Since it’s official now that Hillary Clinton is running for president, I realize that most of my readers are torn, and you’re probably asking yourselves, ”Should I vote for Hillary?”

We often vote for the candidate we feel shares a common bond with us, morally, ethically and politically. To find out if you have something in common with Hillary Clinton, take the following quiz and choose the answer that would best represent your thoughts, opinions or motives toward the situation.

The “Should I vote for Hillary?” quiz:

1) You’re a Yale-educated woman, lawyer and first lady of the United States. Your husband is a notorious philanderer, and a story comes out in the media that he’s been cheating on you with a young intern. You say you didn’t believe the story until he told you it was true. You are:

A) Lying

B) Incredibly stupid

C) Well aware those 15 copies of “Leaves of Grass” that the Fed Ex guy brings every month aren’t really for you, but you put up with it to maintain the power

———-

2) Hillary’s campaign slogan should be:

A) “It’s mourning in America”

B) “8 more years!”

C) Tie: “She’ll save the taxpayers money because she already has the furniture” and “If abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will be allowed to screw around with my husband.”

———-

3) Your brother is a lawyer, and the fact that he’s obtained $400,000 in legal fees for his work on pardons while your spouse is president becomes public. Do you make him give the money back, and if so, why?

A) Yes. I’m shocked that a family member would do anything crooked.

B) No. It’s my responsibility that any of this happened, so I should be the one to pay it back.

C) Yes, only after we got caught and managed to negotiate the payback amount way down by claiming that my brother has already spent most of the money on cigars, pork rinds and green fees.

———-

4) You discover your husband’s been treating the uvula of an intern like a pinata on Cinco de Mayo. After you learn about this, you describe how you felt by saying, “I could hardly breathe” and “gulping for air.” You are:

A) Enraged he had been so careless as to allow it to become public.

B) Shocked that he cheated on you.

C) Empathizing with what the young intern went through.

———-

5) Before her re-election as Senator from New York in 2006, Hillary Clinton said she’d fulfill her entire 6-year term if re-elected, and now she’s running for president. What’s your opinion of this?

A) It’s typical of lying politicians.

B) Doesn’t matter, as nobody ever expected her to live up to the promise.

C) It depends on what your definition of “term” is.

———-

6) Your book and J.K. Rowling’s latest book are both on sale, but a buyer can only afford one of them. What do you say when that buyer approaches you and asks you to differentiate the two?

A) “One is a fictional book about a wizard who’s surrounded by warlocks and monsters, and the other one is the next in the ‘Harry Potter’ series.”

B) “Mine is an important and frank discussion about issues of historical importance.”

C) “Secret service!”

———-

7) You want your daughter to witness a strong, loving marriage, so you:

A) Refocus and make your family the most important thing in your life.

B) Go to marriage counseling to work things out.

C) Find somebody with a strong, loving marriage and see if she can hang out with them.

———-

8) What’s your life philosophy?

A) “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

B) “Marrying the right person can be a great way to get what you want.”

C) “How a steely, lifeless, devoid of conscience stare can be just as good as a gun.”

———-

9) Barbara Walters asks you which tree you and your husband have most closely associated yourselves with in the past. You answer:

A) Maple.

B) Blue Pine.

C) Charlie.

———-

10) This quiz should end with:

A) Questions about the direction of the country.

B) A discussion about Whitewater.

C) A tax audit of the author.

———-

Hill-o-meter rating:

If you voted ”C” on everything and “B” on #2, you’re not only going to vote for Hillary, but you may end up on her White House staff! If you answered “C” 3-9 times, you’re at “work on it” status. To get yourself to a higher rating on the “Hill-o-meter,” mix one part Betty Friedan with two parts Chomsky, sprinkle on some NPR, drink twice a day and take the quiz again in a month.

If you answered “A” to most, congratulations, you’ll not be voting for Hillary in 2008.

Marla Maples, former wife of Donald Trump, has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.

Maples made the endorsement in an email sent to friends. The letter concluded with a quote from Winston Churchill:

“You make a living by what you get, but you make a life by what you give.”

Not the least of those things you make a good life by giving is "head to really rich guys."

The world is going mad about the speculative-at-best “science” of man-made global warming — simply nuts. And nowhere is this happening more than in California, which is weaving itself into a cuckoo’s nest to such a degree that the only way to save The Golden State now would be to crop-dust it with Thorazine.

Recent “news” stories inform us that we might as well kill ourselves now, as our future holds nothing but misery, so one state is taking drastic steps.

California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine has introduced the “How many legislators does it take to change a light bulb act.” The legislation would ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012. They say it’s to save the planet, but I think it’s only so any smokers slipping through the cracks of all the smoking bans can’t see their cigarettes.

California is also leading the nation in the ranks of states who are trying to ban trans fats and SUV’s so people don’t hurt anybody by wrecking the planet and suffering heart attacks while driving to the abortion clinic.

“How many legislators does it take to change a light bulb?” isn’t to be confused with “How many legislators does it take to screw in a light bulb?” The answer to the latter being, “Depends on how many legislators the light bulb can hold.”

It’s somewhat comical that California lawmakers are concentrating on hamburgers, cigarettes and light bulbs when the real environmental culprits are right there on their television sets and in the movie theaters.

According to a UCLA study, Hollywood pollutes, big time – second only to the petroleum industry. Producing just a couple more movies about the environmental evils of big industry is sure to push Hollywood into the top spot.

As one example, consider the makers of the global-warming film “The Day After Tomorrow,” who had the foresight to help ensure there would be an opportunity for a sequel, because it’s reported that they spewed out 10,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions during production. The UCLA report found that the film and television industry emits 140,000 tons a year of ozone and diesel pollutant emissions from trucks, generators, special effects earthquakes and fires, demolition of sets with dynamite and other sources.

Leave it to Hollywood to spend a fortune and destroy the environment in order to generate fake earthquakes and fires when, right behind them, are actual earthquakes and fires.

If the government was really concerned about the environment, they’d address the apparent environmental rapists in Hollywood — but, like most things, this isn’t about what it would appear to be on the surface. It’s not about light bulbs — it’s about control. That and perhaps big campaign donations from the energy-saving fluorescent light manufacturers lobby.

I have no problem with energy-saving measures, but liberals are now throwing around the word “ban” like baseballs during spring training. The word “ban” is really in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it? This is why it’s so dangerous.

It’s a case study in irony. If you say you want to ban trans fats, SUVs, smoking, spanking, and light bulbs; the left lionizes you as a hero. If you say you want to ban books on homosexuality from your kid’s elementary school library, you’re a Nazi scumbag. Most “bans” are best left to totalitarian regimes, which apparently the left is hell-bent on creating in the United States.

The first ”pollutant” we need to ban are buffoons in government, but that won’t happen anytime soon, as the “what to ban” docket is quite full for the foreseeable future.

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Some of my friends on the right are shaking their heads at Johns Hopkins history professor and New Republic contributing editor David Bell’s column Sunday in the L.A. Times. In the essay, Bell spells out why he believes that the United States is reacting too harshly to a 9/11 that was, to Bell’s way of reasoning, not that big a deal — in a historical sense.

Here’s the opening paragraph:

Imagine that on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.

Let me propose a slight variation of this opener: Imagine that on 9/11, thousands of people were killed in an attack on Johns Hopkins University.

If the above sentence were fact, do you think the rest of that “we’re over-reacting, historically speaking” column would have ever been written?

Bell closes the column with something that really confused me:

…the war against terrorism has not yet been much of a war at all, let alone a war to end all wars. It is a messy, difficult, long-term struggle against exceptionally dangerous criminals who actually like nothing better than being put on the same level of historical importance as Hitler — can you imagine a better recruiting tool? To fight them effectively, we need coolness, resolve and stamina. But we also need to overcome long habit and remind ourselves that not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existence.

Wow. You see sitting ducks sometimes, but not many will walk up and stick their bill in the barrel of your shot-gun.

Though half of that final paragraph could have been written by George W. Bush, the other half is baffling.

“Has not been much of a war after all”? Isn’t this guy from the same philosophical bunch that has military “death-counts” on their websites and announced from the hilltops the death of our 3,000th soldier in Iraq as if it were Iwo Jima II? I guess it’s “not much of a war” from a desk in the Johns Hopkins nerdery, but for our people who are there, they describe it differently.

But Bell also is admitting that this “war” (or “scrum” or whatever he thinks it is) is necessary, it’s just that we’re being a tad too aggressive – in essence running with scissors and not waiting the full 30 minutes after a meal before jumping in the water.
The problem with liberals is that they think there’s a Nerf version of everything.

Update: The author explains on his website what he really meant.

Senator John “botched joke” Kerry, who has himself become a sort of national pariah — at least if you’re a member of the military or have properly functioning neurons – is the winner of this week’s “Jimmy Carter Award” for doing what liberals do best: going overseas to knock the United States and tap dance for some of the world’s biggest America bashers and sponsors of terrorism.

At the annual “World Economic Forum” in Switzerland (anti-greed world leaders like to be near their money on occasion) Kerry called the U.S. an “international pariah.” Ironically, this happened at almost the exact same time that fellow insulter of Vietnam veterans, Jane Fonda, was in D.C. speaking at her first anti-war rally in 34 years.

Was this simply an anti-Bush statement and not intended as an insult to all Americans? No. It’s your fault!

Kerry criticized what he called the “unfortunate habit” of Americans to see the world “exclusively through an American lens.”

We also have the “unfortunate habit” of electing elitist, leftist pinheads. “Through and American lens”? Well, I’ve tried looking through John Kerry’s lens, but Vineyard security keeps stopping me before I can get in the house.

What global suck-ups like Kerry never understand is that, in most cultures, the despots or “enemy” you’re brown-nosing and appeasing do not look higher upon an individual who sells out their own nation, whether merely verbally or literally — especially when that person is one of the most powerful senators in said pariah.

People like John Kerry are constantly seeking acceptance, and the less they get it here, the more they look for it there.

I have no hard data to support this, but I can almost guarantee you that the people who Kerry tries to appease with his anti-U.S. rhetoric, while appreciating his selling out of his own country, don’t respect him in the least. Relationships with turncoats are sort of like being married to somebody who cheated on their former spouse: they did it once, and in the back of your mind you know they could do it again, even if they now claim that “you’re the only one for me!” Next thing you know they’re in the vegetable patch bangin’ the gardener.

This is why there cannot possibly be any respect for John Kerry in either direction: To both sides involved, Kerry is more valuable as a member of the other team.

“Traitor” isn’t a dirty word. At some point it went out of style here in the United States, but that doesn’t mean they still don’t exist. They’re not called “traitors” anymore, but rather “enlightened,” ”progressive,” or “open minded,” but the end result is the same. The inherent punishment, however, in being a traitor, is that once you begin playing both ends against the middle, nobody likes you. John Kerry’s finding that out.

Let us not forget that Benedict Arnold died a man without a country. So would John Kerry, if his wife didn’t already own so much of the United States.

Most amazing are the people in Massachusetts who keep voting for the man who bounces around the globe calling them myopic morons and outcast boobs. Come to think of it, maybe Kerry’s right.

Above we see one of the main reasons terrorists are so encouraged — along with some other guy in a turban.

John Kerry signs and autograph for the former president of one of the world’s biggest sponsors of terrorism, Ayatollah Mohammad Khatami of Iran. “Khat-man, stay as sweet as you are. Have a bitchin’ summer!”

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Just three weeks ago, the cartoon bluebirds that flutter around Alec Baldwin’s head were working overtime, as the actor was freaking out because it was 72 degrees in Central Park in early January.

Alec was going bonkers in thinking it was a clear sign of end of the world. You’d have thought it was the second coming of Barry Goldwater. “No December snowfall in New York for the first time since 1877,” was a sign of man-made climate change, according to Baldwin. He conveniently didn’t bother to explore why there was no snowfall in December of 1877, because it certainly wasn’t due to our SUV’s, Halliburton and Bush. (or… was it?)

Today, New York City has set a record for the lowest temperature ever recorded. I haven’t heard from Alec yet questioning himself on whether or not he might have over-reacted three weeks ago, but I’ll keep an eye on the Huffington Post, just in case.

“Alec to mother ship, Alec to mother ship. Can’t comprehend temperature changes. Please advise. Over.”