Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Billary 2016 – The World’s worst kept secret

Billary 2016

Another day, another press conference, another “hint” about the worlds worst kept secret. Will she or won’t she?

Hillary Clinton again hinted that she may run for president in 2016 on Saturday night, telling an audience in Arizona she was “very much concerned” about the direction of the country and was considering “all kinds of decisions” about her future.

Hillary Clinton hints at second presidential run in 2016

The suspense is killing me. NOT. If Hillary seriously thinks that she can just brush all of the dirt she has done over the years under the carpet, especially the truth about Benghazi then she is as delusional as Ted Kennedy was over Chappaquiddick.

Shit sticks and the intervening years don’t make it glitter.

I sincerely hope that Billary does go for the presidency in 2016 and that her opponents, both Republican and Democrat alike rub her nose in all the shit she has done and the lies she has told over the years, from Little Rock to the White House to the State Department and back.

I will enjoy seeing the truth about this misandrous harpy writ large, especially how her incompetence in previous high office left blood on her hands. I want to see her weeping in a corner when she receives the bill for her arrogance, hubris and pride, either during the nomination proceedings or the election itself.

I will certainly be keeping a copy of the speech announcing her withdrawal / defeat as a treasured memory – to watch for the lulz in years to come, not because of hatred, but rather as a reminder of karma. To paraphrase the bible, she has sown the wind, and now she shall reap the whirlwind.

Even if by some miracle, or more likely the weakness / incompetence of her opponents she does become POTUS in 2016, she will only accelerate the decline. The Marxist quisling currently in office has already commenced or completed most of the main items on the collectivist playlist, Billary would just carry them forward with her usual vicious feminist twist that has become her trademark, along with a dash of venality and incompetence for flavour.

The petrels of Muscovy are alive and well and finding the climate bracing. I certainly wouldn’t want to be male there during or after a Billary presidency. I suspect it would make the height of Mccarthyism seem like a walk in the park.

 Alternately, I can just sit back and enjoy the decline, because as a non-US citizen, I am not a part of that demos*, for which I am eternally grateful. Unlike the 314 million Americans who are on the Road to Hell, I am only watching.

“Sancerre anyone?”

* Actually it was a bloody close run thing as I lived in the US on an L1 Visa during 1994 through 1996 and would have foolishly accepted “the worlds most expensive passport” at that time if it had been offered.

Fortunately my stay there disabused me of my old-world delusions of “the land of the free and the home of the brave”.

Americans in general are decent, genuine and nice people especially in the mid-West, but their government bureaucracy bleeds them dry; their interstate banking is a 1950′s style joke and their law enforcement agents are thugs, especially the TSA.

31 Comments

  1. Paul Marks says:

    Hillary Clinton is neither like Bill Clinton (a total opportunist) or like Barack Obama (a loyal soldier of the collectivist cause).

    Hillary Clinton is somewhere between the two – a collectivist (never make the mistake of thinking she is not) but a disloyal one.

    For example Comrade Barack would never have gone to Harvard Law without the support of the other Comrades (it would not even have occurred to him to defy them – after all loyalty to the cause had been drummed into him from childhood, by his mother and Frank Marshall Davis and so on).

    But when Hillary wanted to go off to Yale it was quite different.

    Saul Alinsky had work for Comrade Hillary in Chicago (he wanted her to be his second in command – very important work, as he pointed out).

    But Hillary wanted to go to Yale NOW – and she stamped her foot and off she went.

    Comrade Barack would never have behaved in such a way – and the Comrades remembered that (which is the real reason they supported Comrade Barack against Comrade Hillary in the key Iowa caucus events of 2008 – they did not believe that Hillary was a loyal Comrade).

    But, please people, do not over stress the difference.

    Comrade Hillary is still a Comrade – for example she was very careful to invite Francis Fox Piven (the leading Marxist thinking – one half of the infamous “Cloward and Piven” ) to the signing of the new “Community Reinvestment Act”.

    Does anyone really think that Bill Clinton really cared if Francis Fox Piven was honoured as this event or not? Or even if there was a new “Community Reinvestment Act” forcing banks to lend money to inner city Comrades (i.e. flush the money down the toilet)? “How much are they going to pay me if I push this” would be how Bill would think of the matter.

    But it mattered to Hillary – it mattered a lot.

    Hillary is still a Comrade – just an egotistical and unreliable Comrade.

  2. Mr Ed says:

    Bill for the V-P ticket to give it some balance, he can inherit the Presidency on Presidential incapacity, he cannot be elected to it.

    http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am22.html

  3. John Galt says:

    “Bill for the V-P ticket to give it some balance, he can inherit the Presidency on Presidential incapacity, he cannot be elected to it.”

    A very House of Cards type spin which the fictional Frank Underwood might have been able to carry off. The problem is not even Hillary is stupid enough to use “Slick Willy” as Veep.

    Anyway, it’s quite clear that she can’t stand him any more and she only remained married for the sake of her own political ambition. If/when she does get the rug yanked from under her I can see divorce lawyers in Hillary’s future and Las Vegas showgirls in Bill’s.

    Karma really is a stone-cold bitch. :-)

  4. Julie near Chicago says:

    I think Shrill & Moobelle should run together. Wouldn’t that be a riot! The one can handle Foreign Policy and Defense, as the Constitution intended and as she has done so brilliantly, and the other can be responsible for domestic housekeeping, like running the national diet.

    But I do hope the First Dog could be relocated to McMurdo Station or someplace safe. The poor thing can’t help who his parents are, after all.

  5. John Galt says:

    Shrill & Moobelle

    Excuse my ignorance Julie, but you’ll have to enlighten my on the origin of that one ‘coz Google brings back squat…

  6. CountingCats says:

    Hill(ary) & Michelle

  7. John Galt says:

    Hill(ary) & Michelle

    Ugh! there’s one for the mind-bleach. I hadn’t heard that suggestion before. What are they planning on doing for an encore? making Gozer the Destroyer Secretary of State?*

    DO.NOT.WANT!

    * – At least she’d have a consistent foreign policy (“Crush the defilers, let them all drown in lakes of blood”) and deal with those pesky Meketrex Supplicants

  8. NickM says:

    Ain’t you all more worried that the Republicans have nothing in the tank? Isn’t that the real issue? And also the serial repudiation by the Rs of Gary Johnson? I mean Chris Christe? Fecking Hell! AFA the Dems are concerned Wendy Davis is the one to watch. Perhaps in 2020 depending if she wins in TX this year. A D governor of TX could be unbeatable. The R party needs to find a new Ronnie and I ain’t seeing one.

    There probs will be another Clinton but my money is on her being named after a part of London. Hillary is too old and will be crucifed in the primaries because of her baggage and the health issues that caused her to resign as Sec State.

  9. John Galt says:

    Ain’t you all more worried that the Republicans have nothing in the tank?

    Yes, but the debate is more defined by those we oppose than those we could support at this stage.

    There is a large pack of potentials including Gary Johnson and Chris Christie, but I’m hoping we see both new blood and new ideas being injected, but doubt we’ll see sufficient evidence until the primaries.

    They might be able to get some backing for Jeb Bush, but I think he’s left it too late; he has no new ideas and more fundamentally who really wants to see yet another Bush in the White House?

    Nope, I think we’ll have to cross our fingers and see how the field plays out in the primaries, which are as much about endurance and finance as they are about getting the candidates message across.

    I’m not getting my hopes up to end up with another John McCain or god forbid Mumbly Joe Bob Dole, who is only dimly remembered in the recollection of the general public because of the oft repeated Simpsons Halloween special mocking the 1996 campaign.

    He was also the only Illeist Freemason to seek election as both VP in 1976 (on Gerald Ford’s ill fated ticket) and POTUS, yet fail to be elected to either. A brave soldier and a man of honour and integrity, but a poor candidate.

  10. Julie near Chicago says:

    Hmph. Absolutely NOT Chris Christie!!!!! If I were from N’Joisy, I’d say he’s a total joik!!!!

    [Tr.: New Jersey, jerk.]

    I’m not in love with Gary Johnson. I forget why, but there really are reasons.

    I wish Ted Cruz were eligible.

    Rand Paul. Assuming it’s not true that he’s actively courting Big Republicanism AS SUCH (i.e., isn’t trying to join the RINO crowd) or that Karl Rove has got his digits in the Senator’s campaign, I suppose he’d be hands-down my choice among the likelies.

    Can’t think of anybody else off-hand. (Michele Bachmann and Sarah P. being out of the running. Although there, I have a much better feeling about Rep. Bachmann.)

  11. John Galt says:

    Your lack of enthusiasm for the available field of candidates speaks volumes Julie.

    My entire cascade of emotions for Republican, Independent and Libertarian camps likely candidates can be summed up as being somewhere between “Meh” and “Pffft”.

    Simply no-one around who sparks my interest.

  12. Nick, Ron Paul (and certainly not Gary Johnson – I watched him in the first television debate of Republican candidates and was forced to conclude that he was just messing about, trying to actively PROVOKE the audience, he was not invited to any future debates) was not serious about winning the Presidency – that was obvious.

    Ron Paul (and the other libertarian – the one who was invited to future debates after the first one) just pandered to certain groups. He failed “the basic”.

    What is “the basic”?

    The basic is to convince enough, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives and national defence conservatives that you are on their side.

    Of course “convincing” does not mean you are sincere – but you have to make the effort.

    I thought that Ron Paul would do O.K. with social conservatives (as he is pro life and so on – if you are pro abortion, and pro forcing people to “recognise” Homosexual unions then you should not turn up for a debate because you will not only not win, you will get booed ) and fiscal conservatives – but would fail with national defence conservatives.

    I was wrong – because Ron Paul also failed with fiscal conservatives.

    This was astonishing as he has a good record in opposing the Welfare State – yet he hardly talked about that (hardly at all).

    Instead Ron Paul concentrated on blaming the United States for all the problems of the word (history according to Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell) – and was lucky not to get booed (his age and frailness saved him).

    In theory I agreed with almost all of Ron Paul’s policy positions (as did the audience) – but all there was a thin, frail voice talking absolute nonsense about American and world history.

    Although (yes) Ron Pauls – attacks on the Federal Reserve were well received (because they were TRUE).

    But that was not enough to win – good, but not enough.

  13. So if a free market person actually wants the Republican nomination (and without it you are not going get the Presidency – you are going to be the LP candidate getting 0.1% of the vote).

    First TICK THE RIGHT BOXES.

    When asked (for example) “are you pro life” the correct answer is “yes” (you do not have to a make a song and dance about it – but get the bleeping answer right).

    On national defence do NOT attack the United States.

    You do not have to be in favour of any new wars (none at all) – as long as you maintain that the United States did right historically (if you are going to question things such as World War II and Korea – then you really should leave in the same taxi as the pro abortion guy, before the audience lynch you).

    You make lots of noises about being pro strong defence and praise American history – without actually committing yourself to fighting any new wars.

    Then (the HARD BIT) you have to make a positive case – at least for 2016 you do.

    In 2016 the United States will be in crises – fiscal and monetary crises.

    So (sorry) you have to show some understanding of monetary theory (that requirement would have excluded everyone but Ron Paul in 2012).

    You also have to show how you will cut the Welfare State (that would have excluded everyone in 2012 – including Ron Paul (who really surprised me with how little he talked about this).

    So to recap…..

    First tick the correct boxes. And put crosses against the incorrect boxes.

    Babies = tick (abortion = bad).

    Gay stuff = cross (you do not have to do anything – just the correct facial expression will do).

    National defence = tick (praise the military and American history – commit yourself to nothing).

    Then the HARD BIT.

    Explain in the context of utter crises of 2016 – what you will do in relation to monetary policy (the credit bubble banks) and fiscal policy (how you will scale back the Welfare State).

    Actually I think Rand (not Ron) Paul is quite a good candidate.

    He gets the facial expressions right on social questions (NOT anger – shocked sadness at things such abortion).

    On defence.? Pride and concern – done well (even ex Mayor G. of New York who HATED Ron Paul – is coming round a bit with Rand). You do not have to commit yourself to anything – as long as you make the effort to look and sound the correct way.

    Then the (I repeat) the HARD BIT.

    Explain the monetary system (Ron could do that and so can Rand) and what you will do.

    Also explain what you will do about the ever growing WELFARE STATE – come up with concrete plans to deal with it.

    I think Rand Paul passes the monetary and fiscal “hard bit” test – none of the other candidates do.

  14. Robert Edwards says:

    Not Karma, JG – Nemesis.

    And, you cannot polish a turd.

  15. John Galt says:

    And, you cannot polish a turd.

    No. but you can varnish it and add glitter… :-)

    Sill a varnished and glittering turd is still a turd.

  16. Julie near Chicago says:

    If Rand Paul can maintain an anti-amnesty, anti-illegal-immigration position, and understand WHY it’s important — simply not to hand the Disloyal Opposition 12 million votes on a platter, before anything else, Ann Coulter’s point for why she was supporting Christie before she wasn’t — and if he gives zero vibes of this “crossing the aisle” junk* — and if (I’m going strictly by the buzz now, but something happened to GWB, and Rove may have been part of it) Rand P. can avoid being manipulated by fantasies of Glory, then that would move him way up in my estimation.

    *We Tea Party types don’t trust the Cross-the -Aisle bunch. McCain, Graham, (yukking it up with T. Kennedy, tchah!), Hatch (who wants furriners to be eligible for the Presidency so Arnie, in particular, can run, and who then told the public at the end of a Q&A that he didn’t know what the requirements for eligibility ARE, after having pushed that cause for years)…. And GWB in effect did the cross-the-aisle thing too, when it was time for him to veto–If I were a biographer, I would do his biography. Something very interesting there.

    Add V-N to the WWII-Korea list. I suppose better politically not to bring it up, but it’s an issue that the rest of us should be explaining still, so that people can start getting used to the fact that it was a right cause at the time, and why.

  17. Julie near Chicago says:

    One other thing. R.P. has to give us the sense that he can read people correctly, and deal with them on that correct basis. “I have looked into this man’s eyes, and we can do business” — oh dear. I suppose that’s one quality (or at least the reading-correctly part) that Slick Willy did have. He is, after all, the consummate con-man.

    What do we have to go by in making our judgment of R.P. in that regard? Nothing that I can see so far, except the company he keeps.

  18. John Galt says:

    Add V-N to the WWII-Korea list.

    I’m not saying that you are wrong about adding Vietnam to the list, but I personally believe it should be left off, not because America was wrong there, but rather because it was a much more ambiguous solution to the fairly nebulous problem of Communist expansion.

    You end up having to consider that Nixon might have been right to bomb Cambodia, despite the consequences.

    That is a hard ask for most people who were around at the time, even 40-years later, even I still struggle with it.

  19. Julie near Chicago says:

    JG, yes, I understand your point, re V-N as a whole, and don’t disagree. That’s why I think it would be better for the candidate (here, presumably Rand P.) to avoid V-N altogether, while the calmer, better-informed, more articulate among his supporters make the point; and make it NOT in his name, but just sliding it into the conversation they/we have with friends or at Tea Party rallies (I hope they come back strong!) and weblogs and so forth.

    This is not a party issue, after all; it goes to the moral worth of America in foreign affairs between, say, 1940 and 1976. (The Vietnamese risking their lives to jump for even just the skids on that last helicopter out of Saigon…!!!!)

  20. John Galt says:

    Remember that Vietnam taints both Democrats and Republicans alike, going back to the handling of the war in Indochina between 1946 and 1954 by the Truman administration and subsequent Eisenhower administration when Nixon was VP.

    The Vietnam War didn’t start with the Gulf of Tonkin incident as many commentators would have us believe, but rather was an ongoing civil uprising against various colonialist regimes which had been blowing hot and cold for decades.

  21. Julie – Rand Paul found out in the Kentucky Senate race that the media are not to be trusted. They took a philosophical discussion about the 1964 Civil Rights Act (the good in it and the bad in it) and turned into “Rand is a racist” (almost destroying him).

    Amnesty is a media issue – RINOs push it to make friends with the media (although it did not do Governor Christie much good – the media destroyed him anyway).

    As for history (Vietnam and so on) the Boat People know the truth – and the votes of Asians in America are worth having (the media are never going to vote Republican – whatever the candidate says). But yes keep off history – just make general pro American noises.

    What matters in 2016 is the monetary and fiscal crises.

    Someone has to be able to explain how the Federal Reserve caused the monetary crises.

    And, on the fiscal side. someone has to be able to roll back the Welfare State (no Max Keiser drivel about how we could all have seas of lemonade if only it was not for the “banksters”).

    That could help with the Latin American invasion (I mean “immigration”) also.

    Why are people flooding in?

    FREE STUFF – that is why.

    Food Stamps (which did not even exist in 1960) and all the rest of the Great Society 1960s Welfare State.

    Roll this back (restrict it) and mass “immigration” of hostiles solves itself.

    “But some Latin Americans would still come” – yes THE GOOD ONES (the ones who actually want to be Americans – rather than the Obama supporting trash. “Motor Voter” fraud, who come for the FREE STUFF).

  22. The problem with fighting Mrs Clinton – or any Dem.

    The media will not report the scandals.

    Recently a leading journalist resigned from CBS over their blocking of her Bengasi and IRS stories.

    It is the same with ABC and NBC.

    None of these networks (or CNN) are interested in reporting anti Dem stuff.

    “But Paul there is Fox News”

    Which is watched by people who would not vote for Mrs Clinton anyway.

    See the problem.

    The majority of Americans know nothing of Mrs Clinton’s many scandals – nor will they.

    Only with economic collapse does the Republican candidate for 2016 stand a chance.

    “Fortunately”………..

  23. Julie near Chicago says:

    JG, yes, I’m well aware that V-N started because of the question of whether it would be worse for US as a matter of sheer self-interest to sign on to supporting French rule in post WW-II V-N. In fact this was an issue going back to before FDR’s death. However, if Diem hadn’t been assassinated (Kennedy) the whole thing might have gone very differently.

    Paul, yes, turning off the welfare spigot would help a bunch. Now, given all the Dem votes we already have, how is R.P. gonna make that fly even for the illegals already here (let alone for the real citizenry)? The immediate problem is giving amnesty, paths to citizenship, DREAM Act benefits to illegals’ children, etc.–because they will mostly vote dem. So R.P. has to resist doing that, if he’s blessed enough to win (and he would have to be blessed. Somewhere I read that the Republicans have to get already 3%-5% more votes than the legitimate Dem votes, just to make up for the dead people and their dogs and the Motor Voters and the ones who for some reason left boxes-full of their marked ballots in car trunks, to turn up mysteriously later….

    What a mess.

  24. Mr Ed says:

    I can’t help thinking that the USA deserves another Clinton in the White House as the fitting culmination to every President since Reagan and perhaps Eisenhower. When a country is beyond satire, is it not beyond salvation?

    Welcome to the United States of North Argentina.

  25. John Galt says:

    I can’t help thinking that the USA deserves another Clinton

    Well, we’ve had the tragedy, so that would be the farce. Roll on 2016…

  26. Julie near Chicago says:

    Excuse me, my back is up on “The USA deserves another Clinton.” At least 48% of us do not. This is not a “small minority,” it’s HALF THE COUNTRY*, and the excuse “I mean the government not the people” obviously doesn’t work here.

    * Especially if you include the people who whose libertarian zeal overcomes their common sense in one way or another. –On the other hand, stupidity is no excuse for sticking us with either the Clintons or Obama, however “ethical” the Stupids think they’re being, so maybe they DO deserve the results.

    And don’t tell me, as one very smart and well-meaning person said elsewhere, that voting “just encourages the bastards.” Either set of bastards loves it when people don’t vote for somebody other than their candidate. Not-voting “on principle” is strictly a feel-good measure. And like everything else that we do and don’t do, it has a cost. Everything has a downside™.

    . . .

    The results of the 2012 election, by the way, are yet another steaming pile of stinking evidence that indeed Ignorance is NOT Rational in politics, and the alleged arguments for it by the vaguely non-Left intelligentsia are so much sewer gas.

  27. Julie near Chicago says:

    Dear Mr. Galt,

    Egad, your images speaketh only the truth! Well, it’s a sad truth but true for a’ that, and they are amusing besides. Very creative. Much appreciated. The sort of thing that makes one feel less alone in this unlovely world. :>)))

  28. Julie near Chicago says:

    Re Comrade Shrill, I just have to say that the Sage hit the nail on the head in the very first comment in this discussion, clear back at the end of March.

    Although, if she runs she’ll “win” the election, but that will be because the Dims are so entrenched (which I think is at this point their only objective in life: absolute power, forever) and dishonest, and the Elephants so stupid that she could sit there with her thumb in her mouth going ga-ga-ga through the whole thing and still get more votes.

    I think I’m going to go lie down now, with a nice pitcher of very dry double martinis, hold the vermouth. :>))

  29. Mr Ed says:

    Julie,

    I was only trying to say that Clinton’s election would be a fitting tribute to the Elephantine mass of stupidity and greed that steamrollers all before it as election time, and that the current federation may be beyond salvation, not that good Americans deserve that person as ‘their’ President. Just as in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, harmless little Slovenia was waiting to emerge from that chimera, perhaps from the Curate’s Egg of the modern USA the good shall emerge.

  30. Julie near Chicago says:

    Oh, I know. I apologize for getting all prickly, Mr Ed. I just wish our Better almost-Half could somehow find a way to overcome those nasty things that crawl out of the sewers of Chicago and swim up the pipes into the wet-bars of the DC PTB, there to replace the latter’s natural grey matter with something repulsive, bearing The Color Out of Space.* As for our possibly being beyond salvage, let alone redemption, I am afraid that’s a real possibility. And it hurts like hell. It was only a couple of years ago that I said to myself, “For the first time in my life I am ashamed of my country.”

    *Absolutely great horror-SF story by Lovecraft. Atmospheric as the dickens. Not about Cthulhu.

Leave a Reply