Pro-choice Pelosi touts ‘spark of divinity’ within MS-13

Originally posted at American Thinker

Someone must have let Nancy Pelosi out on a weekend pass, because the woman is losing it.  At her press conference this week, the House minority leader mumbled, zoned out, and chuckled inappropriately.  The only thing missing from the event was drool dripping out the corner of Nancy’s mouth onto her expensive silk scarf.

The most peculiar thing Nancy had to say concerned the “spark of divinity” she believes resides within the violent street gang, MS-13.

Currently, most of these so-called Salvadoran “divine creatures” roam the streets of America illegally.  According to Robert Hur, an official with the Justice Department, the culturally diverse MS-13’s motto is “mata, viola, controla” – which translates “kill, rape, control.”

Notorious for their hand signs, machetes, and full body tattoos, MS-13 participate in activities that involve things like human- and drug-trafficking, child prostitution, kidnapping, gun-smuggling, murder, and gruesome styles of retribution.

In the Northeast, on Long Island alone, MS-13 committed 25 killings in the past two years.

Recently, President Donald Trump, a man who calls it like it is, referred to MS-13 residing in U.S. prisons as “animals.”  Based on the bedlam the gang has wrought within America’s borders, Trump calling them “animals” was more a compliment than an insult.

Simply put, MS-13 is a band of marauding illegals from Central America who threaten members with death if they attempt to leave the ranks and who wreak havoc wherever they go.

Speaking on behalf of the Democratic Party, Nancy Pelosi said Trump calling illegal rapists and murderers “animals” is offensive and harsh.

So, in between holding up five fingers while referring to the number six and staring out into space mid-sentence, during Pelosi’s press conference, the House minority leader also chided the POTUS for insulting MS-13.

Waxing spiritual, it happened during the former Speaker’s comments on “food insecurity.”  After mentioning “God’s children,” Nancy had this to say about Trump’s MS-13 comments:

When the President of the United States says about undocumented immigrants, “These aren’t people; these are animals,” you have to wonder: does he not believe in the spark of divinity?  The dignity and worth of every person?

Democrats are the ones who justify bestowing immigrant status on illegals while denying human status to unborn humans, and now Mrs. Pelosi is suddenly touting the “dignity and worth of every person”?

Nancy Pelosi must have forgotten that she advocates for the unfettered slaughter of 3,000 American babies per day.  Based on Nancy Pelosi’s own words, if a “spark of divinity” is infused into a fertilized egg, then supporting abortion is far worse than Trump calling MS-13 names.

Either way, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi is still the official spokesperson for a political party that publicly honors the “spark of divinity” in vicious street gangs and does it while disregarding the “spark of divinity” residing within the guiltless unborn.

In other words, when it comes to shedding innocent blood, pro-choice liberals and Central American street gangs are similar.  Therefore, before accusing Trump of being hostile toward violent gang members, maybe loopy Nancy Pelosi and her ilk need to acknowledge that the gruesome procedure that ends the life of the innocent and helpless inside the womb is on par with the murder and mayhem MS-13 inflicts on enemies outside the womb.

Consensual diaper changing

Originally posted at American Thinker

When not commenting on politically correct diaper protocol, Australian sexuality educator, speaker, and author, Deanne Carson teaches kids about body safety and how to express sexual consent.  Recently, Deanne appeared on government-owned The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (The ABC) to comment on a controversial rape case and to share her expertise concerning how to change a diaper. Resplendent in Women’s March pink pussy hat-colored hair, an unapologetic Deanne told the ABC reporter that if parents agree to learn to ask babies for permission before swapping out a dirty diaper for a clean one the culture of consent can begin in the home.

Carson shared with the interviewer that thru meaningful eye contact infants can be taught to indicate whether they feel good or bad about Desitin®, baby powder, and flushable tushy wipes.  In other words, in progressive circles, changing tables are now training grounds for future sexual encounters.

In all fairness, Deanne Carson does seem sincere in her belief that, regardless of the reason, infants should have a say whether or not their privates are exposed to the air for hygienic purposes.  Carson shared with the interviewer: “We work with children from three years old. We work with parents from birth”  — to which the startled reporter responded, “From birth?”

Pink hair and all, Ms. Carson replied:

Yes, just about how to set up a culture of consent in their homes so ‘I’m going to change your nappy now, is that OK?’ Of course a baby’s not going to respond ‘Yes mum, that’s awesome I’d love to have my nappy changed.’ But if you leave a space and wait for body language and wait to make eye contact then you’re letting that child know that their response matters.

First female progressives floated the narrative that all men are rapists, and now Mama and Papa need permission from Junior before a poopy Pampers can make its way from a baby’s bottom to the wastebasket? Which raises the question as to why it is that the same individuals who claim to be the most appalled with sexual assault are usually the most sexually suspicious and genitally fixated?

Moreover, who is Carson’s clientele?In all seriousness, are there really new parents who, right after the birth of a child, rush out and hire a sexuality expert to learn how to “set up a culture of consent in their home?”

And, even worse then Carson’s idea that consent is needed to change a newborn born baby’s diaper is her subtle insinuation that such an innocuous act has sexual connotations.  To believe that infants are uncomfortable having a parent change their diapers portrays as prospective sexual predators those whose calling is to protect their offspring.

Instead of burdening parents with unfounded anxiety, wouldn’t it be wonderful if Deanne Carson extended the same courtesy she extends when discussing parents touching infants to unborn children denied the right to life?

In fact, based on how Deanne Carson feels about bodily autonomy, one can’t help but wonder where the sexuality educator stands concerning the topic of abortion.

Judging from her unorthodox consent training theory, coupled with her feminist hair color and negative view of the traditional teen sex ed material used by evangelical Christian volunteers in Australia’s public schools, it’s likely secularist Deanne Carson leans to the left on the issue of choice.

And if that’s the case, it would also mean Deanne believes that although unborn babies have no right to life, if they should miraculously make it out of the womb in one piece, they have a right to signal “Yea” or “Nay” to a clean diaper.

In other words, if Carson believes a minutes-old baby, via body language, can convey diaper change consent, shouldn’t that also mean a child squirming in the womb is indicating it wants to remain alive?  Therefore, if consistency matters at all, women who believe in the right to suction, saline, or scalpel unborn children to death should refrain from touting the need to grant non-verbal newborns consent power over diaper changes.

And so, instead of advocating on behalf of changing table etiquette, maybe Australian sexuality educator Deanne Carson’s efforts might be better spent speaking on behalf of unborn baby body safety and how, even within the womb, infants signal to their mothers not to abort.

Michelle Obama, Oracle for the ‘United State of Women’

Originally posted at American Thinker

It’s hard to believe that 6,000 oppressed women could break free of their race and gender-imposed manacles to attend another women’s summit, but somehow they did.  The latest Obama-initiated conference was held in Los Angeles on May 5-6th and was titled: “The United State of Women Summit.”

In 2016 the Obama White House started United State of Women (USOW). This year, the event continued to advance community organizing workshop efforts, which encompassed victimization, racial agitation, gender ingratitude, a global vision, and overall left-wing blather.

Let’s remember, that even godless liberals appreciate the Biblical principle that “If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand,” (Mark 3:25).  Hence, the Obama-inspired left works tirelessly to divide the occupants of America’s house by stressing inequality and racial and gender barriers.

The USOW website states the purpose of the organization’s existence is the following:

The United State of Women is a national organization for any woman who sees that we need a different America for all women to survive and thrive — and wants to work collectively to achieve it. USOW amplifies the work of organizations and individuals at the forefront of the fight for women’s equality, and provides tools; access and connections that help women see and step into their power to break down the barriers that hold women back.

With that in mind, since the Obamas left the White House, the duo have managed to provide a conflict-ridden community organizer training venue to fit every gender, race, and ethnicity.

In fact, two of this weekend’s red flag workshops were proudly entitled: “Sheroes of Community Organizing 101” and “What the Tech?! A Crash Course for Tech-Curious Change makers and Community Organizers.”

Simply put, the women’s summit was chock full of radical activism, lessons in civic engagement, homages to organizations like Planned Parenthood and Get out the Vote schemes to ensure liberal Democrats seize back and continue to run the country.  The Community Partners section on the USOW proudly lists left-wing sponsors ranging from the National Center for Transgender Equality to California Latinas for Reproductive Justice to the ACLU.

Therefore, what took place in Los Angeles was an Obama-style gathering of victimized liberal females who feel that in America they can neither “survive” nor “thrive.” The illogicality of those accusations is that those running the conference are women who have become successful and wealthy telling other women that achievement is unattainable if you’re a female in America.

Summit voices included the likes of actress Hanoi Jane Fonda, who took to the podium to publicly lament her whiteness, and Obama’s “former” advisor, Valerie Jarrett, who still works behind the scenes to assist Barack Obama in his continuing effort to take out America.

As usual, the keynote Oracle was gender and racial agitator Michelle Obama who, despite her ranting is both “striving and thriving.” In truth, Mrs. Obama pads her bank account with speaking fees earned making empty innuendos about how some women have failed other women by doing things like electing Donald Trump.

As part of her repertoire, Michelle mentioned a topic more aptly directed toward abortion.  During her remarks, pro-choice advocate Michelle Obama demeaned a woman’s “right to choose” when she commented that “In light of this last election, I’m concerned about us as women and how we think. What is going on in our heads where we let that happen, you know?”

Apparently, Michelle Obama’s idea of fostering female empowerment includes criticizing women who dare to be independent thinkers.

Nevertheless, and in addition to judging female Trump voters, during the discussion with actress/interviewer Tracee Ellis Ross, Michelle spewed her usual poor me childhood story.  Then the former first lady reiterated that she isn’t interested in running for president right now because the state of the nation indicates that “it doesn’t matter who runs” until the U.S. becomes unified.

The subject of unity came up when communalist Michelle was urged by an audience member to seek office.  That’s when the former first lady replied:

Well, that’s a whole other story because that’s not the answer either. And when I hear people say, ‘you run,’ it’s part of the problem. We still didn’t get ‘yes we can’ right.’ It’s not ‘yes you can,’ it’s ‘yes we can.’ And until we get that right, it doesn’t matter who runs.

Michelle Obama’s assessment of unity is curious indeed. Here the former FLOTUS bemoans lack of national unity while nurturing the disunity she claims hinders America. So, based on that contradiction, what Michelle Obama is advocating for is dogged agreement.

In other words, when the whole country agrees with the Obama vision for “fundamental transformation,” then, according to Michelle Obama, there will be the type of harmony needed for a Democratic dictator to run for office.

Reaffirming the premise that street-level activism accomplishes more than occupying the Oval Office ever could, Michelle admitted to Tracee Ellis-Ross that “Change starts close to home,” i.e., Chicago-style community organizing.

The former FLOTUS also stressed that she thinks being president is a “distraction.”  Mrs. Obama said that “[l]ooking for the next person to run… that’s been our distraction. We’re going to wait for the next person to save us. We thought it was going to be Barack Obama, but he didn’t end racism.”

Calling the quest for a so-called unifying president a “distraction” may be why the Obamas set up less distracting non-profit/tax-exempt organizations like Organizing for Action and the United State of Women.  After all, the Obamas do believe arm bending, in the form of Alinsky-style community organizing, is a sure way to further staunch agreement.

Moreover, fashioning divisive organizations that categorize Americans into separate militant groups may be the most effective means of “dividing the house,” and overthrowing what the Obamas believe to be a White patriarchal power base.

For example, the former FLOTUS combined race and gender when she recounted the time she “choked” on reading the word “white” as a kindergartner.  Then Michelle, who doesn’t apply these standards to her husband said, “[w]atching men fail up — it is frustrating… to see a lot of men blow it and win.”

Michelle Obama, who made millions after she shifted her attention from organic gardening to racial activism, said she believes bigotry persists in America.  Mrs. Obama pointed out, “Like, I voted for the black man.  And we’re still living in racism.” The subject Michelle chose not to broach was how the racism she condemns became far worse after the black man she voted for ameliorated division via politically correct race baiting.

In the end, the “The United State of Women Summit 2018” was a gathering of 6,000 disgruntled women who attended community organizing lectures and workshops to train them to be gender and racial activists.  For the rest of America, the overriding message of the weekend summit is that instigators Michelle and Barack are still coming up with creative ways to generate chaos and unrest.

Michelle Obama: America’s ‘forever first lady’

Originally posted at American Thinker

Former first lady Michelle Obama surfaced at a Reach Higher 2018 College Signing Day event at Temple University in the City of Brotherly Love, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Speaking on behalf of her Better Make Room initiative, Michelle was gussied up in a black jumpsuit and a denim jacket and sounded a bit like rapper Common.

During her keynote speech, the former FLOTUS paused in all the right places and used ghetto-talk and hip-hop hand gestures to keep with the flow of her sing-songy exhortation to 8,000 Philadelphia high school students signing up for college.  After sharing sad experiences from her childhood, the former first lady officially announced that despite the discouragement of  “haters,” she became America’s “forever first lady.”

In other words, despite Melania Trump being the current “first lady,” much as Michelle’s husband Barack fancies himself “forever president of the United States,” according to Mrs. Obama, she is, and always will be, America’s “forever first lady.”  Based on the cheering coming from the audience, the kids agreed.

Here’s what Rapping Michelle had to say:

Seeing as breaking it down is what rappers do, let’s break down some of what the forever first lady shared.

For starters, why does Michelle always try to strengthen her comments by speaking in plurals?  During one part of her speech, she said, “We have such high hopes for you.”  Question: Is Barack the mystery half of the “we” who have “such high hopes” for 8,000 future college students?

Michelle Obama excited the cheering crowd when she told them “[she] knows that [they] have everything it takes to succeed.”  Then, Michelle reminded the kids, “See, I am not one of those doubters.”

Why does Mrs. Obama always make vague references to nonexistent individuals from her past?  Thankfully, Shelley is “not one of those doubters” who doubt that the 8,000 School District of Philadelphia schoolchildren can succeed.  However, unlike Michelle Obama, some nameless, faceless doubter apparently thinks otherwise.

After Michelle made obscure references to anonymous doubters, she played the predictable “you are me” card, telling the audience, “I know you are me.”

Let’s not forget that both the Obamas have made it known that their goal is to have millions of tiny little Barack and Michelle clones running around like automaton facsimiles, doing what the two progressive programmers command them to do.

Recently, the former president shared with an Asian audience that he and Michelle both realize that the presidency constrained their ability to propagate “a million young Barack Obamas or Michelle Obamas.”  So, when Michelle tells an audience full of high school students “you are me,” for her, it’s not clever wordplay; it’s a call to service.

Michelle ended her upbeat, breathy rap-style exhortation by informing the potential “little mes” that if she could be standing there as “forever first lady,” then “[they] can do anything [they] put [their] mind to.”

Everyone was so exhilarated by the drivel; neither the Princeton grad nor her audience realized that if taken literally, what was said could be construed to mean that if the students put their mind to it, they could become America’s “forever first lady” – which would cancel out the “forever” part for Michelle.

The keynote speaker ended her nine-minute speech by reminding the students that when they are out there, they will hit roadblocks.  Then the “forever first lady” urged the students, when meeting those barriers, to think fondly of 2018 College Signing Day at Temple University and remember that when not vacationing or out stirring up racial tension, she’d be “thinking and praying” for all 8,000 of them.

‘Predictable’ Obama Praises the Parkland Five

Originally posted at American Thinker

Former president Barack Obama is a man who exhibits selective outrage based upon how a tragedy can benefit advancing the utopian vision.  If an event includes changing “the world as it is” into the world Obama thinks it “should be,” the former president will commend whomever he has to.

With that in mind, recently, via a piece written for Time magazine entitled “Cameron Kasky, Jaclyn Corin, David Hogg, Emma Gonzalez and Alex Wind,” Obama praised the five Parkland student-activists who made Time’s 100 Most Influential People list.

The former president wrote, “America’s response to mass shootings has long followed a predictable pattern.”  Obama’s article was even more “predictable.”

For starters, the ex-POTUS chided Americans for our behavior after a mass shooting:

We mourn.  Offer thoughts and prayers.  Speculate about the motives.  And then – even as no developed country endures a homicide rate like ours, a difference explained largely by pervasive accessibility to guns; even as the majority of gun owners support commonsense reforms – the political debate spirals into acrimony and paralysis.

Those sentiments come from a fellow whose whole career hinges on the debate that “spirals into acrimony and paralysis.”  After all, Obama is the one who laments death by guns while supporting “pervasive accessibility” to abortion on demand.  In fact, the most glaring contradiction in Obama’s Parkland stance is that 18 years ago, he would have heartily supported aborting the five teens to whom he pays Time tribute.

Nevertheless, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, every year, there are still approximately 33,000 gun violence deaths in the US, two thirds of which are from suicide, a right to choose Democrats likely support.  Therefore, if former President Obama is concerned about violent death, why does he ignore the statistic that says every ten days, 30,000 Americans lose their lives in an abortion facility?

As for “commonsense reforms” for firearms, isn’t it Obama who refuses to respect the fact that a majority of Americans also want “commonsense reforms” banning abortion after 20 weeks?

Either way, Obama’s words extolled the future of student activism by expressing the complimentary view that:

This time, something different is happening.  This time, our children are calling us to account[.] … [T]he Parkland, Fla., students don’t have the kind of lobbyists or big budgets for attack ads that their opponents do.  Most of them can’t even vote yet.

Despite all his talk about lack of lobbyists, big budgets, and attack ads, in truth, Obama is well aware that anti-gun billionaires organize and fund marches and recruit the media to demonize both the Second Amendment and the NRA.  Trust me: above all, Barack Obama is a wily twister of minds.  Whenever the former president says something isn’t happening, it should call attention to what he’s probably helping bring to pass.

In addition to deception, Obama’s written homage to youthful activism included the opinion that Parkland activists possess the “power so often inherent in youth: to see the world anew; to reject the old constraints, outdated conventions and cowardice too often dressed up as wisdom.”

Someone needs to ask the former U.S. president whether he considers adherence to the Bill of Rights an “old constraint, outdated convention and cowardice too often dressed up as wisdom.”  And, notwithstanding the opinion that radicalized youth exercise “[t]he power to insist that America can be better,” if the Constitution he considers “deeply flawed” manages to survive the left’s assault, is Obama saying America will be worse because of it?

Meanwhile, Obama’s obsequious rant continued with the following words:

Seared by memories of seeing their friends murdered at a place they believed to be safe, these young leaders don’t intimidate easily.  They see the NRA and its allies – whether mealy-mouthed politicians or mendacious commentators peddling conspiracy theories – as mere shills for those who make money selling weapons of war to whoever can pay.  They’re as comfortable speaking truth to power as they are dismissive of platitudes and punditry.  And they live to mobilize their peers.

Wait!  Barack Obama suddenly cares about safety?  This man displays zero compassion for babies slaughtered by the millions in the womb, “a place they believed to be safe.”  Moreover, during his tenure, when police officers were assassinated in the safety of a police cruiser and Americans murdered in cities once deemed safe, then-president Obama either remained silent or used the tragedy to commiserate with the perpetrators.

With that in mind, maybe mendacity and mealy-mouthedness are not character faults a person like Obama should be highlighting.

Furthermore, one can’t help but wonder what the five educationally “dumbed down” high school students, who Obama claims “speak truth to power” and “dismiss … platitudes and punditry,” would think if they knew he had handed murderous Mexican drug cartels “weapons of war” that resulted in Americans dying.

Anyway, in typical, Obama sullied the NRA and the Republican Congress and so-called “conspiratorial” conservative pundits.  Then, while attempting to “sway” the swayable, Obama condemned political adversaries for using the “scare tactics [he uses] on much of the country” every time he speaks.

Then Obama wrote: “But by bearing witness to carnage, by asking tough questions and demanding real answers, the Parkland students are shaking us out of our complacency.”  Sorry, but the words “carnage” and “complacency” are much more fitting to discussions concerning liberal policies with high body counts.

Then, without citing that the “disproportionate victims of gun violence” live in cities where gun laws are the strictest, America’s most famous community organizer demonized, prophesied, patronized, and attempted to get out the vote through ethnic and racial “common cause” when he wrote:

The NRA’s favored candidates are starting to fear they might lose.  Law-abiding gun owners are starting to speak out.  As these young leaders make common cause with African Americans and Latinos – the disproportionate victims of gun violence – and reach voting age, the possibilities of meaningful change will steadily grow.

In conclusion, Obama pronounced:

Our history is defined by the youthful push to make America more just, more compassionate, more equal under the law.  This generation – of Parkland, of Dreamers, of Black Lives Matter – embraces that duty.  If they make their elders uncomfortable, that’s how it should be.

Undoubtedly, based on those words, what remains clear is that our nation’s 44th president continues to side with anti-gun activists, illegal aliens, and radical racist groups, all of whom believe that this country is unjust, lacks compassion, and endorses inequality.

In like manner, Obama’s piece provokes the youthful to make elder Americans “uncomfortable,” which for Barack Obama is “the world” as “it should be.”

In the end, the Parkland students are five manipulable youths Barack Obama hopes to employ in his mission to craft a “future [that] isn’t written [by] us [or them], but by [himself].”  And so, in the progressive effort to revise America, the “kids” Obama would have cheerfully aborted 18 years ago are now his new recruits.

%d bloggers like this: