It begins with a tweet:
[Mrs.] Clinton: "Probably predictable for me to say this but there's a lot we can learn from Latin America's success in electing women presidents."
"Probably"?
Guy Benson took an extensive look at the results of Latin America's success in electing women presidents. To slightly less extensively summarize:
Dilma Rousseff (Brazil): The economy fell into recession in August and is expected to shrink by 2% to 3% this year. Inflation is pushing 10%, its highest since 2003, unemployment has climbed to over 8%, and the Brazilian real has lost about a third of its value against the dollar this year. These are the results of an explosion of government spending and debt that has gotten the country's Standard & Poor credit rating downgraded from investment grade to junk. If you want to know what that all means, just ask the Greeks.
"President" Rousseff's current approval rating is 8%. And the punchline? The Brazilian electorate just foolishly reelected her a month ago, meaning they've screwed themselves for at least another four years, and almost certainly beyond. Who says vaginas aren't powerful?
Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner (Argentina): Another two-term leftwingnut tyrant who fits right in with the Hillary Sisterhood, her reign being besotted with longstanding corruption, economic malaise, and multiple credit defaults. On top of all that, "President" Kirchner appears to have cut a secret "deal" <AHEM> with the Iranian mullahgarchy to cover up their bombing of an Argentinian Jewish center in 1994 in exchange for a sweetheart oil deal. And the chief federal prosecutor who'd investigated the case for a decade? He was found dead, literally the day before he was set to brief the Argentine Congress on the evidence he'd compiled. The Kirchner regime immediately declared it a "suicide". Sound familiar?
The Economist's synopsis of "Cristina's" disastrous rule sounds like U.S. coming attractions:
[La Señora Kirchner] has hoarded power and suppressed dissent. She has bent the central bank to her will, muzzled the government’s statistics institute and bullied the media. She has tried, less successfully, to suborn the independence of the judiciary. She leaves an economy in even worse shape than it looks.
I bet she's said "¿Qué diferencia hace?" on more than one occasion as well.
Laura Chinchilla (Costa Rica): Corruption scandals, double-digit unemployment, single-digit approval rating. But at least she was a socon, right?
Michelle Bachelet (Chile): Corruption scandals, runaway tax hikes, "free" college, "free" day care, pretty much "free" everything, and a big, fat 24% approval rating even before the onrushing avalanche of debt, inflation, and unemployment, But hey, it's still in double-digits, right?
Isn't it interesting that the Empress isn't citing the late Margaret Thatcher in this pantheon of stateswomen? And can America withstand four or eight more years of the seven years of comprehensive misery and despotism it's just endured?
Speaking of coming attractions, Herself's classified-email-in-the-open count is knocking on the door of one thousand:
The State Department’s latest release of Hillary Clinton documents brings the total number of [Rodham] emails known to contain classified material to nearly 1,000.
The department on Monday released its largest batch of emails yet, posting 7,800 pages of the former secretary of state’s communications.
The latest batch contains 328 emails deemed to have classified information. According to the State Department, that brings the total number with classified information to 999.
The emails in question were deemed classified before their release by the department – and the former secretary of state has said all along she never sent emails with material marked classified at the time.
But the large number of emails containing now-classified material further underscores how much sensitive information was crossing her private server, a situation her critics have described as a security risk.
The fantasy prison ceiling for Her Nib is now a decade short of ten millennia, in case you're keeping track at home.
And as the classified email count rises, the number of U.S. boots the Ugly Dutchess would put on the ground in Iraq and Syria has completely evaporated:
Hillary Clinton on Monday told CBS News that she could not imagine any circumstance in which the U.S. would deploy troops on the ground in the battle against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
Translation: She cannot imagine any circumstance in which the U.S. will defeat the Islamic State.
“I agree with the president’s point that we’re not putting American combat troops back into Syria or Iraq. We are not going to do that,” the Democrat presidential [candidate] told CBS News’ Charlie Rose in a sit-down interview. …
A "point" that has demonstrably and completely failed (unless boosting ISIS was the objective) and which is now massively unpopular.
[Mrs.] Clinton explained that sending U.S. combat troops back to the region would “give ISIS a new recruitment tool.”
Bullbleep. How does crushing the enemy and dethroning them as the "strong horse" make them a more attractive line of work in the Islamic culture?
There was some confusion after her recent speech following the Paris terror attacks at the Council on Foreign Relations about her position on combat troops. [Mrs.] Clinton seemed to leave the door open slightly, but also said she doesn’t believe there should be 100,000 American troops back in the Middle East again and said it would be a “mistake” to do so in the event of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
It would be imperative, and the public wouldn't give her any choice, and she knows it. She's only spouting this doggerel because she knows she isn't the "Democrat frontrunner" and does not have that nomination wrapped up - not by a long shot.
Only her X-chromosome can save her - she thinks.
Lotsa luck with that.
No comments:
Post a Comment