Mexico & Clinton - More Biased Balderdash In The Media?

So, Reuters is reporting that Hillary Clinton will not have a meeting with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto and they are making it appear as if she said she will not do so because Donald Trump created problems there. (Souce of both of the following quotes.)

"U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Monday she will not accept an invitation from Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto for a visit after rival Donald Trump created what she called a "diplomatic incident" in his foray there."

Doesn't that sound to you like she said she will not meet with him because Trump created a diplomatic incident there. It sure sounds like that to me and many readers would probably get that far and stop reading, at least the biased for Clinton and against Trump voter types that so strongly seem to support a leftist platform and let's be honest, also the die hard Trump voters who cannot accept any criticism of him. Yet, if you would just read on, to the very next paragraph, you would see that apparently that is not what Clinton said in response to a question as to whether or not she would meet with the president of Mexico. What she said was much briefer and seemingly made no reference to Trumps visit there, at least if quoted correctly.

"In a written excerpt from an interview with ABC News that will air Tuesday morning, Clinton simply said "no" when asked if she would travel to Mexico before the election on Nov. 8, without elaborating further."

The first paragraph certainly seems like an embellishment or certainly at least an exaggeration of what she reportedly really said, at least it seems that way to me especially in light of the fact that it was reported she did not elaborate further.

Now pardon me for being so bold as to say this but wouldn't one think that the candidate who keeps boasting about her record as Secretary of State (the chief diplomat in the USA) would most assuredly accept an invitation from our country's neighbor to the south to visit with that country's president as a sign of good diplomacy if for no other reason! Instead, she just gives a one word answer "no" that she will not accept such an invitation and snubs him just like that.

I also imagine that one would think that the candidate that Clinton brands as racist, Donald Trump, would never accept such an invitation. Yet, he did so and has already met with the Mexican president. Regardless of their differing opinions on border security and illegal immigration and whether or not they clashed over such issues, at least Trump had the respect for president Pena Nieto to meet with him and discuss the issue face to face. And to think, now Clinton is trying to assert that Trump's visit was a dismal failure because she says he did not breach certain issues - who is kidding whom here! She is a weasel at best and likely will be the ruin of America if elected.

All the best,
Glenn B

If Hillary Clinton Wins The Presidency, I Predict...

...a separation for them - a terminal one. The them is, of course, she and Bill. I am almost willing to bet my last dollar that if Hillary is elected, Bill will either commit suicide or come down with an ailment that suddenly kills him or that he will have a terrible and fatal accident out of the blue or will otherwise cease to exist under similar spur of the moment circumstances. It seems to be a Clinton sort of thing that happens to people around them when those people are no longer needed by the Clintons. Think about it. I mean, if she is elected - what will she need Bill Clinton for ever again!

All the best,
Glenn B

Bubba's Latest Thought?

Or maybe his last one if he reveals it to Hillary. She put up with a lot to do over Bill but I doubt she would put up with this kind of a thing during her campaign. I can only hope he tells her.

Hat tip and my thanks to Jim McK for that one.

All the best,
GB

I Had Hoped For A Miracle...

...in the form of a 20 point defeat for Clinton in PA, if only because I figured that even she would then have to bow out of the race for the democratic nomination. It would have been nice to have it over with, but alas it looks as if we all have to be subjected to this circus through the beginning of June. I may just have to not watch the news any longer because I don't know if I can take much more of the double talk, lying, waffling and all the other BS that goes along with it with these demoncrats. Sure, I know, the repukeicans and RINOs are not much better, but yes they are better. I would never have believed I would have seen the day when Barack Obama came out in favor of gun rights (how hypocritical of him) and then blame Hillary Clinton for lying when she changed her stance on gun control and suddenly seemed in favor of hunters with guns! They played PA like the people living there were fools, because even the hunters in PA know that gun rights are not just for hunters, and that in fact the rights to keep and bear arms covers a much broader spectrum to include self defense, and overthrow of tyrannies. Funny though how each of them has been pretty silent on the Immigration issue. As a matter of fact, besides mud slinging, they seem to be pretty quiet on most of the important issues lately almost as if all they could resort to was name calling. Could you imagine either one as president and having to face down a nation like Iran, let alone one like China in some world crisis. My bet is that once the name calling failed, they would beg for help from mommy.

I have to wonder, have I just opened myself up for another comment about how Obama is part of Generation Jones? How funny but sad that they who support him resort to that trash.

All the best,
Glenn B

I Have Got To Hand It To Obama...

No, not my vote, nor my confidence that he would make a good president (or even a passable one), but rather that he has got chutzpah. He certainly faces up to the Clinton Machine (yes the Clintons are just what they claim they are against, that so called big whatever-wing conspiracy at least when it comes to Obama). I thought it pretty amusing and rather arrogant of the old battle ax the democratic candidate currently number 2 in the running to have repeatedly made the claim (or was it an offer) that Obama would make a fine vice president as her running mate.

It was also pretty hypocritical. Here are the Clintons saying that Obama is way too inexperienced to become president, so where do they want to put him now - in the vice presidency. I seem to remember Bill Clinton once having blathered on about how a vice president has to be "ready" to take over the presidency in the event of emergency. So what the Clintons are telling us now is that Barack Obama, whom they do not believe would make a good president (witnessed by their repeated and heated attacks on him) would make a great vice president, and that his being vice president would somehow, magically I suppose, make him ready to take over the presidency in the event of an emergency. Are you following that. Well if not it does not matter, because Mr. Obama had the right answer for both of the Clintons, and the thing of it is that his words will hopefully have put an end to those ridiculous offers to him by the Clintons, and maybe even put an end to Mrs. Clinton's chances to win the nomination. Here is, according to an article, at http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/11/mississippi-democrats-head-to-polls-with-obama-riding-high/what he had to say about it:

“I don’t know how somebody who is in second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who is first place,... I am not running for vice president. I am running for president of the United States of America.”

Now Carl Rove came out and said that Obama should never had said this, and that this will hurt him politically. According to Rove, Obama should have let an underling say this. I beg to differ. The good old knockout punch should come from the man in the ring, not from one of his trainers or sparring partners. If this man makes it into the White House, I think it will not be as vice president but believe, as scary as is the prospect, that it will be as president. As for myself, I see not other choice for myself than to vote for McCain, but I guess that is a whole other story in itself.

All the best,
Glenn B

I Have Only One Choice...

...for whom to vote in the upcoming presidential elections as I see it. Look at the video that Rita at the JungleHut had imbedded in her blog:



If nothing else, John McCain will be a leader seeking to secure and strengthen our great nation for all Americans. Clinton or Obama will be little more than weak kneed wanna-be tyrants who want to tax the wealthier amongst us in order to elevate the poor economically, while at the same time deescalating the wealthier so the poor through the rich all arrive at a level of equality economically regardless of effort. Thus the only difference being that the middle class and the rich have worked for what they will have, and the utterly poor on welfare, and other low lives, who are unwilling to work will have gotten a free ride. That is not what freedom is all about, not what capitalism is about, not what America is about. It is what socialism and communism are about. I prefer a society in which one makes it as best he can based upon amenability to become a good citizen, willingness to fit in, willingness to start at the bottom and work your way up and so forth. I do not believe that anyone has an entitlement to what I have worked to establish you are entitled to what you have made for yourself - anything else is a handout. Not that handouts are not good or required in some instances, just that entitlements should jot be the driving force of a nation. Any nation that has tried likewise in the past has always failed miserably. I plan to help re-defeat communism and socialism in 2008 by voting McCain.

All the best,
Glenn B

Primary results so far????????

The Republican Primaries are basically over. Huckabee has done the right thing and finally conceded. McCain is the man.

As for the Demoncrats, their primary results as reported by the media are truly mumbo-jumbo to me:

They say it is too close to call in Ohio. I beg to differ, but what do I know.

Ohio
Democrats
Precincts Reporting: 52%

Candidate
Hillary Clinton
653,379
58.35%

Barack Obama
466,450
41.65%

Who is kidding whom that the Ohio race is too close to call at 1055 EST when I retrieved this from Fox News! With over 52% of the vote in, and with Clinton beating Obama by 58 to about 42% of the vote, is it really too hard to call? I just do not get that at all, looks like a slam dunk to me for Clinton.

As for Texas, that is another story, and it is readily apparent, as I write, as to why it is too close to call:

Texas
Democrats

Precincts Reporting: 25%

Candidate
Barack Obama
711,759
50.02%

Hillary Clinton
711,183
49.98%

Wow, that is a close one, but only 25% of precincts reporting so far. Time will tell if a head will be lopped off tonight leaving but one Demoncrat in the running.

All the best,
Glenn B

Is It Possible We Can Finally Get Rid Of One Of Them Today?

Yeah you guessed it, I mean either Hillary Rodham-Clinton, or Barack Hussein Obama in the Democratic Primaries. It would be wonderful to finally be rid of at least the incessant ultra liberal blabbering, the face raking remarks, and the back stabbing innuendo that goes on between the two of them. I for one am sick of it, and I would be willing to bet that even a lot of those who might actually vote for one of these possible candidates is probably as sick of them as am I.

Hopefully one of them will deal a slashing death blow to the other today - politically of course not literally - and come away the winner with the other's head in his or her hands.

Then all we have to listen too is McCain debate the winner (yeah maybe a little more of Huckabee but no one is really giving him any air time and he is nowhere nearly as annoying as the two dems.) Of course I am no big fan of McCain, but if it comes down to just him and the one pick of the dems, we will at least get to hear something a bit on the conservative and sensible side.

All the best,
Glenn B

Politics Is Sad

It is a sad day when Republican voters across America vote for a Republican in the same manner that feel good Democrats & Liberals vote for their candidates. What I mean by that is that most republican voters yesterday in the states won by McCain voted for the guy that made them FEEL better, and probably not for the candidate who would actually do better once in office. I voted but not for McCain.

They who voted for McCain base their votes on lots of things:

1) They believe him a war hero. This translates to they feel bad for him for having been held prisoner by the NV for so many years; and they feel bad about our boys and girls getting killed, hurt, or captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. So they get the weight of their guilt trip off of their shoulders by voting for McCain. Yeah I feel bad about all that too, but sometimes you need to bear the cross to make the right choice.

2) They believed he would, based upon his wartime experience, make the better commander in chief, and this makes them feel good. Maybe and maybe not. In fact, McCain has little if any high level experience in running things. Romney beat him here with his gubernatorial experience, albeit not military command experience.

3) McCain is not a Mormon, neither are the great majority of Americans. Yes this is a feel good issue for Christians, and is probably the only reason that Huckabee remains in the race to try to keep votes from Romney. Huckabee calls himself a good Christian, he should, in my opinion, be ashamed of himself. He will not win, has no chance to win, but he will make every effort to have another Christian (by his definition) win.

4) McCain is seen as more moderate and this makes many people feel all goofy and gushy and good about themselves because they have not voted for a hardliner. Well this is about as far from the truth as could be possible in my understanding. McCain is a liberal Republican. He is about as liberal a Republican as I have ever seen. He is the one who wanted to work out campaign finance reform with FEINGOLD. He is the one who wanted to work out amnesty for illegal aliens with TED KENNEDY! He repeatedly bows down to the far left. If people would only open their eyes and clear out the goofiness they would see him as such, and see that Romney is much more the moderate as compared to a more conservative candidate as was Ronald Reagan. But people hear that Romney is more conservative, and they also hear all this talk of extremists, and they do not want to be too far one way, they want to feel good as being moderate, so they wrongly pick the liberal Republican as the moderate.

5) They feel good voting for McCain because he looks like grandpa, and how could grandpa be wrong.

You get the idea, and there are a bunch of other feel good reasons that people probably voted for McCain. The thing is though, when and if the reality of him becoming President ever strikes, those same feel good folks will awaken one day feeling miserable that they put this RINO into office. Romney is the more moderate candidate. He is also the more conservative candidate. Of course I would liked to have had a choice in my state's primary for someone other than the 4 goofballs (McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and Paul) who remained in the running. Those such as Tancredo, or Thompson (both moderate to strong conservatives, but not extremists), or even Giuliani (a socialy moderate conservative) who would have been better than the remaining candidates (It is a sad day when Republican voters across America vote for a Republican in the same manner that feel good Democrats & Liberals vote for their candidates. What I mean by that is that most republican voters yesterday in the states won by McCain voted for the guy that made them FEEL better, and probably not for the candidate who would actually do better once in office. I voted but not for McCain.

They who voted for McCain base their votes on lots of things:

1) They believe him a war hero. This translates to they feel bad for him for having been held prisoner by the NV for so many years; and they feel bad about our boys and girls getting killed, hurt, or captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. So they get the weight of their guilt trip off of their shoulders by voting for McCain. Yeah I feel bad about all that too, but sometimes you need to bear the cross to make the right choice.

2) They believed he would, based upon his wartime experience, make the better commander in chief, and this makes them feel good. Maybe and maybe not. In fact, McCain has little if any high level experience in running things. Romney beat him here with his gubernatorial experience, albeit not military command experience.

3) McCain is not a Mormon, neither are the great majority of Americans. Yes this is a feel good issue for Christians, and is probably the only reason that Huckabee remains in the race to try to keep votes from Romney. Huckabee calls himself a good Christian, he should, in my opinion, be ashamed of himself. He will not win, has no chance to win, but he will make every effort to have another Christian (by his definition) win.

4) McCain is seen as more moderate and this makes many people feel all goofy and gushy and good about themselves because they have not voted for a hardliner. Well this is about as far from the truth as could be possible in my understanding. McCain is a liberal Republican. He is about as liberal a Republican as I have ever seen. He is the one who wanted to work out campaign finance reform with FEINGOLD. He is the one who wanted to work out amnesty for illegal aliens with TED KENNEDY! He repeatedly bows down to the far left. If people would only open their eyes and clear out the goofiness they would see him as such, and see that Romney is much more the moderate as compared to a more conservative candidate as was Ronald Reagan. But people hear that Romney is more conservative, and they also hear all this talk of extremists, and they do not want to be too far one way, they want to feel good as being moderate, so they wrongly pick the liberal Republican as the moderate.

5) They feel good voting for McCain because he looks like grandpa, and how could grandpa be wrong.

You get the idea, and there are a bunch of other feel good reasons that people probably voted for McCain. The thing is though, when and if the reality of him becoming President ever strikes, those same feel good folks will awaken one day feeling miserable that they put this RINO into office. Mark my words on it, and call me on it in about 3 or 4 years to tell me if I was wrong.

Romney was and remains the better choice to be a good president for America; heck as much as I hate to say it - so does Hilary Clinton (that is how strongly I oppose McCain). I doubt though that I could vote for her. Neither one of them in office would make me feel good, but both probably would do better by the country. Romney would almost certainly do much better than McCain. Well, with what we have left for whom to vote, I shiver at the thought of the next 4 years.

All the best,

Glenn B