you shouldn't insult hillbillies by using them as characters for politicians
On Sep 21, 9:59 am, Bruce Majors <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > > *The Revenge Of The HillBillies? > *September 20, 2011 > by Robert Ringer <http://www.personalliberty.com/author/robert-ringer/> > > Early in 2009, I started writing about the possibility of the HillBillies -- > the world’s first and only two-for-the-price-of-one political combo -- > challenging Barack Obama once it became obvious to a majority of the > anesthetized public that the would-be emperor had no clothes. > > Don’t get me wrong. BHO has accomplished almost everything I expected of > him: universal healthcare; a trillion-dollar stimulus giveaway; debt-ceiling > increases that have brought the United States ever-closer to default; > business-crushing regulations intended to bring the private sector to its > knees; encouraging union thugs to engage in violent uprisings from coast to > coast; appointing far-left radicals to important positions in the White > House; sending a thumbs up to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and the PLO, > while constantly chastising Israel. There’s no need to go on, as your own > list is probably longer than mine. > > But now Chairman Obama is in danger of stumbling before he can carry the > ball across the left goal line and declare victory over America. Witness the > humiliating Democratic defeats in Nevada and New York City’s District 9. The > Solyndra scandal is threatening to spin out of control. Obama refuses to > utter a word about Jimmy Hoffa’s introducing him at a union event in Detroit > by saying, “Let’s take these (Tea Party) sons of bitches out and give > America back to an America where we belong.” The list goes on. The next > thing you know, the world may even find out that Laura Ingraham was right > about the White House garden being just another example of Obama > razzle-dazzle. > > As James Carville said in his recent warning to Democrats, “It’s time to > panic.” And that, I think, is where Obama’s weakness lies. When panic sets > in, he comes across as a frustrated, tantrum-throwing child; and each time > he does, it awakens another batch of “independents” from their “yes we can” > coma. To put it mildly, it’s childish to go on tour and shout “Pass this > bill” to audiences of college kids, but when you yell it out more than 100 > times in a week, it’s beyond childish; it’s pathetic. > > Enter the HillBillies and, yes, when you buy one, you do get the other one > for free. It’s getting late in the campaign game and, granted, it’s a tough > decision for them to make, but they have to do it relatively soon if they > really want to have the opportunity to finish trashing the White House > (i.e., when they move out for the second time). > > If Hillary announces, it will be one of the biggest bombshells in modern > political history. It will also tear the Democratic Party apart. > Nevertheless, I believe she would beat the current White House Grand Mufti > rather handily. > > Why? Because there are enough rational Democrats out there who know that not > only is their party going to lose the White House in 2012, they also are in > danger of losing their own seats. That creates a strong motivation to > distance themselves from Obama and fall in line behind savior Hillary. > > Now for the bad news: If Hillary did secure the Democratic nomination, she > would probably beat either Rick Perry or Mitt Romney in a landslide. Like > Obama in his stealth 2008 campaign, she now has most of the public > completely fooled. The majority of Americans no longer see her as a radical > 60s hippie who came to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue focused on implementing her > own version of universal healthcare but, rather, as a moderate, well-meaning > liberal. > > They forget that she’s the sweet little gal who once said, in a campaign > speech, that she would *take *$5 billion from oil companies that’s right, > *take it *(as in, force) * *and use it for whatever. And if she can take > money that belongs to oil companies, she certainly can take it from you. > > The public has already forgotten her abstract progressive rants about > “environmental rights,” “I can create shared prosperity,” and “It takes a > village.” Hillary would still move to the left if she got into office, but > slower and smarter than the current Emergency-in-Chief. She may not have > gone to a church for 20 years where the pastor shouted such goodies as “G__ > damn America” week in and week out, but she is a dyed-in-the-wool believer > in the collective over the individual. > > That said, I hasten to add that she is also something else: totally amoral. > Hillary and hubby have clearly demonstrated that they will do anything, > anytime, anywhere, to anybody if it’s in their best interest. > > A lot has happened in the movie-like saga of the HillBillies over the past > decade, not the least of which is the discovery of how nice the payoff can > be when you succeed in the capitalist system in fact, more than $100 > million worth of nice. > > On the road to weaving hippie values into government at the highest levels, > the Clintons found that wealth and prestige are not all that hard to get > used to. Hobnobbing with the rich and famous among Washington’s elite and on > New York’s Upper East Side is something one learns to tolerate, even if he > or she starts out as a genuine flower child. > > What I’m saying here is that when push comes to shove, Hillary’s ego and > materialistic instincts might just win out over her desire to be a model > “new American progressive.” After all, that “shared prosperity” schmaltz is > really just for the dolts who are looking for more government handouts. I’ve > always believed that, behind the flowery phrases, Hillary actually harbors > an enormous contempt for the lower echelons of society. > > What I’m talking about here is a $3 million wedding for daughter Chelsea, > $250,000 speaking fees as far as the eye can see and invitations to royal > dinners as a normal way of life. Speaking of $250,000 speeches, you and I > may have thought that we’d never live to see it, but the fact is that Hubby > Bubby, the first of two world-class bull slingers from Hope, Ark., is now > the face of the Democratic Party. > > People have short memories. They’ve apparently convinced themselves that his > cigar tricks in the Oval Office were nothing more than a collective > aberration. Groper Bill is now a revered elderly statesman. Like it or not, > he and Hillary have morphed into an elite establishment couple. > > All this means that if Hillary does challenge Obama and ends up back in the > White House, she might just drop the “taking from the oil companies” blather > and posit herself as the great middle-of-the-road state capitalist. Sort of > a female version of John McCain or Orrin Hatch. > > Sure, the U.S. will still eventually go under, because neither the > mathematical realities nor the entitlements that drive them can be overcome > by anyone especially a politician. But if businesses are fooled by Hillary > into believing otherwise, the free market is so robust that entrepreneurial > activity could postpone the inevitable for another couple of decades. > > That’s important, because in a couple of decades the world will look much > different than it does today. Depending on how things unfold with the Tea > Party, we might even have a civil war that ends with the good guys winning. > Or perhaps there will be some other solution preferably one in which > government is relegated to a minor role in society that we can’t see from > our present vantage point. > > The Marxist crowd knew from the moment they gained control of both houses of > Congress and the White House that they were unlikely to get another > opportunity to finish the job if they didn’t move quickly. That’s why the > left’s leading nut case, Paul Krugman, recently said, “I’m trying to make > this progressive moment in American history a success.” > > Ironically, it was none other than James Carville (the guy who now is > warning the Dems that it’s time to panic) who predicted after the Democrats > won it all in 2008 that the Democratic Party would rule for 40 years. For a > long time, I thought he would have to eat his words, but if Hillary > challenges Obama for the Democratic nomination, he might just turn out to be > a prophet albeit via a route he probably didn’t think possible. > > Having said all this, for those of us who are still intent on resisting a > left-wing police state in America, I think we would be wise to be careful > what we wish for. Obama can be beaten, but probably not Hillary. > > http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/government/the-r... > **** > > __._,_.___ > Reply to > sender<[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20The%20Revenge%20Of%20The%20HillBillies%3F>| > Reply > to > group<[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20The%20Revenge%20Of%20The%20HillBillies%3F>| > Start > a New > Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/grendelreport/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdXYzMW1...> > Recent Activity: > > Visit Your > Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/grendelreport;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbWk2bjcxBF9T...> > MARKETPLACE > > Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get > the Yahoo! Toolbar > now.<http://global.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15ootlsij/M=493064.14543979.14562481....> > [image: Yahoo! > Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNm5wYTljBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycEl...> > Switch to: > Text-Only<[email protected]?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>, > Daily > Digest<[email protected]?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>• > Unsubscribe <[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>• > Terms > of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> > . > > __,_._,___ -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
