I took some artistic license with the title of this post, and the reader will temporarily need to forget how "deus" is pronounced. All right, I'll let you in on the thought process that went into constructing the title. Prepare to be blown away. "O deus" is an allusion to the fact that the Former First Lady Clinton (we know her name is not Scott, because she got off scot-free) thinks of herself as a demigod - the rightful heir to the throne, as it were. "It's her turn to be President, geddit?" "O deus" can, with some creativity, be pronounced "odious", which is what she is.
Yesterday the director of the FBI, James Comey, announced on live television that the FBI was not recommending indictment for what $hillary did, which was to knowingly endanger national security by using an unsecured private server for all her confidential State Department correspondence. Her lies and coverups neared Watergate proportions in the following months. To top it off, she's the democratic frontrunner and the presumptive winner of the 2016 elections. This is the proverbial cherry on the evil pie that the Clintons have been feeding on since at least the early 90's. The FBI's decision has occasioned a lot of consternation among the populace, many of whom would have been satisfied with nothing less than locking the next ten generations of Clintons securely behind bars, but the more rational among them concede that it was the right decision under the circumstances. James Comey is known to be a man of integrity - and a Republican, no less - , so I wouldn't expect to see him polishing the Clinton boot anytime soon. Once the anger dies down a little, I suspect everyone else will come around to this point of view as well.
It is true - and James Comey hinted at this as well - that less important people would have undoubtedly faced consequences for what $hillary Clinton did. Not, to be sure, legal consequences, but consequences nonetheless. Consequences that in the case of a State Department employee would have meant stripping them of their security clearances and being careful not to give them back. Consequences that wouldn't apply to $hillary Clinton if she became President. This is the same $hillary Clinton who was so vocal in condemning Edward Snowden for his leaks and to this day wants to bring him to justice. What can one say to that?
The choice between Donald Trump and $hillary Clinton for the next President of the United States can be described in the terms that Lindsey Graham used to describe the choice between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz: It's like choosing between getting shot or being poisoned. Obama - master orator that he is - decided to come out and praise $hillary Clinton's diligence hours after Comey had condemned her negligence and carelessness. What can one say to that?
At least we see Trump for what he is. $hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is mold growing on your garage wall: the outer ugliness conceals a deeper rottenness at the core. Her lipsticked mouth, stretching halfway across her face, curls into a hideous smile as news of the FBI investigation reaches her, and followers shout and cheer and wave banners bearing such mendacious slogans as "She's with us!" Her smile seems to be saying, "I was right all along," but in reality it says, "Look what I got away with."
If she becomes the next President, the country must sing elegies at her inauguration.
0 comments :
Post a Comment