This will be short. I received this by email from Kelly Mehlenbacher, HillaryClinton.com and copy/paste for your convenience:
“Did you see President Clinton’s email? This is a special opportunity for you and a guest to spend a day with President Clinton in the Big Apple. If you haven’t entered, don’t worry, there is still time left!
Click here to contribute $5 or more today and be automatically entered to win.
I would never skip a chance to visit New York to see President Clinton, and neither should you. Best of luck!
Kelly
Hillary Clinton for President”
Note who Kelly signs for!
So Hillary is going to try again? I just wonder whether President Obama knows about Kelly and Hillary. It will be fun.
It’s early for 2012 but certainly much too early for 2016; then it must be 2012. Huh?
Also refer to:
https://ikejakson.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/if-the-bosnia-snipers-missed-her-%e2%80%a6/
Jaksonian Philosophy 
May 14, 2010 at 9:06 am |
Before you go too far out on this limb consider: their stated purpose was to retire debt. Hillary Clinton for President is probably the legal name of the campaign organization and how you would make out a check if you were actually doing that instead of clicking.
I don’t think there’s anything to this other than the unbelievable greed and stinginess of this couple. Unbelievable, that is, until one recalls that they donated Bills used underwear to the Goodwill clothing drive and took a tax write-off for it. I’ll bet if you ask everyone you meet from now until you die:
“Would you donate you used underwear to a charity?”
you wouldn’t find anybody that crass. Anybody. Zero. Unless you asked the Clintons.
And then they estimated the “value” of Bill’s worn out skivvies and took that off their taxes.
So their Publishers’ Clearing-House approach to sucking up a few more bucks comes as no surprise and I’ll bet that is all that it is.
When Bill and Hillary were living in the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion she told an interviewer they “were having a little trouble making ends meet.” They lived in a free house with a free car, free gas, tires, etc., free utilities, and free food cooked by the free chef. All they had to buy was their clothes. And they tried selling some of that to the government after they were done with it.
May 14, 2010 at 10:57 am |
Thanks Nimrod
I appreciate the wide range of your comment and will, thus, only make three short remarks.
1 – I take your point that I should beware not to go out on a limb. Yes, but will everyone see it that way? And why now?
2 – We are dealing with the Clintons here. Who knows what they plan when they are alone and with their still fierce admirers? Did you notice all the good Hillary is doing, and she is doing it so well, and she is just so great?
3 – And there is a mid-term election coming up. What a great opportunity to test the waters?
In summary: I have had a lot of reads. It tells me that other people are also watching for signs. Maybe there will be some kind of surprise because a Clinton doesn’t just quit. Besides I had a few dozen clicks just from Huffington Post readers and that was a lot of fun.
May 15, 2010 at 3:28 am |
It would not surprise that, should Obama continue to bungle everything, Hillary would try to run again. She would position herself has the heroine who would risk her own political career in order to try to save the Democratic Party’s chances in the general election. Even if it ends badly she at least would wreak revenge on Obama for undermining her coronation.
At the moment, however, I am most concerned about what is going on in Europe — Obama is really trying to force a political unification of the continent. I hope that things don’t go that far — I hope that, once again, the German Constitutional Court uphold Germany’s — and thus all the nation-states’ of Europe’s sovereignty.
May 15, 2010 at 4:33 am |
Hi Christopher
Par. 1 – Yes, a Clinton never does anything without a plan.
Par. 2 – Neither does Obama. This guy remains weird to me but it is not weird from an African perspective; he must know that his American base is crumbling [he is just too way-out for the “standard” American] and therefore, “plays” with his eye on international support for Emperor of the New World Order or something even more weird than that. His mistake is Europe; they have had empires before and I doubt whether they will let an imposter from outside in to spoil the fun.
Overall, I just cannot see a politically Unified Europe having any chance to succeed. The original idea of a commercial entity was fine [and there was enormous support to find a way to oppose the USA dollar] but “political marriage” is not so easy to arrange; to maintain or uphold the “implicit loyalties” is impossible.
May 16, 2010 at 1:11 am |
Ike: agreed. It is extremely difficult to maintain artificial loyalties and, in general, multi-ethnic states crumble. The Austro-Hungarian Empire had no chance to survive indefinitely as non Germans and Hungarians were becoming increasingly sell-asserting. The events in Sarajevo in 1914 could have frankly happened in many parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Jugoslavia and the USSR also broke apart once the central government was significantly weakened. The difference between these states and the EU is that the EU does not have a cohesive power centre. Germany and France are drifting ever further apart and are unlikely to ever draw together in the same way they would even ten years ago. Once the fiscal impossibility of a union becomes undeniable I think the whole thing will collapse in on itself — hopefully returning to a market area as it was before.
Obama’s American base has essentially collapsed. He has an ever-shrinking core but an essentially unified, cohesive opposition in the right and centre of the country — by far larger than the left. His office might give him clout but that only goes so far.
May 16, 2010 at 6:12 am |
Thanks Christopher
Some will argue with you on the use of the “multi-ethnic” description because they, either, won’t accept the description because it is not PC, or secondly, because they simply don’t know and will never understand. Whatever we call it, multi-ethnic or multi-culture, it doesn’t work, as witnessed in Africa, the East and Europe.
BTW: don you think that the Dem’s may be clever enough to dump Obama sometime before 2012 or will they be prepared to go down with him?
May 16, 2010 at 6:37 am
Ike: someone said that after Mandela dies it is likely that South Africa will begin fragmenting into separate states as he is really the only unifying figure that the country has. With Mbeki’s failures and Zuma’s, well, let’s not go there not making things look much better I sometimes wonder… What is your opinion?
There is a huge risk in dumping Obama — namely the alienation of black voters. Obama’s colour was a key factor in his success. (Hillary would have been a shoe-in, otherwise) If they get rid of him they will alienate the hard-line left (poor, confused little souls) and black voters who overwhelmingly support him. The best that they can hope for is that Obama goes quietly but, even then, it is unlikely that they would recover in time. The mess he is creating will probably never be worked out completely.
May 16, 2010 at 1:31 am |
More on the Kings and Queens of Hawai’i:
Kamehameha Akahi: 1795-1819
Kamehameha II: 1819-1824
Kamehameha III: 1825-1854
Kamehameha IV: 1854-1863
Kamehameha V: 1863-1872
Lunalilo: 1872-1873
Kalakaua: 1874-1891
Lili’uokalani: 1891-1893
Hawai’ian history is generally divided into three segments; Ancient Hawai’i (from pre-history to 1810), the Kingdom of Hawai’i (1810-1893), and various ways of phrasing American occupation (1893-present)
The Republic of Hawai’i is usually classified with the American era since Americans made up the government and had loyalties only to the USA.
In 1839 France attacked Hawai’i in order to protect Catholic interests and would attack again in 1849.
In 1843 Admiral Paulet attempted to turn Hawai’i into a British colony and launched an invasion. This, however, was not backed in London and was ultimately called-off.
The island of Hawai’i was unified in 1791 after Kamehameha had killed the last ruler of another district on the island.
Maui Nui would fall in 1795. These islands were lightly defended and had already been weakened after a war of succession. O’ahu would fall in 1795 after a bloody battle in which Kamehameha was betrayed by one of his confidantes. He did not show much mercy. In 1803, seeing that Kamehameha had only been delayed and realising that he was better off negotiating the king of Kau’i agreed to cede his realm to Kamehameha upon his death — that would happen in 1810.
May 16, 2010 at 6:14 am |
Hi Christopher
Gee thanks for all the info on Hawaii. I am going to try to “transfer” your comment to the Blog where we started on that matter and will further comment from there. It’s just a habit; if I don’t keep all in the same place I lose my way.
I think we started in one of your Posts and will find it.
May 16, 2010 at 8:00 am |
Hi Christopher
That was fast; thank you [6:37 am above].
Your question about Mandela requires a good deal of a book to do it full justice and we don’t have the space here. It is also directly related to my research for my book; that in turn is in the final stages [I regard myself fortunate to have stumbled on a man named Christopher Aus Trier at the stage I did; when and please note that I am not saying if, I publish Genesis I shall thank him personally in my Introduction for his valuable assistance] and I am now sorting and putting information together.
See, it’s getting longer and longer already. But in order to answer your question I need to refer you to what I called “an African analogy” with the Hawaii situation in your Blog on ‘Whether Obama was legally born in the USA’ and I have to be brief.
Yes, in a way Mandela was a unifying factor, but only between the two largest Black groups [Xhosa and Zulu] and, however strange you may think it is now, between them and the Whites. There were no Black People within a thousand or more miles from Table Mountain when the white settlers arrived here in the mid 17th century and the Western Cape Area, and a few other places were inhabited by other “brown” and various related aboriginal groups of smaller“ tribes. The story is getting too long; but they remained under British Rule until 1910 when they still formed part of the by then “in-between” white and black worlds. But under Mandela they finally lost the land of their birth and though they have tried [some are still trying] they have been swamped by Blacks who were dumped in their front yards by the thousands every week, making these people a minority in the land they once owned. They hate Mandela with passion and a vengeance.
And BTW, this “analogy” makes a mockery of the entire international scam to “return ownership of the land” to those who were there first. If they were to follow that maxim truthfully they would have to transfer maybe four or five million Zulu back two thousand miles north and north east to where their ancestors lived the White man arrived here.
Let’s make that another subject for another day [or read my book] but let us continue our discussions. I am working on a Post that will deal with the Ironies of Colonists, Settlers,
Emigrants, Immigrants and Citizens of the World and will invite you to participate.
Dump Obama? Yes, it may be farfetched and your statements on the consequences are valid but I will be most surprised if the forces to convince Obama to “go quietly” are not working on the small matter [and the detail thereof] already. Chuckle chuckle.
Sorry, I tried but could not make this any shorter.