Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Communism Was Just a Red Herring

The circumstances surrounding the appointment to Hillary’s Senate seat are more murky than Lake Thunderbird.

On the one hand, we’ve got Kirsten Gillibrand. We’re supposed to believe Gillibrand is a miraculous appointment for conservatives. She’s pro-life(see update), opposed the last bailout, endorsed by the NRA, supports English as the official language, opposes amnesty for illegal aliens...

Can we say “overkill”? This push push push to get us to be excited over Gillibrand makes me suspicious.

The most obvious question is: if she is a genuine conservative, why is she a Democrat in the first place? You don’t arbitrarily choose a political party; at least, people seeking elected office don’t.

And, if she is so openly and obviously conservative, why did a Democrat governor appoint her to Hillary Clinton’s senate seat? Doesn’t really seem like a logical succession.

And why is everyone trying so hard to sell Conservatives on this woman? She's a Democrat appointed by a Democrat Governor to a Democrat's vacated Senate seat during a Democrat Presidency. Shouldn't they be justifying their choice to the Democrats? And since when did they care what we think?

The flip-side to this fishy coin is Caroline Kennedy.

Why was Caroline Kennedy rejected? Princess Caroline released a statement saying she withdrew herself from consideration, and then the Governor said, “No, we rejected her. Too many personal issues.” So, to quote someone whose name escapes me, Princess Caroline was uninvited to the party and then said, “Well, I didn’t want to go anyway.”

Since when have “personal issues” ever stood in the way of advancing a Kennedy’s political career?

Was she having an affair? Think her daddy got away with that over and over.

Was it the alleged “nanny issues”? Wouldn’t employing an illegal immigrant be something of a resume booster for a liberal?

Did she kill someone? Hello, Uncle Teddy.

At least they were smart enough not to play the inexperience card. After Obama, no one will ever believe that again.

So what’s the deal? Why did Princess Caroline of Camelot get snubbed for a seat that she should have been able to walk into?

Is it possible there was some pay-to-play involved? After the recent Blago incident, they wouldn’t want another high-profile person so easily connected to Obama to be involved in yet another scandal so soon, and to a seat vacated by not only Obama’s main primary opponent but also his new Secretary of State.

Ultimately, this is all moot. I don’t live in New York, and even if I did, I wouldn’t have had a vote, since she was selected, not elected.

So why am I writing about it? Because this is a teachable moment. Trust, but verify.

Don’t get too excited about Gillibrand. Let’s see if she lives up to the hype first.

And she may be all we’re supposed to think she is. But let’s not assume she is until she proves it by standing up to Obama and the rest of the Democrat cronies on the Hill. That will be the litmus test.

I have a hunch about which way she will go, but we’ll just have to wait and see.

UPDATE: Gillibrand votes to reinstate federal funding to foreign abortions. That's the pro-life claim out.

Monday, January 19, 2009

I (Still) Have a Dream

This being Martin Luther King, Jr. day, I have been forced to recognize the injustice that still exists in our culture. There is a silent minority out there as yet unchampioned.

They may not seem silent, because when you are in a bar with them they are usually the ones dancing on the tables. But yet, they have been oppressed throughout our culture’s history and still continue to be to this day.

They have been movie stars, professional athletes, mayors, senators, teachers and CEOs.

But until we elect a blonde female President, blonde women will continue to be viewed with a sense of bigotry and derision.

You may protest, but I don’t have anti-blonde sentiment! That’s something that only the uneducated or people from a certain region of the country suffer from! I’m much more progressive than that.

But be honest: we all have told blonde jokes, haven’t we? And those jokes invariably involve a blonde woman. And until you have lived as a blonde woman, you don’t know what it’s like to be judged for your hair color.

Blonde women suffer from discrimination on a daily basis, being turned down for jobs because we as a society have equated blondeness with dumbness. Or, only being given jobs involving menial tasks that brunettes and redheads won’t do, like answering phones and giving manicures.

We need to elect a blonde woman as President to cleanse us of our anti-blonde heritage.

We let them be celebrities, but don’t take them seriously in positions of power. Sure, there are blonde female congressmen(persons, excuse me), mayors, governors, cabinet members, secretaries of state, but not a president yet. And until there is a blonde president, blonde women will forever suffer from over 150 years of blonde-ist culture.

This is especially important to me, as I have blonde female relatives. My sister is a blonde woman, in fact. And until a blonde woman is elected president, she will never realize how far she can go and what her potential is. Until a blonde woman is elected president, she will continue to be viewed and to view herself as a second-class citizen.

Since it may be too much to ask our culture to abandon all our anti-blonde prejudice at once, we can concede to electing a partially blonde woman, which is why I am officially throwing my support for the next Democrat primary to Hilary Clinton.

I know that Hilary is only as blonde as the hairdresser makes her, but still, we should at least try to get a partially-blonde, or “half-blonde,” into office. This might make the election of a real blonde female president more palpable for those who still carry blonde-ist sentiments.

Now, I know what you are thinking. How can I, a Reagan conservative, endorse someone like Hilary Clinton for the Democratic Presidential candidate, possibly even President?

Frankly, it’s time we moved beyond our partisan political convictions and focus more on what’s good for our culture, for society. And really, what does a little thing like abortion matter when we could be making history? Why should I let something like the Second Amendment stand in the way of the most historic Presidential nomination in the history of our country?

Yes, she’s pro-abortion, pro-gun control, anti-military, against traditional marriage – but this is history! This may be our one chance to elect a half-blonde woman to the White House! To oppose such a monumental achievement would be rather bigoted and narrow-minded of me, wouldn’t it?

I can’t use my beliefs as an excuse to practice even more blonde-ist voting. The only way to prove to the world and my blonde or half-blonde friends that I have risen above the cultural blonde-ist sentiment is to support a half-blonde candidate for President.

So I challenge you, my fellow conservatives, set aside your personal beliefs and bring justice and validation to blonde women everywhere by joining me in supporting Hilary Clinton.

After all, isn’t history more important than the future of our country?

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

A Blessing in Disguise?

Obama being elected President, while impalpable to anyone who reads the Constitution, is not the worst thing that could happen to us. Obama’s power will largely depend on the Congress he has to work with.

For weeks, we’ve been anticipating a Democrat surge in the Senate, envisioning a horror movie in which the ultra-liberal President Obama is allowed to ride roughshod over Truth, Justice and The American Way by the Democrat super-majority in the Congress.

But how likely is that scenario?

This is just a theory, and I may (God forbid) be completely wrong, but just bear me out.

Let’s not look at this from the perspective of the Presidential election. What hasn’t received much press is the battle for the House and Senate.

Perhaps, a few weeks ago, the horror movie seemed inevitable. Eight years of media-fueled Republican/Bush hatred drilled the image of a Blue Capitol into the minds of Americans.

Then, the Bailout Bill.

Since then, has there been more anger toward a Congress since the War Between the States? (The draft, maybe. And they’re the side that keeps suggesting bringing that back). Trillions of dollars have been lost on the Stock market. Homes values nation-wide have dropped 17%.

Even Saturday Night Live acknowledged that the Democrat Majority was responsible for the Bailout and for the irresponsibility that led to it, making Bush look like a pawn in the Democrats’ evil plan.

Subsequently, they had to pull and sanitize the skit. Gee, wonder why.

Is it possible that the Democrats are actually losing ground? We aren’t hearing much about Democrats retaining seats from the MSM. The Dreaded Murtha finally looks like he’s going to get the boot. Cindy Sheehan was running against Nancy Pelosi. Barney Frank has been exposed as a nutcase. (Or, as I like to call him, Future Cartman.)

And we have the Bailout Bill to thank for this.

Had we actually squashed the Bailout, none of this would have been exposed. The frustration toward the Democrat legislative branch would have been kept at a simmer rather than the raging boil it is now.

Again, this is all theoretical, and it may not affect Obama in the slightest.

But Jack Murtha is losing his seat. SNL spoke against Democrat leadership and got punished. People are noticing.

And it all comes back to the Bailout Bill.

Irony is a…Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

The Pitbull With Lipstick

Sarah Palin has done for women what liberal feminism has failed to do for the last 40 years. Sarah Palin is what women like Hillary Clinton only hope to be.

Palin worked her way up through the ranks, serving on the PTA, city council, as a mayor, and then as a governor. Most people would call that "multi-level experience." It's what the late, great Peggy Carter called "trenchwork."

And unlike Hillary Clinton, she did it all without the benefit of riding on her husband's name.

Palin saw the flaws in her local and state government, and started at the beginning - her local PTA. Sarah Palin understood that political effectiveness isn't measured by how many people know your name, but by how many people benefit by your efforts and think that it just happened that way.

Rather than wait for someone else to fix Alaska's Republican party, or whine about the corrupt elected officials in her state to her neighbors, Palin took on the system and went to battle for her fellow Alaskans. And it worked – she's the only governor in the United States with an 80% approval rating.

And now she is running for the chance to go to battle for us, her fellow Americans. We should be so lucky as to have her serve us as Vice President of the United States.

The condescension coming from both the MSM and the uninformed men-on-the-street here in our state shows a complete lack of understanding of what grassroots conservatism is.

In one sense, we have no one to blame but ourselves for this predicament. We have allowed the voters in Oklahoma and America to remain apathetic and rely on the MSM to think for them. We talk amongst ourselves about ballot initiatives and legislative actions without bringing the information to the people en masse. We only are at their doors and in their mailboxes during major election cycles. We are now seeing the result of this.

People by and large seem to think that a qualified politician is someone who wakes up one day and says, "Hmm, to bring to fruition my life's aspiration of being the youngest governor elected in my state, I'm going to run for State Representative and start to make a name for myself." Or else, they were recruited by the evil political machine that is oozing its way through our state government, and therefore they are assumed to be qualified because they have recognizable names and large PAC donations backing them.

Sarah Palin does not fit this profile, and so people feel comfortable calling her "inexperienced."

Palin didn't wait for someone else to fight the corrupt, embedded Republicans in her state. And she didn't wait for a high-profile opportunity to come available. She didn't join the corrupt Republican power brokers in her state to make her political road easier.

She didn't care about the notoriety. She didn't care about the difficulty. She knew she would be fighting against her own Lance Cargills and Chris Benges and Jeff MacMahans and Gene Stipes and Brad Henrys and Aubrey McClendons and Clay Bennets, and that they would fight dirty.

And she did it anyway.

That is grassroots politics, and grassroots Conservatism. Sarah Palin has real experience, not drummed-up politicized "experience" based on who her political connections are.

She put in the time on lower levels because she cared more about making a difference than about making a name for herself. She moved up the political food chain as duty called her, not as ego drove her. Sarah Palin was willing to do the work that elitist Republicans wouldn't do.

Sarah Palin came from a "small town" to become Governor of one of the largest states in our union because she is effective. She is accomplished.

She has experience.

To say otherwise is to be willfully ignorant of the facts. I pity the fool.

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Job is My Favorite Book in the New Testament

The Compassion Farce the other night was really remarkable, not because it forced Obama and HRC to lay bare their “true” feelings about faith and religion and God and religious people. It was remarkable and unique in that we were given two solid hours of proof that Obama, HRC and leftist loony liberals in general have no convictions of faith that go further than their control of the world around them.

I’ll take it out of order and start with Obama first since HRC always complains about having to go first at these things. (“Ladies first” and other such chivalric codes are an anathema to a feminist, you know.)

Obama has made some pretty incendiary remarks lately concerning people of faith. Because I’d love to remind you, he said, "It's not surprising [people in small towns] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

When confronted with this the other night, he said, “What I was saying is that when economic hardship hits in these communities, what people have is they've got family, they've got their faith, they've got the traditions that have been passed onto them from generation to generation. Those aren't bad things. That's what they have left.”

That’s all they’ve got left. But not because Jesus is our all in all.

“What people have become bitter about [is] they don't think that government is listening to them.”

What he was telling us here is that government is really god. The government is supposed to nurture us and sustain us, and when it fails to do that, we grab a gun and kill an immigrant in front of our church because we’re so disillusioned with our government. Make no mistake. He was identifying what he believes to be the true and false gods of life. Christianity or any other religion is the false religion for the bitter, the poor and the beleaguered. The government, when it is doing its job correctly, removes the need for that religion. Therefore, if we don’t really need faith, then it’s not true, is it?

Obama was then asked if life began at conception. He gave yet another vague, evasive answer.

“This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins…So I don't presume to know the answer to that question.”

He won’t presume to answer the question because he’s afraid to. If he thinks life begins at conception, how can he morally be pro-choice? If it doesn’t, where does it begin? The fact is he either can’t answer honestly (bad sign) or he really hasn’t thought it through (worse sign). He’s a liberal. He’s pro-choice. I’m not saying he’s not a gushy guy who does seem to like his kids. But do not forget, this is the man who equates an unexpected pregnancy with AIDS. (Interestingly enough, he terms them both as “punishment.” It’s a wonder the gay community has not erupted over this pronouncement since their demographic has suffered more AIDS deaths than any other. Punishment? That’s a lot worse than anything Sally Kern said.)

Another thing that’s a point of interest is the reason he became involved in church. He became involved in church because he was involved in politics.

“Some of the pastors started saying, ‘You know, you've got great ideas, Obama, but, you know, if you're going to organize churches, it might help if you were going to church.’”

This feeds the image really churchy people have of politicians and those involved in the political spectrum. And this is why: because it does happen. But it’s not that way, typically. A Christian who is genuinely involved in their church, is involved in their church prior to running for office or vying for a promotion at their job or getting visibility before a wedding or birth or anything else that takes place outside the doors of their church. If they want to do God’s work through whatever so-called ‘secular’ realm they choose (and we’ll discuss that term at length some other time) it’s because of a conviction they receive as a result of their faith. Their public service facilitates their faith and relationship with Christ, not the other way around.

On a small side note, Obama proved his lack of familiarity with Scripture when he claimed that “I am my brother’s keeper” is a “core Christian value.” As far as I can remember, that phrase was only used once in the Bible, and the guy who invoked it wasn’t exactly the hero of the story. But you can take that however you want, it just made me laugh.

Someone once said that the best actors are never on the stage. Hillary Clinton is the perfect example of that. She showed such an aptitude for putting the right phrases in the right places, much better than Obama or most other Democrats do. Of course, while she was roughing it as First Lady of Arkansas, she did pretend to be a Southern Baptist. (Hence Mike Huckabee’s plea that you not confuse him with “the other Southern Baptist from Hope, Arkansas.”) Now she says she’s Methodist. That’s neither here nor there, really. Just mentioning it cause she did.

HRC describes a very mystical, Jane Fonda-type of Christianity. “I have always felt his presence, it’s always with me, it follows me.” But when the questioners tried to pin her down and say, “Give us a specific example of a time your God showed up personally in your life,” she couldn’t answer. Actually, she wouldn’t answer. It’s not like she didn’t have choices. How about when she was confronted with her husband’s adultery? The second time? The third time? The fourth time? She didn’t feel any meaningful presence then? Or during the impeachment hearings? Or running from sniper fire? Nothing jumps out at all? I do not know a Christian of any denomination who cannot pinpoint a time where God showed up in their lives in a personal way. More importantly, I don’t know a Christian of any denomination who will not do so, as HRC pointedly refused to do so.

At one point, she said that winning or losing an election had nothing to do with the candidate’s faith. Her example: “We had two very good men and men of faith run for president in 2000 and 2004.”

These are her examples of good men of faith: Al Gore, who believes he invented the internet and that man controls the planet’s functions; and John Kerry, from whose own discussion of faith I gleaned the quote by which I titled this blog. These are who she sees as men of faith. Wow.

Lastly, because this is already longer than I wanted, I’ll deal with the one thing that was said at which I could not laugh. In fact, as I watched it on youtube the other day at work, I had to fight the urge to throw my laptop across the room. I’m having to fight it again right now.

HRC was asked about the concept of suicide as a means of relieving the suffering of someone who is terminally ill. Her response, her arrogant, presumptuous, callous, ignorant response:

“You know, the Terry Schiavo case in Florida posed that for many people. And it was one of those decisions…where there were people of good faith and people of strong feelings on both sides about what should happen to that woman's life.”

I’d call her what she is but it would unnecessarily insult a dog. This woman had the audacity to use Terri Schiavo as an argument for medically-induced suicide. Terri Schiavo, the woman the Supreme Court allowed to be killed by her greedy, adulterous husband so he could finally get his hands on her insurance money and marry his live-in girlfriend. Terri Schiavo, whose parents had to watch her starve to death after pleading to be allowed to financially provide for her for the remainder of their lives. Terri Schiavo, who was murdered.

But this woman has no concept of the value of life if she thinks that Terri Schiavo’s death was in any way merciful or humane or just.

The Bible says that by their fruits ye shall know them. Not have a general idea of them or be able to make a good guess about them. Ye shall know them. By their fruits. Do not let two hours out of a lifetime gloss over the rest of that lifetime. Remember the fruits.

In stark contrast to this attempt to fool America, we had the arrival of the Pope this week. There was a huge ceremony at the White House, and something special happened. Let’s hear from a different political figure on his radio program about the Pope’s welcoming ceremony and God and country.

“The Battle Hymn of the Republic was sung by the US Army Chorus, and you have to hear this, particularly if you haven't had a chance to have your TV on today or your radio, and you didn't hear this…You realize, this is at the White House, and a song written in tribute to God is being played at the White House. In this country there has been such an effort, and it has been way too successful, to remove God from anything public. Not only was God present, but the largest White House welcoming ceremony ever participated in a ceremony thanking God and respecting God and offering up a tribute to God, and you just have to hear this.

"People still say to me, "I don't understand, Rush, you say you can't hear music because of your hearing loss." Well, I can hear music I knew before I lost my hearing, but also, folks, I can always hear God's music. And this is God's music, written in 1861 in the middle of the Civil War. The story of this song is, to me, evidence of divine intervention in and of itself…It is a great tribute to God, and a great tribute to the United States of America.”

Here is the song. Press “play,” close your eyes and listen to the words.

If that doesn’t move you, you’re not human.

Saturday, April 5, 2008

Race, Feminism and the Truth According to Hillary

An article I ran across that originally was printed during HRC’s senate campaign in 2000. Yes, it was a while ago, but sometimes we need to be reminded of things, especially when race and gender are playing such important factors in this year’s Presidential election, and since HRC can’t seem to remember the difference between a true story and a false one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

These Charges Are False – Reel No. 857

July 18, 2000

At least you could print what John Rocker said. The latest in a long list of “false” (subject to later revision) stories circulated about the Clintons comes from Jerry Oppenheimer’s page-turner State of a Union, in which he reports that Hillary called one of the people working for Bill Clinton a “f-ing Jew b-tard.” The Clinton era was once again charting new ground in television standards!

The World’s Smartest Woman did not respond to the charges by saying, “I might well have said that, but those obviously aren’t my feelings, people sometimes use ugly words when they’re angry, I’m sorry if I used those, but please judge me by my record and not by some childish tantrum I threw twenty-six years ago.”

No, what Hillary said was that it was a lie put out by her political opponents:

“You know, there’s a history of these kinds of charges coming from the people in question [author’s note: the other charges were all eventually proved true, even if it took a full federal investigation], and they’ve been false in the past [author’s note: only the denials, the excuses and the defamatory charges against the Clintons’ accusers have turned out to be “false”]. They’re false now [author’s note: that’s what she said last time]. And I don’t know what the reason behind it is, but it didn’t happen.”

For the record, I personally did not go ballistic over some baseball player’s (printable) remarks to Sports Illustrated. I personally thought that O.J. cutting off Nicole Brown Simpson’s head was worse than Mark Fuhrman using the N-word. But even stipulating that the charges aren’t career-ending – Hillary is the one who has now put the veracity of the charge at issue. Did she say it or didn’t she?

The most persuasive evidence that Hillary said it, of course, is that she denies having said it. And if that’s not enough for you, America’s most famous perjurer, President William Jefferson Clinton, denies it too.

The New York Times ran a lead editorial on Hillary’s “current complication” – as the paper called her anti-Semitic slur – titling it “Mrs. Clinton’s Credible Response.” The Times evidence that Hillary was telling the truth is that she opposed the Vietnam War and tried to get President Nixon impeached. This is normal New York Times logic. But even weirder, the editorial sportingly stressed that Ms. Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy gave “a passionate, almost teary response to the allegation of anti-Semitic language.” Huh? A Clinton denial is supposed to mean something now?

When did we make the transition from treating a Clinton denial – subsequently discredited or retracted – as just so much necessary political filler because “anyone would have lied in those circumstances” to suddenly treating it as truth because the Clintons said it? Wouldn’t anyone have lied about using the phrase “f-ing Jew b-tard,” too – particularly if that anyone was running for a Senate seat from New York? Why do we keep considering each successive denial by the Clintons as if it occurred in a vacuum? It’s as if we’re living in an eerie Twilight Zone episode in which no one can remember what happened yesterday.

It’s not as if Tipper Gore stands accused of saying “f-ing Jew b-tard.” We’re talking about Hillary. Hillary the lamp-throwing harpie whose warm Southern charm was widely credited with costing her husband his second race for Arkansas governorship and whose concern for the little guy resulted in the Travel Office bloodbath. Curiously, neither Hillary nor her husband disputed that she had used the phrase “f-ing b-tard.” But they insist Hillary would not have alluded to the religion of the f-ing b-tard. Even when cursing like a sailor, she’s ethnically sensitive.

And just by the way, there are three witnesses to the particular charming utterance of Hillary’s: Paul Fray, the campaign manager of Clinton’s failed 1974 congressional bid and target of the slur; Fray’s wife, Mary lee, who was in the room at the time; and a third campaign worker, Neil McDonald, who was standing outside the room. Fray’s wife said Hillary shouted so loud “it rattled the walls.”

Other witnesses, from Dick Morris to the Arkansas state troopers, corroborate similar statements from the Dragon Lady. Their track-records on truth-telling are somewhat more impressive than those of American’s Most Famous Perjurer and his wife. By now, the troopers have been completely vindicated on even their most bizarre charges against the Clintons. Trooper Larry Patterson has said he heard Hillary use the phrases “Jew b-tard” or “Jew boy” or “Jew MF” on numerous occasions – “four, five, six times.” Instead of a War Room to put out “bimbo eruptions,” Hillary may need a War Room to put out Hebraic-slur eruptions.

Conforming to pattern, Hillary’s accusers came under a swift attack. Clinton flacks Lanny Davis and Gail Collins showed up for work with long research packets on Hillary’s accusers. This was especially striking in Collins’s case, since, generally, she avoids including facts in her columns. But even Collins was bursting with information about the little-known Frays. As with the Clintonian denials themselves, we’re supposed to pretend this is the first time we’ve seen a rapid-response team smear witnesses against the Clintons. The rapid-response team’s denunciation of the Frays are starting to blend with earlier denunciations of Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, the Travel Office employees, and Elian’s “Miami relatives.” All witnesses against the Clintons are: trashy people looking for publicity, have a minor criminal offense in their past (such as drunk driving or shoplifting), once sent nice letters to the Clintons, have a bitter relative somewhere who doesn’t much care for them and will say so on the record, and are part of a right-wing conspiracy to bring false charges against the long-suffering, completely innocent Clintons.

I must say, I’ve been looking forward to this moment for years. You may have forgotten this, but back in the pre-Clinton era, sexual harassment was bad. It was bad even if it was just smutty remarks and there was only a single spurned woman who claimed it happened. But then Clinton was caught doing it, and it turned out sexual harassment really isn’t such a big deal. Women lie about these things all the time, everybody does it, and a real woman would have slapped the lovable rogue and walked away. Groping your female employees also used to be bad. But then Clinton did it, and Gloria Steinem announced on the New York Times op-ed page that the new standard is: The boss gets one free grope. Rape also used to be bad. But then Clinton was accused of rape by a credible woman with four corroborating witnesses. Clinton didn’t deny it, and only 18 percent of Americans polled said they thought the accusation was probably not true. But no one cared, the country wanted to “move on,” so I guess rape isn’t such a bad thing now either.

The single accusation that remained a career-killer was to be accused of using an ethnic slur. Even cutting off a white woman’s head wasn’t so bad if the cop who found the evidence against you was accused of having used the N-word almost ten years earlier. That’s why I’ve been waiting and waiting for one of the Clintons to be caught using an ethnic slur. Now there’s nothing you can’t do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, written by You Know Who. Isn’t she amazing?