Does the Clinton Political Machine Live?

This is pure speculation, I have no evidence to prove this is (or is not) true. It’s just a theory I’m putting out there for your thoughts.

First, though, some background is needed for our younger viewers. If you are 18 years old today, you were only 12 years old during the 2007/2008 Presidential primaries. You were 6 when Bill Clinton left office in 2001 Bill and Hillary Clinton had one of the most power political machines in American history. You weren’t even conceived when Bill Clinton first took office. So for the sake of our younger audiences (and perhaps our forgetful older audiences), let’s have a history lesson.

Bill and Hillary Clinton had a truly impressive political machine. Conservatives rant and rave about how effective of a campaigner Barack Obama is, but the Clinton Machine put the fear of God in you. If you played by the Clinton Machine’s rules, did as you were told, and (most importantly) stuck to the talking points; the world was almost at your fingertips. You could land any interview you wanted if you were in the press, the President would speak at your fundraisers if you were a community leader, and you would move up the ladder in the Clinton Machine if you were a hard-working staffer.

Act against the Clinton Machine and life would quickly turn to hell. You would be off television if you were a reporter. Your charity or community organization would be blacklisted if you were a community leader. And there was no ladder long enough to reach you in the hole you would have been cast in. As a conservative looking at it from the outside, the Clinton Machine was truly a remarkable and impressive feat of political engineering.

In 2007 and 2008, the Clinton Machine was put to use again in an attempt to nominate then-Senator Hillary Clinton for President. Only the Clinton Machine was caught off guard by then-Senator Barack Obama and his equally manipulative machine built around community organizing. After a long drawn out and bloody primary, Obama won. And the Clinton Machine seemingly became a footnote in a political history book… but is that the end of the story?

Now former-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the early frontrunner in the 2016 Democrat Primary. Yet, she left office shortly after the Benghazi terrorist attack on September 11, 2012 and left an enormous scandal behind her in the US State Department. Needless to say, Benghazi is a huge target on Hillary Clinton’s back when she runs in both the Democrat Primary and also in the general election against the Republican Candidate.

So, how do you get rid of that target? Simple! By taking it off your back and putting it on Barack Obama’s back instead!

Step one: Step out of the way.
Step two: Let the President deal with it.
Step three: Have reporters still loyal to the Clinton Machine uncover other scandals
Step four: Watch as the President loses credibility (and possibly gets impeached).
Step five: Run for President.

“What Difference Does It Make?” Obama’s going to be the stooge to take the fall for this!

By the time 2015 and 2016 role around, Benghazi and Obama will be yesteryear’s news. So what if Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State? Barack Obama will have already taken the fall for it along with everything else (set up by the Clinton Machine ‘reporters’ in the media). Watch a lot of these main stream news reporters covering these scandals get exclusive interviews with Hillary Clinton when she runs for President again and (if she wins) after she is elected. Watch a few of them even get their own shows.

This, boys and girls, is the Clinton Machine.

Again, this is just a theory. However, it seems to me that Hillary Clinton may come out of all these scandals as the biggest winner. While Republicans may get the opportunity to kill Barack Obama’s Presidency and agenda, Hillary Clinton will preserve her front-runner status among 2016 Presidential Candidates despite the utter incompetence and neglect shown by her State Department.

I’m looking for Republican, Catholic, and Social Justice blogs to begin populating my blogroll (and give me something to read while on the train to and from Chicago every day).  Sadly, too many of the bloggers I linked to before have regressed into conspiracy nuts or are busy being hate mongers.  I’m looking for blogs that are worth while and will help us spread our ideas throughout the internet.  If you’re interested, leave a link to your blog in a comment to this article or just contact me.

And yes, I still owe you a picture of the potato towers.

An MQ-9 Reaper returning to base after patrolling the skies.  Drones are incredible intelligence assets that offer quick strike capabilities in remote, hard to reach areas. Yet despite the clear strategic and tactical advantages, Rand Paul flip flops on drones.

This story is a few days old, but still worth archiving during an hour and ten minute train ride home for a busy weekend of yard work.As Rand Paul was yet again making an ass out himself on Neil Cavuto’s Fox Business show on Monday night, he said this:

“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. “

EXCUSE ME!?  That sounds a lot like 1. A drone 2. killing 3. an American citizen.

Rand Paul doesn’t care?  Sorry, what was that filibuster of the Director of Central Intelligence for if Rand Paul doesn’t care?  It’s not hard to figure out. It’s for political posturing.  Rand Paul flip flops on drones the same way Rand Paul flip flops on abortion and the same way Rand Paul flip flops on amnesty.

He’s only been in the senate for a couple of short years and Rand Paul’s flip flops are mounting faster than John Kerry’s.  Paulers are dumb enough to consider that an accomplishment.  Most Americans are smarter than that, thankfully.

So, after crap hit the fan, he and his supporters went on the defensive over the latest Rand Paul Flip Flop. His office released a statement saying:

“… armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat.”

Wow, that’s really vague language for a Libertarian!  What exactly is a normal crime situation?  Did Doctor Rand Paul learn that from Police Academy?

Don’t misunderstand. I’m all for the use of drones in law enforcement. Let’s keep our heroes safe and out of the line of fire whenever possible.  Heck, let’s improve the neighborhood while we’re at it and drone the thug while he’s still in the liquor store.

Rand Paul later said on Hannity that he used the same example during his filiflop. That’s sort of true, but the bad guy was a little bit more than a guy with a gun and $50.

I posted Stan Laurel’s picture here because he looks a lot like Rand Paul, but is not nearly as annoying.  Studies show that this will pay large dividends with the return visitors web traffic stat.

And that’s good he’s not so dumb he can’t recognize the legitimate use of drones. The problem, unfortunately, is that he doesn’t understand where he stands.

If you find a terrorist, regardless of his nationality, it’s like finding a needle in the hay stack.  You only have so long before he (or she) disappears into the woodwork again.  The next time you find that terrorist might very easily be after he’s killed 2, 20, or 200 people. Terrorism is a real threat to the lives of American citizens and, although Rand Paul is willing to play stupid political posturing games with their lives in the balance, true conservatives are not. And this again goes to why Rand Paul is a Libertarian and not a Conservative.  Conservatives believe the first priority of any government SHOULD be to protect its citizens.  Rand Paul believes the first priority of any government is to oppress its citizens.  Government is not your enemy.  Government is not oppressing you.

Why do you have to take off your shoes at the airport?  Because some asshole terrorist thought he would be clever and hide explosives in his shoes.  So are the lines longer at the airport now?  Sure.  But I would much rather live in a world where I didn’t lose a love one because someone like Rand Paul has a civil liberties stick shoved so far up his butt that he forgot about the most important right.  The right to life.

If taking off my shoes, walking through metal detectors, waiting in lines, being patted down, and having my luggage searched guarantees that I won’t get blown up by a terrorist… or guarantees that my child or best friend won’t get blown up by a terrorist… then I can live with that.  It’s not oppression, it’s an inconvenience for the safety of ourselves and our fellow citizens.

If you want to blame somebody for the hassle, don’t blame the government.  BLAME THE TERRORISTS WHO WANT TO KILL YOU!

Anyway, back to the Rand Paul flip flops.  We’ve now established that Rand Paul doesn’t really care if you live or die, as long as you didn’t live or die with government assistance.  However, he does say that there are extraordinary situations in which it would be acceptable for a drone to kill an American citizen.  Apparently, an American citizen who has denounced his citizenship and joined up with al-Qaida overseas with the intent of killing other Americans isn’t extraordinary enough to call in the drones.

This confuses me, and perhaps it’s because Rand Paul is an idiot and I’m trying to understand his perspective through my first hand experience in the counter-terrorism field. We started arming drones because it’s really annoying to find a HVT (high value target) but not be able to stop him before RTB (return to base).  Armed drones give us the ability to strike when no other military assets are available.   It’s important to keep in mind that whether they’re Afghan, Saudi, Egyptian, Chechen, or American – THESE TERRORISTS WANT TO KILL INNOCENT AMERICANS.  This is why we rarely hesitate to kill terrorists before they have that chance to carry out their mission.  If Rand Paul can’t handle that, he needs to go back to kindergarten… preferably not in pansy liberal state like California… until he learns how to live in the real world instead of his Libertarian fantasy land.

So is this another one of the Rand Paul flip flops?  The man is so stupid it’s hard to tell.  He’s opposed to using drones to kill Americans with drones unless we’re talking about extraordinary circumstances… yet finding an American terrorist who is allied with our enemies and is committed to killing innocent civilians is not extraordinary?

That sounds like double talk… or stupid talk.  Which is it?

Because clearly Rand Paul talking to a man wearing a colonial hat is proof that the 18th century is alive and well in the 21st century.

The title is not a compliment directed towards Rand Paul. It’s a statement about his blind faith in the Constitution.  Don’t misunderstand me, I love the US Constitution.  If I didn’t, I wouldn’t have joined the Air Force after 9/11, I wouldn’t have spoken at Tea Parties across the country in 2009 and 2010, and I most certainly wouldn’t be a Republican.  Our system of government has seen us through times both incredible and incredibly tough.  It’s served us well and we have the Constitution to thank for that.

The trouble is that Rand Paul takes his adoration of the Constitution to the next level. Some may say it’s Constitutionophilia, but I think it’s a sick form of worship.

In an interview on Fox Business, Rand Paul scoffed at Republicans who believe Dzhohkar Tsarnaev should be detained and interrogated at length. For those of you who are reading this months or years from now, Dzhohkar Tsarnaev was the survivor of the terrorist brothers who attacked the Boston Marathon.  Rand Paul said, “I think we can still preserve the Bill of Rights… I see no reason why our Constitution isn’t strong enough to convict this young man, with a jury trial, with The Bill of Rights. We do it to horrible people all the time. Rapists and murders – they get lawyers, they get trials with juries and we seem to do a pretty good job of justice, so I think we can do it through our court system.”

This is further evidence that Rand Paul doesn’t understand the first thing about national security.

Dzhohkar Tsarnaev is not a rapist, and although he is a murderer, you would have to be really simple minded to believe a murderer is all that he is. Dzhohkar Tsarnaev is a terrorist. What we don’t know right now is whether he and his brother worked alone or whether they had help.

So, in the meantime, Rand Paul wants to give Dzhohkar Tsarnaev a lawyer who can potentially relay messages back and forth to whoever helped him. It’s happening at Guantanamo Bay a lot more often than you would like to believe.  Not only that, but you’re putting Dzhohkar Tsarnaev in a position where he can convert other prisoners and even people on the outside to his terrorist ideology.

But Rand Paul can’t accept the responsibility of keeping the citizens of the United States secure. Nor can he support the interrogation of a terrorist in order to find the terrorists who may have helped him. Why? Because the Constitution doesn’t say the government can.

Here’s what Rand Paul fails to realize.

The United States Constitution isn’t perfect!  In fact, it’s a pretty crappy document with a lot of short comings and leaving MUCH to be desired.  The Constitution was created at a time when asymmetrical warfare (terrorism) was celebrated and encouraged.  Many Americans LOVED the bloody and often sadistic French Revolution. The interest of the time was to ensure that the people always had a means to overthrow the government or the government of a conquering nation (chiefly Britain).

That era is over.

It is now physically impossible to overthrow the government and any attempt to do so violently would bring such discredit to your cause that even your ideological supporters would distance themselves from you.  Not to mention that you and your neighbors don’t have an F-22 fighter, B-2 bomber, GPS and laser guided munitions, or any of the other tools of modern war.  You have pressure cookers and cleaning supplies.  And law enforcement has become so good at neutralizing these threats when confronted with them that you’re going to have to target innocent civilians at public places and events like we saw last week Monday.

And foreign threats?  We should hold on to the 2nd Amendment for this reason alone.  However, we’re not in any immediate danger of invasion. The threat is real, just not today.  Today, the lives of innocent American civilians are being placed in jeopardy by enemies of our admittedly sinful and unrepentant way of life and our simple minded liberal and libertarian politicians, including Rand Paul.

The Constitution is NOT God.  It isn’t perfect.  The Founding Fathers KNEW that!  The Constitution was designed to be a living, breathing document that allowed amendments and permitted the Federal Government to create laws based on the needs of the people.  Limiting ourselves to the perceptions of a small, though prominent, handful of 18th century revolutionaries-turned-politicians isn’t a vision for the future.  It’s not going to solve 21st century problems.  The United States is vastly different in 2013 than it was in 1787.  Our people have changed, our enemies have changed, and our responsibilities and position in the world has changed.  Even the Constitution has changed.

Please don’t misinterpret this as an attack on American values or the Constitution.  I’m by no means saying we should abandon the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.  However, at the same time, we must be willing to adapt to the circumstances we find ourselves in and find ways to ensure the Constitution continues to work for us.  The Constitution isn’t God.  The Constitution isn’t there for Rand Paul to worship like a golden calf.  It’s there to serve the people.  If we let people like Rand Paul and his legion of tin foilaries restrict conservative interpretations of the Constitution to a select handful of its more radical 18th century framers, then any Constitutional arguments we make as Republicans will be increasingly difficult to defend.  Democrats are already eager to throw this “outdated” document out and come up with something new for the 21st century.  The Republican Party seriously needs to stop Rand Paul from inadvertently and foolishly helping them.  If Rand Paul has his way, the right will kill the Constitution because we will have stopped a living document from breathing, suffocating it in the 18th century circumstances and politics long forgotten by the American public.

Around the world today, children of many different nations went to school and learned that not flushing the toilet and buying $30 light bulbs with their parents’ money would save the planet.  We have Ira Einhorn to thank for this informative, educational experience for the global youth.  So who is Ira Einhorn?  Well, some might say he’s a visionary.  Others might say he’s a murderer.

Others being the State of Pennsylvania and the family of the late Holly Maddux.

You see, when Holly Maddux broke up with Ira Einhorn after 5 years in 1977, Ira Einhorn thought it would be the environmentally friendly to kill his ex-girlfriend and let her decompose in a trunk in his living room.  Police didn’t find her body for a year and a half.  He was found out after a “reddish-brown, foul-smelling liquid began leaking from the ceiling directly below Einhorn’s bedroom closet.”

Ira Einhorn was obviously arrested, made bail, and then skipped town a few days before his trial started.  He fled to Europe, where he had tons of adoring, tree-hugging fans to protect him as he created a new identity for himself.

Ira Einhorn’s mug shot

In 1997, he was found in Champagne-Mouton, France.  However, the Green Party in France (Europe Écologie – Les Verts) threw a legislative hissy fit, blocking the extradition until 2001.  Liberal values.

When he was finally returned and stood trial, Ira Einhorn argued the murder was all part of a clandestine CIA operation to frame him because, somehow, Ira Einhorn uncovered secrets about the CIA’s super secret Psionics program.  Psionics is pretty much why Paulers believe they have to wear tin foil hats.

Needless to say, Ira Einhorn is a man that can be (and has) been embraced by the far left and wacky right.  Ira Einhorn’s Earth Day is certainly worth celebrating in our classrooms.