Your author took a break from posting while as always taking in current events to see if a thread, a common trait if you will, could connect the three ring circus sponsored by the United Nations that occurred in Manhattan and the recent rant portrayed by former President Bill Clinton during a recent a Fox News interview.

The UN summit was climaxed with the speeches presented by Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the ever lovable Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Both took a cue from the books of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson by using the word ‘devil’ to describe President Bush. Chavez took the award by rolling the phrase el Diablo from his tongue as he ranted against the United States.

As Ahmadinejad spouted reference to Satan, he then questioned why the United States is so quick to go to war. This coming from the same man who stated he envisioned a Middle East map where Israel did not exist. Ahmadinejad has been portrayed by many in the western media as the incarnation of Jack the Ripper. Your author disagrees. By his own to devotion to Islam Ahmadinejad is a wimp.

Recently Pope Benedict XVI referenced a Byzantine emperor’s analysis of Islam. The passage was from medieval times. In other words an interpretation made from a very long time ago. How did this so called peaceful religion respond? They have demanded apologies and atonement. This is the response from a group known in recent history to martyr their own by tying bombs to their chests and murdering anyone in their path. This is the same group that gets their undies in wad when disparaging cartoons are published about Allah and Muhammad. Gone are the days when they would slice the throat of a filmmaker, such as the case of Theo Van Gogh of The Netherlands, when a 10 minute movie was released criticizing the abusive nature of many men who practice Islam. No now the Muslim faith is taking the peaceful route. Peaceful as long as Western culture and Israel are exterminated.

Meanwhile Hugo Chavez lived up while he was in New York. After captivating the United Nations’ audience he found time to pitch an endorsement for a book. No it isn’t his autobiography, Mien Kampf or Marx’s Communist Manifesto, rather Noam Chomsky’s Hedgemony or Survival, a conspiracy driven piece of work by a kook. Who is Chomsky? Well for all intent purposes he is linguistic professor at MIT. He is also a hypocrite whose political leanings are so far left they appear almost anarchistic. Some have described him, despite his Jewish heritage, as being anti-Semite for his criticism of US and Israel foreign policy.

After the book pitch Hugo Chavez was seen hobnobbing with some ‘common folks’ or at least elitist who play common folks on the big screen. Danny Glover, not a stranger to the left, toured Harlem with Chavez. The incarnation of Castro promised low income families-about 5,000-discounted oil from Venezuela owned Citgo. In essence a form of welfare in order to gain sympathy for himself and Hollywood wonders why movie ticket sales continue to slump? Meanwhile New Yorkers such as carpet bagger Senator Hillary Clinton and Representative Charles Rangel, both historical critics of Bush, did a bit of backside covering when they denounced Chavez’s comments. They stopped short of taking Glover to the carpet. Following Chavez’s remarks  7-11, the primary distributor for Citgo products, announced they would no longer carry Chavez’s gas (fuel or otherwise), instead marketing their own brand. They eventually came around and stated Chavez was another reason why they dropped the brand.

Meanwhile Noam Chomsky has indicated a desire to visit Venezuela. While there good ole Noam should report back on the 35% poverty level. This may sound awful but consider that prior levels of poverty bounced around 45-50% it is a testament one would assume to Chavez’s socialist policies. Oh contraire for it is all relative. The primary driver behind the reduction is due to the devil and his minions of capitalists living in Hades (United States). Venezuela’s GDP totals about $145 billion with one third due to exports. Oil products exported total about $50 billion with the US buying 60% of this amount. Chomsky can ponder this revelation as 7-11 nixes Citgo oil in their Harlem stations and how only in America could the good professor exist. Glover should also go along for this holiday and try to sell movies to Venezuela since no one in the United States seems to be buying them. This reminds your author when Hollywood actor Robert Redford, after a few film bombs under his belt, proclaimed he would relocate to Ireland if Bush won the 2004 election. Your author is still waiting.

Former US President Bill Clinton dropped the slick persona and returned to the days of thumb shaking and red face, think sex and ‘that woman’, when he shot back at Fox News’ Chris Wallace during a recent interview. Wallace asked a simple question, one too general for your author, when he threw out Clinton’s role in combating Muslim terrorists, specifically ones linked to Bin Laden. Clinton made plenty of claims most notably a comprehensive plan in combating terrorists when he left office in 2000, how he has done the most in comparison to current leaders in dealing with the extremists and how the same right wingers who criticized him for doing too much are now criticizing him for having done too little. He didn’t too little-no he didn’t do anything- and sees his legacy free falling down the proverbial toilet.

Some of Clinton’s supporters have stated that Wallace was too harsh. He wasn’t harsh enough. He didn’t ask Clinton why he made the following comment to the 9/11 Commission back in 2004.

When asked about why he didn’t request the Sudanese government to take apprehend Bin Laden when they were in his sights. Clinton claimed he wanted the Sudanese to hold him but he had no reason to bring him back to the United States to face charges. Clinton fails to remember that Bin Laden was an un-indicted co-conspirator, from a list of 171, as part of the first World Trade Center attack in 1993. Wallace should have asked him why his administration approached the 1993 attack as a law enforcement issue and not a sign of a bigger picture.

Clinton surprised your author when he referred to Wallace as having a smirk. He also alleged that Wallace, son of Clinton supporter and CBS 60 Minutes antique Mike Wallace, was part of a conspiracy and somehow linked it to Fox News’ parent company NewsCorp CEO Rupert Murdoch, citing that the news media giant head recently donated over $100 million to Clinton’s international foundation. This latter point made no sense to your author and was evidenced that Clinton was losing it. In the end it was excuses and playing the blame game, classic traits he has displayed to ad nauseam.