Here’s WHY John Adams Would Butt Heads With GODLESS LIBERALS

johnadamsOriginally posted at CLASH Daily

In a diary entry dated February 22, 1756, Founding Father and Second U.S. President, John Adams, wrote the following:

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love and reverence toward Almighty God…What a Utopia, what a Paradise would this region be.

It is now 260 years later, and liberals, in a quest to usher in another kind of utopian paradise, reject the Bible and prefer instead to depend on a counterfeit, government-mandated definition of Adams’s “justice, kindness, and charity.”

Rather than looking to God as the source, the “charity towards fellow man” John Adams describes is what the irreligious left believes can be legislated and imposed.

Secular government-types dismiss the God Adams promoted as Almighty because in America today Biblical moral code infringes on the type of godless nirvana liberals have been trying in vain to establish since time immemorial.

The Word of the Christian deity that Adams said calls us to “be obliged in conscience”, represents dictums that are diametrically opposed to national pastimes such as abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, and the gross sexualisation of small children. Unlike the culture that the left advances, nowhere in the book Adams values are heroes made of the sexually-perplexed, prevaricators, or those who take innocent life.

In essence, life, liberty, and individual freedom violate the sort of communal control that drives those that dismiss God. Yet in many circles liberals have been so successful at distorting arguments and furthering a counterfeit dogma that those without God accept the fake as virtuous.

In liberal utopia, minorities dictate to the majority a brand of altruism that embraces frightened girls sharing restrooms with transgender males, illegal immigrants invading and bilking American taxpayers, and women being esteemed by slaughtering the unborn and then peddling baby livers for the philanthropic advancement of science.

Thanks to the efforts of hedonists, secularists, and liberal humanists, at public libraries and schools across the nation, the Bible John Adams revered so highly is now on a list of objectionable books.

In an effort to not offend the ungodly, God’s word is currently in jeopardy of being stifled because in America today obstructing the First Amendment, and repressing truth, is how freedom is interpreted and the common good preserved.

The possibility that the Bible may end up censored is not surprising because leftist benevolence, if given ample time, always results in tyranny.

Liberals who profess to be unprejudiced don’t care that the Bible has guided our nation’s founding and is comprised of literature, history, prose, music, law, culture, and antiquity — let alone being inspired by God.

Scripture presents God’s view. That’s why a nation that has strayed far from the divine falsely believes the book John Adams imagined should guide America’s legal system violates a law that originally was established to keep the state out of religion – not the other way around.

James LaRue, who directs the Office for Intellectual Freedom for the American Library Association, which released the 2016 “State of Libraries Report,” said that, of late, “You have people who feel that if a school library buys a copy of the Bible, it’s a violation of church and state.”

If Americans are complaining that the book that helped establish their freedom threatens that freedom – liberal indoctrination is really kicking in.

LaRue explained that objections are sometimes a “retaliatory action, where a religious group has objected to a book and a parent might respond by objecting to the Bible.”

In other words, one parent complains about Heather Has Two Mommies being in the children’s book room, so Heather’s two mommies register a complaint about the Bible being in the theology section.

That’s why; in the name of tolerance, the diversity police need to make sure that none of the books the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) endorse is on the “challenged” list.

In the meantime, LaRue clarified that although the library association is not against having Bibles in public schools, guidelines for the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom stressed that “as long as the library does not endorse or promote the views included in the Bible,” the Bible does not violate the separation of church and state.

Good thing! After all, institutions supported by American taxpayers can’t be fostering biblical views that could be interpreted as backing a utopian paradise with God’s tenets at the head rather than government decrees.

Either way, the travesty is that those that support the right to watch porn on public library-owned computers are the same folks responsible for placing the Bible on the top 10 “challenged” books list of 2016.

Simply put, quite unlike the nation that John Adams so passionately described more than two centuries ago, America is on a crash course to become a “region” where conduct and belief are regulated by something other than God and Biblical precepts.

And, worse yet, the archaic idea of the freedom that “reverence toward Almighty God” rewarded us with when our nation was founded, is about to be relegated to a book on a shelf in a public library that no one will be permitted to read.

Michelle Teaches Argentinian Girls about Catcalls and Chauvinism

michelle.jpg_1718483346Originally posted at American Thinker

Although no one has stopped American girls from learning, the U.S. government banner Michelle Obama travels the world carrying reads: “Let Girls Learn.”

In fact, observant American girls like myself have studied how the FLOTUS cleverly exploits gender-specific initiatives to bilk the American public into covering exorbitant travel expenses.

If a girl uses her brain, it’s easy to figure out that every year, after her ski weekend in Aspen, while Sasha and Malia are on Easter break the FLOTUS feigns false concern for educating girls as an excuse to impose her entourage on world leaders. Annually, in the name of education, Michelle loads up a couple of Air Force Ones, jets all over the globe, dresses up in expensive clothes, sight sees and mooches a free meal off of whoever is dumb enough to buy into the ruse.

The FLOTUS spends $222K for two nights in China, and in between dancing the tango and eating fried fat cakes in Botswana, Michelle manages to wangle passing those expenses along to the American taxpayer and does it by preaching to girls, worldwide, on the subject of racism, victimization, and sexism.

Recently, after touring a Third World country dressed in haute couture, while in Argentina, a nation famous for cultural machismo, Mrs. Obama promoted “Let Girls Learn” by sharing how a girl with a modest background became the victim of catcalls.

Michelle chose to lift up America’s greatness by telling women in a country where machismo is rampant that American men treated her as if she were a hunk of that $100 per pound Wagyu beef she regularly enjoys.

Michelle flew all the way to South America to visit a school in the Barracas section of Buenos Aires to edify Argentinian girls with lessons that included stories about how American “men would whistle at [her] as if  [her] body [was] their property,” which is how both she and her husband now view America.

Either way, Michelle should already know that talking about machismo in Argentina is like talking about pacca sul sedere in Italy.  What’s the problem, doesn’t the FLOTUS appreciate the diverse rainbow of difference that makes up the multicultural world her husband so highly esteems?

How about, instead of wasting her breath in South America, the FLOTUS come home and give that catcall speech to the illegal Mexican male immigrants currently flooding this country who think machismo is an acceptable way to behave toward American women?

According to the FLOTUS, in addition to being frequently hooted at, teachers in the public school system also wronged her by asking brother Craig what he wanted to be when he grew up and talking down to her by asking who she intended to marry?

Despite the perception that the road to her success was thwarted on every front, Michelle went on to prove her mettle by surpassing her failed basketball coach/ESPN commentator brother and marrying a failed president.

As for street harassment, Michelle, who spearheaded her healthy eating initiative by discussing Sasha and Malia’s body fat, just couldn’t get off the topic.

The FLOTUS filled rapt ears with stories of men noticing her body “…as if I were an object to be commented on instead of a full human being with thoughts and feelings of my own.”

The funny thing was all that meat market talk took place right around the time a picture of a sexy woman in fishnet stockings, wearing a short sequined dress with a slit up the side, wrapping her left leg around the president’s thigh during a tango, received worldwide circulation.

Nonetheless, with no way to verify the veracity of Michelle’s “strong… powerful… outspoken” tales of woe, the FLOTUS continued to school Argentinian girls about American teachers who “would call on the boys instead of the girls, even though the girls had better grades.”

Seriously? Mrs. Obama wants girls to believe that her teachers only called on boys, and that the girls in Michelle’s school had better grades than all the boys? The only thing missing from that cock-and-bull story are embellishments about white male teachers at Michelle LaVaughn Robinson’s school calling on the white boys with worse grades, while relegating much smarter black girls, like herself, to emptying the trash cans.

Sorry, if this how Michelle thinks ‘girls learn,’ then girls should skip “Let Girls Learn” and just sign up for ‘Girls Will Believe Anything.”

In the end, Mrs. Obama shared how she found a way to work through the trial of being sexually harassed by men, and scorned and disqualified by her teachers.

Similar to her husband’s philosophy that defeats Islamic terrorism by partying while victims of extremist attacks are being stacked in freezers, Michelle told the girls that in response to being acknowledged for her outstanding female form and disdained for her mediocre mind, she “…decided not to listen to the voices of those who doubted or dismissed [her].”

Instead, Michelle said, “I decided to listen to my own voice!” And, judging from her questionable decision to do things like show up in $1-a-day Cuba wearing $4K outfits, maybe Michelle Obama should find another voice to listen to.

Either way, what Mrs. Obama didn’t expound upon was that despite having unexceptional grades, thanks to quotas, and a brother who grew up to be a Princeton basketball coach, she was able to attend an Ivy League school where, according to her difficult to read thesis, because of white faculty, she also felt  uncomfortable.

From Princeton, Michelle graduated Harvard Law, was underappreciated as a lawyer at Chicago’s Sidney Austin, met Barack Obama, converted to community organizing, and was taught from the best how to swindle the American public for everything she felt, and still feels, she is owed

And so, what did this girl glean from Michelle’s Argentinian “Let Girls Learn” trip? I learned that the FLOTUS’s “Let Girls Learn” initiative is a convenient pretext Michelle Obama can use to get the nation she detests to foot-the-bill for all the high-priced vacations she’s convinced she deserves.

he wanted to be when he grew up and talking down to her by asking who she intended to marry?

Despite the perception that the road to her success was thwarted on every front, Michelle went on to prove her mettle by surpassing her failed basketball coach/ESPN commentator brother and marrying a failed president.

As for street harassment, Michelle, who spearheaded her healthy eating initiative by discussing Sasha and Malia’s body fat, just couldn’t get off the topic.

The FLOTUS filled rapt ears with stories of men noticing her body “…as if I were an object to be commented on instead of a full human being with thoughts and feelings of my own.”

The funny thing was all that meat market talk took place right around the time a picture of a sexy woman in fishnet stockings, wearing a short sequined dress with a slit up the side, wrapping her left leg around the president’s thigh during a tango, received worldwide circulation.

Nonetheless, with no way to verify the veracity of Michelle’s “strong… powerful… outspoken” tales of woe, the FLOTUS continued to school Argentinian girls about American teachers who “would call on the boys instead of the girls, even though the girls had better grades.”

Seriously? Mrs. Obama wants girls to believe that her teachers only called on boys, and that the girls in Michelle’s school had better grades than all the boys? The only thing missing from that cock-and-bull story are embellishments about white male teachers at Michelle LaVaughn Robinson’s school calling on the white boys with worse grades, while relegating much smarter black girls, like herself, to emptying the trash cans.

Sorry, if this how Michelle thinks ‘girls learn,’ then girls should skip “Let Girls Learn” and just sign up for ‘Girls Will Believe Anything.”

In the end, Mrs. Obama shared how she found a way to work through the trial of being sexually harassed by men, and scorned and disqualified by her teachers.

Similar to her husband’s philosophy that defeats Islamic terrorism by partying while victims of extremist attacks are being stacked in freezers, Michelle told the girls that in response to being acknowledged for her outstanding female form and disdained for her mediocre mind, she “…decided not to listen to the voices of those who doubted or dismissed [her].”

Instead, Michelle said, “I decided to listen to my own voice!” And, judging from her questionable decision to do things like show up in $1-a-day Cuba wearing $4K outfits, maybe Michelle Obama should find another voice to listen to.

Either way, what Mrs. Obama didn’t expound upon was that despite having unexceptional grades, thanks to quotas, and a brother who grew up to be a Princeton basketball coach, she was able to attend an Ivy League school where, according to her difficult to read thesis, because of white faculty, she also felt  uncomfortable.

From Princeton, Michelle graduated Harvard Law, was underappreciated as a lawyer at Chicago’s Sidney Austin, met Barack Obama, converted to community organizing, and was taught from the best how to swindle the American public for everything she felt, and still feels, she is owed

And so, what did this girl glean from Michelle’s Argentinian “Let Girls Learn” trip? I learned that the FLOTUS’s “Let Girls Learn” initiative is a convenient pretext Michelle Obama can use to get the nation she detests to foot-the-bill for all the high-priced vacations she’s convinced she deserves.

Michelle’s $4K casual Cuban cocktail dress

Originally posted at American Thinker

I’m the type of person that tries to make people feel comfortable.  In order to accomplish that goal, I consider the company I keep and adjust accordingly.  For instance, if I’m with overweight people, I don’t discuss my diet and treadmill mileage.  If I’m visiting with the elderly, I avoid the subject of wrinkles, nursing homes, and funerals.  And, unlike Michelle Obama, if I volunteer at a soup kitchen, I don’t wear my $565 Lanvin sneakers.

But hey, that’s just me.

On the other hand, even if it makes people feel bad, the first lady seems to revel in showcasing her affluence.  This week, in front of destitute Cubans who, on average, earn about $1 a day, Michelle Obama did just that.

The first lady’s imprudence began when the Obama entourage that included Sasha, Malia, Charlie Rangel, Grandma Marion, and Nancy Pelosi arrived in Cuba.  After landing, Michelle descended to the tarmac from Air Force One decked out in a $2,100 Carolina Herrera “springtime floral” frock.

Cuba is an island where even government workers don’t earn a living wage, and doctors who work in the Cuban health care system earn $67 a month.  The food in Cuba is in such short supply that it’s rationed, and in some cases, it’s purchased illegally on the black market.

Yet despite the magnitude of Cuba’s abject poverty, America’s sartorial preener arrived in Havana wearing an ensemble whose cash value could support a Cuban family for six years.

What next?  When not trumpeting her good fortune in front of poor Cubans, Michelle will offer to entertain paraplegics by boogying to “Uptown Funk“?

And the thoughtlessness got worse.

As poor Cubans lined the streets of Havana straining to catch a glimpse of American royalty, Michelle, guest of dictator/president Raúl Castro, made her way, dressed in yet another designer dress, to the Palace of the Revolution (of all places) for a state dinner.

While Cubans ate peasant food like moros y cristianos, Michelle was dining on a sumptuous menu of “[s]hrimp mousse … with cream of mojito; golden cream soup flavored with Caney rum accompanied by slivers of ham; traditional pork garnished with baby tamales … and a trio of Grandmother’s sweets.”

As Cubans roamed Old Havana in worn out flip-flops and secondhand clothes, Michelle impressed her hosts in a dress made of “Kashmiri fabric embroidered with an Indian floral motif.”  This was a “casual cocktail” knee-length black floral dress by Naeem Khan that, according to the New York-based designer’s collection, came with a $4,490 price tag.

Rounding that bottom line up, that little number’s cash value could provide an average Cuban worker a salary for 12-plus years.

It’s probably unfair for me to project my standard for how to treat people onto the first lady.  Just because Michelle dresses like nobility in the company of the lowly doesn’t mean she has little regard for the predicament of the poor.  After all, the woman who sports overpriced clothes does have a husband who, when not paying for her haute couture, stresses the value of “sharing our wealth.”

Progressives Muscle into the Restroom

UnknownOriginally posted at American Thinker

There’s no denying that the left is on a political mission to tap into the grievances of a small percentage of the population where, by levying pain on mainstream America, liberals can cultivate a lopsided form of equity.

Case in point, remember back in 2010 when Barack Obama destroyed a healthcare system that 86.6% of the insured were more than satisfied with? That was done on behalf of the 13.4% without coverage.

Now, everywhere one turns; similar sorts of lopsided equity are being increasingly implemented.

Take for instance Obama leveling the inclusive playing field with a porous border. That attempt at social engineering has subjected a once sovereign nation to an all out life-threatening invasion.

As a result, sanctuary cities teem with dangerous illegal felons, Americans have died unnecessarily, and public school classrooms have been flooded with “unaccompanied minors,” some of whom have infected our children with deadly foreign pathogens.

Much to the delight of liberals, every day, jobs are lost to illegals and property owners dictated to as neighborhoods are being resettled with ISIS-infiltratedSyrian refugees brought to America via Obama’s “surge operation.”

In the name of thoughtfulness toward minorities, fear of offending some overly sensitive protected class has bestowed upon cultural diversity a power that has usurped the constitutional right to free expression.

And that’s not the worst of it.

Religious freedom is eroding as Islam is given deference over the nation’s foundational Judeo-Christian tenets. The reality of that forfeiture intensifies when taxpayers, who are largely pro-life, are forced to fund abortion on demand, and Christian bakers and photographers pay penalties for refusing to provide wedding services to same-sex couples.

Let’s not forget that these are the same progressives who manipulate thought and opinion by elevating illegals to immigrant status, and doing so while referring to living human beings, growing within the womb as clumps of cells. These misleading actions, words, and ideas are how the marginal have managed to gain despotic dominance over the majority.

A prime example of how the minority dominates the majority happens when liberals foster the idea that gender fluidity determines which public restroom members of the LGBTQQIAP2S community should have permission to use.

In other words, if liberals have their way, a new level of tolerance will be realized by sharing a public bathroom with every manner of sexually confused individual.

Despite a handful of open-minded heterosexuals, who wouldn’t mind sharing a urinal cake with Chaz Bono, or tinkling while Caitlyn Jenner eavesdrops, the goal to establish gender-neutral bathrooms will likely have to be accomplished under public duress.

Put another way, most women would rather not have an Arnold Schwarzenegger look-alike in the adjoining stall and most men would probably feel more comfortable if Ellen DeGeneres weren’t milling around the latrine.

Nonetheless, the topic is so volatile that rock star Bruce Springsteen canceled a concert in North Carolina. Seems the Boss believes that those who “Walk Like a Man,” if they so desire, should also be allowed to pee like woman — which is exactly what happens in the in the newly-installed White House gender-neutral restroom.

The state law that the Boss opposes is the one that bars people from choosing a bathroom on criteria other than having XY or XX chromosomes. Until further notice, North Carolina law maintains that current apparatus determines where one urinates, not the equipment one hopes to someday acquire.

Nonetheless, in response to what the left interprets as toilet discrimination, and in keeping with their desire to impose bizarre edicts on the majority, in a number of U.S. states restroom legislation is being considered to address what liberals view as a form of prejudice against those whose sexual proclivity results in bathroom bias.

So, once again 0.3% of the U.S. population, this time, those that identify as transgenders, have managed to initiate a controversy that has the potential to eventually impact 99.7% of the American citizenry, most of whom probably prefer using gender precise restrooms.

Similar to ObamaCare, same-sex marriage, abortion on demand, and refugee resettlement, who uses what bathroom is just another in a long list of unpleasant impositions the tyrannical minority plans to use to browbeat the majority into submission.

This is no joke because what’s at stake here is whether having a penis or a vagina still determines which bathroom an individual uses, and whether, as theAmerican College of Pediatrics maintain, “Facts — not ideology — determine reality.”

That’s why, whether Americans are comfortable with the direction we’re heading in or not, at the expense of the majority, power hungry liberals continue to enable the entitlement attitude of those who perceive themselves as sexual minorities.

As a result of those efforts, it is possible that while a Rachel Maddow-type dominates the boy’s room sink, next door, in the ladies’ room, a mortified girl may soon be witnessing a man powdering his Adam’s apple and adjusting his pantyhose.

This is where we’re at, folks.

With an eye firmly fixed on our Second Amendment rights, leftism has not so subtly seeped into every area of our lives.

The American majority is subjugated, conquered, and oppressed. The immoral minority rules and tells America how to think, what to say, how much money we can keep, and even dictates which lightbulbs and what doctor we have permission to use.

The inviolability of our property rights has been subverted, our borders shattered, and our senses legally dulled. Enemy soldiers are being imported to overthrow us, millions of acres of our lands have been seized, the First Amendment suppressed, and, above all, the sanctity and sanity of American life greatly diminished.

Face it; every day this nation is nudged ever closer to the precipice progressives have been industriously molding for decades. And as part of that progression, tolerant children will soon be sharing restrooms with transgenders, pansexuals, and amorous biromantics.

Straphanger Hillary sinks to new lows

2016-04-07T173815Z_1_LYNXNPEC361DC_RTROPTP_4_USA-ELECTION-CLINTON-e1460131711552Originally posted at American Thinker

Hillary Clinton is the woman who, in her quest for planetary supremacy, once dredged up an old Yankee baseball cap, stuffed it into a carpetbag, and moved to New York.  Now, in an effort to exploit that blue state once again, Hillary took sucking up to a whole new level when she boarded a subway outside Yankee Stadium.

It was on the 4 train that Mrs. Clinton found herself sandwiched among the unwashed masses.  What did she do?  Hold her breath, close her eyes, picture the White House, and use that iconic image to help her endure a trip through a dark tunnel to an uptown Bronx diner?

After living in Illinois, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, making a name for herself in Arkansas, and spending a lot of time knocking around Washington, D.C., Hillary must have thought strap-hanging was an ingenious way to re-establish her standing as a real New Yorker.

That’s why, with the April 19 New York primary looming, rather than spend the morning cuddling with her 1-year-old granddaughter, Charlotte Mezvinsky, the candidate from Chappaqua frivolously wasted precious time politicking with Bronx borough president Ruben Diaz, Jr.

Hillary and Ruben made an appearance outside Yankee Stadium, where the former first lady/senator/secretary of state told people who plan to vote for her anyway that she was “so proud to have represented this state.”

The brown-nosing politician also praised “New York values [and] the people of New York.”

Hillary told those gathered before her that “there is no place like [New York] in the world, and [that she’s] going to take [her New York] experiences … to the White House.”

Then Hillary climbed aboard a subway train, an idea that took root when Hillary’s Brooklyn-born opponent, Bernie Sanders, mentioned that all one needs to ride the subway is a token.  In response, Mrs. Clinton did not want to squander an opportunity to prove that she, not Bernie, is the consummate New Yorker.

Moving forward in her relentless five-decade schlep toward the White House, shadowed closely by the press, the Secret Service, and a bewildered person carrying a Hillary sign, Mrs. Clinton valiantly set her sights on the subterranean Petri dish.

After numerous failed swipes with a Metro card, Hillary shimmied through the turnstile and then miraculously materialized on the No. 4 platform.  From there, the woman in the $1,500 pantsuit boarded the train and pretended to enjoy riding it from 161st Street, Yankee Stadium, all the way uptown to 170th Street, where she disembarked and headed to the Bronx diner Munch Time.

Munch Time was a perfect spot for down and dirty Hillary to drink tea and be interviewed after her subway ride, because the diner is renowned for a famous girl fight that took place there a few years back.

Nonetheless, it’s likely that Hillary, who admitted that she’s been chauffeured around since 1996, headed to the Bronx after spending the night in Chelsea’s $10-million Madison Avenue apartment.  That’s why this New Yorker can only hope that while mingling in with the commoners, the former senator was treated to the full flavor of the subway, where pizza rats scurry about, shoes stick to chewed up bubble gum, and the odor of urine indelibly soaks the concrete.

Either way, it’s quite clear that Hillary Clinton endured the slimy underground experience because in Clinton’s economy, every vote counts.

Let’s face it: Hillary is a vote vampire.  The former first lady stays up nights thinking up ways to suck votes out of poor people, minorities, felons, illegal immigrants, the LGBT community, union employees, and pro-choice women.

So why not attempt to add Bronx commuters to that mix?

Knowing Hillary, she counted the cost and figured she could attract new followers by volunteering to immerse herself in a sweaty pool of culturally diverse body odor.  Why not share a seat with a couple of man-spreaders and pretend to enjoy hugging a bacteria-coated subway pole?

Based on Hillary Clinton’s history of calculated political moves, what’s more likely is that the presidential hopeful figured that if she sacrificed her dignity for a station or two and just let herself be groped between 161st and 170th Streets, she could pull way ahead of Bernie on primary day.

Hillary Clinton’s Abortion Quagmire

196334_5_Originally posted at American Thinker

It’s hard to believe but ‘for the first time in her adult life,’ when Hillary Clinton referred to a preborn human being as an “unborn person” or “child,” the woman who’s made prevarication a lifestyle choice actually spoke the truth.  The problem for Sir Edmund Hillary’s purported namesake is that truth telling is something she usually dodges like sniper bullets in Bosnia because of the potential that facts have to get her in trouble.

And trouble is exactly what followed when Hillary attempted to counter Donald Trump by trying to portray herself as the champion of abortion rights.

While being interviewed on NBC’s Meet the Press, Hillary responded to Chuck Todd’s question about the constitutional rights of the unborn by saying that “the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”  The problem with the former first lady’s answer was that while trying to deny unborn personhood she inadvertently assigned personhood to an entity the pro-choice movement views as a nonviable clump of cells.

And so, it seems that while straddling the abortion fence, Mrs. Clinton got her designer pants leg stuck on a big old rusty nail.  Of all people, Hillary should know by now that in pro-choice circles admitting preborn humanity portrays the slaughter of 3,000 babies a day in a distasteful light.

Then, Mrs. Clinton, who, when not getting $600 haircuts spends time rustling up votes by rubbing her pregnant daughter Chelsea’s belly like it was Aladdin’s lamp, went on to talk about the constitutional rights of “unborn persons” whose mothers opt not to abort:

Now that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support.

So, after saying that an “unborn person” has no right to life or protection under the Constitution, Hillary awkwardly attempted to reassure women who choose to allow offspring to breathe outside the womb that the “unborn person” she just said had no protection will be protected under the law.

Talk about a quagmire.

Nonetheless, Hillary wants America to know that if she ends up in charge, and if a mother chooses not to exercise the right to legally murder her offspring, the law that Hillary claims doesn’t protect an “unborn person’s” life, will be enforced to protect the “unborn person’s” life.

Then, with Chelsea’s swollen third-trimester belly as her muse, Hillary burrowed herself in deeper when she said, “there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions” in the third trimester of pregnancy.

What? The woman who heartily supports partial birth abortion blurted out, clearly without thinking, that, on occasion, it might be better to not insert scissors into the base of the skull of a living baby who is halfway out of the womb?

Huma really should have reminded Secretary Clinton beforehand that in baby extermination circles, even implying the word “restriction,” undermines the cause for abortion rights. That’s why, Diana Arellano, manager of community engagement for Planned Parenthood Illinois Action, quickly responded to Mrs. Clinton’s comments.

Diana probably didn’t like it either when the Planned Parenthood baby body part chop shop was called a baby body part chop shop, because Hillary labeling “unborn persons” as  “unborn persons” really got under the manager of community engagement’s skin.

Arellano tweeted this about Hillary Clinton: “she calls a fetus an ‘unborn child’ & calls for later term restrictions,” which, according to the Illinois Baby Chop Shop representative, “further stigmatizes #abortion.”

According to Arellano, butchering and then selling preborn infant liver doesn’t stigmatize abortion. In Diana’s opinion, what stigmatizes abortion is Hillary losing lip control and calling a child a child and then suggesting that murdering viable human beings should be restricted.

Now either unborn babies are non-persons and thus have no constitutional rights, or pre-birth existence does not negate personhood.  If the latter is true, that means Hillary Clinton and the whole pro-choice movement have put all our lives in danger by eroding a constitutional right that was established to protect all life.

In the meantime, Mrs. Clinton has really got to figure out how to talk her way out of the abortion chaos she’s gotten herself into. Maybe Mrs. Clinton should follow Donald Trump’s example and just make it up as she goes along.

Hillary can start by clarifying what choice is all about and explain that what she really meant to say was that women who decide to terminate a pregnancy have the right to choose whether the “unborn persons” they’re planning to destroy are “persons” or not.

In fact, this may be a real opportunity for Hillary to turn a faux pas into an excuse to break new ground on behalf of the right to choose crowd.  Mrs. Clinton can explain that if a woman chooses an abortion, only then is an “unborn person” considered a non-person.  But, if a woman chooses to carry to term and give birth, an otherwise non-person is then mysteriously granted “unborn person” status and is, hence, constitutionally protected.

Either way, this is the kind of misunderstanding that results when Hillary Clinton loses her bearings and the truth manages to slip out.  That’s why if the presidential hopeful wants to retain her faithful constituency, it might be best for her to continue to do what she does best, which is to keep lying.

Hillary’s Haircut Inequity

dem_2016_clinton1Originally posted at American Thinker

The Clintons claim that in 2001 when they left the White House in a moving van stuffed to the rafters with $190K worth of stolen items, they were poverty stricken. Then, between 2001 and 2012, on speaking fees alone, the destitute couple managed to stockpile approximately $160 million dollars.

With that kind of haul, who needs commemorative china and cutlery?

Anyway, now it’s 2016 and, thus far, Hillary watchers haven’t seen the former penniless first lady/current prosperous presidential hopeful wear the same outfittwice. In fact, every time Hillary Clinton’s bulging eyes approach the podium, if you listen closely, besides the signature squawking and screeching, you’ll hear a cash register ring up $1,400 for each and every Nina McLemore power pantsuit she shows up in.

To go with those pricey getups, recently, while trawling in New York State for votes, Hillary proved she is the champion of the middle class when, early in the morning, she snuck into the side door Bergdorf Goodman’s John Barrett Salon. Once inside, and before getting a common man haircut and blowout for which she gladly shelled out $600 big ones, Hillary rode solo in an elevator like a movie star.

Let’s not forget, it was Hillary who once said, “If I want to knock a story off the front page, I just change my hairstyle.” And by spending $600 on something that looks like it cost 20 bucks – Hillary did just that.

Not to worry, there is an upside to the story.

Later that morning, Clinton’s hair and outfit delighted her audience at the Apollo Theatre where she shrieked and pounded the lectern like a butcher flattening chicken cutlets.

Hillary’s new hairdo even went perfectly with the navy blue leather pantsuit she wore while “talking trash” and riding shotgun in a five-car motorcade that ran a red light.

But, the place that the feathered cut and the self-proclaimed “fashion icon’s” leather jacket really made an impression was at the LGBT Fundraiser in SoHo’s Capitale where both she and Rosie O’Donnell mocked Donald Trump and his hair.

Granted, it wouldn’t hurt if billionaire Trump dropped in on John Barrett for a slight makeover. However, it’s not Donald who talks up the middle class while spending $600 on a haircut – it’s Hillary!

Yes, Hillary Clinton is part of the 1% she is always criticizing. It’s Hillary who is the antithesis of her Democrat opponent Bernie Sanders who never combs his hair, let alone spends $600 in a haircut.

As the Washington Free Beacon pointed out, Hillary’s new coif cost nearly 14 times what the average woman pays to have her hair done. And, if Hillary decided to ask John to also cover those telltale greys, a process she admits she has had done for years, her morning outing to the 5th Avenue hair salon had to have cost her another $600.

Six hundred dollars for color and $600 for a cut would bring Mrs. Clinton’s restyling tab to – Cha-ching –$1,200, which is $100 more than the average American, Hillary claims she’s fighting for, earns a week.

Yet even though Mrs. Clinton amassed $9+ million in 2013 for speaking engagements alone, and although her daughter Chelsea earned $600K for an entry-level job at NBC, the former first lady remains dedicated to the cause of pay equity.

However, based on how much she plunked down for her new coif, in addition to dead Americans in Libya, and a cache of lost confidential emails, middle-class haircut equity is not a cause that keeps Hillary Clinton up nights.

Did You See Beyoncé and Michelle Obama Inciting Sexism on Easter Sunday?

blue-ivy-beyonce-white-house-easter-egg-roll-ftrOriginally posted at CLASH Daily

This year, in honor of Easter, Obama and Michelle hosted the 138th Annual Easter Egg Roll on the South Lawn of the Whitehouse. The 35,000-person “Let’s Celebrate!” event had nothing to do with Easter, nor did it have anything to do “egg rolls”.

Nevertheless, the annual festivities, which are secular in nature, feature varied activities and including things like commemorative eggs with Obama’s name inscribed on them, and a story time where the president traditionally reads from Maurice Sendak’s book Where the Wild Things Are.

This year, about a week after ISIS killed 35 people at a Brussels International Airport, Obama, who seemed somewhat complacent after the bombing when it happened, sent a belated scary message to ISIS by acting out Sendak’s book complete with growls and creepy faces.

And although Broadway star Idina Menzel, singer Daya and Echosmith were on hand to entertain the children, the highlight of the day occurred when superstar Beyoncé, her billionaire husband Jay-Z, and their curly-top tot, 4-year-old Blue Ivy, surprised good friends Michelle and Barry by dropping in at the egg roll unannounced.

This winter, during a controversial Super Bowl half-time show live performance, Beyoncé dressed up in Black Panther leather, exalted Black Lives Matter, racial militancy, and Malcolm X formations.

But now it’s springtime, the bunnies are hopping and Barack and Michelle have just returned from their South America Spring Break trip. So, instead of skimpy black leather, Beyoncé showed up at the White House, dressed in a $3,510 Marco de Vincenzo white lace, see-through skirt, and a cream and pink top that accentuated her ample bosom.

Let’s just say Beyoncé’s White House Egg Roll get-up wasn’t exactly an Easter outfit in the traditional sense of the term.

What happened? Didn’t Mrs. Carter hear Michelle’s speech to schoolgirls in Argentina where she talked about being whistled at by sexist men who make women feel as if their bodies have more value than their minds?

Or could it be that Beyoncé likes being half naked because she enjoys being whistled at by men and agrees that her body is more valuable than her mind?

If Beyoncé had been in the audience during Michelle’s Buenos Aires speech would the pop star have even understood what the first lady was talking about when she said:

As I got older, I found that men would whistle at me as I walked down the street, as if my body were their property, as if I were an object to be commented on instead of a full human being with thoughts and feelings of my own. I began to realize that the hopes I had for myself were in conflict with the messages I was receiving from people around me.

Hate to throw a wrench into the Mrs. Obama’s “Let Girls Learn” sexism spiel, but, by flaunting her voluptuous curves for attention, Beyoncé, whom Michelle considers a very good friend, makes a living rejecting all of the FLOTUS’s advice.

Michelle Obama told the Argentinian girls that, as a woman, she wants to be recognized for her intellect. Yet at home, Mrs. Obama idolizes Beyoncé who, onstage and off, shows up everywhere, including an Easter Egg Roll, in see-through, skin-tight clothes.

When not busy rolling hardboiled eggs on the White House lawn or doing the Whip/Nae Nae, has Michelle ever broached the topic of modesty with the woman who shocked the world when she showed up at last year’s MET Costume Institute Benefit wearing a transparent body stocking?

Probably not!

That’s why, based on what Beyoncé doesn’t wear, the pop diva has made it clear that Michelle Obama may talk a good talk when morally chastising men, but in her private life the first lady befriends a woman recognized for something other than her intellect.

How Obama Terrorizes the Terrorists

196303_5_Originally posted at American Thinker

For Easter break, Obama and his family visited South America.  Meanwhile, ISIS celebrated Good Friday by torturing, whipping, and maybe even crucifying a 56-year-old Indian Salesian priest named Father Tom Uzhunnalil.

Father Tom was kidnapped when ISIS burst into a nursing home in Yemen, where they murdered four of Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity, two Yemeni female staff members, eight residents, and a security guard.

The terrorists, who Obama has reassured Americans would never infiltrate our shores masked as refugees, cleverly masqueraded as relatives of a resident of the southern Yemeni elderly care home.  Then, after the imposters gained entry, they proceeded to splatter the walls of the facility with innocent blood.

The Yemen attack took place on March 4, which means that Obama defeating ISIS “by saying ‘you are not strong, you are weak'” did not stop the Islamic State from brutalizing a Catholic priest.  In fact, if ISIS did re-enact Jesus’s crucifixion, it’s likely that Father Uzhunnalil was flogged until his flesh was stripped and his spine exposed.

Meanwhile, in between calling for an end to the Cuban embargo and drawing a moral equivalency between communism and capitalism, Obama stressed that he’s apathetic because disregarding terrorism is what evokes panic in ISIS.  And while Barack’s stunning indifference surely causes ISIS to cower in fear, shoving a crown of thorns deep into the skull of a Catholic priest appears to have dispelled those fears.

The terrorist group also subdued lingering nervousness by following up that crown of thorns with nailing the Indian priest to a cross.

According to the archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, whereas Obama was concluding his family vacation in South America, ISIS was reaffirming its commitment to Allah by lifting up a hemorrhaging priest’s shattered body on a cross, where he likely hung until smothered to death.

And then, before raping a few Yazidi girls to celebrate, and to make sure Father Tom was dead, further trepidation was likely quelled when ISIS thrust a spear through the priest’s side.

The eternal reward for a man’s martyrdom is not what is in question here.  What is in question is how Obama, who claimed to be observing Good Friday while a Christian died an excruciating death on a cross, will respond to ISIS’s latest atrocity.

Last week, after 35 people, including four Americans, were blown to smithereens at a Belgium airport, Obama must have spooked ISIS with his heavy-duty messaging.

For starters, immediately following the news of the violence, the president demonstrated firm resolve by symbolically blowing ISIS away with the wave at a Cuban baseball game.

Then, as the metal and glass were swept up, and a pile of shredded victims was being identified in a Brussels morgue, Obama issued ISIS a second, even stronger warning by climbing aboard a smaller Air Force One and doing some hiking and sightseeing in Parque Llao Llao.

Let’s remember: according to the president, the terrorists of ISIS quake in their boots when they see him boogying and banqueting.  Not to mention the harrowing fear that grips the heart of every terrorist when Obama sends a message of strength by joking around on Cuban television and playing dominoes.

That’s why, following the Brussels attack, at a state dinner in Argentina, Obama sent the Islamic State his fiercest message to date when he slithered around the dance floor doing a stiff, stone-faced tango with a hottie in a gold-sequined dress.

Then, while ISIS attempted to recapture the upper hand by crucifying a priest, Barack Obama took advantage of a timely opportunity to remind the barbarians who’s really in charge.

In keeping with the Easter spirit, the White House’s 138th Easter Egg Rollundoubtedly made the Islamic State’s blood run cold.

To ensure that ISIS fully abandons its quest for both a dirty bomb and world domination, by rolling hardboiled eggs on the White House lawn and acting outWhere the Wild Things Are in the story corner, Barack Obama drove home the point that fun brings terrorism to its knees.

Then, in the shadow of hip-hop Michelle doing the “Whip/Nae Nae,” the president of the United States sent one last hair-raising warning to ISIS by domineering the Eggtivity Zone Obstacle Course.

Despite Its Epic Failures Worldwide, Obama Continues to Water Down Communism

Originally posted at CLASH DailyObama-Communist

If anyone questions whether or not the elite ruling class in this country is trying to make socialism more palatable – think again. The president who ascribes to a “whatever works” mentality that says human life can be viewed as either a baby or a clump of cells, is now promoting a similar view when it comes economics.

Just like he does with same-sex marriage, the sanctity of life and sexual proclivity, during his tour of South America, Obama blurred the lines between communism and capitalism when he counseled young Argentinians that they don’t need to adhere to any one economic philosophy, but can “choose from what works.”

The pontificating started when a question was posed to Obama about attracting funding from both the public and private sectors to fund nonprofit community organizations. Rather than just answer the question, the president, who was speaking extemporaneously, saw it as an opportunity to exalt what he’s spent the last eight years trying desperately to advance.

Obama stressed that the differences between capitalism and Marxism are as benign as the differences between being a Republican or a Democrat.

The president said:

So often in the past there has been a division between left and right, between capitalists and communists or socialists, and especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate.

Whoa! Did Obama finally admit that the left embraces communism and the right identifies with capitalism?

Either way, rather than commend the benefits of capitalism, which is the economic system of the country that he leads, Obama moderated the differences and said that left and right debates over communism and capitalism are “interesting intellectual arguments.” Tell that to socialism’s 100 million victims.

Then he said:

[b]ut I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works. You don’t have to worry about whether it really fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory. You should just decide what works.

Besides “work” being the operative word, this sort of advice is relativism on steroids.

Moreover, although the generation Obama was addressing have the right to choose to kill their unborn babies, individuals living a market-driven economy like the U.S. do not get to pick and choose between capitalism and socialism.

Nonetheless, Obama was so intent on desensitizing his audience to socialism he went so far as to praise Cuban dictator Raúl Castro’s socialist system. The president gave kudos to Cuba for free education and universal health care (two state-run ways to control people Obama extols) but had to admit that Havana “looks like it did in the 1950s,” which may be why Cubans continue to float their way to Miami on rusted out Chrysler DeSotos circa 1955.

Hard as it was for Obama to concede, Cuba’s economy, where people make $1 a day and eat rationed food, isn’t working. Earth to Obama, socialism never works.

Here’s what is worrisome, based on what he had to say, it seems as if Obama wouldn’t mind American workers living under a Cuban system as long as American cities don’t look anything like Havana. Other than that, he’s fine with it.

Another problem is that the group of people Obama was speaking to might not be historically astute enough to realize that communism and socialism, wherever it was tried, never worked.

But, then again, Barack Obama is the “one we have been waiting for.” Right?

Therefore, if ever there was someone who could make an economic system that has failed every time work, the guy whose election marked “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and [the] planet began to heal,” would be that someone.

Either way, American entrepreneurship, which is what made America great, clearly doesn’t work for Barack Obama, which might be why he told successful American business owners “You didn’t build that.” Somebody else made that happen.”

But what is clear is that Obama adheres to an ideology that believes market-based systems have to have a “social and moral and ethical and community basis.” In other words, capitalism needs to be run by a government that Obama views as “moral and ethical” so that “immoral…unethical” business owners don’t become rich, or, worse yet, independent of government control.

So either the president just suggested that communism/socialism can work, or Barack Obama was attempting to float an idea for a new moral and ethical economic system