Dearest Hillary,

Yea, Sister Hillary, of which side of your mouth do you speaketh?

You have epitomized the Hypocritical Oath!

In yesterday's WAPO you are quoted speaking at George Washington University about "a serious conversation" pertaining to "rules to ensure an open Internet, noting it had helped power the pro-democracy uprising in Egypt but also served as a tool for terrorists and repressive governments."

Dear Hillary: Which repressive governments? Our repressive government?

To continue, in your second major Internet freedom speech you, according to WAPO, "said the United States supported the 'freedom to connect' - but that there should be some limits."

Some limits? Oh, I get it: Do as I say but not do as I do? Practice what I don't practice?

Prithee, Hillary, do you speak about your homeland which veers right when it suits your fancy in order to quell WikiLeaks?

"Clinton offered few specifics of what those rules should be." No kidding! Why would you offer specifics when they will not serve your dualspeak well?

"Critics have charged that the State Department has issued contradictory messages in advocating Internet freedom while harshly criticizing the WikiLeaks disclosures. Clinton called that a 'false debate,' saying that the WikiLeaks release involved stolen government documents."

Hahahahahahahahaha. Hillary, who stole the documents? How did it happen? Yet you and the U.S. government seek to charge a person who distributed the documents and you maliciously mistreat a soldier who has not been found guilty but who you think exposed documents.

Would WikiLeaks have served a useful purpose, like maybe saving 4,000 American soldiers' lives and 30,000 wounds and thousands of Iraqi lives, by exposing the falsehoods of the Bush government before the Iraq attack?

Oh, the U.S. may restrict Internet exposure when government documents are "stolen," but China, Syria, and Iran should not do the same. Is that it? You want your cake and chocolate icing, too! Hahahahahahaha.

"Clinton also took aim, however, at some Western countries that have sought mechanisms to limit 'hate speech' on the Internet, saying they could offer repressive governments 'an excuse to violate freedom of expression.'"

My dear, dear lady! This hypocriticalspeak does you no service: It undermines your credibility and our own Constitution and the rights it bestows on us, the citizenry. Come now, my dear, and cease this double gibberish which seems to emanate from each side of your head like hydratalk. Perchance, you were having a stroke or got befuddled like the newscaster who garbled her words at the Grammys.

Prithee, exercise some manner of consistency (lest others think ill of you, alas) and avoid casting yourself as old and confused. Mr. Colbert and Mr. Stewart have enough fodder and need no contributions from our Secretary of State, my goodness!

With sincerest and warmest regards,

Patricia

P.S. Please cut your hair.