Barak – Are his shoes too big?
Reading this morning’s Sunday news, Los Angeles Times, (no one article noted here), it occurred to me that Obama’s frenetic rush to force his agenda on the American people was much like a clown with floppy shoes - the ones that run around tripping over their shoes while they run in circles, (right under the tightrope where the pig in the tutu, is holding an umbrella in a balancing act to keep from falling and crushing the clown – the pig of course being Ms. Pelosi.) …..You know maybe I shouldn’t use the pig; Nancy does look kind of anorexic, though, the pig constituency might be delighted at the thought of being portrayed by a skinny person.
This of course bring us to Pelosi, the limousine liberal from gay old San Francisco.
Nancy Pelosi is the wife of the rich San Francisco financier and investor, Paul Pelosi, (she never having worked a day in her life). Her husband, Paul Pelosi has been described as a “low profile” person – he should be in that he has “financed his wife political career”. (San Fransico Chronical, January 1, 2007, by John Wildermuth, Chronicle Political Writer.)
Clint Reilly, Pelosi’s campaign consultant speaking of Paul Pelosi said, ” He, ( Paul Pelosi), was very helpful in the campaign and helped raise money.” This may lead us to the consclusion , (mine anyway), that Paul Pelosi paid for his wifes political career. … what? I’m just saying…it’s still a free country you know…..but change is coming!
Included in this article is mention that Mr. Pelosi owned an apartment building, (the Lake Street Apartments), whose operation was in conflict with San Francisco city codes, (read between the lines), that he intentionally sold at the beginning of his wife’s political career so as not to create a conflict…in addition to mentioning that Mr. Pelosi’s father and brother’s were, years ago, involved in ‘questionable business’ practices with the city of San Francisco. …..what?
I could continue on about the Pelosi’s but there is so many other fun things going on at the moment that I must move on….sorry.
“Too read too many books is harmful”, (Mao Tse Tung – quoted in this morning’s L.A. Times article , “China Gears Up For another Party”, Sunday, March 8, 2009, by Barbara Demick).
I use this quote not to illustrate the article which refer’s to Peking’s preparing for a huge 60th anniversery party of the Chinese Revolution, (I wonder are they financing the party from the interest payments from the money Barak and Nancy are borrowing from them), but to note how that mantra may in fact describe the result of our current educational system.
The incident I will illustrate, (to the exclusion of many others), involves a young man who has posters of Che gueverra on his bedroom wall and who considers himself a “revolutionary”, (while living at home withMom and Dad). I asked him if he knew that Che was a Communist and responsible, through his revolutionary communist zeal, for the death of thousands of people, (along with Fidel and Raul Castro). He, the young man, of course, being a revolutionary himself, refused to believe this. I also told him that, (through personal knowledge – not able to discuss here), that Che was set up by the Castro brothers who fed information to Mexican intelligence (who then fed it to our intelligence), the whereabouts of Che in Bolivia, the result being he was found and killed.
The moving force of the Castro brothers setting up Che came from Raul who convinced Fidel that Che was becoming too much the media darling, eclipsing their accomplishments and perhaps ultimately becoming a threat to them…..the young man was however ready to believe that the CIA could perpetrate such a horrible act of murder because of course that’s what they do…..evidently empirical reasoning is dead.
The point in this is that how could a college student not know Che was a communist? You may think this weak but also add to this how many college age students in “man in the street” interviews that we saw during our the recent election did not even know who Abraham Lincoln or George Washington were.
Mao’s under lying point was that an educated population was a threat to revolutionary regime change….but wait, isn’t change coming?
