In response to a contest to "draw Muhammad" in Garland, Texas, two Islamic "soldiers of the caliphate" ended up drawing flies after a brief shootout with security personnel who were not French.
The heavily-armed morons managed to wound one officer (not seriously, thankfully) before being shot dead without even getting a chance to shout "Aloha Snackbar" or post a final revolutionary tweet.
ISIS quickly claimed "credit" for their warriors' hilariously quick transformation into Lone Star roadkill, and promised that further such attacks on American soil would be occurring just as soon as they could find new stooges and a target anywhere except Texas.
PARSE-imonious
Following revelations that the non-profit, tax-free Clinton Foundation only spends about 10% of its huge and quite possibly illegal donations on actually helping the sick and poor, a raspy-voiced Bill Clinton declared, "I don’t think there’s anything sinister in trying to get wealthy people in countries that are seriously involved in development to spend their money wisely in a way that helps poor people and lifts them up."
Of course, the "poor people" in question were apparently the "dead broke" Clintons, since only a thin trickle of funds actually makes it to those who are starving and disease-ridden. The rest is spent by the Clinton Foundation on offices, salaries, luxury travel and accommodations, gifts, perks and benefits, email demolition experts, and probably hookers.
"There is no doubt in my mind that we have never done anything knowingly inappropriate in terms of taking money to influence any kind of American government policy," the seemingly syphilitic, impeached ex-president said in an interview on NBC's "Today" show. "That just hasn't happened."
But let's parse what Bill just did (or didn't) say...
"There is no doubt in my mind" = All that follows is just my personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
"that we" = All that follows depends on the definition of "we." The entire Clinton Foundation acting unanimously? Bill and Hillary acting in tandem? Bill and whomever else he was thinking about while speaking?
"have never done anything knowingly inappropriate" = Although they may have avoided "knowing" by having their accounting team handle it. Or they avoided "knowing" by not looking at the governing laws. Meanwhile, "inappropriate" does not exclude actions which were "illegal" or "prohibited" - it's simply a subjective opinion about what Bill and Hillary believed to be appropriate.
"in terms of taking money" = They might have taken stocks, bonds, gold, property, or other items of inconceivable value - but not money per se.
"to influence" = Of course, it's not "influence" if you simply deliver what the buyer wanted. The Clintons might have taken the money from foreign players "to change," "to cancel," "to re-evaluate," "to ignore," or "to rewrite" policy.
"any kind" = If the payoff was to influence policy of a specific kind, it wasn't just any kind.
"of American government policy" = And what, specifically, is "American government policy?" Rules drawn up by the president? Congress? The Secretary of State herself? Current policy? Past policy? Moreover, the accusation is that the donations may have been intended to buy future access to the Clintons, to deal with situations which are not yet "American government policies."
"That just hasn't happened" = If the word "just" is understood to mean "just now, this instant," everything Bill has just denied may have been happening for years, but not in the 10 seconds prior to his making this statement. Additionally, "happened" could be defined as events which occurred without intent or direction - meaning if the Clintons did every vile trick they're accused of with full intent, none of it "just happened."
In other words, the Clintons can tell the technical truth all day long and still be the biggest liars on the planet. So rather than listen to Bill's words, we're once again paying attention to the finger he's angrily wagging at us.
Last time, it smelled like Monica. This time, it smells like it's been in the cookie jar.
 |
| Whenever the Clintons speak, the truth is in Jeopardy. |
Depends on what your definition of 'scam' am.
ReplyDeleteExcellent job at parsing clintoon/legalese. Suprised you don't have a job as a criminal defense lawyer or presidential spokesperson.
ReplyDeleteI would like to commend the officer who turned those 2 into Texas road kill. Wonder hos many representatives the white hut will send to their funeral?
Like most politicians, anything out of a Clinton's mouth can be expected to be nothing but double talk and inuendo. They just don't seem to be as good at not getting caught in outright lies as others are. I have to wonder what Øbama's main truth spinner, Jest Dishonest, thinks of Slick Willie's meaningless statement on his obvious money laundering scam.
ReplyDeleteBTW Stilton, your depiction of the 72 virgins got me thinking. If there are that many chaste women waiting for every yahoo that blows himself up in the name of Jihad, doesn't that simply devalue their worth? I mean, although #'s 8 and 27 in your drawing are quite hot looking, considering that Islam appears to condone the raping of females in the single digit age range, does that not mean that someone is printing up a bunch of counterfit virgins?
ReplyDeleteIn any case, kudos to you for having the courage to lampoon a staple of Muhammad's religion. It appears that you cartoon artists have far more balls when dealing with the subject than all of the free world governments combined.
@Proof- Good one!
ReplyDelete@REM1875- In my professional life I've worked in advertising and worked with lawyers, so I have a pretty clear idea how language can be tortured to make it appear to say whatever you want without technically lying.
Regarding the dead terrorists, I don't know if Barry will send a rep to their funerals, but he'll certainly say that our nation's failure to sufficiently fund education and jobs is more to blame than Islam.
@Geoff King- I would assume that Josh Earnest, like all professional liars, must hold Bill Clinton in high admiration.
Regarding the situation with the virgins, I've always thought their appeal must be to terrorists who are lousy lovers. Why else set your sights on a partner who can't compare your performance to anyone else?
And once a dead terrorist has "de-virginized" a member of his harem, does she still get to hang out with the other virgins, or is there a separate corral where the "used" ones are smoking cigarettes, farting, and telling lewd jokes?
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI love the comments section.
A big thank you to all of you post your comments.
Bill Moore
@ Geoff King-I've often wondered: So the jihadi has done his "good deed" for allah and gone to "heaven" for his 72 virgins; are the virgins in heaven too?
ReplyDeleteStilt- I just started reading "Clinton Cash" and am only about 40 pages into it. I have to stop often to re-wrap by head in duct tape!!! Let's say for the sake of argument that the 10% figure given in the book is wrong and double it-that's STILL only 20% that actually reaches the needy. I see on the news & web that many donors are backing away from the Clintons- I think that many of them are just as dirty as Slick Will & Hill.
This is the hilarious.
ReplyDeleteGeoff King - "Printing counterfeit virgins" - reminds me of a George Carlin routine about printing up souls...
ReplyDeleteAlso, the Character in Tru Blood who was made a vampire while still a virgin. She was quite distressed to find that she magically "healed", and EVERY time she EVER had sex would be a 'first time'...
@Bill- I really enjoy the comments and camaraderie here. Hope n' Change isn't just my cartoons, it's a community.
ReplyDelete@FlyBoy- Let's state the obvious: NO major donor to the Clinton Foundation thought that funds were going to go "wisely" or primarily to the sick and poor. So they clearly believed they were buying something else of value every time they gave the Clintons millions of dollars.
@Anonymous- Laughter is the best medicine. Until 5 o'clock, anyway.
@Pete(Detroit)- Per your example, I've also wondered if the 72 virgins "heal" to become virginal again after each tryst with a terrorist? Seems like a nuisance, with the ladies in question screaming "Ow-Ow-Ow Akbar" every time...
I have a friend who is a "travel agent" to send terrorist mooselims to meet muHAMmed's god Al-duh. He agrees with me that these "gee-hod-eze" will either get 72 MALE virgin camels, or dessicated Helen Thomas's with inconel (http://www.altempalloys.com/inconel-alloys.html) "bags" over their heads so as not to fill "heaven" with vomit.
ReplyDeleteDoes it occur strange to anyone that mooselims (who seem to have a Saga Pedo, (bush cricket), up their terminal orifice), can't suffer depictions of muHAMmed to be made, but have NO reservations about Jesus being lampooned or vilified? Seems to me that muHAMmed's value to mooselims is a bit out of balance to a TRUE monotheist... don'tcha think?
Stilton,
I think we can count on Sgt. Bowlegged Birdcall to be sent to represent lamont at the Texas Turdorists funeral. lamont's GOT to show support for HIS kind.
I nearly wet myself reading your text on the Garland show. Great humor, thanks.
ReplyDeleteDon't be too hard on Slick Willie. After all, he's gotta pay their bills.
ReplyDeleteLOL! You just keep delivering; both topics.
ReplyDeleteAnd damn, that bait they used in Garland worked good!
Stilt, why is it that when I even THINK about the Clintons I feel the need to go wash my hands...?
ReplyDeleteLoved this: We Have Invented Jihadist Flypaper
ReplyDeleteThink about it. These guys had to know the event would be guarded. These guys had to know that the event is going on in Texas, meaning that a lot of attendees and passers-by would be armed. Heck it’s Texas. Everybody’s armed... And yet, knowing that they were attempting the equivalent of robbing a police station or attempting a carjacking outside the NRA convention, these two idiots went ahead and did it anyway! Did I say Islamist flypaper? How about Islamist catnip? These guys just can’t resist attempting to kill people if there’s an announced effort to draw Muhammad!"
The Wide World of Clinton Ethics: Yes, I saw that NBC interview and quote while eating dinner. Amazing how after nearly a quarter century, Bill Clinton still has the ability to make me spew. Good parsing, @Stilton.
But I do have to admit that I'm having fun with my Progressive friends who rightly bemoan sham charities that spend more than 10% on overhead, and yet wouldn't hesitate to vote for Hillary Clinton. How dare I criticize the good work of the Clinton Foundation's work to save poor, sick, starving African children, regardless of the fact that nearly half of their budget goes exclusively to five-star, first class travel for Bill, Hillary & Chelsea.
Of course, the Clinton's and the Clinton Foundation was transparently corrupt, long before the release of Clinton Cash. The real question should be: If I was a bazillionaire who was seriously interested in helping out the poor, sick, starving African children, why would I give my money to the Clinton Foundation, knowing that less than 10% would actually help anybody other than the Clintons themselves?"
Of course, the answer is: You wouldn't. What you are buying when you "donate" to the Clinton Foundation is access to the Clintons with a vaneer of self-righteousness.
I've always argued that pop-Progressivism (formerly called "liberalism") is the most gutless political affiliation that you can choose. It demands practically nothing of you; morally or fiscally. This is why pop-culture and celebrities embrace leftist causes over conservative ones.
All the Clinton's have done is take the Progressive faux morality of "it's better to look good than to be good" meme to the next level. The Clintons get to be shamelessly rich without the associated shame and guilt that traditional Progressivism demands. This faux morality transcends traditional leftist notions about being "rich". There's little question why this appeals to the mega-wealthy, who get to keep their millions or billions, but their social and political viability too. Literally, the Clintons are converting the Democrats into the Marie Antoinette party.
The only question is why the rest of America buys it.
Good 'toon again, Stilt! As we were watching coverage of this, the little woman remarked "What kind of dip$h1t would take credit for a failed operation that lost two of your own men?"
ReplyDelete"...and a target anywhere except Texas." ISIS also will not do well in OK, AZ, AR, AK, AL, LA, MS, or GA. Quite a few of us in OK keep one magazine loaded with hollow-points with bacon grease in the cavity. Aloha Snackbar, buddies.
ReplyDeleteI just keep thinking... how freaking pathetic is it that this turd, Hillary, has to drag Slick Willie out to defend her sorry ass when the going gets tough? She wants to be freaking President of the freaking United freaking States, and she can't take a little heat over her crooked business dealings, lack of accomplishments, and total lack of empathy for her fellow human beings. The heat gets turned up regarding this bogus "charity," and her first reaction is to call Bill... "The meanies are picking on me, Bill! Wah wah wah... boo effing hoo."
ReplyDeleteYeah, THAT'S who I want taking those 3 AM phone calls.
Oh, and I loved it when she cackled, "Wouldn't you like to have a WOMAN president?" I'm like, "YES! But Sarah Palin isn't running."
Concerning the 72 virgins... I've always maintained that the virgins might not be, you know... human. Could be sheep. ....or camels.... For that matter, I don't think gender is even specified. Might be male silverback gorillas for all we know. Kinda brings a tear to the eye thinking about it, right?
Great posts yet again, Stilton! Keep 'em coming!
Speaking as a citizen of Northern Arizona, where I know just one person that only owns a single gun, and where the state has done away with pesky things like requiring concealed carry permits and handgun registration, I can honestly say we would welcome Islamic terrorists with open..er, I mean locked and loaded arms.....Many I know have wet dreams about the subject.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, here in NAZ, it pretty much goes without saying that if you think another person may be carrying a concealed gun you are probably right. If you think they aren't and are therefore a possible target for rape or theft, you are probably shortly going to be dead.
Delete@Stilton (and all who wondered) I read many decades ago that when one of the 72 virgins is deflowered they then wash in a magical spring that restores their virginity and removes all memories of the event, thus making "every time the first time".
ReplyDeleteI reckon all this '72 virgins' thing is a waste of time. I mean, who needs them? You'll spend half your time trying to sweet talk them out of their panties and when you do you'll be too tired to care. Nope, for me I'd be talking to the Supreme Deity on duty that day and requesting to swap my 72 virgins for a half dozen well-seasoned Pavement Princesses and a truck full of Coors. I'll have a lot more fun, you betcha.
ReplyDeleteWhere did the Garland shooters get their weapons and body armor? I’m thinking tactical vests instead of actual body armor as that would look like they were wearing body armor, cost less and be easier to acquire. If it was body armor, then were they killed with head shots? If there were head shot then that officer was dammed good. America 2 and terrorists 0, a perfect score.
ReplyDeleteSome are saying that this officer should be named “Harry” as “Dirty Harry” can’t find the graphic right now.
If their weapons were AK-47s, where did they acquire them? I thought they were difficult to get and the FBI would be coming by to have a conversation with you if you did.
I love it that ISIS would take credit for a totally failed mission. I wonder why they couldn’t find any local idiots to do the job. Oh wait, probably the local idiots know better than doing this kind of thing in Texas where most folks are armed, even Grandma has an AR-15 with extra magazines.
Joseph ET - My understanding is that yes, they were had shots, and yes, that's not easy - especially if you're being shot at.
ReplyDeleteAK47s are very popular as plinking guns - they're stupid reliable, very cheap to buy, and also cheap to feed. And perfectly legal - in semi-auto configuration. (semi-auto - you pull the trigger once, it fires once and loads a new round. You need to let the trigger up to the reset point and pull it again to fire the next shot. You can still empty a magazine pretty quickly, but not as fast as Full Auto - hold the trigger down, and it fires until you run out of ammo. "Machine Guns" and "Assault Rifles" are full auto. I don't know about AKs, but converting an AR-15 (Semi-auto, civilian version of M-16) to full auto is not difficult - just highly illegal... Likewise, if these AKs were full auto, they were either VERY expensive, or very illegal.
Not that Jihadist mass murderers care so much about our gun laws...
"HEAD" shots, not "had" shots... D'OH!
ReplyDelete@ Pete (Detroit) I did boot camp in 1963 with a M1 Garand a semi-automatic rifle chambered for the .30-06 Springfield rifle cartridge. It was strictly semi-automatic. However, when a certain part within the trigger group got warn down, if would be strictly fully automatic. Then you go through an eight round clip in about two seconds. After the last round ejects the sheet metal clip ejects too. It makes a “ding” sound, then the enemy knows you’re out. This happened a couple of times and the D.I.s would go nuts. https://youtu.be/U2cEQFvYfzY
ReplyDeleteThe M14 was better, but the flash suppressor which also holds the front site would often come loose and the round might hit five yards in front of you or almost anywhere.
Joseph ET -
ReplyDeleteSweet stories, thanks for sharing!
Loved the video!
Loose suppressor sounds "awkward" at best, especially if it's loose enough to impinge on the flight path of the bullet!
As not everyone has your level of expertise, I try to explain things simply for the benefit of any who might be confused. I do hope you didn't feel I was talking down to you in particular, and all apologies if you did.
And, of course, thank you for your service!
@ Pete (Detroit) I didn’t see anything in your post that would be talking down or upsetting to me or anyone else. No apologies required. There is no harm in explaining things simply for the benefit of all. Also, my postings never mean any harm either. Usually just posting my point of view.
ReplyDeletePamela Geller speaks out regarding Sunday's attack.
ReplyDelete"If it weren’t for the free-speech conference, these jihadis would have struck somewhere else — a place where there was less security, like the Lindt cafe in Australia or the Hyper Cacher Kosher supermarket in Paris.
So, why are some people blaming me? They’re saying: “Well, she provoked them! She got what she deserved!” They don’t remember, or care to remember, that as the jihadis were killing the Muhammad cartoonists in Paris, their friend and accomplice was murdering Jews in a nearby kosher supermarket. Were the Jews asking for it? Did they “bait” the jihadis? Were they “provoking” them?
To learn who rules over you, simply find out whom you cannot criticize. If the international media had run the Danish cartoons back in 2005, none of this could have happened. The jihadis wouldn’t have been able to kill everyone. But by self-censoring, the media gave the jihadis the power they have today."
@John the Econ- Thanks for sharing the quotes from Pamela Geller. I'm a bit stunned (I know, I'm a slow learner) by the number of "journalists" saying that she overstepped the boundaries of free speech and was "asking for it."
ReplyDeleteShe was right to raise the topic that certain aspects of Islam are a threat to our domestic security. She was right that by attracting these assholes to a "hard target," she probably prevented the deaths of others at some "soft target" location like a school, church, or mall.
Freedom of speech is wildly important to me, because 90% of what I say on this site would be categorized as unacceptable hate speech by those on the Left. Whether they feel "provoked" isn't my concern. Whether or not I have the freedom to speak my mind IS my concern - and it's people like Pamela Geller who are bravely defending that right.
"She was asking for it."
ReplyDelete@Stilton, could you imagine the furor that would take place if you, I, or anyone were to point at a provocatively dressed woman and say "She's asking to get raped."?
And yet the same Progressives that would have you or I prosecuted for committing a "hate crime" for even thinking such a thing are gleefully saying that Geller had it coming, just like the staff of Charlie Hebdo did. Did the Jews in that Paris market have it coming too?
What gets me is that these people consider sleazeball Larry Flynt a First Amendment hero. Make millions by as an extreme capitalist exploiting young women, and not only is that okay, you're a patriot. But a woman who dares speak up against a violent totalitarian ideology? They'd have been happier if the attack was a success.
These people are beyond intellectually bankrupt. They are suicidally sick. They are wimps, and because of them, violence is winning.