent joining of UBS with the Clinton Foundation to provide more than $30 million in loans is all purely circumstantial.

But such miraculous windfalls for the Clintons have been pooh-poohed away by the Democrat establishment and the media who slobber like Pavlov’s dog when they hear “President Hillary.” Until now, that is. The issue of Hillary’s extortionist speaking fees is back in the news cycle and this time it’s not about the money but, if you can believe it, the content of her speeches. Hillary, who constantly bashes Wall Street as being the evil puppeteers who pull the economic strings of this nation to their constant advantage, apparently has been a bit duplicitous between her public denunciations and her more, shall we say intimate, dealings with Wall Street.

At this moment, Hillary is being pressured to release the transcripts of the three speeches she made to Goldman Sachs executives which one of them describes thus:

“It was pretty glowing about us,” one person who watched the event said. “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”

Sounds to me like La Madame Hilláire draped her pantsuit on the Goldman Sachs bedpost and slipped into something a little more comfortable for the occasion. Now the whole world knows who it is she’s been sleeping with and awaits with bated breath to hear the actual pillow talk. But there’s a bit of a problem: Madame Hillary required exclusive rights to the recorded contents of her breathy encouragements and passionate praises of performance, which is of course, the extortionist speechifier’s political equivalent of making those Goldman Sachs studs wear protection.

Someone should have warned Madame that such protection is prone to leaks.

Crossposted at American Thinker

Brit Hume, speaking on FOX News, noted that Bill Clinton is now an elderly man – a thought that I’ll wager has been going through many American minds since last Monday night, when Hillary gave her post-caucus acceptance…er, victory speech in Iowa. While much of the television audience was focused on the fuming candidate, many were mesmerized by an airhead Clinton voter in the crowd behind the podium. The young man was upstaging madam secretary by trying to lick her campaign stickers off his cheeks. But many, including me, were fixed on and fascinated by the former president standing behind his podium-pounding partner.

The visage that Bill wore for much of that harangue was truly revealing – more like something you’d see in a nursing home day room than on a presidential campaign stage. His head drooped, and his mouth frequently gaped open in what almost appeared to be a slack-eyed but leering old geezer smile directed towards his partner’s back. If it was in fact a leering smile directed at Hillary, then America likely witnessed something that hasn’t occurred since before their marriage, and we can pretty well take that as evidence that Ol’ Bill has lost it.

But seriously, I was fascinated watching that drooping lower lip. I said to my better half, “Watch babe, watch him, he’s gonna drool any minute.” Watch the video yourself, and you’ll see what I’m talking about: that mouth hangs open for most of the first four minutes of her speech in contrast to all the other folks behind, who politely have theirs closed in that very public setting with a live television audience. We were sorely disappointed when the drool failed to materialize, as, I’m sure, were all those laying bets around the country.

To further sear that geriatric image into our brains, in another broadcast this week Bill’s hands were obviously palsied, another common affliction in the elderly. Others noted that he’d worn his Hillary pin upside-down at the post-caucus speech. So it’s not surprising to hear Hume and a few others in the news refer to the ex-prez’s advanced age, even though he is a few years younger than your scribe. But then, yours truly is not out trying to steal the youth vote back from an undisguisably septuagenarian socialist who actually seems a bit spryer than Old Willie. Those Democrat strategists who had counted on Bill’s aw-shucks, down-home Arkansas charm to rope in the vote for his undeniably less likable other half must be having some tremors themselves as they ponder putting Old Bill in front of meeting halls full of much younger voters who may balk at the idea of the White House becoming a senior center.

And it’s all over for sure the first time Bill actually drools. He’ll be outta that campaign quicker than a dirty Depends.

Crossposted at American Thinker

There’s a special place in hell for a Secretary of State of the United States of America who would stoop to such a needlessly evil deception as to lie to the grieving families of three fallen warriors, as those family members were in the process of receiving the bodies of their loved ones from the foreign battlefield. Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright now supports and defends what Hillary Clinton did to the families of the Benghazi victims at the return ceremony at Andrews AFB September 14, 2012, with a Hell-bound condemnation for those women who don’t march in lockstep with Hillary.

Albright demonstrates that in spite of all her worldly experiences, she doesn’t know a damned thing about damnation, and even less about who it is she really should be damning to Hell if she had a single ounce of integrity remaining. Albright cannot possibly be ignorant of the many news reports of Hillary Clinton’s truly evil betrayal at that sad homecoming where she told those grief-stricken families that our government would soon arrest the producer of a squalid anti-Muslim video that she and her boss were attempting to portray as the motivation for what was an obvious terrorist attack. She knew that the attack was a terrorist attack and had so informed others, including her daughter, and that the video in question had absolutely nothing to do with the deaths of those brave men.

I don’t use the term evil very often because it is a term that liberals far too often ascribe to conservatives simply because they disagree with our beliefs and political positions which they otherwise cannot refute. But, folks, Hillary Clinton is evil. She did not have to lie to those grieving families; it just came so naturally to her that she just did it because that is what she does: she lies, much like the scorpion on the frog’s back; it’s just what she does. Political prevarication is so second nature to Hillary Clinton that she does it, as my mother used to say, “When the truth would serve better.” Worst of all, she does it without regard for who is hurt or how deeply it may hurt them.

So, Mrs. Albright,, while you’ve come doddling out of retirement to consign a few million women who no longer believe the lies of Hillary Clinton to the depths of Hell, perhaps you might wish to advise them that your contemptible candidate will most assuredly be there to greet them as the Devil’s very own consort, Hillary Clinton, the Queen of Mean.

Crossposted at American Thinker

Clinton campaign events are known for being highly scripted and at least some questions from Hillary’s audiences most certainly are plants, providing the candidate a setup to respond in such a way as to make her look like a really nice, downhome person or really on top of a particular subject. Such was the situation recently when a questioner at a Hillary Q&A seemingly admitted that he had been given his softball question for the frontrunner about which former president she most admired. Such situations are not new for Hillary with charges of planted questions arising in all of her past and current campaigns.

With that in mind, one has to be very suspicious of the recent question asked of Hillary about whether she would consider appointing Obama to the Supreme Court if she becomes president. We all know Hillary is a less than skilled public speaker so the feigned surprise she shows at the question and her prepared response are far from genuine:

“Wow, what a great idea. No one has ever suggested that to me, I love that, wow. He may have a few other things to do but I tell you that’s a great idea.”

Sorry, Hill, while your acting skills just aren’t up to carrying that off as being a spontaneous occurrence, that’s only part of the problem because I’m sure I wasn’t the only American watching that arranged exchange whose initial response was, “Whoa, did I just hear the Democrat frontrunner for president float a bribe to the sitting Democrat President of the United States right in front of the entire world?” Anyone watching could see the unspoken implication was, “Hey, Barack, make sure no indictment prevents my election and one of the most coveted, lifetime positions in the world can be yours when your presidential term is over, wink, wink.”

While that, folks, was even less subtle than dragging a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you do have to admire the way it was set up so as to shield Clinton from any political charge of attempted bribery or obstruction of justice by her opponents. Unsurprisingly it comes on the heels of Hillary’s recent proclivity to gushingly praise the Obama presidency whereas earlier she’d done everything possible to distance herself from that failed administration. Pundits mull that changing position as being an attempt to stay ahead of her uber-liberal opponent, Bernie Sanders. Cynics like me see it as a naked attempt to stay ahead of an obviously justified indictment from the Obama Justice Department. Whether or not that indictment ultimately happens while Obama is in office is clearly freighted with such enormous political weight that crudely dangled bribes for a cushy sinecure aren’t likely to affect it.

Besides, Hillary, Supreme Court Justices probably don’t get enough time on the links to appeal to Barack Obama; plus they are based in Washington, D.C. not Oahu. Nice try though; at least we know you Clinton’s are still dragging those hundred dollar bills, so to speak.

Crossposted at American Thinker

Judge Andrew Napolitano, being interviewed on The Kelly File, recently said something that caused my head to pop out of my nether regions – namely, that Hillary Clinton was playing a word game with the media when she denied that none of the emails in question were marked “classified.” It was almost an “aha!” moment for me for the simple reason that even though I have written that Hillary is playing word games in this matter, I had not previously perceived just how devious her word parsing is. And unless you’ve had a federal security clearance and understand the system of security classification and document marking, you aren’t likely to have a prayer of deciphering Hillary’s deception.

Here’s what she’s doing: in interviews with the media, Hillary carefully says that none of the emails in question were marked “classified.” Well, of course they weren’t, because “classified” isn’t one of the designations with which classified documents are marked. Classified is an overall designation wherein individual documents are marked CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, or TOP SECRET. I’m unfamiliar with how other designations higher than top secret are marked, because they were beyond my pay grade. But what I do know is that “classified” itself is not one of the specific markings found on classified documents, and I’ll bet the farm that whoever in Clinton’s campaign is crafting her media responses knows that as well.

Thus, when Hillary blithely denies that any of the questionable emails on her server was marked “classified,” she’s telling a strictly narrow, word-specific truth so that she cannot be shown later to be blatantly lying to the media, although that is precisely what she’s doing with such word-parsing. It’s another Clinton word game, much like Slick Willie’s infamous “it depends upon what the meaning of is is.”

Hey, they’re Clintons…whaddaya expect?

Crossposted at American Thinker