axisflip.com

Categories
Politics

A State Secretary’s Big Day on Capitol Hill

Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton gnashes her teeth to exhibit dominance.

RICHMOND, Va.– Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stood to testify in front of the Senate Wednesday about the events that took place during the attack on the Benghazi Consolate, September 11, 2012, now widely understood not to have been sparked by “The Innocence of Muslims.” Sec. Clinton was met by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with accolades for her valiant efforts at State and traveling the world for “more than 1 million miles” on the taxpayers’ dime. She accepted these comments graciously and, as she took a seat, touched herself with pleasure.

Opening remarks by the secretary began with her listing those lost during this tragic attack, followed by generously offering an explanation as to what was learned and what steps the department will take to prevent further deaths like those in Benghazi. As expected, these new precautions were shrouded in the usual, deluded double talk that makes Sec. Clinton better than average Americans. To everyone’s immediate satisfaction, Clinton began recounting the events of September 11th, which she explained through concise and indistinguishable details.

The Secretary’s account was standard fare for the Senate’s consumption, as she proceeded to tell the committee that she “stood with President Obama as he spoke of ‘an act of terror.'” To the Senate majority’s delight, where there should have been mention or question of the film “Innocence of Muslims” that the secretary and Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice blamed for fueling the attack in Benghazi, there were only small gasps and muffled syllables as many Senate members were gagged and bound.

Keeping a safe distance from the truth, the purpose of the hearing was again roundly avoided when Secretary Clinton began to weep recalling her embarrassing loss of the Democratic nomination in 2008. Inside sources say Clinton then “also appeared somewhat upset” when she spoke of her touching encounters with family members of those lost at the Benghazi consolate who were not operating some kind of illicit CIA safe house/extrajudicial detainment center.

“It was a deeply moving sight to see. Never have I seen anyone so passionate for their lost dog,” Vice President Joe Biden later commented.

Never have I seen anyone so passionate for their lost dog.

Joe Biden

Sec. Clinton brought her statements to a close, thanking the Senate for their time and cooperation. Clinton emphasized the importance of working together and spending more money to “face increasingly complex threats” before the chair opened the floor for questions. At first there was silence, but it was quickly followed by the rustle of committee members removing their pants in anticipation of the orgy that would follow the nonthreatening Q-and-A — calling the occasion “a job well done.”

Before a recess could be called a questionnaire by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee proved troublesome for Secretary Clinton, when one of the previously restrained minority senators struggled free his ball gag/gimp suit, which the Education Department had on-site as a demonstration of new Obama administration sex education standards. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), though disheveled, yellow and chaffed, had managed to stumble back to his seat by moving behind the wagons that encircled Sec. Clinton.

Before he was noticed, Sen. Johnson shouted across the assembly, “We were misled that there were protests, and that an assault sprang out of that. It could have been easily ascertained that was not the fact within the first couple days!” Sen. Johnson was quickly restrained by David Brock’s bodyguards before he breached the topic of the government possibly misleading the American people about Benghazi.

Secretary Clinton, recognizing the strategic opening for a rebuttal, stood up from her canine-like position in the room’s center and replied “What difference, at this point does it make?!

Rachel Maddow and Katrina van Heuvel, although strongly differing on issues like the death of Vince Foster and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, issued a joint statement on MSNBC calling this the “best moment of Secretary Clinton’s career.”

The secretary’s responses during the Q-and-A inspired the committee to break into a standing ovation.

“What difference, at this point does it make?!” is expected to be the slogan for the Democratic Party, and possibly former first lady Hillary Clinton by January 2016.

At the end of the day CNBC quoted the secretary as saying, “This is a great day for Americans. Finally, we have philosophy that can universally absolve any great failure or problem.”

Campaign debts paid, and the slate wiped clean, advisers said Secretary Clinton is expected to meet with “Innocence of Muslims” Director Nakoula Nakoula in prison to thank him formally for taking the fall for Benghazi. Sources said Clinton sighed in relief: “We almost had to tell something closer to the truth.”

axisflip.com

Categories
Entertainment Law News Politics Reviews Society Status Quo Uncontrollable Patriotism

‘Portraits of the New Chattel Slavery: WSJ Artist Exposes How the Other 20th Lives’

This month a brilliant artist at The Wall Street Journal has broken new ground in the flourishing investigative journalism market by going where cameras could not. You can click here to see these images in their original context, alongside a breathtaking column by Laura Saunders. Witness the pain of these Americans’ faces, as the fruits of their brow sweat are ripped away by the useless, degenerate masses and their fanatical, usurper ringleader.

'Retired couple' - Tim Foley, WSJ
‘Retired couple’ – Tim Foley, WSJ

First in Tim Foley’s slideshow of unbridled pain is a retired couple, who is just breaking even as socialist fascists have taken over their country. Social Security income is capped at roughly $40,000 annually for each of them — presuming each of them made only a meager $120,000 per annum since the age of 18 — and so in order to get by on $180,000 with their deductions in investment income in tow, their aging bodies will have to scrap together $23,000 this year. And what incentive do they have to even do that in the Nancy Pelosi/Barack Hussein Obama II economy? In the crossed arms of the man — whom we will call “Carlton” — and “Carlton’s” world-weary stare, we see a bold entrepreneur degraded into being a simple welfare slave on the Democrat retirement plantation. He has just told his partner in Christ they will face the belt-tightening prospect of having to switch from Perrier to the utter swill San Pellegrino. We can see from his lean that the heat of South Carolina’s merciless golf courses have caused spinal degeneration. His wife has a raised eyebrow, characteristic of these stark sketches of the toil and misery of 21st century America. We can sense she knows that “Carlton’s” days to be numbered. And without his brave, beating heart, the Social Security Administration will be cutting off a hefty $40,000 a year.

Married couple, four children - Tim Foley, WSJ
‘Married couple, four children’ – Tim Foley, WSJ

Mr. Foley’s next portrait of insurmountable anguish shows a nuclear family taxed nearly $22,000 more in 2013 by a society thankless for the parents’ willingness to put up with each other after 40. Clinging like a Ritalin addiction to the father’s body is two of the children, the one in front of him cowering into his shoulder, staring upwards at a towering, dream-crushing IRS. At $650,000 a year, these surely above-average children face a dark future, one in which they may have to take on some degree of debt for every single one of them to attend Kenyon, Amherst, or some other liberal arts institution that may by and large be bought into. The married, upstanding professional “businessess” faces forward more than her righteous husband to symbolize how liberals have electorally plotted to divide his Godly household. She like “Carlton’s” wife raises a single eyebrow. But the pre-menopausal woman’s eyebrow raises as if to say: “Should I really have to pay this much more this year to stave off my de facto execution for having to carry an ectopic pregnancy?”

'Single person' - Tim Foley, WSJ
‘Single person’ – Tim Foley, WSJ

‘Single person’ features yet another pearl-clad responsibility-ite, her face tilted slightly to her left in cynicism, her hair diligently parted, her arms crossed in indignation. As yet unbruised by years of toil and her holy, as yet unfulfilled, duty of childbirth, one eyebrow is not raised more than another, as with the retired woman and married mother. She still possesses the idealism of youth, and so is surprised to see our newly totalitarian government demanding so much of her, three years out of Wharton. She has purchased fine pearls to attract a suitable mate. She uses a watch, despite its being old-fashioned; checking her smartphone’s email app every five minutes to look out for any possible, more lucrative opportunities from one of her firm’s ruthlessly job-creating competitors. But now that she will be paying so much more on her taxes in 2013, what’s the point? she says to herself. Any more income will just mean moving into a higher tax bracket. And this is the way that in the New World Order’s America, a job creator is effectively murdered in public by a raging lynch mob. The mob, she understands well, is just jealous of the superior productivity genes that the American Enterprise Institute’s own Charles Murray has proven with science her to have.

'Single parent, two children' - Tim Foley, WSJ
‘Single parent, two children’ – Tim Foley, WSJ

The most heartbreaking of Mr. Foley’s portraits is that of the ‘Single parent,’ a subject with whom The Wall Street Journal’s editorials have famously long sympathized. The subscriber can immediately derive additional sympathy because her children look sufficiently alike to allay any suspicion that she might be single by a decadent choice. In the foreground, we see that she must console her child about her peasant family’s additional 2013 tax liability of just over $3,000. She places a loving hand over his shoulder, as she has probably just told him that — upon hearing the results of the treasonous fiscal-cliff congressional package — they will not be able to purchase for him a Hanson Robotics “Zeno.” The boy has his mother’s job-creator genes, but he knows with this year’s inability to afford that multithousand-dollar toy, his hopes of becoming an undergraduate in MIT’s robotics labs may very well be crushed. As with any of the parents or married people in this sketch essay, in his signature Foley-ian style, the woman’s eyebrow is raised at a new, decadent culture so willing to punish any American unworthy of the very gutter. This final, masterful sketch is the single greatest representation of economic repression since (original, lesser) Depression documentarian Dorothea Lange’s “Migrant Mother,” below.

In the Shadows of Tim Foley: 'Migrant Mother' - Dorothea Lange
In the Shadows of Tim Foley: ‘Migrant Mother’ – Dorothea Lange