Forget Sharia law infiltrating our culture, I’m more worried about burqas:
NOTE: I would not object to a burqa hiding a face like a bulldog so long as the rest looked like this:
Jokes aside, then-Senator Clinton was once chastised by a lady Afghan general because the senator spent too much time speaking out against burqas.
The general’s comments, as reported, stuck in my mind and made me question why a devout Socialist like Clinton would be so concerned with what women wear in Muslim countries? Socialists never do or say anything without having an ulterior motive. In Clinton’s case every word she uttered is carefully crafted to avoid giving anyone an opening that would demand an explanation for her pro-Communist sympathies during the Vietnam War years. She not only doesn’t justify her views on Communism, I’m beginning to think she has actually forgotten the harm that was done during the Battle of Vietnam because of the things she and her kind stood for.
NOTE: The Vietnam War was but one battle in the war against Communist world domination.
Also, I believe that then-Senator Clinton was the first one who said: "But our country may be of good cheer. Nothing like this has ever defeated civilization. Terrorism never won before and won't now."
Oh really! If Communist terrorism that was —— and still is —— a direct threat to the American people did not win in Southeast Asia after the Battle of Vietnam ended, I’d sure like to know what did win in Cambodia when the Communist Khmer Rouge killed about two million Cambodians between 1975 and 1979? Does Clinton still think those murdered Cambodians were of good cheer when they were being slaughtered by Socialist/Communist terrorists?
What happened in Cambodia scared the hell out of educated American Limousine Liberals who like to dabble in universal brotherly love when they’re not demanding more tax dollars for themselves. Khmer Rouge Communists —— led by Pol Pot who was a teacher by profession —— killed all of the educated Cambodians. This was done after American Communists succeeded in handing SE Asia to Communism.
In 1979, Vietnamese Communists deposed Pol Pot because he was giving Socialism/Communism a bad name —— if you can imagine such a thing. By then it was too late to whitewash Communism's/Socialism’s reputation because Pol Pot had already demonstrated that Socialist priests of every stripe always promise a better world, while they always deliver a butcher’s block every time they get the power.
In order to cash in on the plight of Afghan women, Senator Clinton seized the opportunity to grab a bit of media space by hiding behind the burqa. By making the burqa the focal point of her concern for her Afghan sisters, nobody was supposed to point out that she didn’t care about protecting a woman’s Rights from Communist outrages in South Vietnam because Vietnamese women did not wear burqas. Any comparison between burqa cruelty and Communist cruelty is then easily dismissed as irrelevant. In Senator Clinton’s view the burqa was far worse than is Communist slavery because to my knowledge she has never spoken out against Communism. To be fair, persistent attempts to compare burqas to Communism is obviously meanspirited Clinton-baiting.
Protecting Afghan women from the ravages of the burqa was a safe approach to publicity that did more to protect Senator Clinton from her past than it did to dress Afghan women in mini-shorts and halter-tops. Just remember that during her run for the US Senate not one person in the media ever called her out and asked her to explain her anti-Vietnam War loyalties. Everything she said in all of her controlled appearances throughout her first campaign avoided her anti-Vietnam War protest activities, her statements, and her associations as though the Battles of Vietnam and Korea never occurred. Her first opponent, Rick Lazio, evidently had neither the desire, nor the political courage, to nail her for what she is. He would have been Senator Lazio had he focused on a subject Mrs. Clinton wanted to avoid more than she wanted to avoid talking about her part in Monica’s blue dress.
There is an outside chance that Senator Clinton may have been addressing Third World birth control objectives in a roundabout way. The preference for the burqa in poverty-stricken Muslim countries has not done much to put a cork in Third World vaginas if runaway population growth in those countries is any guide; so doing away with the burqa does appear to be a logical, if somewhat convoluted, way to approach population controls.
Obviously, Clinton’s anti-burqa position fifteen years ago did take into consideration the fact that Muslim men have one hell of an imagination if they become aroused by a sack of rags that might be concealing a woman. The theory behind this birth control experiment must be that by shedding burqas —— forcing male Muslim imaginations to go cold turkey —— there will be less copulation which equals fewer babies. I know my theory sounds far-fetched until you put it in perspective this way: An amorously inclined Western woman calls upon Victoria’s Secret if she wants to arouse her man, but when a Muslim women tells her man she’s going to slip into something comfortable she dives under a burqa.
On the other hand, I’ll bet that Clinton never envisioned a Muslim Don Juan laying his best Saturday night moves on a burqa and then coming up with a handful of testicles when it came time to do some business. That spectacle played out too often would certainly explain why so many Muslim men are prone to suicide. And did then-Senator Clinton have a government program in mind that would have compensated cross-dressers in Muslim countries if the burqa was done away with? New wardrobes are far from cheap.
And did Clinton intend to free Muslim women by introducing nudist colonies in those Islamic countries where some women prefer the burqa while others do not? This is an important point. Had Clinton planned on saving the Daughters of Islam from abuse because Muslim extremists obviously won’t be able to handle the overload —— which could lead to even more repression in the form of chain mail and chastity belts. I hope Clinton is going easy these days because Muslims are still living in the sixteenth century anyway, not to mention the fact that militant Muslim extremists are all one jump ahead of a fit to begin with.
All of the talk about Muslim women being forced to wear burqas in repressive Islamic countries in order to keep them modest, pure, and faithful reminded me of something I read decades ago. I don’t recall who made the observation, or where it was published, but it said that Muslim women love their burqas because it allowed them to make cuckolds of their husbands with impunity. An unfaithful wife can come and go with complete anonymity when she’s wearing a burqa. Just imagine how happy a married woman is when she tap dances out of a stud’s pad after completing a satisfying double-nooner knowing that she can’t be identified. The burqa is the perfect disguise for loose hips!
I have to conclude that Muslim extremists are really a collection of morons, or else they don’t mind their womenfolk playing “Let’s hide the pickle.” at the drop of a burqa just so long as the neighbors do not find out about it. Think about it for a while.
February 27, 2015
How would you feel if your Nordstrom saleswoman wore a burqa?
By Pedro Gonzales
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...f_your_nordstrom_saleswoman_wore_a_burqa.html
How would you feel if your Nordstrom saleswoman wore a burqa?
By Pedro Gonzales
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...f_your_nordstrom_saleswoman_wore_a_burqa.html
NOTE: I would not object to a burqa hiding a face like a bulldog so long as the rest looked like this:
Jokes aside, then-Senator Clinton was once chastised by a lady Afghan general because the senator spent too much time speaking out against burqas.
But instead of complaining about the burqa, said Siddiq - as Clinton did in her column - other matters should take precedence.
(Scroll down)
Female Afghan General Blasts Hillary Over Monicagate
http://clintoncrimes.tripod.com/ClintonsBinLadenGateMotherofallScandals/id2.html
Female Afghan General Blasts Hillary Over Monicagate
http://clintoncrimes.tripod.com/ClintonsBinLadenGateMotherofallScandals/id2.html
The general’s comments, as reported, stuck in my mind and made me question why a devout Socialist like Clinton would be so concerned with what women wear in Muslim countries? Socialists never do or say anything without having an ulterior motive. In Clinton’s case every word she uttered is carefully crafted to avoid giving anyone an opening that would demand an explanation for her pro-Communist sympathies during the Vietnam War years. She not only doesn’t justify her views on Communism, I’m beginning to think she has actually forgotten the harm that was done during the Battle of Vietnam because of the things she and her kind stood for.
NOTE: The Vietnam War was but one battle in the war against Communist world domination.
Also, I believe that then-Senator Clinton was the first one who said: "But our country may be of good cheer. Nothing like this has ever defeated civilization. Terrorism never won before and won't now."
Oh really! If Communist terrorism that was —— and still is —— a direct threat to the American people did not win in Southeast Asia after the Battle of Vietnam ended, I’d sure like to know what did win in Cambodia when the Communist Khmer Rouge killed about two million Cambodians between 1975 and 1979? Does Clinton still think those murdered Cambodians were of good cheer when they were being slaughtered by Socialist/Communist terrorists?
What happened in Cambodia scared the hell out of educated American Limousine Liberals who like to dabble in universal brotherly love when they’re not demanding more tax dollars for themselves. Khmer Rouge Communists —— led by Pol Pot who was a teacher by profession —— killed all of the educated Cambodians. This was done after American Communists succeeded in handing SE Asia to Communism.
In 1979, Vietnamese Communists deposed Pol Pot because he was giving Socialism/Communism a bad name —— if you can imagine such a thing. By then it was too late to whitewash Communism's/Socialism’s reputation because Pol Pot had already demonstrated that Socialist priests of every stripe always promise a better world, while they always deliver a butcher’s block every time they get the power.
In order to cash in on the plight of Afghan women, Senator Clinton seized the opportunity to grab a bit of media space by hiding behind the burqa. By making the burqa the focal point of her concern for her Afghan sisters, nobody was supposed to point out that she didn’t care about protecting a woman’s Rights from Communist outrages in South Vietnam because Vietnamese women did not wear burqas. Any comparison between burqa cruelty and Communist cruelty is then easily dismissed as irrelevant. In Senator Clinton’s view the burqa was far worse than is Communist slavery because to my knowledge she has never spoken out against Communism. To be fair, persistent attempts to compare burqas to Communism is obviously meanspirited Clinton-baiting.
Protecting Afghan women from the ravages of the burqa was a safe approach to publicity that did more to protect Senator Clinton from her past than it did to dress Afghan women in mini-shorts and halter-tops. Just remember that during her run for the US Senate not one person in the media ever called her out and asked her to explain her anti-Vietnam War loyalties. Everything she said in all of her controlled appearances throughout her first campaign avoided her anti-Vietnam War protest activities, her statements, and her associations as though the Battles of Vietnam and Korea never occurred. Her first opponent, Rick Lazio, evidently had neither the desire, nor the political courage, to nail her for what she is. He would have been Senator Lazio had he focused on a subject Mrs. Clinton wanted to avoid more than she wanted to avoid talking about her part in Monica’s blue dress.
There is an outside chance that Senator Clinton may have been addressing Third World birth control objectives in a roundabout way. The preference for the burqa in poverty-stricken Muslim countries has not done much to put a cork in Third World vaginas if runaway population growth in those countries is any guide; so doing away with the burqa does appear to be a logical, if somewhat convoluted, way to approach population controls.
Obviously, Clinton’s anti-burqa position fifteen years ago did take into consideration the fact that Muslim men have one hell of an imagination if they become aroused by a sack of rags that might be concealing a woman. The theory behind this birth control experiment must be that by shedding burqas —— forcing male Muslim imaginations to go cold turkey —— there will be less copulation which equals fewer babies. I know my theory sounds far-fetched until you put it in perspective this way: An amorously inclined Western woman calls upon Victoria’s Secret if she wants to arouse her man, but when a Muslim women tells her man she’s going to slip into something comfortable she dives under a burqa.
On the other hand, I’ll bet that Clinton never envisioned a Muslim Don Juan laying his best Saturday night moves on a burqa and then coming up with a handful of testicles when it came time to do some business. That spectacle played out too often would certainly explain why so many Muslim men are prone to suicide. And did then-Senator Clinton have a government program in mind that would have compensated cross-dressers in Muslim countries if the burqa was done away with? New wardrobes are far from cheap.
And did Clinton intend to free Muslim women by introducing nudist colonies in those Islamic countries where some women prefer the burqa while others do not? This is an important point. Had Clinton planned on saving the Daughters of Islam from abuse because Muslim extremists obviously won’t be able to handle the overload —— which could lead to even more repression in the form of chain mail and chastity belts. I hope Clinton is going easy these days because Muslims are still living in the sixteenth century anyway, not to mention the fact that militant Muslim extremists are all one jump ahead of a fit to begin with.
All of the talk about Muslim women being forced to wear burqas in repressive Islamic countries in order to keep them modest, pure, and faithful reminded me of something I read decades ago. I don’t recall who made the observation, or where it was published, but it said that Muslim women love their burqas because it allowed them to make cuckolds of their husbands with impunity. An unfaithful wife can come and go with complete anonymity when she’s wearing a burqa. Just imagine how happy a married woman is when she tap dances out of a stud’s pad after completing a satisfying double-nooner knowing that she can’t be identified. The burqa is the perfect disguise for loose hips!
I have to conclude that Muslim extremists are really a collection of morons, or else they don’t mind their womenfolk playing “Let’s hide the pickle.” at the drop of a burqa just so long as the neighbors do not find out about it. Think about it for a while.
