I just learned that Hillary, in her opening campaign barrage, complained about too much of the wrong kind of money in politics.
I can’t believe that she chose to go there, but, since she has, so shall I.
Anybody remember Whitewater? I know — it’s so yesterday (and let’s talk about the dress). Well, guess what? All the dress did was prove that Bill Clinton had been lying (who knew?).
Another thing that was proved was that Billary were borrowing money for their Whitewater project that was finding its way into Bill’s campaign for Governor of Arkansas. That’s about a dozen separate, felonious crimes.
But we never heard (and never will) in the Democrat News Agency one thing about it.
So, since Hillary has decided, in spite of being dead broke, to run for President, I thought I would give you a little hint on how to read the news items coming from Hillaryland .
A Japanese man was interviewed about the news people on the home islands got and whether they could get any idea from it of what was going on.
Oh, yes, he said. It was easy. As the war progressed the Glorious Victories of the Imperial Japanese Fleet kept getting closer and closer to home.
The Obama News Agency (aka The New York Times) informs us that
Obama Yields, Allowing Congress Say on Iran Nuclear Deal
Isn’t that all inclusive and tolerant of him? Allowing the Senate a say in a matter with which it is constitutionally charged with oversight? Don’t worry, Obamalots: this means no more than the other roadblocks our feckless legislature has thrown up in The Won’s path, as we see if we read down to paragraph four where the Times, entirely forgetting itself and trying to act like a news journal, tells us this:
The essence of the legislation is that Congress will have a chance to vote on whatever deal emerges with Iran — if one is reached by June 30 — but in a way that would be extremely difficult for Mr. Obama to lose …
Note: before proceeding with my deft and penetrating analysis of this deal let me hit the point that is obvious to anyone familiar with Obama’s Lucy with the football tactics: a deal must be reached by June 30 for the Senate bill to apply; what’s to keep
Lucy Obama from extending the conference period one day or one week, thereby making the Senate’s work, as Nixon used to say, inoperative?
As the article progresses we see the spoor of
Lucy Obama again in paragraph five:
But if it rejected the agreement, Mr. Obama could veto that legislation — and it would take only 34 senators to sustain the veto, meaning that Mr. Obama could lose upward of a dozen Democratic senators and still prevail.
See what he did there? 34 Senators? Obama can get 34 senators to do anything he wants just so long as it is bad for America (I stipulate this exclusion because he can’t get 34 Senators to go along with the Fast-Track trade authorization because that might be good for America and, well, you know, they’re Democrats).
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Russians have paused their invasion of Ukraine to decide to send anti-aircraft missiles to the Iranians as their comment on the future of American sanctions.
As a final note, I just wish to point out that I have provided this somewhat half-witted exegesis of the New York Times story from the latest installment of The Importance of Being (Josh) Earnest:
“We’ve gone from a piece of legislation that the president would veto to a piece of legislation that’s undergone substantial revision such that it’s now in the form of a compromise that the president would be willing to sign,” Mr. Earnest said. “That would certainly be an improvement.”
You figure it out.
Remember Toto? Dorothy’s little dog who pulled the curtain back to show the fearsome Oz to be a fussy little fat man? We could use him now. Perhaps he could perform the same service on our media which keeps using words and phrases like rape and gang-rape which, viz. Inigo Montoya, they keep using but seem not to know what they mean.
Tags: the narrative