WOOF! Watchdogs of Our Freedom

Archive for May, 2014|Monthly archive page

Hillary’s Hit List–WOOF reviews the body count so far!

In "It's witch in the afternoon" forum on May 31, 2014 at 3:32 pm

Bill & Hill pulp fiction this one

Who’s afraid of Hillary Clinton? Well, WOOF isn’t, obviously, but this seems to make us almost unique. True, we are a self-confessed component of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” first mentioned by Mrs. Clinton during a 1998 interview on the reliably simpatico TODAY program during which she addressed Monica Lewinsky’s accusations regarding her husband, the president. Because her appearance pre-dated the manifestation of the infamous blue dress and the irrefutable DNA it bore, Mrs. Clinton was still in the mode of denouncing Miss Lewinsky as a psychotic stalker whose prominence on the national scene she sneeringly attributed to a shadowy consortium of archly mendacious conservatives. “I mean look at the very people who are involved in this,” she told a slack-jawed Matt Lauer, “They have popped up in other settings. This is — the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it–is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.”

The vastness of it all…

hill and mattSo many on the left seized upon and continue to seize upon Mrs. Clinton’s trope (meaning people like Paul Krugman, the liberal economist who espouses the idea of the trillion-dollar-coin solution to the national debt [click here for details], and David Brock, the conservative turned liberal who at one time or another confessed to every imaginable sort of right-wing skullduggery short of personally blowing up the U.S.S. Maine) that it is difficult now to recall –without substantial mnemonic exertion–that the entire idea of a conspiracy bent on framing Bill Clinton as a sexual predator became ipso facto absurd the moment it transpired that he was, in fact, a sexual predator and that Miss Lewinsky was neither psychotic nor a willful instrument of conspiratorial industrialists and oil moguls, but an intern who had sex with Bill Clinton.

In fact, the TODAY interview proceeded in a direction that is almost never recalled nowadays, with Lauer asking, “If an American president had an adulterous liaison in the White House and lied to cover it up, should the American people ask for his resignation?” CLINTON: Well, they should certainly be concerned about it. LAUER: Should they ask for his resignation?  CLINTON: Well, I think that—if all that were proven true, I think that would be a very serious offense. But that is not going to be proven true.  I think we’re going to find some other things. And I think that when all of this is put into context and we really look at the people involved here, look at their motivations, look at their backgrounds, look at their past behavior, some folks are going to have a lot to answer for.” Well, she got that part right.


The original right-wing conspirators?

As has been the case repeatedly throughout her public career, Hillary was spectacularly wrong. Indeed, if we were discussing anyone but a Clinton we would write ‘embarrassingly wrong,’ but neither Clinton seems to possess the requisite gene for embarrassment. Still, unless Daddy Warbucks had “Punjab” hypnotize Bill and place him helplessly beneath the zaftig intern’s lurid spell, no conspiracy was necessary in the creation of the Lewinsky scandal—just the president’s insensate sexual impulses and Lewinsky’s lubricious naivete. And yet the image Hillary conjured lives on. And while WOOF is proud to serve in the ranks of this now-legendary cabal, we cannot help thinking that if the right wing harbors vast armies of conspirators bent on national dominance, they must surely constitute the most ineffectual assemblage of bumblers since the heyday of F-Troop, given the unprecedented speed at which the country is careening leftward—which is as much as to say downward.

Of narcissistic looney tunes…

Monica Lewinsky, authoress

Monica Lewinsky, authoress

Some have argued that Mrs. Clinton’s remarks to Lauer were so mortifying in retrospect that she herself must have been deceived by her husband’s protestations of innocence  in the Lewinsky affair, but WOOF disagrees. With the press firmly in her pocket (and dutifully spiking the entire Lewinsky story until it was exposed by the Internet neophyte, Matt Drudge), and with no advanced warning about the blemished blue dress, Hillary had no reason to suppose that anything would ever be provable, leaving the Clintonistas free to malign Lewinsky, whom Hillary herself referred to as “a narcissistic looney tune”—reminding us yet again that Democrats have difficulty inventing insults that don’t smack of Freudian projection. And now we have Miss Lewinsky’s recently published memoir of the events that led to her national verbification; and we also have, new from Jonathon Allen and Amie Parnes, the book HRC—State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton, which bills itself as describing how “Hillary fundamentally transformed the State Department through the force of her celebrity and her unparalleled knowledge of how power works in Washington.” Wow—and created the most consistently disastrous run of American foreign policy in the sorry history of Foggy Bottom—but oh well.

nixon hippyHRC also makes the familiar allegation that there exists an “enemies list” that is attentively kept and nurtured by Bill and Hillary Clinton containing the name of every individual by whom the Clintons ever deemed themselves betrayed or insufficiently supported. Because, obviously, betrayal and its kindred malefactions are the sorts of things that most egotistical politicians have a difficult time dismissing good naturedly, it is not particularly surprising that such lists might be kept. The most famous “enemies list,” (famous mainly because it continues to amplify the narrative of the worldwide socialist totalitarian conspiracy that governs us—and yes, we love saying that) is surely that of the late Richard Nixon, who students of liberal historical texts already recognize as the second most evil human being who ever lived—Joe McCarthy continuing unthreatened in first place for the 57th straight year). That the American establishment was already firmly liberal by the early ‘70s may be perceived in the fact that being named in Nixon’s enemies list was enough to make one’s reputation socially and/or professionally, witness the fact that Dan Rather gained national prominence thereby.

Young Dan Rather--without Richard Nixon he'd have just been another Ron Burgundy!

Young Dan Rather–without Richard Nixon he’d have just been another Ron Burgundy!

As Rather’s inclusion suggests, a noteworthy point about the Nixon list is that without exception it docketed adversaries from the opposing pole of the political spectrum. (Alert readers may pause here to remark that spectrums do not effectively possess poles, but that’s not important now.) Few today would recognize most of the names Nixon and his amanuensis, Chuck Colson, compiled back in the days of the Watergate Scandal; but John Conyers still rings an irritating bell, we presume, as might Daniel Shore (who found a winter home for his mendacities at NPR until his recent death) and of course the actor Paul Newman, whose dedication to aiming vilification at Richard Nixon took a toll, evidently, on the target’s nerves.

Any analysis of Nixon’s list makes one point clear, and that is that Nixon’s perceived enemies were all denizens of the political left—in other words, people whom RMN perceived as his philosophical opposition. Not so with the Clintons’ so-called hit list, which is quite the opposite. If we are to accept the word of those who claim knowledge of the matter, the list comprises fellow travelers on the political left almost exclusively…Democrats by whom the Clintons feel betrayed, and especially those by whom they feel the most betrayed, namely those who abandoned Hillary in 2008 to climb aboard the Obama bandwagon. Moreover, according to witnesses, the people listed are assigned numbers in accordance with the degree of treachery they supposedly indulged in…a kind of treason index on which the number 1 indicates a baseline of political loyalty that degenerates by degree, tumbling all the way down to level 7, which is reserved for the irredeemably treasonable. The rankings are said to correlate, at least emblematically, with the 7 circles of Hell described in Dante’s Inferno.

In actual fact, no one on Hillary Clinton's enemies is mentioned in Dante Alighieri's account of the 7th circle of Hell.

In actual fact, no one on Hillary Clinton’s enemies  list is mentioned in Dante Alighieri’s account of visiting the 7th circle of Hell.

The “hit list” as Clinton staffers call it, began in the darkest days of Hillary’s failed bid to secure the Democratic nomination in 2008, following which she directed campaign workers at her main headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, to devote themselves full time to the arduous task of tabulating everyone whom the campaign hated, and specifying how much it hated them. If it seems wondrous that campaign workers would have no duties of a more pressing nature, consider that these workers (specifically long-time Clintonistas Kris Balderston and Adrienne Elrod) were formally assigned the project only after Mrs. Clinton had given up hope of gaining the nomination following her shock at being deprived of her rightful station by the upstart, the amateur, the political nobody, Obama.

Lip-syncing her way into your heart!

Lip-syncing her way into your heart!

Something obscene had plainly occurred in HillaryLand, beginning with the writhings and ululations of “the Obama girl,” Amber Lee Ettinger going viral on You Tube lip-syncing “I Got a Crush on Obama!” It must have been a dismal realization for the former first lady and erstwhile New York carpetbagger that nobody was out there whomping up an “I Got a Crush on Hillary” video, nor were armies of mush-brained school kids being taught to sing “Mmm, mmm, mmm, Hillary Rodham Clinton!” Nor were super market chains such as Giant rushing to stack their aisles with collectable plates and tee-shirts featuring her beaming face, nor was Pepsi changing its insignia to resemble her campaign insignia—in fact, she hadn’t even been hip enough to have a campaign insignia—not like Obama! There is a delicious irony inherent in the Clintons’ hubris leading them to discomfiture primarily because they underestimated how addlepatedly superficial are the loyalties of the emotive Left—an odd mistake for a pair whose firmest reliance for eight years was placed upon the pop-cultural sizzle of Bill the sax player, Bill the cool dude, Bill the “first Black president,” and yes, even Bill the hip philanderer. But along came the first real Black guy with a shot at the White House, and the whole parade marched off down the wrong street. Hillary was dumped faster than yesterday’s trendy computer app.

"How dare you, Mrs. Clinton!?" So why didn't Olbermann get a seven? Hillary must've been watching FOX.

“How dare you, Mrs. Clinton!?” So why didn’t Olbermann get a seven? Hillary must’ve been watching FOX.

The obscenity didn’t stop there. All the elements of the infallibly sycophantic news media that had slobbered devotedly over the Clintons for eight heady years were now transfixed by a new loadstone—and in their fervor to carry the dapper young Marxist across the political finish line, they began committing what might best be described as acts of retrospective journalism. In other words, they were discovering news stories about the suddenly annoying Clintons that had previously eluded them entirely or been deemed the insignificant blatherings of right-wing conspirators like Drudge and FOX News. Some media pundits went so far as to note that the former president was a sexual predator (who knew?) while others discovered he had lied under oath and was notoriously disreputable, while still others began to suspect that both Clintons had probably been racists all along! The final proof that progressive news propagandists had abandoned the Clintons with that splenetic virulence common to sundered love affairs came when Keith Olbermann launched into a ten-minute rampage [click here for video] on his now-blessedly-defunct MSNBC program aimed at delineating every one of Mrs. Clinton’s failings as a campaigner, a politician, and a human being, all liberally sprinkled with interjections of “How dare you, Mrs. Clinton?!” and other damnatory rhetorical excesses of the sort Olbermann customarily reserved for targets to the conspicuous right of say, Ho Chi Minh.


Uh-oh–there’s going to be Hell to pay!

When one expects to be guest of honor at one’s own coronation and winds up ditched on the roadside, one may understandably wax resentful—and Hillary did exactly that, in that massively irascible way that made her temper tantrums legendary amongst her camp followers (even if most of them were by then working for the Obama campaign). Beginning on a massive white board, scribbling away with erasable markers, loyalists Balderston and Elrod undertook the sisyphean task of cataloguing everyone who had crossed, double-crossed, abandoned, denied, or in some other manner offended “HRC” and determining to what extent the offenders had offended. Thus, from the ashes of Hillary’s presidential campaign grew the rudiments of the massive vengeance campaign to follow.

The unforgiven…

We know you’re probably eager to find out who got seven full points on the Clinton animosity scale, and even if you already know, you probably forgot all the names and need reminding, and besides, we’re more fun than whoever told you to begin with, so here are their names in approximate order of unforgivability, accompanied by  the reasons for each listee’s tumble from grace:

johnJohn Kerry (who served nearly 3 months in Vietnam before he was against it) was a Senator from Massachusetts and a failed presidential candidate in 2008 when he rumbled in his bizarre, pseudo-stentorian stage bellow that Obama was the guy America needed  to “turn a new page in American politics.” President Clinton had campaigned vigorously for Kerry in 2004 (despite recent heart surgery) and was not pleased to hear that a new page had to be turned—although why either Bill or Hillary expected loyalty from the hero of Ho Chi Minh city, and author of the “Winter Soldier,” remains a mystery.

Kerry’s buddy and political Godfather, Teddy “Splash” Kennedy, delivered the second cruelest cut to a bewildered and furious Hillary. images“I feel change in the air!” bawled the masher from Massachusetts, who was in the habit of drunkenly calling Obama “Osama”but who managed to pull himself together in late January, 2008, long enough to croak out an endorsement of the young Maoist and follow up with what the Associated Press called “remarks salted with scarcely veiled criticism of Obama’s chief rival for the nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, as well as her husband, the former president.” Thus did “the liberal lion of the Senate” (as our absurdist media enjoyed calling the hero of Chappaquiddick) blot his copy book in the eyes of Bill and Hill. Indeed, with his customary flair for asserting the diametrically erroneous, the Lion boozily prophesied: “With Barack Obama we will close the book on the old politics of race against race, gender against gender, ethnic group against ethnic group, and straight against gay!”

edwards John Edwards, the Senator from North Carolina and preternaturally asinine narcissist who lost as Kerry’s running mate in 2004, represented Hillary’s main competition for the Democrat nomination until Obama caught fire in 2008. Edwards bowed out of the race in January of ’08, but took an agonizingly long 5 months to offer an endorsement. WOOF knows that in the spring of 2008, Edwards had lunch with Obama, offering him suggestions, advice, and good will. Obama, by contrast, was arrogant, aloof, and snotty (can you imagine?) leaving both Edwards and his wife Elizabeth turned off and angry. WOOF also knows that Hillary caught wind of this event and threw a lunch for the Edwardses, going out of her way to come across as sincere and solicitous. So successful was Hillary at this, that John Edwards confided his disenchantment with Obama and promised her his support. Only Elizabeth Edwards kept the promise, however. As soon as Obama’s triumph took on the trappings of inevitability, John Edwards switched his allegiances with speed he had formerly reserved for chasing ambulances and vociferously endorsed Obama, calling Hillary the embodiment of “old-school establishment politics,” thus ensuring himself a permanent spot on Hillary’s hit list, and a full score of seven!


Claire McCaskill–desperate to stay out of the elevator!

Next we have Claire McCaskill, whose Missouri Senate seat was won in 2006 with the help of both Clintons. According to The Hill, “hate is too weak a word to describe the feelings that Hillary’s core loyalists still have for McCaskill, who seemed to deliver a fresh endorsement of Obama—and a caustic jab at Hillary—every day during the primary.” Besides which, some of McCaskill’s run-ins with the Clintons predated the Obama era, including her remark that she wouldn’t want her daughter near Bill, which perfectly sensible observation struck the Clintons as unpardonable. McCaskill, even today, makes known the fact that she fears winding up alone in an elevator with Hillary. But lately, McCaskill has been striving mightily to remove the bull’s eye from her posterior, endorsing Hillary for the presidency with an almost unseemly alacrity, thus prompting the St. Louis Beacon to observe “the move startled some in Missouri, who recall the senator’s critical observations about the Clintons a few years ago that culminated in Hillary Clinton canceling a planned New York fundraiser for McCaskill’s Senate race.” But it needn’t startle you, gentle readers, for you now understand that McCaskill merely seeks to better provision herself for that dreaded and nearly ineluctable elevator ride. (Going down?) richardson

So, all right, you say, all the above-named pols are manifest reprobates and detestable by any rational standard, but how did a nice guy like Bill Richardson earn himself 7 points o the Clinton scale? Well, to begin with, he endorsed Obama instead of Hillary, as you might have guessed. Okay, not really ‘to begin with,’ because to begin with he was best pals with the Clintons and received all the perquisites of pal-hood. President Bill Clinton made Richardson his U.N. Ambassador, and when Richardson wore thin at the U.N., Clinton made him his energy secretary. Bill and Hillary were vital to Richardson winning the gubernatorial race in his home state of New Mexico in 2003. Richardson, in other words, was a political creature of Clintonism—but like a better known creature of Mary Shelley’s invention, Richardson turned on his creator. Like most of the political Left, he caught a full dose of Obama-mania in 2008 and resisted all efforts by the Clintons to get him in Hillary’s corner. These efforts reached a zenith right before the New Mexico primary on Super Tuesday, but to no avail. Richardson endorsed Obama and the Clintons haven’t returned a single phone call since. During a recent book tour, Richardson said of Bill Clinton, “The feud is ongoing and probably permanent. I tried to reach out to him, but he doesn’t care about guys like me. If he wants to continue isolating me, badmouthing me, that’s fine. I’m fine.” Well—we’ll see how “fine” in a moment!

doddChris Dodd may be the most reprehensible churl of the lot, and that’s saying something. The man who liked to make “waitress sandwiches” with his drinking buddy Teddy Kennedy, fought for a nuclear freeze while Reagan was busy winning the cold war and teamed up with Barney Frank to create the 2,000 page nightmare that is the Dodd/Frank Act—legislation so horrendously flawed that even most liberals now admit they hate it– stood in well, naturally enough, with Hillary; until he wandered off the reservation. Dodd’s sins, like everyone else’s on the hit list, occurred mainly during the 2008 presidential campaign. It is laughably forgettable that Dodd sought the Democrat nomination that year—nobody cared. During the race, Dodd went out of his way to paint Hillary as a joke, saying at one event in Iowa that  “It isn’t enough just to be sitting on the sidelines and watching your husband deal with problems over the years,” and at another, “the idea that, for the last 10 or 15 years, because you’ve been next to events as they’ve unfolded somehow qualifies you to do this job is an exaggeration. That’s not experience. That’s just witnessing experience.” Most of Iowa could have cared less—Dodd polled around 1 percent. But Hillary cared—she cared a lot. And when Dodd’s campaign inevitably collapsed, he committed the ultimate sin: On February 8, 2008, he endorsed Barack Obama for the nation’s highest office. The Clinton’s were, of course, irate. So they put the insipid wretch on their hit list and gave him a well-deserved ranking of 7. jay

Jay Rockefeller (Senator, W.VA) is the great-grandson of the oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, and basically another noisome floret on the subversive Rockefeller family tree. Neither as smart nor (consequently) as subversively Machiavellian as David, nor as pugnaciously annoying as Nelson, Jay’s association with the subversive Council on Foreign Relations and his dedication to every aspect of the progressive agenda made him, nevertheless, a favorite of the Clintons until he began griping at Hillary about the details (though certainly not the aims) of her health plan back in the days of Hillary-care. This might have remained a minor irritant but Rockefeller took the fateful step of endorsing Obama in 2008—and crossed the Clintons one time too many.

Bob Casey-ready for hope and change!

Bob Casey-ready for hope and change!

And what of Bob Casey? Well, he’s really Bob Casey Jr., his daddy having been governor of Pennsylvania, like, forever. But daddy raised up little Bob, sent him to Scranton Prep School and then to College of Holy Cross and then to Columbus School of Law to become a lawyer, of course, and then in 2006 little Bob ran against Rick Santorum for the senate and beat him, proving that Pennsylvania has big cities in which lots of really dim-witted people congregate and, obviously, vote. And Casey beat Santorum with a considerable boost from Hillary Clinton who staged a mammoth fund raiser for him. Moreover, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Hillary donated more of her personal money to Casey’s ‘06 campaign than to any other Democrat’s, and for what?  We offer the rhetorical question here because in 2008, Bob Casey’s hair caught fire for the Obster—or it would have, if he had any. He was just as giddy as everyone else to the left of, well, Rick Santorum, (and with the obvious exception of the Clintons), about the dawning epoch of transformative “hope and change.” So carried way was Bob, that he endorsed Obama’s candidacy at a crucial moment approaching the Pennsylvania primary, gushing that Obama would show America “a path of a new kind of politics.” Evidently the people of Pennsylvania disagreed because Hillary actually won the primary, but the Clintons were no less livid, and Bob Casey was awarded a treachery rating of 7.


A decidedly unappealing concept!

Vermont Senator Patrick “Leaky” Leahy also offended during the nominative battle of 2008. At exactly the point that Hillary most desperately sought support from old allies, Leahy showed himself ever the dependable slime ball, announcing publicly that Clinton couldn’t win the nomination and should yield to Obama, adding“We need a president who can reintroduce America to the world — and actually reintroduce America to ourselves, and I believe Barack Obama is the best person to do that.” A furious Hillary declared him an instant 7 and instructed Balderston and Elrod to so list him on their white board. rob

Representative Rob Andrews of New Jersey got caught up in the media’s sudden discovery that the Clintons might really be racists. (Remember when the media discovered the Clintons were racist? It only lasted a few weeks and apparently the Clintons got better because it stopped when Obama got nominated and it never gets mentioned nowadays.) But for a while in 2008 the “gotcha game” was suspended for Republicans and played instead against Bill and Hillary who overnight became incapable of saying anything that wasn’t a coded or overt slur against Blacks. Forgetting that he was speaking about the man whom the press had formerly dubbed “the first Black president,”Andrews dealt himself  into the game and expressed pangs of “concern” over Bill’s ostensible race baiting, telling the Newark Star-Ledger that the Clinton campaign had “engaged in some very divisive tactics and rhetoric it should not have” during the Democratic primary. “There have been signals coming out of the Clinton campaign that have racial overtones that indeed disturb me,” Andrews fretted, adding, “Frankly, I had a private conversation with a high-ranking person in the campaign … that used a racial line of argument that I found very disconcerting. It was extremely disconcerting given the rank of this person. It was very disturbing.” Holy cow, the Clinton’s were practically in the Klan—maybe they were in the Klan! And his display of feigned umbrage regarding an issue the Clintons had previously supposed themselves utterly proofed against, assured Andrews pride of place among the top ten traitors on Balderston’s and Elrod’s evolving white-board list.

Rep. Chris Van HollenChris Van Hollen is a cookie-cutter liberal in the blue-Maryland mold who could pass for a clone of that imprisoned state’s governor, Martin O’Malley. His sin against the Clintons? Unlike others on the list, Van Hollen’s presence is a tad mysterious. “I’m trying to figure out…as I say, it’s an unsolved mystery and maybe someone will pick up the phone and tell me,” Van Hollen told his comrades at MSNBC. So apparently he knows he’s on the list, but can’t say why. WOOF suspects he knows good and well what he did—but we don’t!baron hill

And finally, there is Baron Hill. No, the famous ruined 17th century estate near Beaumaris in Wales is not on the Clintons’ hit list…nothing nearly so magnificent or classic! The Baron Hill of immediate concern was the representative from Indiana’s 9th congressional district. He was labeled a “Blue Dog,” which the reader will recall used to describe relatively conservative Democrats. There were, however, about as many Blue Dogs left after Reid and Pelosi rammed Obamacare through congress as there were Viet Cong after the Tet Offensive.  Hill’s problems with Hillary arose the moment he walked up to a microphone on April 30, 2008, and gave vent to the following idiotism:  “We have to move past the partisan gridlock. I believe both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama want to do that and I believe both are formidable candidates. But, I also believe that only one of them truly can. … I have decided to support Senator Obama.” (Oops!)

What’s the damage?

hill w gunFirst let’s simply look at the anecdotal evidence, most of which emanates from gushy Hillary staffers or their lesser numbers, eager to promote Hillary’s reputation as the wrong gal to mess with. In their current book, which we half-heartedly plugged earlier in this screed, Parnes and Allen write that Hillary’s aides like to exchange knowing stage whispers about the fates of folks who messed with their mistress, to wit:  “Bill Richardson: investigated; John Edwards: disgraced by scandal; Chris Dodd: stepped down,” and “‘Ted Kennedy,’ [an] aide continued, lowering his voice to a whisper for the punch line, ‘dead.’ ”  To review the evidence for the potency of Hillary Clinton’s disapproval as a destructive force, a dispassionate recounting is necessary. So here it is:herald

Of the twelve stalwarts of the Left to whom Mrs. Clinton assigned the damnatory ranking of 7, most may be said to have suffered a subsequent discomfiture. John Kerry, once installed in Hillary’s former position at State proceeded to make a fool of himself not only in that quotidian manner he does anyway, but also in one diplomatic debacle after another. After visiting Egypt and conversing with Mohammad Morsi, leader of the Islamic Brotherhood (which replaced the pro-American Mubarak presidency after Hillary and Obama torpedoed our longtime ally, see details here), Kerry boisterously declared Morsi’s hold on power to be iron-clad, posed for grinning photo ops with the smirking thug, and returned stateside to sun himself on his yacht while Morsi’s own army overthrew him and tossed im in prison.

karziWithin the year Kerry made a  further fool out of himself by threatening decisive military intervention in Syria and then flip-flopping, promising that any such intervention would be “unbelievably small” whereas in fact it was non-existent. He jetted to the middle east only to be largely ignored by the Palestinians, returned home to whine about Israel becoming “an apartheid state” (which asininity he failed to obfuscate with explosions of feigned indignation—apparently at having been quoted in the first place), hastened to fix matters in the Ukraine whereupon Vladimir Putin made a fool of him and pointed out, rather incontestably, that Kerry was a liar, and paused to exchange insincerities with Afghan leader Hamid Karzai who agreed to announce deadpan that he was no longer holding secret talks with the Taliban after which Kerry left beaming and Karzai went back to holding secret talks with the Taliban. Certainly at this point Kerry has made a sufficiently high-profile buffoon of himself that the damage to him politically is well nigh irreparable. This has also advantaged Hillary insofar as her own disastrous tenure at State looks merely mediocre by comparison. So is John Kerry a victim of Hillary’s hit list? Kerry’s classic inability to perceive himself as the lantern-jawed dunderpate he is, combined with his irrational delusions of personal brilliance, connived to produce every one of his public embarrassments. There is no discernible connection between his failures and the Clintons…but as we shall make clear below, this hardly detracts from a kind of subliminal impression, especially apparent among Leftists, that Hillary’s focused fury projects a certain assaultive energy of a nearly supernatural type.


The Liberal Lion bellows–so where the heck IS little Billy, anyhow?

By the same token, Teddy Kennedy died of a brain tumor, and logic dictates ruling out any connection to the Clintons. John Edwards is another story—it is a fact that Clintonistas played a large part in leaking the details of his affair with campaign worker Rielle Hunter, whose resultant pregnancy was ascribed to an Edwards’s aide, but who actually bore Edwards’s love child (while Edwards’s wife, Elizabeth, was coping with terminal cancer). The Liberal Establishment Media would not, of course, report these matters, leaving them to the National Enquirer…but WOOF knows that a few calculated nudges from Bill and Hillary (long after Edwards appeared a viable presidential nominee) persuaded elements of the liberal media to acknowledge the story’s reality and suddenly it was headline news everywhere. Edwards was next charged with the crime of using one million dollars in political donations to hide his affair, but skated in court. He is no longer a politician, having returned to the practice of law in his former capacity of ambulance chaser. This one is more than plausibly a Hillary coup, because even though the Enquirer had the story on its front page for months, the Liberal Establishment Media would never have touched it without marching orders from the former First Lady’s surrogates.


The regrettable Todd Akin, seen here handing the election to Claire McCaskill in one swell foop!

And Claire McCaskill? She may still be afraid to ride an elevator with Hillary aboard, but no immediately discernible harm has befallen her as a result of her affronts to the Clintons. Her re-election campaign in 2012 looked to be in trouble for a while, and even Mother Jones, whose suspicions regarding Hillary will be discussed below, worried that the Clintons might be conspiring with such satanic personages as Carl Rove to unseat her, and perhaps they were. But it may be recalled that her opponent, Todd Akin, decided to familiarize the media with his views on “legitimate rape” and effectively euthanized himself publicly. So far, McCaskill is a survivor, and her recent endorsement of Hillary’s presidential bid (before it is even announced) combined with her recently observable willingness to exalt Mrs. Clinton at every available opportunity, may conduce toward some degree of détente.

Who shot nice guy Billy? 

niceBill Richardson was clearly targeted for destruction by his former friends, and sources say that Bill Clinton was far angrier than Hillary in his case. Bill had the strongest relationship with the ex-governor, and handled the majority of outreach to him in ’08. Thus it was Bill who felt the sting of Richardson’s abandonment most profoundly. The result was that just as Richardson preened himself for a high-level cabinet position with his new love, Obama, the axe fell. As Politico concisely phrased it, “Over the span of just three months, Bill Richardson has gone from being on the shortlist for secretary of state to late-night punch line, a breathtaking descent that has tarnished his once-sparkling career.” (Guess who!)

Yes, Bill and Hill were in possession of all the manure on their former acolyte, and they weren’t afraid to spread it around, albeit surreptitiously via certain complicit channels in government and media. Naturally, the media showed no interest in Richardson’s misbehaviors until the Clintons pulled the trigger, but suddenly the news exploded with accounts of scandal, including two juicy “pay to play” schemes involving Richardson PACS in New Mexico. Quoth University of New Mexico professor Gabriel Sanchez, approximately on cue,“Every time you turn on the TV or open a newspaper, you see ‘Richardson’ and ‘scandal,’ The public now looks at him much differently. New Mexicans don’t like to constantly see their state being negatively identified in the media.” No kidding! Richardson’s sudden tumble shows you what America would be like if it had journalists!

Tourists in New Mexico express amusement upon learning of Richardson's capers.

Tourists in New Mexico express amusement upon learning of Richardson’s financial capers.

Richardson is currently scratched from the political arena, and this one is a scalp for the Clintons, who knew about Richardson’s crooked financial dealings because, back when things were going harmoniously and the press was playing loyally dumb, they helped set them up…thus it was a simple matter to make the details available, and encourage the press, like a crooked sheriff, to become suddenly vigilant. To the uninformed voter, the sudden explosion of arbitrary justice and journalistic indignation seemed bizarre—especially since New Mexico’s genial Governor had been previously established by the same media as approximately the world’s nicest guy and straightest shooter. Trying to figure out who blew him out of the water was as puzzling to the average citizen as trying to figure out who shot whom at the climax of Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs—but insiders knew—and they knew it could happen to them if they crossed Hillary Clinton!  

dodd and preezy betterAs for the contemptible Chris Dodd, the scurvy jackanapes probably never knew what hit him, he never having been the brightest beer in the toolshed. His illegal dealings with AIG and Countrywide’s infamous Angelo Mozilo were suddenly public  (Guess who!) Just as suddenly his schemes to wrangle presidential pardons for his crooked pals were exposed in the newspapers. Who knew? And when Dodd spewed the standard stream of lies to defuse the situation, the press exposed them as nonsense whereas previously they had repeated them dutifully. His devious sweetheart deals with banks and loan companies while he was a senior member of the Senate Banking Committee charged with regulating the very folks now revealed as his co-conspirators was front page news. Suddenly it transpired that AIG had contributed more money to Dodd than to any other politician, and amazingly enough, the press also discovered that Dodd’s wife had pulled an enormous salary for three years (which reporters had somehow failed to notice at the time) while serving on the AIG board of directors! Dodd, of course, tumbled in the polls, and withdrew himself from the political arena, prompting the ever-disingenuous Obama to commemorate him as having “worked tirelessly to improve the lives of our children and families, support good jobs for hard-working Americans, and keep our nation strong and prosperous, building a remarkable record of achievement for the people of Connecticut and our country.” Oh, Bamster!

Obviously, Hillary was instrumental in Dodd’s collapse, not because she provoked any of his wrongdoings, but rather because she (or, more precisely, her strategically placed envoys) gave the media orders to suddenly “discover” them. The reader may wonder why, in all of the scandal mongering so abruptly targeting Dodd, his sexual escapades with his mentor Ted Kennedy with whom he enjoyed making “waitress sandwiches”[see unseemly details here, or numerous other places] never found their way into the mainstream press. The answer is further evidence of Clintonian orchestration: We really don’t want to be reminding people of sex scandals, now, do we!


Meanwhile, Jay Rockefeller’s departure from politics remains a genuine mystery—he simply announced his retirement. It is a simple matter to imagine Hillary’s minions playing a role in so odd a countermarch, but WOOF has not turned up an informant, or a single shred of evidence implicating Hillary in the West Virginian’s decision to vacate his senate seat. Your guess, gentle readers, is as good as ours!


Leahy–waiting for the axe to fall?

Patrick Leahy, who is nowadays ensconced as President pro tempore of the senate, (a frightening third in succession to the presidency should calamity strike–provided one can imagine a greater calamity than the current office holder) appears to have escaped any reprisals whatsoever for his Obama endorsement in 2008. He must be ruled, as of this printing, a complete miss for Hillary’s hit list, but he looks justifiably worried, don’t you think?

Similarly, Senator Bob Casey continues to blather leftist shibboleths, although, to be fair, he prides himself on standing apart from his fellow Democrats as a pro-life Catholic, although, to be fair, he votes for abortion rights about two-thirds of the time,  but you’re not supposed to notice. Anyway, no harm appears to have come his way via the curse of Hillary—and there may be a reason for this. During the Benghazi hearings, Casey was so smarmily, scriptedly effusive in his kudos for Hillary Clinton’s many achievements (which he naturally declared too numerous to mention in the time allotted except for three instances so oddly obscure as to imply rehearsal) that one could not help suspecting collusion, and one might, if sufficiently suspicious, further suspect that Casey’s hit-listing was lifted in exchange for the six-and-a-half minute game of paddy-cake he played with the outgoing Secretary (judge for yourself, gentle readers, by clicking here).

Another evident escapee from Hillary’s vengeance seems to be Chris Van Hollen, who continues to serve Maryland’s 8th district in the House of Representatives where he is the proud recipient of ratings of zero from Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), and the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), and where he continues to fight for more government and higher taxes to the apparent delight of his constituents. So far, he has experienced no ill effects resulting from his rating a 7 on Hillary’s enemies list. No score for “Her Magnificence” on this one, but hope burns eternal.

60-minutes puffs S

“And now for something completely different!”

Rob Andrews, you’ll recall, was habitually “disturbed” back in 2008 by accusations that racism underlay the Clinton campaign. He spoke then with the firm confidence of a practiced traducer, having been elected by more votes than any previous congressman from New Jersey, but the people’s choice resigned last February in the face of an ethics committee investigation. We know what you’re thinking—Hillary’s leak machine took another scalp, right? But apparently not; or at least, not entirely. The original revelations implicating Andrews appeared in a book by Breitbart News’s Peter Schweizer entitled Extortion. [findable here] Still, there may be a trace of Hillary’s influence descryable in the fact that 60 Minutes pounced on the story, which is markedly uncharacteristic of that dedicatedly left-wing telecast, although WOOF has no evidence of collusion apart from the oddity of the event.

bookSchweizer’s revelations led to an ethics committee investigation that turned up so much dirt on Andrews he resigned his congressional seat in the middle of his 24th year in the House, leaving almost immediately in order to be gone by the time the full committee findings became public. On his way out the door Andrews paused to assure reporters that he was leaving because he and his wife wanted to pay for their children’s college educations. Nobody asked him why quitting his job would help accomplish this, and President Obama cranked up his teleprompter long enough to pronounce Andrews “an original author of the health law” who “served the people of Southern New Jersey with tenacity and skill.” So is this a kill for Hillary Clinton? Not identifiably. The credit seems to go to Schweizer, and thus by extension to the “vast right-wing conspiracy” (how ironic!) although the alacrity with which 60 Minutes publicized Schweizer’s findings remains highly suspicious.

Baron Hill fell when Blue Dog membership was nearly cut in half by the election of 2010. In fact membership in the laughable Blue Dog coalition has declined steadily since, besides which it became embarrassingly obvious that the formerly uppity Blue Dogs were nothing more than Obsequious Curs when the president’s socialist agenda was at stake—and who wants to belong to anything called that? Did clandestine meddling by the Clinton camp contribute to Hill’s political demise? It would be precipitate to dismiss the possibility.

None dare call it Maleficium… hillary-clinton-witch

Given all the above, what degree of seriousness should be accorded Hillary’s now nationally publicized hit list?  There are various ways to score this, but objectively it must be acknowledged that of the twelve politicians relegated to Hillary’s 7th circle, seven of them are goners for all intents and purposes–five reduced by scandals, one annihilated at the polls, and one dead. That’s a 67% (n=7) kill ratio, taken at face value. And the clock may still be running on the 33% (n=4) who seem thus far untouched. Reviewed skeptically, it would be reasonable to argue that the results to date are not compelling, especially given the apparent absence of Clintonian influence in certain of the results, notably Ted Kennedy’s death from a brain tumor. But Hillary’s wrath cannot, we think, be dismissed so casually. True, so far as anyone knows for sure, the only people Hillary Clinton ever actually succeeded in getting killed are Ambassador Stevens, his aide Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, and, as Mrs. Clinton herself has remarked, “What difference at this point does it make?” Speculation about the mystical potency of Hillary’s hit list remains exactly that—speculation. But as longtime readers are well aware, WOOF excels at speculation, so let us posit an exploratory thought in closing. In a political party wherein appearances are everything, might it not follow that the same would hold true for Hillary’s reputed powers of hex casting?


Here’s an even stranger consideration: It is widely acknowledged that Hillary employed a psychic medium during her White House days to guide her through lengthy conversations with dead people, notably Gandhi and Eleanor Roosevelt. Yes, we know this is absurd, but it is also true, at least to the extent that Hillary genuinely considered herself in contact with Mrs. R., and according to her husband, is still in contact with her! [view here, for instance.]  If you have time to indulge such hobbies, you may also have noted the barrage of Internet palaver to the effect that “Hillary Clinton once participated in Satanic rituals at Bohemian Grove” (she supposedly danced naked, which image is too aesthetically distressing to pursue.) And then there are the standard reports that she is everything from an Illuminati witch to (what else?) a reptilian space alien from the planet Archon!  If you really want to, you can watch Hillary transforming into an interplanetary reptile [here]—but you should also watch Jenna Bush transforming here, first because it’s fair and balanced that way, and second because Jenna is so much easier to look at—gosh, she’s even a great looking reptile! It is rare that we at WOOF have the opportunity or inclination to cite Mother Jones as a source for anything worthy of consideration, but it was in fact they who broke the story that “For 15 years, Hillary Clinton has been part of a secretive religious group…” a fact that the authors found distressing only insofar as the group is purportedly Christian. Reporters Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet went on to reveal that the group, referred to in hushed tones as “The Fellowship,” included all sorts of high ranking military officers, religious personalities and (eek!) conservatives [click here for details].


Best Friends Forever!

The Daily Kos actually bothered to confirm this fact, in an apparent moment of dubiety as to just how far they could actually trust Mrs.Clinton. Okay, to paraphrase the immortal words of Thomas Magnum, we know what you’re thinking! You’re wondering if we in the WOOF cave are smoking crack all of a sudden, but no—we are not of the view that Hillary does any of the daft things  imputed to her by credulous Internet sources. But WOOF knows that Hillary does in fact suppose herself to receive other-worldly guidance from Eleanor Roosevelt and other historical personages (regrettably never Washington, Adams, or Milton Friedman) and WOOF knows that “The Fellowship” aka “The Family” actually exists, although if Hillary is, as Mother Jones suggests, a crypto-right-wing Christian zealot with mystical ties of comradeship to the likes of Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), she has certainly done a world-class job of concealing their influence! No, Hillary is an unregenerate New-Left (meaning old-school) radical of the ‘60s collegial variety, a convinced socialist, a dyed in the wool secularist in deed and conviction, and a power-driving manipulator whose penchant for prevarication puts Obama to shame. But the imagery of witchcraft is an important aspect of her psychological game—the whispered suggestions of demonic affiliations and supernatural alliances are part and parcel of her intimidation of potential betrayers and challengers.

To date, Christine O'Donnell is the only political hopeful to declare that she is not a witch--what is Mrs. Clinton hiding?

To date, WOOF’s 2012 presidential nominee Christine O’Donnell is the only nationally known political hopeful to declare that she is not a witch–what is Mrs. Clinton hiding?

This may have little impact on the Right, except to stimulate our more excitable constituents to frantic web chatter, but the Left is suitably unnerved. Such intimations of paranormal power are simply added cause for concern among those already alert to the inadvisability of bestirring Hillary’s resentment. Laugh if you like, gentle readers, (in fact, we encourage it!) but we know whereof we speak! For the stable of prospective nominees coming into 2016, for the vast assortment of potential tell-all book authors, and for any surviving democrats who might prefer to emulate Zell Miller, or even Larry McDonald, the message is clear: Don’t mess with Mrs. Clinton! And the subliminal message is equally powerful: Don’t make yourself the target of some sort of medieval Maleficium—after all, who knows what the woman is capable of! Thus, as 2016 approaches, and especially if Hillary’s enemies list is perceived to have claimed another victim or two, the former Senator from New York will find herself in the catbird seat. She will be well positioned to stare down her would-be competitors and, as she gloats over the political carcasses stacked before her, repeat the line uttered by the Apache war chief Sierra Charriba at the beginning of Sam Peckinpah’s classic film, Major Dundee:  “Who will they send against me now?”WOOF PRINT



BUNDY REVISITED–UNPACKING THE GREAT NEVADA RANGE WAR (Why it almost happened, and why it still might.)

In Let's call the whole thing off forum on May 8, 2014 at 10:28 am


The nations’ left-wing conglomerate is still sputtering at the lips, horrified that a band of seedy yahoos could shoulder a few rifles and exert sufficient power vis-a-vis the Obaman governmental juggernaut to discomfit the heavily-armed Bureau of Land Management and its assorted allies in a state that is more than 80% government owned.  It hardly seems conceivable to the Liberal News Establishment, let alone legal, that a passel of gun-toting throwbacks from fly-over country could team up with the Bundy ranch owlhoots and face down the fully arrayed forces of the Worldwide Totalitarian Socialist Conspiracy …. Surely they argue, such impudence cannot be permitted to stand!  By contrast, the blogospheric Right is in euphoric transports as the evil federal land (and cattle) grabbers put up their rifles and ride away dejectedly, departing the scene short of  provoking the next Waco. But funniest of all, and reliably funny in that inside-the-beltway, weltschmerz-smitten tone so endemic to its pages, the Washington Post has now officially lamented that such an unnewsworthy triviality as the Bundy imbroglio was accorded so much traction to begin with. Clearly, there were Georgetown soirees and Senatorial junkets to Belize more worthy of the ink, to say nothing of the newly denominated problem of global climate disruption, formerly known as climate change, formerly known as global warming. The Post was clearly of the view that the Bundy ranch embroilment should have been “spiked”–forgetting as the old media tend to forget, that spiking is no longer the guarantor of a “non-event” that it was when Cronkite’s name was still a hallowed memory and people actually took Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw seriously. But there was really no sense crying over spilt ink, with the story a headline grabber on every news broadcast in America. And anyway, what the Post really meant (although it didn’t exactly say so), was something more to the tune of, ‘stories like this are supposed to end with monumental  displays of strength, so the government’s objectives are realized, leaving we in media to cover up the abuses and the lies–that’s our job!’ The point is also to impress any gun-wielding hayseeds or sunshine patriots with the irresistible powers of Leviathan, but this one didn’t work out that way–at least not  so far. Why didn’t it? WOOF has theories (of course!) but first, a look at how things go when the government does its part more efficiently…which is to say more ruthlessly.

Janet Reno knew how to get this sort of thing done!

Clinton's Janet Reno--a lady who knew when enough was unacceptable!

Clinton’s Janet Reno–a lady who knew when enough was unacceptable!

It is tempting to forget,if you knew about it to begin with, that before there was the throbbing embarrassment of Eric Holder making a travesty of the DOJ, there was Janet Reno. Now, comparing Eric holder to Janet Reno would be like comparing Snidely Whiplash to  Ilse Klebb…like comparing a cartoon figure, in other words, to one of Ian Fleming’s most chilling Bond villainesses. Reno was a stone-cold pro. She not only settled a standoff at Waco Texas by storming the place (c0mplete with a tank) and precipitating the incineration of numerous women and children–she stood front and center during the heart-wrenching Elian Gonzales case in 2000. Remember that one?  It bears repeating! After all, it never quite got sorted out whether Reno’s forces actually lit the fatal fires at Waco where the zany religionists of the Branch Davidian church were holed up (and could easily have been waited out rather than massively assaulted); but her role in the stomach-churning return of little Elian Gonzales to the loving arms of Fidel Castro will live in the Black Book of Communism’s later editions. Horrible as it was, there was no fire in the Gonzales incident, hence no flambeed civilians, but because the seizure itself was particularly indefensible by any standard of decency, TV news doesn’t rerun the details very often. Not to worry, WOOF has them solidly in mind!

Elian versus Clinton, Reno, and Castro.

Elian during his brief flirtation with Americanism,

Elian during his brief flirtation with Americanism,

In November of 1999 Elian was packed aboard an aluminum skiff with his mother and 12 other Cubans who had wearied of Fidel Castro’s socialist paradise, and the intrepid band made way for Miami. Somewhere in the Straits of Florida , alas, 13-foot waves swamped the boat, it’s engine failed, and the majority of those aboard drowned, including Elian’s mother, but not before she placed Elian in an inner tube so that he could remain afloat.  The boy was plucked from the water the next day by fishermen, who turned him over to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service which in turn placed little Elian in the custody of his paternal great-uncle, Lázaro. The arrival was expected because Gonzales’s father, Juan Miguel Gonzales Quintana had phoned ahead, and cautioned the relatives to remain alert  for his son’s and wife’s arrival. Five-year-old Elian was released from the hospital in Miami into the custody of his uncle, Lazaro Gonzalez, and other doting relatives in Miami. Despite the anguish of losing his mother to the angry sea, Elian began, by all appearances, a happy, middle class existence with his loving relatives. And there it might well have ended, especially since Janet Reno’s department of justice initially recused itself from the event, leaving the Miami courts clear jurisdiction–and the Miami courts were amenable to retaining Elian in country with his American family, as his dying mother had wished. Suddenly, however, the Cubans demanded Elian’s return. To make matters plainer, Fidel Castro himself demanded Elian’s return, and the effect on the Clinton White House was electrifying.

So long, Miami–howdy Fidel!

INS Commissioner Doris Meissner, alert to Fidel's bidding!

Clinton-era INS Commissioner Doris Meissner, alert to Fidel’s bidding in 2000, now ensconced within the subversive Carnegie Endowment. Shocking, we know!

To fully grasp the impact of Castro’s insertion into the affair, one must recognize that both Bill and Hillary Clinton were (and remain) ardent devotees of the collegial “New Left” whose institutional awe of Fidel Castro outstrips even its endemic reverence for Mao Tse-Tung or such epochal luminaries as Angela Davis or, well, Bill Ayers! To have Castro enunciate his desire in the Gonzales affair had the same effect on Bill and Hillary that the average hippy would have experienced had Bob Dylan rung him up and asked for a solid. The man had spoken. But just as the current president prefers to affect a kind of dazed disengagement from the the villainies of his cabinet heads and “Czars,” so in those days the Clintons preferred that appointees, rather than the president, appear to enact policies that to American news viewers, unaware of the liberal Democrat fixation on the Marxist pantheon, might seem senseless, or even deplorable. First, after Castro’s wishes became known, INS Commissioner Doris Meissner, (a standard globalist pinko with the Carnegie Endowment in her future) ruled that Elian’s father, back in Cuba, had legal custody. This was not agreeable to the Miami courts, however, where a circuit court judge granted emergency custody to Elian’s uncle Lazaro in Miami. This refreshingly salubrious performance by Florida’s courts lit a veritable fire under Janet Reno, who suddenly un-recused herself and demanded that the court ruling be swept aside so that Elian could be repatriated to Cuba.

Thus, the U.S. Government (that’s yours and ours, gentle readers), demanded that the courts dismiss the judgment granting emergency custody to Elian’s uncle, following which his return to Cuba was demanded. Fidel Castro sent Elian’s stay-behind daddy over with his new wife and their infant child to hit the American airwaves demanding Elian’s return.  Papa Juan was tightly handled by Cuban agents while on our shores, and while it would require a more sanguine view of Castroite tactics than WOOF is able to muster to suppose for a moment that the cute little baby accompanying Juan and his new wife was actually theirs (that actual baby being held in a safehouse in Havana pending the couple’s completion of their American assignment, we dast hypothesize) the American media fell for it like a ton of blockheads and the Cuban community in Miami wound up guarding Elian in the modest home of his American relatives with the fierce tenacity of those who knew exactly what awaited him 90 miles off our coast. Janet Reno was not interested in such cold war fanaticism, however–she “officially” met with Juan Miguel Gonzales and declared that Elian would be sent “home” to his father’s custody.  Things were looking desperate–but at the last moment rescue came from the 11th U.S. District Court of Appeals. The court officially blocked Elian’s return to Cuba, reaffirming that custody rested with the boy’s American relatives. Three days later, on April 22, 2000, while the Cuban community was still celebrating the reprieve, Janet Reno, the hero of Waco, ordered an armed pre-dawn raid of Elian’s Miami residence where machine-pistol waving agents found a terrified Elian hiding with a relative in a bedroom closet, removed him at gunpoint, and made darn well sure he went home to Fidel Castro. (The legalities were all reformulated subsequent to the seizure–no biggie). We go into some detail about this to make the point that government tyranny didn’t begin with President Obama, and seemed equally devoid of rhyme or reason back in 2000;  “seemed” being in each instance the operative term.

this one

Don’t worry little boy, I’m from the government and I’m here to help!

But our main purpose in reviewing these incidents, (and one might, of course, mention Ruby Ridge and other similar federal fiascos here, as well…) is to demonstrate the changing nature of government running amok, even as the similarities remain obvious. In the past, egregious excesses of authority were undertaken to satisfy short-term tactical ends. Waco was simple mismanagement of an attempt to end an embarrassing situation– and the ATF and Janet Reno wound up, in their arrogance and ineptitude, looking like, at the very least, acessories to manslaughter–not that it mattered. President Clinton assured Americans that he had no part in the decision to assault the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, but he never even bit his lower lip over the outcome–a few less gun-storing, Bible thumping nut jobs to worry about. But there was no grand design being effectuated at Waco, just a bunch of pee-ohed governmental authorities getting ticked off at David Koresh and committing mass violence that more or less accidentally resulted in the deaths of  77 men, women, and children.  It showed potential cult leaders what happens to people who mess with the Feds– and because Koresh was a bonafide nutjob and his followers deserving of the epitaph “cultists,” the American public seemed content to remain ambivalent about the massacre–which occurred on April 19th, by the way–almost seven years exactly before the Gonzales seizure. Maybe April is the cruelest month…we were never sure what T.S. Eliot meant by that.  Janet Reno is rumored (by Dick Morris, for example) to have won reappointment to Justice after threatening to reveal Clinton’s role in the assault if he dropped her. WOOF cannot confirm this story, but prefers to believe it. No matter how these criminally wanton aggressions were planned and green-lighted within the Clinton administration, they were isolated instances of arrogant people in positions of authority meting out ham-fisted violence to powerless people who ran afoul of their sociopolitical fetishes. Elian Gonzales was repatriated to satisfy Castro’s ego and image, and Waco burned because the drawn out standoff was making the administration look impotent. In neither instance was a rehearsal for some larger strategic objective a factor. But that was then.

The Branch Davidian compound goes up in flames on national television.

The Branch Davidian compound goes up in flames on national television. President Clinton immediately pronounced himself surprised by the attack.

There was something very different in the air this April, however. If one were astrologically inclined –and we are not, especially in the wake of Dr. Gootensteiner Johannes Walters’s now woefully apparent misjudgement of Barack Obama’s presidential longevity [see intensely embarrassing story here]– one might assume that some planetary alignment aroused the universal impulse toward intimidation in a risk-riven season. Russian troops are poised to seize the Ukraine despite our president’s many brave twitters, Russian jets buzz our warships at sea, Russian spy planes encroach British airspace, Iran smirks at our pretenses of diplomacy and prepares to extirpate Israel, North Korea tosses artillery at South Korea lobs occasional ordinance toward Japan, and probably detonated an underwater nuke (witness the total absence of press coverage), and our beloved leader, weary of drawing lines in the sand that everybody ignores with impunity, advances a more domestic but equally ominous salient– one that allows him to exert naked force against the only adversaries his worldview authentically recognizes, namely Americans. You know Americans– a bunch of desperate clingers to guns and religion, reluctant to embrace socialism, stubbornly espousing individuality and freedom, callously refusing to join the wiser nations of the globe in renouncing liberty in the name of internationalism, security and uniformity…a bunch of pains in the presidential tokus. There is, in all the pushing and provocation from Washington the sense that a new level of internecine dysphoria is being encouraged– as though some dark, luciferian equivalent of the bridge at Concord is being goose-stepped towards by a the shock troops of our new anti-American oligarchy–  but if the shock troops we risk confronting in the nonce are by no means as professional as their 18th century British predecessors, they are more cunctative–more  inclined to probe and test than to march bravely forward.  It is the gravamen of this week’s screed that we have just experienced such a test, and as usual this will take some examination of past events to fully explain. If you bear with us, dear readers, we promise to be accurate, politically dextral, and hilarious, to compensate your time!  If you are willing to venture further, be warned, the first topic of significance is a bunch of turtles– are we still good?

Even this particularly energetic Desert Tortoise won’t really need 500,000 acres of land to frolic on.

How Desert Tortoises stopped worrying and learned to love the Bomb

To get the range war with the now nationally-famous Bundy family in firm perspective, it is of course vital to begin with the mind-numbingly ridiculous, because how else to introduce the role of the federal government in the lives of the peaceful, seventh generation ranchers? So return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear, by which we mean 1989. Imagine the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sitting around with plenty of time on its hands,, flipping through the latest Sierra Club magazine, and concluding, based on the thinnest of evidence, that the venerable Desert Tortoise was verging on extinction in its native habitat, the Nevada desert, and that something really ought to be done to protect it. What was done to protect it, of course, is what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service typically does to protect animals about which it reaches such conclusions, which is merely to say, they declared the Desert Tortoise an “endangered species.” When nobody paid much attention to this, because, well, because it was fairly idiotic, they re-listed the tortoises as “threatened,” and the Washington Post (always reliable in such moments) went to press on the turtles’ behalves, demanding the Bureau of Land Management seize and preserve thousands of acres of tortoise country for “strict federal management purposes” (how the Posties love the sound of that kind of talk!) and further demanded the “elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use: in the vast, protected habitat.”

Almost a thousand nuclear detonations in Nevada have failed to put a dent in the Desert Tortoise population--can cows be any more effective?

Almost a thousand nuclear detonations in Nevada have failed to put a dent in the Desert Tortoise population–can cows be any more  threatening?

Up until this time, the tortoises had been fairly laid back denizens of the the American Southwest. Bear in mind that with their home in the Nevadan desert, they had already survived more atomic bomb attacks (well, tests, technically, but an A-bomb’s an A-bomb) than are currently hypothesized as necessary to depopulate Europe. The tortoises have no trouble in heat up to 140 degrees Fahrenheit, whereas their human protectors tend to begin dropping dead around 115 degrees. The turtles spend 98% of their time underground and can survive a year without access to water. They live in burrows of about 20 tortoises each, thrive on calcium they derive from the Nevadan soil, and have no trouble whatsoever procreating or hatching eggs. Although once in a while one gets run over by a vehicle, there are no confirmed reports of any Desert Tortoises succumbing to cow stomping or horse hoofing…and until 1993 when the major conservation efforts took effect and they suddenly found themselves land barons with sole claim to 500,000 acres of what had previously been other people’s land, the tortoises were a distinctly nonchalant, unassuming bunch.  Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the Bureau of Land Management or the histrionically disordered reportorial staff of the Washington Post. At approximately this juncture, the federal government crossed paths with Cliven Bundy, whose family first homesteaded the land in 1877.

When his family’s acreage was rather perfunctorily designated a tortoise preserve by the government, Bundy refused to accept the government’s gracious offer to hand him some cash for his grazing lands, and added insult to injury by refusing to pay the fines imposed upon him for continuing to use his ranch for ranching even after the Bureau of Land Management clearly explained that it was now a turtle habitat. It is a well established fact, acknowledged by all parties to the dispute, that since 1993 the Bureau of Land Management has repeatedly levied fines against Cliven Bundy for grazing his cattle on his own ranch in wanton disregard of the BLM’s insistence that his ranch is a tortoise preserve. Also undisputed is that Cliven has not paid a dime, since he persists in deeming the BLM’s machinations a land grab, and considers the acreage his birthright. Predictably, the Bureau of Land Management wearied of Bundy’s obduracy and revoked his ranching permit– and just as predictably, Bundy ignored the revocation and continued ranching. So did a number of other area ranchers including Norm Tom, a Paiute Indian whose tribal identity isn’t buying him any leniency from the Feds. Asked by reporters if he intended to resist with weapons, Tom replied in the affirmative and offered to show the horrified journalists his cache. He produced two copies of the United States Constitution.

9th Circuit Court of APpeals--WOOF file photo

 The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals–WOOF file photo

Bundy fought several court injunctions demanding that he remove his cattle from his ranch lands now that they were federal tortoise preserves. The 9th circuit court in San Francisco has repeatedly dismissed efforts by Bundy and other ranchers like Cliff Gardner to appeal on the basis of states rights, which can hardly shock the informed observer given the reputation of the 9th Circuit Court.  And all this long-standing rancor seemed to come to a sudden head over the past month, as even those of us who live in a cave know by now.  The BLM insisted that they were merely attempting to enforce a court order to seize 1000 head of cattle owned by Bundy as a down payment on what they claimed was a one-million dollar grazing debt run up  by the rancher since 1993.  In doing so, the normally bucolic Bureau of Land Management turned suddenly paramilitary, encircling the Bundy ranch with armed agents and sharpshooters, closing off access roads to and from the property with roadblocks manned by shotgun-brandishing agents, and filling the skies with armadas of black helicopters (John A. Keel please call your office). The helicopters were presumably needed to keep tabs on all those turtle-squishing bovi, although multiple witnesses insist that helicopters were occasionally seen shooting cattle–a report confirmed by Cliven Bundy’s son who insists that some of his cattle were found with as many as five bullet holes in their corpses.  Perhaps the order to seize the cattle read “dead or alive,” but for its part, the BLM insisted that the cattle were “euthanized,” in some instances because they “posed a significant threat to employees.” Exactly how one tippy-toes up to “euthanize” a cow that has been declared a threat so dangerous as to require euthanization was not explained– maybe shooting the cow five times constitutes euthanasia…we’re not technically certain.

snipe helo

At any rate, snipers who reportedly trained their rifles on tourists taking photos, BLM “workers” infiltrating his traditional property boundaries and making off with his cattle, plus a single day in which BLM agents managed to physically assault a cancer victim, sic a dog on a pregnant woman whom they later asserted had attacked the dog, and use a taser on Ammon Bundy when he protested a further encroachment on the family property, inspired Cliven Bundy to call upon Clark County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie to arrest the Bureau of Land Management operatives for trespassing and rustling. Gillespie, understandably, was not keen on trying to stuff the BLM personnel into the back of his cruiser, especially considering the encompassing array of camouflage-clad snipers visible in aerial photos of the Bundy ranch, while the federal government seemed less inclined to circumspection, next arresting Dave Bundy for taking video footage of BLM agents rounding up his family’s cattle.

Inbred Bastards?

And this is just the Sheriff's new ride!

And this is just the Sheriff’s new ride!

Tensions intensified further as various area and out-state militia cadres swarmed to the defense of the Bundys and showed every indication of offering armed resistance should the government forces continue their aggressions. “Our mission here is to protect the protestors and the American citizens from the violence that the federal government is dishing out,” explained Jim Landy, a member of the West Mountain Rangers, who traveled from his home base in Montana to make common cause (excuse the expression) with the besieged Nevada ranchers. Landry was not the only militia stalwart to offer his views to the press, but perhaps he should have been. Richard Mack, an Arizona militiaman who came to the aid of the Bundys was pleased to announce, “We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

But the opposition was not to be outdone in a contest of sheer asininity. Clark county Commissioner Tom Collins was pleased to inform Darin Bushman, his counterpart in Piute County, Utah, that any Utahns thinking of entering Nevada with the idea of supporting the Bundys “had better have funeral plans,” to which Collins thoughtfully appended his view that people from Utah were “inbred bastards.”  Adding an extra dash of stupid, the feds decided to set up “free speech zones” three miles from the location of the standoff where, by special permission, one assumed, protesters would be permitted to assemble and state their views.  Judge Andrew P. Napolitano neatly summarized this nonsense, pointing out that the constitution “will not condone free speech zones for the sake of government convenience. The entire United States of America is a free speech zone.” Duh!

The outspoken Tom Collins–so, where’s Billy Jack when we need him?

Flashpoint ?

As a made-to-order flashpoint serving the interest of an administration desperate to bolster the presidency as a power source and marginalize congress as a gaggle of neigh-saying sycophants, the Bundy crisis must have seemed initially ideal. If the militia and the ranchers saw it as a kind of second Concord where the second American Revolution could begin afresh, the president’s radical mentors and advisors must have glimpsed a second Reichstag–  the perfect flashpoint for a final push to authoritarian governance backed by a military stripped in advance of generals and admirals who might have opposed involvement in such a maneuver [as detailed previously].  While the hearts of the heartland might be mightily sympathetic to the Bundys and their militia allies, the air support and armor available to the government would have settled the issue ultimately, even as the armed resistance to the BLM would have provided the rationale for bringing such force to bear. The temptation to “pull the trigger” and roll into the Bundy ranch, ostensibly to collect an alleged million dollars in unpaid fines, must have been powerful indeed. Certainly the event served the administration well as a test case, enabling it to take careful note of how much force assembled to oppose it, what tactics those forces proposed to employ, and what level of support or condemnation the American people evinced for the resistors. All this, rest assured, has been duly noted by the appropriate czars and cabinet apparatchiks.  But why did the government suddenly curb its enthusiasm and fade into the night?  Was it simply the Obaman hesitancy to finalize a threat whenever blood and steel may be involved? Probably not. It is certainly not the case that the BLM suddenly perceived a threat to public safety–that threat was patent from the beginning of the showdown.


Enter “Sunshine” Harry Reid

Maybe Harry just loves turtles?

The plot thickened considerably when Harry Reid, Red China, and the ever-rambunctious Alex Jones entered the picture more or less simultaneously. Jones’s revelations are typically too extreme to catch fire nationally (which is hardly to say they can’t be accurate) but his breaking claim that Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada) was behind the ranch grabs–and his conjoined accusation that Reid was conniving to turn the lands over to Chinese solar energy firms as part of a secret deal with Beijing was cited in The Drudge Report and subsequently enjoyed 44,0000 Facebook shares and nearly as many Twitter mentions. While some analysts dismissed the notion as, well, notional, other sources began to run with it, including (mirabile dictu) Reuters. Close on the heels of Jones’s runaway revelations came the additional insight that (coincidentally enough) the new head of the Bureau of Land Management, Niel Kornze, prior to his approval by the Senate (which immediately preceded the crack down on the Bundy ranch), was Harry Reid’s top aide. In fact, Kornze had worked for Reid for the past eight years, and nobody could cite a legitimate reason for his appointment at the BLM except, of course, that the Senate Majority Leader (aka Harry Reid) seemed to want him there.


Remember him in “The Texan?”

WOOF knows that Reid’s son Rory was orchestrating a huge land deal with the Chinese-owned ENN Energy Group to build a $5 billion solar farm in Nevada, but the proposed site was 180 miles from Bunkerville, where the Bundys operate their 150-acre ranch. It is widely alleged that the deal collapsed months ago. Rumors to the contrary and rumors that adjacent lands including some of the Bundy acreage were to be utilized by the Chinese for additional purposes of “mitigation” are unconfirmed. One thing seems certain, and that is Harry Reid’s dark assertion that this isn’t over yet.  How and why it isn’t over are the remaining questions.

Concord postponed, Sumpter interrupted… 

Regardless of what our critics persist in believing, WOOF is not opposed to reasonable solutions to the Nevadan land dispute—we are only sensible of the fact that “reasonable” usually gets usurped by the media and the inside-the-beltway oligarchy to mean liberal. The other problem with reasonableness is that when it isn’t a euphemism for liberal, it runs immediately afoul of liberalism. Take the perfectly sensible suggestion from Gracy Olmstead, associate editor at The American Conservative, that because the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association contends that there is no scientific proof that cattle have ever harmed a Desert Tortoise, people on Bundy’s side of the issue should begin “researching this, amassing evidence, putting together a solid case.”  “If they can prove this,” writes Olmstead, “they could get greater access to the land.” Now Gracy Olmstead seems like a smart enough lady, but is she joking, or pathologically naïve? Anybody who thinks the progressive movement is amenable to scientific data contradictory to its politically correct codes of belief must have slept through the global warming circus and failed to note that death by overpopulation and the exhaustion of earth’s oil supply are conspicuous by their absence…does anybody truly believe the government will give up its fixation on the tortoise stomping cow? But the real agenda for the Left is not environmental–ever.  The real agenda is control. And the Bundys were the perfect dry run for a a confrontation planned to lead, ineluctably, to martial law and a permanentized president. 


Sisters of Cliven Bundy, Lillie Spencer(L) and Margaret Houston (R) walk with Bundy’s sons Ammon and Ryan

It may not have proceeded for several reasons. First, the sympathies in the region–and nationally–seemed disproportionately on the side of the Bundys…this dissipated a bit only after Cliven took it upon himself to make some spectacularly obtuse remarks comparing slavery to the current Black acquiescence in liberal politics and remarked that slaves may have been happier than Blacks living in torn families and government high rises courtesy of the Democratic Left.. an idiotism that, if devoid of any actual malevolence toward Blacks, seemed redolent enough of Jim Crow to pass easily for bigotry.  Amplified by the shrieking news media, Bundy’s comments served to brand him a redneck racist, but belatedly so, the government having backed off its war footing just prior to Cliven’s regrettable remarks.

Cliven explained why Blacks were happier as slaves than as Democrats, but

Cliven explained why Blacks were possibly happier as slaves than as Democrats, but his speech made almost nobody happier, except the mainstream media.  

Another possibility is that the asymmetry of the government’s response to the presumed threat, i.e., a rancher not paying his grazing fees, seemed absurd on the face of it, regardless of what may have been Bundy’s genuine legal obligations. After all, a good Reichstag-style flim flam demands high drama of a sort that will inflame the imaginations of the citizenry, not merely excuse heavy handed reprisals, and attacking the Bundy homestead was never an attractive casus belli from the federal standpoint. Their ideal scenario would be a bunch of fat-cat businessmen taking innocent minority women and children hostage and barricading themselves inside a Republican headquarters somewhere in Mississippi– but that sort of dream situation would be tough to orchestrate. One point is clear: whether the powers that be saw the Bundy escalation as a good way to kick off internecine violence intended to conduce toward a police state, or whether they were testing the scenario to gauge the number and quality of the opposition as well as the media reaction,  their intentions underwent a sea-change at the first mention of Harry Reid and Communist China, and suddenly, in place of all the rampant bellicosity, one heard the most conciliatory tones. Reid’s own hit man in place at the head of the BLM, the stunningly unqualified  Neil Kornze, abandoned his appetence for brinksmanship and found himself announcing that, “Due to escalating tensions, the cattle have been released from the enclosures in order to avoid violence and help restore order.”  (Actually, a good deal of them had just been released because militia members and Bundy supporters on horseback had ignored warnings they’d be fired upon, advanced on the cattle pens, and released the impounded stock.) Nevertheless, it was wonderful to perceive how swiftly the BLM turned its thoughts to the safety of the citizenry once Harry Reid’s connection was broached by Alex Jones and Reuters–surely the oddest couple of the year to date!

And so, as the angel of peace descends amid the snarls of contention…. 

angel of peaceWith the sudden volte face of the Bureau of Land Management followed almost immediately by the racially embarrassing ruminations of the senior Bundy, followed by Harry Reid’s insistence that the affair was far from settled, followed by revelations that the Reid family was manipulating the BLM toward whatever ill-starred ends, came a cascade of judgments regarding the events and non-events of the great Bundy standoff. Predictably, the Left was united. The Bundys were racist law-breaking renegades and the law should have been enforced– and by the way they were racist, law-breaking renegades and oh, by the way, they were Mormon, and yes, of course, this all proved the Tea Party was psycho. And just as predictably, the Right was scattered all over the philosophical landscape. The above-mentioned Alex Jones considered the cessation of bellicosity a tremendous victory, as did many Tea Party and militia groups. The reasons are obvious.  Sean Hannity made a more cautious point of remarking the lack of proportionality in the government response, telling his audience, “I stand for proportionality. What I do not stand for are 200 armed federal agents and snipers pointing their guns at the Bundy family and their supporters. I do not support members of the BLM pushing, shoving women, and cattle being euthanized and killed, and mass graves for cattle for no reason.”  On the other hand, the beautiful and talented Ann Coulter viewed Bundy’s support as a dextral version of Occupy Wall Street, telling CNN’s Bill Weir that “Republicans and conservatives ought to learn, be careful before you choose a mascot.”  And it would be lovely indeed to suppose the American Right to be educable in this regard–educable as a kind of sociopolitical entity suddenly alert to Coulter’s suggestion that better methods and better leadership can better focus and display the righteous anger of the nation’s free citizenry. But let’s not be naive, gentle readers.



Battles that begin wars never–okay, almost never– ramify from well chosen, carefully considered sociopolitical decisions. From those ancient days in which it is said the reign of King Arthur ended on Glastonbury plane because some guy drew a sword to smite a snake and set off a massive overreaction, all the way through to the Gulf of Tonkin, Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and the bizarre belief that American arms were needed to topple Qaddafi (this week’s spelling) in Libya, wars have been triggered by relatively picayune gestures. Consider the “shot heard round the world” for instance. Everybody heard it, but to this day nobody knows who fired it.  It might have been the town drunk. It was the result that took on grand proportion, and conduced toward the grandest of geopolitical manifestations: The United States of America.

So bickering about how qualified Cliven Bundy may or may not be to serve as the proximal cause of civil war, or merely as a catalyst of Conservative wrath, is to miss the more robust point; namely, how easily an internecine cataclysm may be ignited when it suits the purposes of the nation’s real troublemakers, most of whom hold cabinet rank or better, and all of whom prefer socialism to the product of our first revolution. Sun Tzu, the legendary military strategist of the late 6th century, B.C., warned in The Art of War against allowing one’s enemy to choose the place of battle. In the Bundy contretemps, both sides appeared welded by fate to the tortoise habitat at issue– but in fact the BLM and their higher-ups in DC had the option of giving or declining battle. Obviously, they decided to decline. Sun Tzu also said that “the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting,” and no matter how many ways one may fault the Bundys, they obtained that result– for now–and for this, at least, they deserve our unanimous praise. WOOF PRINT

Honest guys, I was just killing a snake...guys?

Honest guys, I was just killing a snake…guys?

%d bloggers like this: