Clinton clam-bake

http://www.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/201294/reg_1024.ChristinaAguilera.HillaryClinton.jc.10312.jpeg
To be as fair as possible, it would be weird NOT to want to get an eyeful of that...
In which Jim Goad asks some rather pointed questions about the Lizard Queen's, um, personal preferences:
Jenny McCarthy, easily the finest female specimen ever to appear on estrogen-addled daytime-TV squawkfest The View, recently upset the eternally offended Gay Lobby by insinuating what most of the Western world has insinuated for decades—that Hillary Clinton has a taste for female flesh
Even though being gay is supposed to be cool, Clinton supporters balked and blanched and belched at the allegation not because being a Daughter of Sappho is a matter of shame, but because Clinton is on record denying it, which would make her a liar in the grand tradition of her husband. [Didact: And her husband is a far better and more accomplished liar, to boot.]
Assuming that Clinton does not die from herpes nor succumb to a fatal blood clot between now and 2016 when it is presumed she would be a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination for president, would it really matter if she were, to put it in the vulgar argot of sailors and longshoremen, a clam-licker? 
Not as much as one might think. [...]

I’m going to go way out on a limb and assume that “p***y” does not mean “putty” or “poopy.” And I’ll lowball this and assume that, say, Bill Clinton never ate a pussy in his life. [Didact: If I recall correctly, he got the nickname "Slick Willy" for more than just his effortless charm...] According to Flowers, that would mean that Hillary Clinton has eaten at least one pussy, which would qualify her as at least bisexual if not a full-blown, fire-breathing, scorpion-tailed, claw-wielding lesbian.

But again—does it matter?

It should if you’re a male. By definition, lesbians dislike men. They take your everyday, run-of-the-mill, been-there-done-that misandry that forms the bedrock of all latter-day feminism a step further by rejecting not only the idea of maleness, but the very male body itself. The idea of a man-hating, pants-suit-wearing, oyster-gobbling woman sitting in the Ovary Office should make any right-thinking American male’s testicles retreat slightly up into his body.
I would go much farther than this and argue that if you're going to vote for the Lizard Queen in the next election, you're clinically insane.

If Hillary Clinton were the next POTUS, she probably wouldn't be the first occupant of that august office whose sexuality was, let's say, open to question. There is considerable speculation and not exactly a dearth of evidence to suggest that the 15th POTUS, James Buchanan, was perhaps a bit of a fairy. As stomach-churning as it is to contemplate the notion of a sodomite or devotee of Sappho wielding such power, that isn't the problem at hand here.

The problem is that we have no end of evidence to suggest that Hillary Clinton would be an even worse President that Barack Obama. Or Mitt Romney. Or- Lord help us all- John McCain. That's how terrible she would be.

She is an unrepentant warmonger. During her time as Secretary of State, she failed miserably at maintaining or enhancing America's relationships with allies and adversaries alike. Her part in the Benghazi debacle indicates at best utter disdain for the lives of American civilians and soldiers, if not outright criminal negligence.

Jim Goad ends with a reminder of exactly what this woman has been through at the hands of her husband in the past:
Since 2008, Democratic shysters have deflected the merest criticism of Obama with the word “racism,” a dumb and meaningless term that still somehow has the capacity to cripple nearly anyone at whom it is flung. Should Hillary Clinton ascend to the presidency, you can bet your last testicle that no matter how extreme her policies, anyone who dares question them will be shouted down as a misogynist. She could call for the ritual televised castration of all male infants, yet anyone who made a peep about it will be smeared as a woman-hater
It is also well-known that Hillary Clinton is an impenitent war hawk. For all that we hear about how men who love guns and missiles are compensating for penile deficiencies, how much more would this apply to someone that nature has saddled with a mere clitoris? 
Let’s throw reason to the wind and assume that Clinton is a full-on heterosexual woman. If that’s the case, she publicly endured humiliation at the hands of her philandering hubby. Hell hath no fury, and all that. If she were to be placed in the world’s ultimate power position, this would not bode well for men. Considering all this, one could only hope that she’s a lesbian.
Too right. Putting this woman in charge as Commander-in-Chief of the vast military machine of American might is downright crazy. To wield that power properly, you have to demonstrate competence, character, and restraint.

Hillary Clinton has not demonstrated competence. She has demonstrated character- if by "character" you mean "a chameleon-like ability to be exactly what people want to see on the campaign trail"- but when it comes to what the rest of us mean by the term, she has not. And she certainly has no sense of restraint when it comes to crusades of social justice.

This is not the woman- hell, the person- you want leading the world's most powerful nation. There is no evidence at all that this woman would make a good or useful leader. So don't make the mistake of voting for her. It's just that simple.

Comments

Popular Posts