It has finally made sense to me. It's all very simple. The light bulb has gone off over my head. Let me walk you through it, so that you, too, can get it.
Obama has a history of appointing people with (shall we say) questionable backgrounds. Remember Geithner's tax evasion charges? Along with Tom Daschle's tax problems? Seems that there was one or two more that had tax problems.
But Obama learned from those appointments. No, no, his next few appointments had no such problems. Other problems, yes, but no tax problems. The most recent was Van Jones, who not only was an admitted Communist (ooh, what a surprise there, eh?), but was a truther. A truther, for those of you who don't know, believes that the Bush Administration either caused 9/11 to happen, or knew about the plans and allowed it to happen.
Okay, let's take a brief respite and examine that belief, all right? There are actually people who believe that another American, especially an American President, would knowingly allow the murder of other Americans in order to gather more political power to themselves. Think about how vile of a viewpoint that is. Not just one person, but a whole group of people are able to believe that one or more of their countrymen would knowingly allow people to be killed, merely for political benefit.
How can anybody ever come to this conclusion? I would say that I've never seen the like, but I think that the seeds for this view come from the election of 1980. A little more than a year before that election, our embassy in Iran was seized violently by Islamic radicals and a bunch of Americans were taken hostage. Our President at the time, Jimmy Carter, tried to negotiate with the captors to try to get our people back. When that didn't work out, Jimmuh tried a rescue. That was botched. Horribly.
An apt metaphor for the Carter Administration.
Anyway, just before the election, the Iranian radicals announced that they would only deal with a Reagan administration, and not a Carter administration. Some people claimed that there was a "secret" meeting between these Iranian radicals and Vice-President nominee George H. W. Bush, where a deal was worked out.
Think about that. The charge is that the only reason Reagan (and, by extension, the Republicans) dealt with somebody else was for political gain. No other reason.
I once heard somebody say that sports do not build character, sports reveal character. I think the same could be said about politics. And what is being revealed by these truthers is very telling.
Back to my point. That point is that Barack Hussein Obama has a history of choosing people with questionable qualifications. Well, so what? Every administration has had candidates who didn't withstand close scrutiny. Well, this is where the second part of my brilliant insight comes in.
Just a week ago, David Letterman announced on his show on Friday that somebody had tried to blackmail him by going public with this information, and revealed that he had had sexual encounters with female members of his staff. (heh heh heh, he said members.) (heh heh heh, he said staff.) During his announcement, he said something that jumped out at me. He said that his behavior had been "creepy".
I found the use of the word "creepy" in this context to be rather interesting. Why "creepy"? What's "creepy" about using your influence and position to get sexual favors? Unethical, yes. Wrong, yes. Abuse of power? Yes. But "creepy"?
Now, the blackmailer says that there is more to the story than what Letterman has revealed. So far as Letterman has revealed, this seems like a rather straightforward situation. Whether he coerced these female staff-members (heh heh heh) or just provided the opportunity, there doesn't seem to be anything deserving of the tag "creepy" in this situation. Now, perhaps there is something more to the sexual experiences that Letterman exposed (heh heh heh) them to. Perhaps a midget, a donkey, and a bottle of salsa was involved.
I don't know, I'm just speculating here.
Maybe his son was involved in some sort of menage a troi. (How many people will get that, I wonder?)
But I digress and poke fun. Back to what I was driving toward.
Now, given the above two observations, one conclusion instantly pops out, and thus here comes my prediction.
David Letterman will be appointed to some office by Obama.
P.S. So, you Obama voters, how's that Hope and Change working out for you?
|
|
| Views: 31
Email This to a Friend 