I know–it’s like shooting fish in a barrel, to pick on some Hollywood airhead for saying stupid things. But Gwyneth Paltrow really raised the bar of stupidity when she said this, a couple of nights ago:
“It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass” ( http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/10/famous-actress-wants-give-obama-power-needs/ ).
Yo, Gwynnie–you need to catch up on current events. The most lawless chief executive in modern history already claims he has the power to do “anything I want,” via “phone and pen.” If he can’t get something passed in Congress, all he has to do is sign an executive order. And as long as he has at least 51 Democrats in the Senate, he can perform human sacrifices on the White House lawn with no risk of impeachment.
So, Gwynnie, what more would you like the criminal-in-chief to be able to do–beyond erasing our country’s borders, importing dangerous diseases, stacking the judiciary full of left-wing fanatics, waging jihad for homosexuality against Christianity, changing the mission of NASA from space exploration to “reaching out to Muslims,” and setting back race relations 75 years? In what has he failed to content you? What damage has he left undone, that you would have him do? As it is, if he disappeared tomorrow, it would still take at least another 50 years to repair the harm he has done.
She also said to the lawless SOB, to his face, “You’re so handsome that I can’t speak properly.”
Oh! What these people say, when they don’t have someone else to write their lines for them!
2 comments on “Paltrow: More Power to the Prez”
Some good thoughts, here, but i would add that the other side is no better, or worse in some ways. This is not to support either of them, for sure. Constitionality and common law for them is only a game-all of them
Anyway,here is a book, and I believe one of the best
EXTREME PREJUDICE by Susan Lindauer.
We have to deal with the world as it is, and there are only two relevant political parties in the United States.
One of those parties booed God at its annual convention; the other did not. One of those parties campaigns relentlessly for sodomy. The other does not. One of those parties celebrates abortion. The other does not. One of those parties contains a disproportionate share of atheists, socialists, race hustlers, and teachers’ union members. The other does not.
Finally, as someone who grew up in the Sixties and had to endure the anti-war movement first hand, I tend to disregard anything said or written by anyone described as an “antiwar activist.” By 1972 I had already had enough of those in my living room to last me a lifetime. You don’t have to scratch one very deeply to find a communist.