daughters, no

and that goes for all of the kids


wives, sure...so far they have attacked michelles patriotism, and the bastards arent done with her

Be Very Afraid
Clinton’s legacy.

Mr. Derbyshire is also an NR contributing editor
February 15, 2001 10:10 a.m.

A specter is haunting America — the specter of Clintonism. Yes, the man is gone, off to a lifetime of golfing at all-white
clubs, biting his lip in the pulpits of black churches while the hallelujahs soar, goosing waitresses, slithering in and out of shady business deals, being collared by showbiz bores at Barbra Streisand's parties, and defending himself in court. And yes, his lady has no future beyond the U.S. Senate. The people of New York, trapped in their little Stalinist time-warp, still fretting about why that nice Mr. Adlai Stevenson didn't get in in '52 (my explanation: WE NEED ADLAI BADLY! was the worst campaign slogan ever) will probably go on voting for her until, like Gagoola the hag in King Solomon's Mines, "She has lived so long that none can remember when she was not old, and always she it is who has trained the witch hunters, and made the land evil in the sight of the heavens above." But given her far-left paper trail and her amazing capacity to make people detest her where'er she treads, Hillary's maxed out: She has no real future.

Yet still the presence of that specter can be felt, an icy wind blowing to us from the unseeable future, disturbing our sleep, arresting us in the midst of our daily tasks, chilling and warning us. Bill and Hill are history, but Clintonism may yet rise again, like Glenn Close from that bathtub. For, ladies and gentlemen, the tworch has been paaahssed to a noooh genewation of Clintons. On February 27th, Chelsea Clinton will turn 21.

At this point I had better make a confession. It's a bad one, I know it. It is low, contemptible and — yes! — mean-spirited. It may very well place me beyond the pale of civilized society. I don't care. Truth will out, I will be heard. Brace yourself: I hate Chelsea Clinton.

Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past — I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble — recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an "enemy of the people". The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, "clan liability". In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished "to the ninth degree": that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed, and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed. (This sounds complicated, but in practice what usually happened was that a battalion of soldiers was sent to the offender's home town, where they killed everyone they could find, on the principle neca eos omnes, deus suos agnoscet — "let God sort 'em out".)

We don't, of course, institutionalize such principles in our society, and a good thing too. Our humanity and forbearance, however, has a cost. The cost is, that the vile genetic inheritance of Bill and Hillary Clinton may live on to plague us in the future. It isn't over, folks. Dr. Nancy Snyderman, a "friend of the family" (how much money did she give them?) is quoted as saying that Chelsea shows every sign of following her parents into politics. "She's been bred for it," avers Dr. Snyderman. Be afraid: be very afraid.

Now, hoot, let's put some value on accuracy here, and retain some truth is scale and proportion, too. This isn't one of your 9.11 threads. Nor is it a Wayne Madsen article.

Not only did I not offer anything nearly so broad and sweeping as LB being "above reproach," later on a tangential matter I also offered a vague recollection - identified and qualified as such - about newspapers being directed to a sixth grade reading level. I further speculated - again, identified and qualified in this case as an assumption - that the White House (1. plays a larger role in crafting Laura Bush's messages than she does and (2. that they do so to a similar standard.

And, to remind you - as your mind appears to especially flustered today (have the fireworks upset you?) - this was offered in response to your query -



If it's your belief Laura in fact crafts those writings issued beneath her name, and that they are conveyed in simplistic terms because she is either a dolt, or assume most Americans to be, I invite you to offer those or other opinions, or remain silent. Instead, however, it appears you've chosen to pursue a personal agenda and natter on about me. And while you're certainly entitled to take that low road, too, I'm just going to have to insist you stick to the truth. On those frequent occasions you chose instead to rely upon hyperbole, distortion and mischaracterizing and misstating what I've written in a pathetic effort flail at me, I will point it out.



Oh, hoot, it almost seems as if you don't hold me, my level of intelligence or my skills in high regard. How ever am I going to get to sleep tonight, what with my worry and hurt?

But it's interesting, isn't it? For the high crime of having had the temerity to express my opinion - something I did politely and utterly without rancor or name-calling, in response you have desperately scrambled about to find irrelevant hooks from which to hang some insults. Why, you're only a Senate hearing away from qualifying for a prominent position in the Bush White House! Alas, my wife is not a covert CIA operative, so you will have to pursue other avenues to punish me for independent thought.

Bourgeois, reading this latest feisty verbal out-pouring, replete with your customary profusion of antic straw man arguments and bald inaccuracies not only confirms my opinion that you would be ideally suited to write Mrs. Bush's public statements but that you could easily stand in for Dana Perino.

Sorry Seeker
THEY WERE THERE, SO WE SHOULD BE SILENT?

IN A WORD: BALLS.

RECALL CHELSEA?

This kind of hate-saturated rhetoric has been directed at the Clintons and "liberals" by Derbyshire, Coulter, Limbaugh and the entire kennel of right wing attack dogs for many years.

People question her for statements she made while out campaigning for her husband. "For the first time in my adult life, I'm proud of my country." That will cause people to question where she is at. I kniw there were lame attempts to try and spin the statement, but words do mean things and it could be seen as a freudean slip. Mrs. Bush is attacked on this site and called many vile names. I know I've never heard Mrs. Obama called those things

People question her for statements she made while out campaigning for her husband. "For the first time in my adult life, I'm proud of my country." That will cause people to question where she is at. I kniw there were lame attempts to try and spin the statement, but words do mean things and it could be seen as a freudean slip. Mrs. Bush is attacked on this site and called many vile names. I know I've never heard Mrs. Obama called those things

I corrected someones incorrect quote of what Michelle said, why is it I think we will see a great deal of more incorrect quotes in days to come...

I wonder how many votes the right would get if they werent allowed to lie during the campaign?

is that the entire quote????? the correct quote????


this is rrmb, you wont get away with misquoting someone...


and when you look at the correct quote, you will see it means something different


and when I, a white man, looked at the entire quote, it never occurred to me to question it at all...but then i tend NOt to judge someone i couldnt possibly judge, a black woman in america

People question her for statements she made while out campaigning for her husband. "For the first time in my adult life, I'm proud of my country." That will cause people to question where she is at. I kniw there were lame attempts to try and spin the statement, but words do mean things and it could be seen as a freudean slip. Mrs. Bush is attacked on this site and called many vile names. I know I've never heard Mrs. Obama called those things

I have to say that is one of the ways that she said it.

She had said "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country"

and later the same day she said,

"for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country"

So yes he/she quoted it correctly.

I can look up the quotes that are side by side if you like.

Proud vs really proud speeches

it was the same day, she obviously is correcting herself by adding the word really...

you know what is incredible, that we have a internet and nation full of white people judging a black person, whether it be michelle or wright, questioning their attitude about America...if you dont see how insane that is, then we couldnt ever discuss it rationally...

the same way i cant discuss why gays are equal to str8ts with an evangelical who hates gays...they just dont get it. - that may not be the best analogy, I am not suggesting certain people hate blacks, but I am suggesting they dont have a clue what they are talking about when talking about what a black person has had to experience...

i.e.

dont those black folk know there is no longer racism in America...dont they know that everything is hunky dory now like the past 200 yrs never happened...etc


all academic anyway, other than an outright total annihilation of the voting system by a right wing conspiracy, Obama wins big...so you can interpret her to have said anything you want, she will be the next First Lady.

Bush Edits Out Jefferson's Religious Views
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/
Posted on: July 5, 2008 9:16 AM, by Ed Brayton

Hat tip to Sandefur for catching this. President Bush was at Monticello for a 4th of July celebration and he delivered an address. But it's quite telling that his speechwriters, in quoting Jefferson, cut out an anti-religious statement from a long and famous quote. Here's the way Bush put it:

Thomas Jefferson understood that these rights do not belong to Americans alone. They belong to all mankind. And he looked to the day when all people could secure them. On the 50th anniversary of America's independence, Thomas Jefferson passed away. But before leaving this world, he explained that the principles of the Declaration of Independence were universal. In one of the final letters of his life, he wrote, "May it be to the world, what I believe it will be -- to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all -- the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government."

Now let's look at the full quote, including the part that was cut out. This is from a letter he wrote to Roger Weightman reflecting on the upcoming 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (which, it turns out, was the day both he and John Adams died):

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.

Jefferson made many such statements, of course. Clearly they are best edited out by those who advocate nothing if not monkish ignorance and superstition.

This has to have been the most persistently, determinedly dishonest presidencies in history.