The Queen Prefers A Coup
Posted March 26th, 2008 by Da King
Advocates of an american troop pullout from Iraq say the establishment of a democratic government cannot be accomplished in that country. Hillary Clinton is one such advocate. Her cynical view of Iraq makes more sense today, since it turns out Hillary doesn't much favor democracy in america either. After all the caucuses and primaries that have been held, after millions of americans have expressed their voices at the polls, Queen Hillary The First said the following, according to a Newsmax story:
“I just don’t think this is over yet, and I don’t think that it is smart for us to take a position that might disadvantage us in November…And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged. You know, there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They’re just like superdelegates."
In other words, Hillary thinks we should forget the will of the people and forget the voters - the elected delegates should just pledge themselves to her anyway, since, after all, she is the rightful heir to the throne, not that Obama fellow. I mean, Obama has never taken pretend sniper fire in Bosnia. Obama has never been deeply involved in a pretend Irish peace process. Obama doesn't have 35 years of pretend experience. How can he possibly be ready on DAY ONE like the Once And Future Queen ? What's fair is fair america. Forget that silly notion of democracy. The Clintons have. Lots of other Democrats have also. Florida and Michigan appear to be permanently disenfranchised.
In fairness, maybe the Hilldog just misspoke. There's been lots of that going around lately. Of course, two weeks earlier she said the exact same thing to Newsweek:
"Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to.”
Okay, maybe she misspoke twice. It's been a long campaign. Clinton campaign advisor Harold Ickes attempted to clarify Hillary's remarks, by SAYING THE EXACT SAME THING:
“I think what Mrs. Clinton was trying to make clear was that no delegate is required by party rules to vote for the candidate for which they're pledged,” said Ickes. “I mean obviously circumstances can change, and people's minds can change about the viability of a particular candidate and that's permitted now under our rules ever since the 1980 convention.”
Thanks for clearing that up, Harold. Let's turn the country into a banana republic.
Since the country is having economic problems, probably the wisest course of action would be to just install Hillary as the president, and forget the rest of the primaries and the general election. That way, we can dispense with all this unnecessary debate and voting nonsense, and get about the business of 'fixing' america [similar to the way you 'fix' a sporting event]. I'm certain Hillary and Bill would agree.
Every time I think I've heard it all, I'm proven wrong.
I can't wait to hear the left wingers argue with me on this one.
March 26th, 2008 at 7:01 am
King,
The Lefties won't argue too much with you because they favor Obama over Clinton.
Why? Because BHO is 1) black — sort of, anyway — and 2) much more to the Left (more liberal) than HC.
I for one think Obama earned his title "Barak the Magic Negro" for, if nothing else, making Comrade Clinton appear patriotic and non-divisive by comparsion. This is quite an accomplishment.
+++
King, you mockingly write, "I mean, Obama has never taken pretend sniper fire in Bosnia."
Perhaps not, but accroding to his wife, B. Hussein runs the risk in this "USA of the KKK" of being shot every time he goes to the gas station to fill up the car.
So whose delusion is worse, that of BHO and his wife or Hillary's?
Answer: It depends on what area BHO gets his gas. If it's a white area, he's as safe as can be. If he's down in the hood, well ……
This reality check might get the libs, lefties, and Dims here chewing the rug, but check the crime statistics — or consult with Obama's grandma, the white one.
+++++
I think it would be great if the Dims gave HRC their nomination. I'd guess that there's about a 30% for that.
March 26th, 2008 at 7:39 am
I'm thinking more and more if things fall the way Hillary wants the Democratic Party should be banned from participating in the nation's political process.
March 26th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Wow, Vince, that might be the most racist post you ever wrote. My race never ceases to disappoint me.
March 26th, 2008 at 11:07 am
King check out this report from Bloomberg News Services:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.
The couple earned more than $2.6 million in 2005 and 2006, combined, after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book in 2005. They donated $137,622 over those two years and made their church, Trinity United Church of Christ, one of the biggest beneficiaries of their philanthropy, donating $27,500. Obama is under scrutiny for his ties to the church because of comments made by its senior pastor.
B. Hussein Obama and his angy wife are cheapskates. They preach "concern for the poor" but do little if anything themselves to help the poor other than try to take other people money and spend it. The Obamas are H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S.
What phonies.
This makes the Obama Kool-Aid drinkers look even more stuipd than when they were merely groveling before BHO's empty speeches and touting his lack of ANY achievement in the U.S. Seante or life in general. What fools.
And note where the Obamas gave the most in charaty — it was to the Rev. Wright Church of Hate in Chicago. This would be like someone giving money to the KKK and calling it a charatable contribution. Truly, Obama must be as big an anti-white racist as Wright.
Good luck in explaining B.Hussein Obama's behavior to middle class voters.
Yes, a McCain victory — maybe even a landslide — looks more and more likely with each passing day.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
King, I have referred to Hillary as HRH HRC for years now. That is exactly what she would like to see her title be. She had been so sure of arriving at that point in 2008 for over eight years now and all of a sudden she realizes that she is very close to losing her dream to Obama so she comes out telling us that Democrat rules don't bind those delegates to vote for him. Even before 1980 the rules only required promised delegate votes in the first vote and after that they could vote for anyone.
This one does get better and better every time some reporter digs up some more dirt to report.
da truth, when you talk about your race embarrassing you more all the time is that referring to the words of Vince or to the fact that blacks tend to do drive bys in their part of any city? I just wondered what you meant there.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Roy,
If you want to be called a racist, just expose something unfavorable about a liberal/leftist black, and then all the liberal chorus will chime in, "Racist, racist, racist."
[Chanting "racist, racist" makes guilt-ridden whites feel good about themselves. I know, I know, Roy. It's perverse. But hey, liberalism is a mental disorder. You can't expect rationality from those people]
So let's do it again and get the Dims, leftists, and libs chewing the rug with this new expose:
Now that Obama’s hateful minister, Rev. Wright, has been outted as a raving racist, let's look at the Black Liberation Theology that underlines Wright's hateful preaching — the preaching that B. Hussien Obama and his wife absorbed for the past twenty years.
Rev. Wright himself has a spiritual guru — the father of Black Liberation Theology (BLT), some nut named Dr. James Hal Cone.
Here is some of Cone's racist beliefs:
* "Black theology refuses accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him."
* "All white men are responsible for white oppression."
* "While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism."
* "Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man "the devil.""
* "The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples."
* "We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal."
Quite a plate full of racism & hate disguised as Christianity, wouldn't you say, Roy?
When news of this theology of BHO’s church spreads, one can accurately say that those who continue to support BHO are the true racists in today’s society, not those that expose it.
.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
King,
I think the term empress is more fitting. She truly beleives she has the mandate from the secular "heaven".
March 26th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Yes Roy, I was referring to the words of Vince. I'm one of those guilt-ridden whites he refers to, I guess. Nice racial slur by you though…I must say you're not in Vince's class just yet.
And I do apologize for implying that Vince is a racist. Being a racist suggests that he has some power to keep minorities oppressed. Vince has no such power. He's just a bigot. I am glad to see he finally admitted that the most important qualification to pick a president (other than a nice middle name like Sidney) is how much they give to charity.
Regardless, have fun pulling the lever for that RINO Sidney "my wife's a drug addict my daughter is black and born out of wedlock and I'm gay and mentally unstable" McCain come November. I didn't think I'd see the day when da king's men would put a democrat in charge of a democratic congress……..
p.s. what's an "angy wife"? Plus, isn't it interesting to see that liberal rag the NYTimes do a similar hit piece on Obama? I thought they were on my side! Damn liberal media.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:45 am
I guess I'm a bigot, too. I don't have the power to oppress folks, and never have, even though I've been accused of it. So I'm no longer a racist. I'll be sure and explain the difference to the next naive white person supporting Obama who doesn't know the difference.
I'm disappointed with my race too, but for a different reason. I'm disappointed because so many whites won't apply the same set of standards to certain individuals because those individuals are black. That is real racism. That is real bigotry, and that is real hypocrisy.
March 27th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Yes, Balladeer, it's called the bigotry of soft expectations, among other things, and the guilt-ridden liberals & Dims you see posting here guilty of this, among other things.
According to Black Liberation Theology (see posting above) - -the philosophy of B. Hussein Obama's church — "black hatred is not racism" and "ALL white MEN are guilty of oppression."
Instead at laughing at this stupidity, soft-headed liberals believe it. Then, as a way of showing their imagined solidarity with the Negro, these libs attack anyone, but especially other whites, who objectively and in an unbais manner judge the Negro.
It's a shame. More than the KKK could ever do, this behavior of the guilt-ridden whites has kept the blacks down for over the past 40-years.
I wonder what the libs will try and do for an encore.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:07 am
da truth, I didn't intend a racial slur, only wanted to know what is going on when you do your "white guilt" thing. Do you really feel guilty for what was done more than 150 years ago by whites to blacks? I feel no guilt for any of that as I wasn't around then and have never been in agreement with slavery for anybody anywhere.
Now, truth, you make noises about Vince and his mention of how much Obama pays into charity, which I see as nothing very impiortant, and then you follow that with these words about what makes McCain unworthy of the job. ""my wife's a drug addict my daughter is black and born out of wedlock and I'm gay and mentally unstable" McCain." It seems to me that what his wife and daughter are is nothing as to what he can do as a President. Do you have some real proof about McCain's sex drive? If so I wonder why the Dems were so strong on the game playing with the female vote swayer. I guess with all the success Dems have had with Republicans of the other kind, as my wife calls them, they just can't hold back from thinking that all Republican's may well be that way. I suppose you are using the Dem example of McCain's short temper about some things to point out that he is mentally unstable. When you start to take on you do it all the way, it seems.
I have been accused of being racist by many people and don't care one bit at being called that. Back in the 70s when all of us who had opinions I was often accused by women of being a male chauvinist pig and I rather enjoyed that one since women who I didn't care about, one way or the other, were the ones who made all that noise.
I am an opinionated old man who doesn't mind telling others what my opinion is. I love to be called racist by those who have surrendered to "white guilt".
March 27th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
"I love to be called racist by those who have surrendered to 'white guilt"'.
Give 'em Hell, Roy.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Thanks, guys, for pointing out my white guilt. Wish you would have let me know sooner that I was suffering from it. Thanks for the diagnosis.
No, Roys, as a matter of fact, all the lies I said about Sidney are the very ones your hero, Mr. Bush, used in 2000 to secure some wins in the southern primaries. So I got those from your hero. Perhaps you have used your R-based elective recall to block them from your memory…..and they say the elephant never forgets. I'll be interested to see how you respond to this point.
Balladeer, how does pointing out Vince's biogtry apply any different set of standards to any group of people? You lost me on that one. (king, you need to up the standards for entrance into "da men" if this is the type of candidate you are getting).
And Vince, my poor deprived friend, when you come up with an objective and unbiased way to judge people that don't agree with you, I'll listen. Until then, your name calling continues to display how tired your backwoods thinking really is. You truly do believe if you talk louder and call more names than everyone else, people will listen to you, don't you?
March 27th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Most presidential candidates are Christian. Obama is Christian.
Christianity in it's myriad forms is not really monolithic. Some more imaginative Christians believe in 666 numbers and secret raptures…..basic hocus pocus stuff. Other Christians don't. Some Christians believe that salvation, whatever that means, is most important. Other Christians believe living out a social gospel is the calling of the Jesus of the Gospels. They believe that when Jesus spoke about relieving suffering, uplifting the downtrodden, etc….he wasn't kidding…..he wasn't talking in "spiritual" language.
Whites don't have much interest in the social gospel, at least not the whites of modern evangelical Christianity. Black Christians, on the other hand, do not share white history, except on the wrong end of the whip whites held. Black Christians, take the words of Jesus seriously. They are acquainted with being downtrodden and enslaved, they are acquainted with being despised and marginalized. To black Christians, the call of Jesus is a call to reform society. Not some spiritual Ghost-like society….but the, you know, real society that is in constant need of reform.
Reforming society is one of the reasons why hypocritical religious leaders turned Jesus over to be killed. The hypocrites didn't want to reform the religious society they sat atop of.
Just thought I'd share that.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Ahh yes just when you think it's safe……….
Thanks Rev, well said.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
How did this thread turn into a discussion of race ? I guess people do want to talk about Obama's pastor. I was trying to change the subject.
But here goes:
Rev, here's a newsflash for you. Slavery ended 145 years ago. There isn't one white person alive today who had a thing to do with it, nor any black person who was a slave. It's been 43 years since the Civil Rights Act. I was eleven then, so since I'm white, I guess you can go ahead and accuse me of being an eleven year old white oppressor of some sort, but that would be completely moronic. I don't have ANY white guilt, because I'm not guilty of anything. I'm only responsible for the things I have done. Sorry, but I can't help what some white guys did 350 years ago. I have no more relation to them than I do to the people who were enslaved back then. The only connection you can make between those old slaveowners and me is the color of my skin, but to base one's judgement on the color of another's skin is the very definition of racism, is it not ? That should be disavowed.
This is the year 2008. To remain stuck in the mindset of slaveowner vs. slave in this day and age is an exercise in dishonesty and an excuse where there is no excuse. It is the racist or race hustler's excuse. It would be like me hating southerners because some of my northern ancestors were killed by them during the Civil War. That is baggage that does not have to be carried, and there is no point in carrying it. If we as a society have to wait until every single person in the country is devoid of all race-based impulse to declare a victory for civil rights, then we will be waiting a very long time, because that may never happen for any race of people. All we can hope for is equality under the law and the absence of institutionalized racism, so that we can all embrace life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is the fulfillment of our founding principles. I think tremendous strides have been made, and I am disgusted by those who, by their words and actions, would seek division rather than harmony. For example, the sound bytes we've heard from Rev. Jeremiah Wright were racist. It doesn't matter what color his skin is. There isn't one set of rules for whites, another set for blacks, a third set for latinos, a fourth set for asians, etc. There's one set for all of us. That's where we have to go as a society. To attempt to go anywhere else is folly.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:55 am
King, you make some very good points in your post. But I think that what you fail to understand is, that however you may see things is not the way another man might. You talk about the rules being the same for everyone but you admit that we will never live in such a society. That's the point. We never will. Since we won't, how can the rules ever be the same for everyone since they aren't?
March 28th, 2008 at 9:15 am
I think I'm pretty much 100% in my understanding that not everyone sees things exactly as I do. That's why I'm putting forth MY OPINION and we are having A DISCUSSION.
What rules (laws) are different for whites than for blacks ? What rules are different for one group than for another ? The only ones I can think of are affirmative action and hate crime legislation (both of which I oppose). Oh, and I've thought of a third, and this gets into your area. Justice is bought far too often. Perhaps Shakespeare was right ?
My point was that there is (or should be) one set of rules for all of us to follow, and we definitely can achieve that.
March 28th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
A couple of things, king…….first, I wouldn't know too much about buying justice, I was a public defender for a long time, so I spent a good deal of time fighting with judges about judicial resources and how they were unfairly distributed…but that's a different story for a different day. (yes, Shakespeare was right!)
I concede that yes, the rules should be the same for everyone. In actuality, they are, with the exceptions of the ones you stated. The difference comes in how they are implemented (i.e. the old argument how in the south a black man and a white man commit the same crime and the black man gets the harsher sentence). Whether you and I feel the rules are the same for everyone doesn't change that they are not always implemented in that matter. Is it better than it was? Sure. Is it is good as it can be? No, and that's what we should strive for.
But (gulp), yes, I agree there should be one set of rules for all of us. Hopefully someday we can achieve that, although you and I both know it's probably unlikely in the time we have left.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
King, King — you say, the only rules that you can think of which are different for blacks and whites are 1) affirmative action and 2) hate crime legislation.
Those are only the "legal" rules that favor blacks, to which you could have added the recent renewed Voting Rights Act.
However, much broader — and at times, much more powerful — than the legal rules are the rules of political correctness.
Among other things, political correctness [pc] is designed to mute criticisms of blacks like like B. Hussein Obama and even raving racists like Rev. Wright, the Rev. Al Sharpton, etc.
And yes, there are limits to the protection pc gives to blacks. If the blacks in question happen to be any way conservative — like the great U.S. Superme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas — then it's open season on them.
Even a moderate black like Condi Rice is allowed not only to be criticized but also slandered. Anyone remember the racist cartoons some of the liberal media ran on her? I do.
So, pc is not 100% racist. However, since a) most black "leaders" are content to stay on the Dim plantation of dependency and b) pc is designed to advance the Leftist agenda, it can be said that in general pc does favor blacks. Any argument?
[Political correctness covers more than just blacks and race, of course. For instance, pc gives leftists and America-haters the primier place on college campuses while it squelches the freedom of speech of conservatives. Again, any argument?]
++++++
King,
And speaking of Condi Rice, what do you think of her as McCain's running mate. Would she guarantee a McCain landslide, do you suppose?
March 29th, 2008 at 7:03 am
No, Vince, no argument. It's impossible to argue with you because all you do is call names if someone questions you. What's the point in that?
March 29th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
The treatment of black Conservatives by liberals is completely abhorrent. I can think of no better example of the true nature of liberal hatred and insanity.
And count me as all for Condi as McCain's VP. I doubt she'll take the job though. I don't think she has the stomach for the political grist mill. She could well have been the nominee for president if she wanted that, but she didn't.
March 30th, 2008 at 9:27 am
"The treatment of black Conservatives by liberals is completely abhorrent" — and probably racist, too.
But then again, the libs are the annointed ones [at least in their own minds], and as such, they're allowed to slander any black who escaped from the Dim's Plantation of Dependency. It's all justified as being for the greater good, you see.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Ghost's quite brilliant comments here help me to understand why the Republican Party has not one black representing their arms-open-wide political party in Congress…..it's the Democrats' fault.
Thanks for that.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:28 am
Rev,
Why doesn't the Secretary of State count as a black Republican ? We also could have had a black Republican governor in Ohio had y'all not elected that empty suit Strickland instead.