After ISIS’s Dance of Death Michelle Does the Conga

6903805_michelle-obama-hosts-weinstein-companys_a4d8b291_mOriginally posted at American Thinker

The young people who went to Paris’s La Bataclan concert hall last week went to party and dance. The problem is that 89 of those that jammed into the Eagles of Death Metal concert ended up dead or missing.

A mere 72 hours later, in a stunning display of tactlessness and lack of decorum, at a White House hosted Broadway workshop Michelle Obama danced. Tearing up the carpet in the East Room, the FLOTUS danced the Conga with the same enthusiasm she exhibited when boogieing to the “Uptown Funk” and churning out Bollywood moves on Diwali.

Casting ‘Paris attack’ sackcloth and ashes aside, Michelle invited 40 performing arts high school students to a festive event entitled “Broadway” at the White House, which will air on TLC on November 26.

Joining the students were stage luminaries such as: “Glee” star Matthew Morrison, Latina “Conga” singing sensation Gloria Estefan, composer Andrew Lloyd Weber, Whoopi ‘The View’ Goldberg, Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, and aging African American actress Cicely Tyson.

From the Broadway show based on the story of her and her husband Emilio’s life, Estefan sang “On Your Feet!” and “Glee”’s Matt Morrison belted out a number from Finding Neverland.

Meanwhile, in France, bouquets were being piled high where three days prior bloody bodies fell dead. Yet at the same time at the White House students were treated to rousing Broadway-style acts from shows like: Fun HomeAn American in ParisSchool of Rock, and Something Rotten.

Speaking of ‘something rotten,’ while 128 victims of ISIS were being identified by family, autopsied, prepared for burial, and tearfully eulogized, America’s empathetic First Lady chose to mark the occasion with an afternoon of acting, directing, singing, costume design, makeup, and music composition workshops.

Then, rather than exhibiting the dignity called for at such a sober time, in the midst of ISIS threatening to taste American blood, Michelle Obama took Gloria Estefan’s advice, got up on her size 11.5 feet and danced the Conga with choreographer Sergio Trujillo and actress/singer Ana Villafana. “There you go with a shimmy!” choreographer Sergio Trujillo teased the First Lady.

Rather than honor France’s dead and inspire youth to understand the pressing issue of worldwide terrorism, Michelle ‘it’s all about you’ Obama told the performing artist wannabes: “These folks are here today to honor you and to hopefully inspire you.”

Mrs. Obama encouraged the schoolchildren by telling them; “They’re also here with an important message for you about what it takes to succeed, not just on Broadway, but in life.”

It would have been more sincere if Michelle had warned the kiddies that because of her husband’s irresponsible policies, attaining success in America, on Broadway, or anywhere else on the planet, seems highly unlikely.

Moreover, shouldn’t the First Lady have also pointed out that if Barack Obama continues to ‘fundamentally transform’ America by accepting military-aged male ISIS fighters disguised as refugees into our nation it’s highly doubtful, despite their “passion and creativity,” that Broadway at the White House-attendees will have a shot at any kind of life at all?

Instead, Michelle, the woman whose husband Obama once called the U.S. Constitution “a deeply flawed document” chose to depict Broadway as a “cornerstone” of American heritage.

FLOTUS said, “Since America is such a big, bold, beautiful nation, that’s how our stories are told on Broadway.” Furthermore, in an effort to advance academic excellence, the one woman Conga machine schooled the young learners by saying that in addition to entertaining and inspiring us, and in lieu of a public school system that teaches unrevised American history, it’s Broadway that “educates” us.

Then, in commemoration of the 128 people mercilessly slaughtered in the heart of Paris, Mrs. Obama cited her husband’s comments about the tragedy by telling her audience this:

As my husband said on Friday, this was an attack not just on France, our dear friend and ally, but on all of humanity and our shared values. And as we mourn, we know that we must continue to show the strength of those values and hopes that the President spoke about when he talked.

Pressing on, FLOTUS flattered her audience by stressing that “the beauty is that all of you here, our young people that are here, you all reflect that passion, that creativity. You all are a part of those values that the President talked about.”

“That’s what we’re protecting,” she said.

And even though thanks to Barack Obama’s reckless attitude toward homeland security, Americans are finding themselves more insecure than ever, according to his wife, “We’re protecting what you all represent.”

And so, after ISIS’s dance of death in France, and judging from her lackadaisical party attitude, it appears as if the values Michelle wants protected includes her right to dance the Conga while the world grieves a terrorist attack.

DOUBLE STANDARD: Why Was Carson Put On Blast Instead of Hillary?

ben cars jeannieOriginally posted at CLASH Daily

Most people seem to agree that the CNBC-moderated GOP debate proved to be less about Republican presidential hopefuls’ policy proposals and more of a glaring exhibition of brazen media bias. The partisan-driven indignation present in the way every question was posed transformed a political discussion into something just shy of hot bright-light police interrogation. The whole affair was so left-leaning, the only person missing from the moderator panel was MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry bedecked in a pair of dangling tampon earrings berating the panelists on women’s issues.

In the end, the accusatory tone and pugnacious stance of the moderators became a failed attempt to put Republican candidates on the defensive and to goad adversaries into impugning each other’s moral authority. The problem is that, as witnessed by Hillary Clinton’s recent testimony concerning Benghazi, unlike the Republican candidates participating in the CNBC debate the secretary of state did not face as aggressive a panel of denigrators.

A perfect example of this double standard was when CNBC “Squawk on the Street” anchor Carl Quintanilla followed up on an answer given by esteemed former pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson.

Immediately after failing to trip up Dr. Carson with a question about the hypocrisy of associating with homosexual groups while disapproving of same-sex marriage, Quintanilla segued into a query about the doctor’s purported link to Mannatech, a nutritional supplement company accused of making false curative claims regarding one of its products.

The unflappable Dr. Carson responded, “That’s easy to answer,” he said. “I didn’t have involvement with them. That is total propaganda.” Carson explained that his connection to Mannatech is not a business relationship and only involved his delivering a few speeches.

In predictable “gotcha” fashion, Quintanilla asked Carson why, if that was true, was his image with Mannatech’s logo used to market the questionable supplement on the company’s website? “If somebody put me on their homepage,” Carson said, “they did so without my knowledge.”

Unable to discredit Carson’s judgment for involving himself with Mannatech, Quintanilla quickly changed gears and used the “without my knowledge” statement as a springboard to question the presidential hopeful’s ability to manage those he’s responsible for overseeing.

Referring to someone placing Carson’s image alongside Mannatech’s logo on the company’s homepage without the doctor’s knowledge, Quintanilla probed, “Does that not speak to your vetting process or judgment in any way?”

The CNBC’s anchor’s absurd question/insult was met with boos from the crowd, to which Carson responded by pointing out that the audience recognized the bias and saying, “See? They know.”

Just a week prior to the GOP debate America sat through nine grueling hours of listening to Hillary Clinton implicitly absolve herself from guilt by passing blame to her security team for not responding to the cry for added security from Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi.

If Clinton had defended the men in Benghazi with a fraction of the effort she displayed while defending herself at the Benghazi hearing, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty would probably be alive today. Nonetheless, Hillary testified to the committee that she was not responsible for what happened that fateful night because fall-guy security professionals in the department handled the State Department security requests.

Based on her contradictory answers, the imperious Mrs. Clinton, who claims she was well aware of the very risks she sometimes implies she was unaware existed, proved she wouldn’t know the truth if it smacked her upside the head. She said of Stevens’ requests for added security, “I did not see them. I did not approve them. I did not deny them.”

Now that is a perfect example of the type of statement crying out to be challenged by the likes of Quintanilla at the next Democrat debate. After all, Hillary’s lack of hands-on involvement in securing adequate security for a frightened ambassador does speak directly to her faulty managerial skills and lack of judgment.

Quintanilla, who represents the mindset of the majority of the mainstream media, questioned Carson about his failure to check up on an anonymous graphic artist over a Photoshopped image on a website. Meanwhile, Hillary’s vetting ability goes unchallenged after she admits that the team for which she was ultimately responsible didn’t sense Americans were in danger in Libya. The result of Hillary’s vetting/judgment = four dead Americans.

Hillary did admit that Stevens did not have her personal email address and acknowledged that some of Stevens’ 600+ requests for additional security were approved while others were not. Clinton claimed that, based on her evaluation of the threat level, even though four people returned home in flag-draped coffins, “There is no doubt in [her] mind that [they] did the best [they] could with the information [they] had at the time.”

Again, someone should take note for the next Democrat debate that Hillary’s “best we could do” statement presents an opportunity for a question/assertion similar to the one Quintanilla made to Carson. How about something like this: “With all due respect Madam, seeing as your best wasn’t good enough, does that not speak to your lack of judgment and inability to fulfill the demanding role of Secretary of State? And if so, do you deserve a promotion?”

At the CNBC-hosted debate, a presidential candidate who dedicated his life to saving lives was grilled and demeaned because he accepted a speaking engagement from a company that falsely claimed without his knowledge that their “glyconutrient” heals autism and cancer.

Instead of Dr. Carson, who operates on brains, America has a smooth operator with no brains at all running for president named Hillary Rodham Clinton. Meanwhile Hillary’s gross incompetence and flagrant falsehoods go unchallenged by the same left-wing media types who ignore her deadly ineptitude while claiming to be journalists.

HILLARY AND BERNIE: The King and Queen of the Illogical and the Irrational

Screen-Shot-2015-10-29-at-9.45.09-PM-300x180Originally posted at CLASH Daily

Liberalism – although widely accepted by the illogical among us – continues to confuse the reasoned and rational. On most issues, liberals promote contradictory polices that when viewed in a coherent context make no sense whatsoever.

Let’s take the two leading presidential hopefuls for the Democrat party: Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. What we already know is that Hillary stands up for non-traditional gay marriage while remaining for 40 years in a sham of a traditional marriage. And Bernie, while glorifying the middle class, really views everyday workers as a “mass of hot dazed humanity heading uptown for the 9-5… [sentenced to endless days of]… moron[ic] … monotonous work” just aching to be taxed.

In like manner, a schmear of egg salad Bernie and “Orange is the new black” pantsuit Hillary make zero sense when proposing policy.

Take for instance Bern-Hill’s passionate albeit contradictory commitment to funding both abortion AND paid family leave.

Political opponents can’t win for losing. Which is it? Are we paying women to kill the unborn during the first three months of gestation or are we paying them to stay home for three months after giving birth to the same baby the liberal left would have happily aborted six months earlier?

How about taxing the rich, an economic status Hillary epitomizes. Hillary doesn’t seem to mind that she and Bill swindled $101.5 million from the American people, nor does she have any shame when talking about women’s pay inequity despite her daughter Chelsea, who lives in a $10 million NYC apartment, having earned $600K per year for an entry-level position at NBC.

Hillary apparently thinks there is plenty more where that came from and views the American people as a source of limitless cash from whence she can gather what she wants unto herself by projecting a level of remorse onto those who are duped by theatrics.

Hillary, like Bernie, exempts herself from the demonization of the uber rich and joins the Brooklyn native in shilling for things like free college educations for all. To accomplish their socialist utopia the Bern-Hill duo plan to take outrageous measures.

Take Bernie for instance – this guy is unabashed when talking about taxing the upper 10% of wage earners 90% of their income. But taxing the rich is not enough, so Bernie the maternity leave maven has also said that every taxpayer, both rich and middle class, will help finance things like paying pro-choice women to give birth and stay home for three months.

In a perverted sort of way, liberals like Bernie and Hillary are economic geniuses, and to gain more followers maybe they should explain how in the long run aborting 4,000 babies a day saves on future paid family and medical leave and free college.

The notion behind the Bern-Hill free-college proposal is the lofty idea that even the least among us should have a chance to succeed. The problem is that the inspiration to do so is impeded by the knowledge that after going to college and becoming financially prosperous, pit bulls Bern-Hill will come after your earnings as punishment for what they helped you achieve.

Talk about a brilliant motivator for success!

Although the truth is that the rich pay the largest share of taxes, Bern-Hill plan to punish the affluent even more by taking a bigger portion of what they earn and using free college, which they maintain is a stepping stone to economic achievement, as justification to do so.

So in other words, in addition to cultivating Americans for future 90% taxation, liberal fairness consists of depriving the well-heeled of the opportunity to spend the money they earned any way they want and allowing liberal politicians like Bernie and Hillary to spend the dough they’ve extorted from the rich in any socially justifiable way they see fit.

And yet despite the US federal government being the biggest, most corrupt filthy-rich corporation on the face of the earth there are still anti-corporate socialists who agree it’s a brilliant idea to enrich Corporate Entitlement Officiator Bernie Sanders’s business plan.

Here’s an idea: sort of like a long term investment, maybe Bernie Sanders supporters could lead the way to fairness and set a pre-election example by living off just 10% of their income and sending the other 90% to the Sanders campaign. That way, if Brooklyn Bernie is elected, the example of sustaining oneself on the barest minimum can be set forth as a laudable goal even Mrs. Marc Mezvinsky would want to achieve.

Then again, Bernie and Hillary followers are more about punishment than personal sacrifice!

Nonetheless, leaving aside climate change, illegal immigration, gun control and healthcare, a few obvious questions remain: Are Americans being asked to fund both abortion and postpartum vacations? Are the rich being asked to finance free college so that college grads can become rich and then be bilked for someone else’s free education? But most importantly, are all wealthy people intrinsically evil or only the well-off types who chose not to enrich themselves on the backs of American taxpayers?

America will have to wait for those answers. In the meantime, the scariest part of Bernie and Hillary’s popularity is that the contradictory messages these two send actually make perfect sense to a high percentage of the voting public.

When the ‘right to choose’ crosses the line into infanticide

newborn-infant-babyOriginally posted at Live Action News

A few weeks ago, women proud of destroying their unborn children started a #ShoutYourAbortion campaign on Twitter.  The goal of the hashtag movement was to emphasize that exterminating one’s own flesh and blood need not be something a woman laments over or regrets.

Add that mother’s-choice-trumps–sanctity-of-life message to Planned Parenthood playing down the sale of born-alive baby organs and it’s easy to understand why, in the ultimate act of buyer’s remorse, mothers are tossing their children out of windows like common trash.

Take for instance, 21-year-old Rashida Chowdhury.

Ms. Chowdhury chose not to mitigate her guilt by signing a release form for Planned Parenthood to harvest her infant son Rizwan’s organs for sale. Instead, 20 days after his birth, at four o’clock in the morning, Rashida tossed Rizwan – dressed in a white and blue onesie – out of the fourth-floor bathroom window of her Richmond Hill apartment complex.

Clearly disturbed, Ms. Chowdhury believed that an evil spirit possessed the babe after he was recently hospitalized with a viral infection. So, to banish the demon and to ‘stop the pain,’ Chowdhury flung her son into a trash-strewn courtyard. An autopsy revealed that as a result of landing on the cement, Rizwan Ahmad died of blunt impact of the head and torso.  Rizwan’s tiny skull was fractured and he also had lacerations of brain, liver and spleen.

Had Rizwan been aborted, he would have suffered similar lacerations and fractures. The only difference for Chowdhury is that, unlike the #ShoutYourAbortion group’s offspring or born-alive children whose hearts were stopped by clinicians eager to harvest their brains, this tiny boy lived outside the womb for three weeks.

For exercising choice after the expiration date, Rashida, who pled not guilty, was charged with second-degree murder and intentional murder of a victim less than 11-years-old.

The following month, former child services worker Jennifer Berry, 33, of Yonkers, also deferred her right to choose until after her daughter was outside the womb.

Jennifer changed her mind after giving birth in her boyfriend’s shower.  With the baby’s umbilical cord still attached, the mother tossed her still-breathing daughter – together with the placenta – out of a seventh-floor window into the yard of her boyfriend’s Bronx apartment house.

Minutes after she threw the baby out the window, the child’s father, Giovanni Johnson, who didn’t know Jennifer was pregnant, found her bleeding in the shower.  When he asked her if she was pregnant, she told him she’d had an abortion four months earlier. Maybe what Berry meant to say was “four seconds earlier.” Maybe she thought the murder she committed just seconds before Johnson found her in the shower was just a ‘later-than-late-term’ abortion.

Since then, investigators have been looking into the death of another one of Jennifer Berry’s children – a boy that allegedly died of SIDS in 2008 at just two and a half weeks old.

Notwithstanding, Berry told authorities that the 8-pound healthy baby girl she threw out the window was stillborn. But the autopsy report shows that, just like baby Rizwan, this baby girl was alive before she hit the pavement, and multiple blunt force injuries are what induced this tiny girl’s post-birth demise.

If only Jennifer – who like Rashida also pleaded not guilty – had visited Planned Parenthood a few weeks earlier, the baby’s death wouldn’t have been a homicide. Such an ample supply of fetal tissue would likely have inspired the abortion providers to accommodate her desire to terminate her pregnancy in a less dramatic way and Berry wouldn’t have been charged with second-degree murder and manslaughter.

In the third such incident in New York since August, Fordham Heights section of the Bronx, 27-year-old mother of four/former day care worker Tenisha N. Fearon threw six-month-old Junilah Lawrence out of a sixth-floor window.

According to neighbor Lizette Rodriguez, prior to flinging the baby to her death, while standing naked in the window, a psychotic Tenisha #ShoutedHerDelayedAbortion to the gathering crowd, yelling, “Hallelujah, Praise God! I’m going to throw her. We’re all gonna die!” Despite people begging her, “Don’t throw the baby, don’t throw the baby,” after dangling her daughter out the window, Fearon let the child fall six stories to her death. On the pavement where she died, Junilah left behind one tiny shoe and a Mickey Mouse headband.

After being charged with murder and held without bail, a judge ordered Tenisha to undergo a psychiatric exam.

baby thrown awayPlanned Parenthood and #ShoutYourAbortion aside, two medical ethicists formerly associated with Oxford, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, have already argued in a Journal of Medical Ethics article that newborn babies outside the womb are just as “morally irrelevant” as those inside the womb and disposing of them after they are born is no different from terminating them prior to birth.

Minerva and Giubilini believe that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn)” should be permissible in all cases, whether or not the newborn is disabled. We can safely assume, however, that no one has yet ordered Minerva and Giubilini to undergo psychiatric exams.

Consequently, arguments for depriving the newborn of personhood are successfully blurring the line between pre- and post-birth abortion. That’s why in some circles, infanticide, or the disposal of “potential persons,” is now silently accepted by a slowly desensitizing culture as nothing more than a badly-timed belated abortion that women should still have the right to choose.

As a result, women with shrinking consciences, and especially the mentally unbalanced, are flushing babies down toilets, leaving their newborns in restroom garbage cans and at the curb in trash bags, and tossing their tiny infants out of windows.

OPEN BORDERS: Is Obama Educating Child Suicide Bombers in America’s Classrooms?

Originally posted at CLASH Daily

Last year when Obama opened the border to beckon Central American children into America’s midst, those who were against seating “unaccompanied minors” in our classrooms were viewed as anti-child, mean-spirited and unloving. The question from the left was: “What are we supposed to do, turn these children away?”

For those who tend to think logically and can set aside misplaced sympathies cultivated by master manipulators to focus on reason, the primary motive of the objectors to avoid taking in these children hinges on the dual dangers posed by both disease and terrorism.

For starters, as was attested to in the receiving areas on the border, many of the “unaccompanied minors” were infected with various Third-World illnesses that Americans and more specifically American children have no immunity to. As a result, innocent schoolchildren died from an imported Enterovirus that has not been seen in America since the 1950s. Although not a politically-correct fact, according to a Virology Journal article from 2013, Enterovirus D-68 is very common in the countries from which the illegal immigrant children migrated.

And while Third World diseases are indeed a risk, what is more frightening is the potential for children with more nefarious intent, and whose ethnicity is impossible to detect, finding a way to slip over the border and into our classrooms.

Let’s face it – while Americans are busy defending the right to abort their children, in other parts of the world children are being born for the specific purpose of training them to be suicidal terrorists. Instead of thinking like a terrorist and grasping the totality of how far the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) will go to export terror to the west, Americans will likely learn the hard way when little Ahmed comes to school with a backpack stuffed with something other than a Halal-approved hummus sandwich.

What’s already apparent is that right under our noses ISIL likely has training camps where adorable little boys who could easily pass as Latinos are being groomed for suicide missions. Let’s not forget that mini-Palestinian suicide bombers have become a common threat in Israel.

In Turkey, after the recent twin blasts in the capital of Ankara killed 102 civilians and injured hundreds, Turkey ramped up their anti-terror police operations against ISIL militants in the country.

Then, lo-and-behold, in the Pendik and Başakşehir district of Istanbul, after ISIL penetrated the Turkish border from Iraq and Syria, an ISIL child-training camp was discovered. Now what pray tell would 24 cute little, sweet little, giggling children be trained for in basement apartments in Istanbul?

Well, according to surveillance collected by the Istanbul Police Department Counterterrorism Unit, it seems the suspects that were arrested were using the apartments as militant training camps.

In other words, the Cubs of the Caliphate are in Turkey training to utilize or export a very innocent-looking form of terror. America had best beware that if Abdul Aziz got the chance he would gladly blow up an elementary school with something that has more bomb and less clock.

Think it’s impossible?

In Northern Syria, pubescent 14-year-old Mar Hadid Al-Muhammadi killed over 50 Kurdish militants in a suicide bombing mission. While American kids are taking selfies and figuring out ways to build self-esteem on the soccer field, in the Middle East the “Cubs of the Caliphate” are requesting martyrdom missions.

In the Iraqi town of Heet, which is 31 miles from Ramadi, mothers who refused to give their sons over to ISIS to be trained for suicide missions were torched alive with their sons.

With that kind of commitment to training “baby bombers” and a militant camp filled with suicide martyr wannabes located in an apartment building in Istanbul, how long before ISIS figures out that if they want to export an army of cherubic novices on a mission to America all they have to do is drop them on the southern border?

Imagine how the caliphate trainees giggle at the Great Satan when they learn that if you have a Muslim name and you bring a device to school that looks like a bomb you’ll get a Tweet from the president, an invite to the White House, and a scholarship to NASA space camp.

Once the pint-sized ISIS fighters are picked up by the benevolent border patrol, they will be ferried into a public school classroom where bringing a clock-bomb to school is easier than smuggling in a box of evil Oreos.

Obama leaves the border open and embraces refugees from war-torn areas where ISIS is burning, butchering, and crucifying as a form of recruitment motivation. Meanwhile, the ultimate goal for ISIS is to first infiltrate Europe and then gain access to the US, which is the ultimate prize.

Once here, as liberals continue to chide the wary and educators teach our children about diversity and to accept all cultures, sitting alongside little Ashley learning Common Core mathematics may be a militant “newcomer” whose sole purpose in life is to be martyred for Allah.


Originally posted at CLASH Daily

Hillary Rodham Clinton loves to portray herself as pro-family. This is a woman who has been un-blissfully wed for 40 years to the world’s most notorious philanderer and yet, on their anniversary, she unabashedly tweeted to Bill, who was probably enjoying a cigar on Pedophile Island with Jeffrey Epstein, that he’s still “got it,” whatever “it” is

In addition to “taking a village” of nubile Lolitas to keep her lecherous husband sexually satisfied, when it comes to family values Mrs. Clinton also believes “It Takes a Village” to raise a child.

And thank God for the village, because from the looks of things Huma Abedin, Hillary’s right-hand woman, has had to leave her little boy with the village people so that she can aid and abet the most power-hungry female on the planet.

You remember Huma – she’s the humiliated wife of former Congressman Anthony “Naked Selfies” Weiner (D-NY). After Anthony got caught with his pants down the last time Huma was off tending to Mrs. Clinton’s needs, Hillary’s closest confidante took her mentor’s advice and stayed married to Sydney Leathers’ boyfriend.

This time around, while Huma is again on the road, besides being more careful while sexting Mr. Weiner spends the lion’s share of his time tending to the couple’s three-year-old son Jordan Zain.

While the tousled-haired tot is home eating stale Cheerios with Dad, besides ordering Her HRC Chipotle chicken burrito bowls, Huma serves as vice chairwoman of Hillary for America and travels around in the Scooby-Doo van listening to Hillary drone on and on incessantly about her plans to take over the world.

While Hillary markets herself as mother and grandmother of the year, instead of suggesting Huma go home and potty train her child, Clinton stands by while Abedin embroils herself in the Clinton email scandal, takes to Twitter to trash Republican candidates like Ben Carson for his Muslim remarks, and single-handedly makes sure the creases in the legs of Hillary’s pantsuits adequately elongate the presidential hopeful’s lithe physique.

Fake, phony fraud that she is, Hillary wants America to believe that she’s “standing up for kids and families.” But in reality, having Huma with her is more important to Hillary than her assistant’s husband, who seems to still be struggling with infidelity, and child, both of whom need to have a wife and mother in closer proximity than a presidential debate in Nevada.

Mrs. Clinton is well aware that much like herself and Bill, Huma has had to deal with Anthony’s very public indiscretions. Yet rather than suggest her sounding-board gofer girl mend her marriage and tend to her small son, a self-centered Hillary has permitted Huma to put mothering and marital restoration aside to assist her on the campaign trail.

Then again, Hillary, a strong supporter of abortion, may say she’s all for families, but based on the message her lifestyle sends and some of her more ridiculous campaign ads, what’s patently clear is that Hillary believes that climate change has a more negative effect on children than an abortion, absentee mother, or a pervert father.

Nonetheless, even those things have not prevented Hillary from having a campaign slogan that says she believes that “when families are strong, America is strong.” The problem with such a disingenuous statement coming from Hillary is that the tireless political hack has a family life and marriage that is, has been, and always will be a sad, pathetic sham.

Remember way back when Hillary stated her feminist goals, saying, “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.”

In other words, Hillary is proud that her dedication to her profession took precedence over her commitment to her husband and marriage.

Lest we forget that as part of the almost half-century long cohabitating ruse, while goal-oriented Mom is out frenetically pursuing her hollow fantasy, on 20 acres in Chappaqua, New York sits an $11 million mansion furnished with cold-hearted unfaithfulness, complete with a fully-equipped kitchen that is absent of the smell of freshly baked cookies and devoted nurturing.

And Hillary is preaching to us about the importance of family values?

By allowing Huma to follow the lonesome path she’s chosen, hypocrite Hillary is promoting more of the same self-inflicted maternal and marital dysfunction she’s suffered for a lifetime.

For 40 years Clinton has endured her husband’s voracious desire for other women and now, rather than admit that her selfish pursuit of power may be largely responsible for her own domestic dismay, a pretentious Hillary dares to tout strong families as if she’s an authority on the subject.

Moreover, on behalf of a selfish goal, rather than send Abedin home where the young mother belongs, in order to help her claw her way into the Oval Office, Hillary Clinton is allowing her personal aide to virtually abandon her child and marriage.

God forbid, but if Clinton does somehow manage to bamboozle her way back into the White House, she’ll reside there a bitter old woman who gave up everything that matters in order to occupy for a fleeting moment in time what she foolishly believed to be the fulfillment of her own historic vision.

Still, it was Hillary who once said: “Don’t confuse having a career with having a life.”

With that in mind, maybe the next time Huma and Hillary put their heads together for a tête-à-tête, the aging careerist whose bifocals are fixed like a laser on the White House could turn things around for Huma by telling the young woman that it would be in her family’s best interest if she went home.

The Liberal Nurturing of Gun Violence

obamawithgunOriginally posted at American Thinker

Of late it seems as though liberals on the whole are incapable of understanding how one thing can affect another.  In this case, it’s the holy grail of abortion’s effect on gun violence.

Whether they recognize it or not, liberal ideology has contributed toward America devolving into a macabre death culture, where rooted in the corporate psyche is the idea that expediency trumps the sanctity of God-given life.  The abortion/gun violence dichotomy arises when pro-choice advocates like Barack Obama seek to limit some weapons made of steel but heartily support an industry that also uses steel to destroy innocent life.

In other words, America is again embroiled in a crisis the left has spent decades nurturing but is now seeking to remedy.

Liberals are adamant about funding the slaughter of 4,000 human beings a day.  Meanwhile, those who seek to advance abortion simultaneously insist that guns, which are inanimate objects, are responsible for killing people whom, if they were still in the womb, the left would be more than happy to exterminate.

Clearly this particular cause-and-effect principle emanates from a lopsided philosophy that discriminates with regard to deadly weapons.  If deadly force is administered via a firearm, liberals are irate.  However, if the weapon is a cannula, forceps, or a dilator, liberals are ecstatic.

Meanwhile, society as a whole has been successfully desensitized to casually accept unnatural death.  Secular humanism views euthanasia as benevolent; barely notices when global jihadis behead, burn, and drown Christians; and for the most part looks the other way as the unborn are slaughtered.

Post-birth abortion is now dismissed with a shrug; the sale of baby organs is justified as benefiting the common good; and right-to-death activists like the late Brittany Maynard, who offed herself with a handful of pills, are viewed as somehow heroic.

Sadly, that line of reasoning is likely the driving force behind the sort of violence that causes a shooter like Chris Harper-Mercer to believe that, for whatever reason, he has the right to stroll onto a college campus and blow ten people away.

Moreover, what liberals fail or refuse to recognize is that actively excising God from the public consciousness, systematically equating murder with women’s health, and spending almost half a century pressing for the right to kill eradicate any credibility they may have had concerning the issue of saving lives.

A blurred line between acceptable and unacceptable murder has developed, yet the ones most responsible for the distortion refuse to acknowledge personal culpability.  Instead, the same people directly responsible for cultivating the chaos have appointed themselves the engineers of legislation that does nothing to resolve the moral abyss.

Take for example Barack Obama.  Mr. Obama approves of sanitized violence in an abortion clinic but decries gun violence when the blood is shed on a college campus.

In the president’s mixed-up world of acceptable death categories, biohazard bags are tolerable, but body bags are not; tenaculums are fine as government-funded implements of death, but Thompson submachine guns should be banned.

Pro-death politicians preaching to us about the horrors of gun violence is sort of like listening to a woman with a forehead full of Botox and filler-enhanced lips pontificate about the virtues of aging gracefully.  In fact, when it comes to the issue of gun control, President Obama has mutated into America’s very own Maggie DeBlock.

Maggie is the portly Belgian minister of social affairs and health, who weighs in at close to 300 pounds.  Miss Maggie is to Godiva Chocolate what Obama is to the abortion industry.  The difference between the two public figures is that DeBlock preaches healthy living with chocolate-stained fingers while Obama, with bloodstained hands, denounces murder – but not all murder.

This brand of hypocrisy undoubtedly aids those who feel justified in disposing of other human beings based on a regrettable personal choice or some other distorted reasoning.

Therefore, whether Obama realizes it or not, the blame for mass shootings should be placed not on the Second Amendment or on those who believe that abortion outside the womb is an acceptable choice, but at the feet of those like himself, who condemn ambushing a roomful of people with a gun but openly approve of ambushing a baby in the womb.

It’s secular progressives who have spent 40-plus years dumbing down the public’s definition of murder.  Therefore, what right do abortion advocates have to get indignant when a deranged person with a gun executes a roomful of people?  Especially since, across town, a taxpayer-funded nutcase in colorful scrubs is concurrently using a liberal-approved weapon to ensure that his or her victim is just as dead as the sheet-covered corpses lined up on the gymnasium floor?

Maximum Mexican Multicultural Madness

Originally posted at American Thinker

Navigating the maze of cultural diversity in America is beginning to feel like gingerly crossing a melting lake, fearful of any moment falling through the ice.  This is especially true on college campuses, where cultural diversity is celebrated and where students are taught that sensitivity is more important than sanity, and that every culture – except American culture – is worthy of respect.

That kind of skewed mentality backfired when, after hosting their annual “Maximum Mexican” night, where Mexican cuisine was served by the university dining services, South Carolina’s Clemson University was forced to issue a mea culpa to offended students.

What’s confusing is that besides Clemson being über-thoughtful when it comes to multiculturalism, according to the university’s cultural ambassadors, Hispanic Heritage month, thus far, has been a smashing success.

At the start of the fall semester, in honor of Hispanic Heritage Month, Monterrey’s of Clemson even hosted a night of Mexican dancing and free Mexican food.

According to the Clemson website, part of their yearly cultural celebrations includes Latin Fest, a “campus-wide event that started in 1996 [and] celebrates Latin American cultures.”

Clemson’s Latin Fest “celebrates the culture and heritage of students, faculty and staff descending from Spain, Mexico, Central America, South America and the Caribbean … and …  includes traditional Latin foods, music, dance instruction and more.”

With that level of all-inclusiveness, who would have thought that Mariachi music and a chalupa would be the tools that unearthed latent bias and ethnic tactlessness within the ranks of an institution of higher learning that for almost two decades has prided itself on being culturally sensitive toward Latin Americans?

Here’s the problem with the liberal left’s futile effort to make sure no one is ever offended: like six disgruntled patients in 27 years and 15,000 surgeries complaining about retired John Hopkins pediatric neurosurgeon/Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson’s alleged lack of neurosurgery skills, two students deeming Mexican food #CulturallyInsensitive gives unmerited credence to picayune factions that deserve to be ignored.

The simple truth is that there’s no end to the possibilities presented by this sort of craven attempt to mollify every imagined affront.  This is an arena where, if you serve Mexican food as a salute to Mexican culture, you end up insulting the supercharged egos of those who can never be appeased.

In like manner, at the whites-excluded yoga classes taking place in Oakland, California’s East Bay Meditation Center, discriminating against white yoga enthusiasts is justified as a way of “finding a path to inclusion through exclusion.”  This sort of reasoning is oddly similar to the logic that offends Mexicans when honoring Mexico.

Meanwhile, back at Clemson University, culturally themed dining is a tradition where, to honor international and ethnic food, the cafeterias are decorated to reflect the origins of the cuisine being served.

Take for instance a Palmetto State favorite, the “Low Country BBQ Bash.”  On Low Country night, Southern food enthusiasts are invited to “[p]ick up a plate of mighty fine fixins.” Then there’s the thus far non-controversial St. Patrick’s Day-themed event where, in addition to the White House dyeing the fountain on the South Lawn green, Clemson serves “corn [sic] beef, fried fish, and Irish grilled cheese.”

According to senior Austin Pendergist, the recent Mexican event did not exclude scented hair products.  Instead, the night included “a couple of balloons, sombreros, and some tacos.”  Apparently, those three things, either as a group or individually, stung a couple of students’ fragile sensibilities, which resulted in them immediately airing their wounded feelings on Twitter.

Rather than tell the students to “lighten up” or “grow up,” in response, Clemson University’s senior associate vice president of student affairs, Dr. Doug Hallenbeck, swiftly responded to the unintended microaggression by conveying regret over the “balloon…sombrero…taco” event’s “flattened cultural view of Mexican culture.”

Either way, a regretful Hallenbeck stressed that “[i]t is the mission of University Housing & Dining to create supportive and challenging environments that enrich and nourish lives. We failed to live out our mission yesterday, and we sincerely apologize.”

“Supportive…challenging environments…nourish lives”?  Sorry, but to apologize for serving Mexican food during a month-long celebration of Hispanic heritage suggests a level of endemic foolishness that is mind-boggling.  Moreover, for fried hamburger meat in a cornmeal shell, a helium balloon, and a straw hat to offend anyone or cause a college administration to kowtow to such blatant nonsense is symptomatic of a nation reeling in multicultural madness.

For the rest of us, as we tentatively attempt to tiptoe across the melting ice sheet called cultural sensitivity, what has fallen through and is trapped, gasping for breath below the surface, is what little is left of America.

Obama’s Influence Fades

originalOriginally posted at American Thinker

“Sic transit gloria mundi” is a Latin phrase that means “Thus passes the glory of the world.” The Bible says it best: “For, ‘All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall.'”

It was just a few short years ago that Barack Obama sat high atop the pinnacle of celebrity; now, if monthly style and culture magazine GQ (Gentlemen’s Quarterly) is any indication of where in the “passing glory” trajectory Obama is presently situated, Barack’s flower of fame is in the process of dropping its petals and destined for a shelf somewhere, pressed between the pages of a dusty history book.

Since making his first appearance on the political stage, Obama has graced the cover of GQ on more than one occasion, and in less than four years has been voted “Leader of the Year” twice. That was quite an accomplishment, especially for a man who, at the time, had done pretty much next to nothing.

In the superficial world in which we live, the withered grass and faded flower of fleeting popularity is watered and fertilized with hype, stylish appearance, media influence, and left-leaning political persuasion, all of which Barack Obama possesses in abundant excess.

According to Gentlemen’s Quarterly, in 2007 superstar politician Barack Obama “ruled.” The President led the “Men of the Year” for the accomplishment of getting elected in 2008. For the 2009 edition, after America’s transformative president was crowned GQ “Leader of the Year,” an uncomfortable close-up of his face graced the quarterly’s cover, and not surprisingly Obama was later seen clutching the issue under his arm.

Laying laurels at Obama’s feet, GQ described the President’s first year in office in the following way:

It’s been a big year for our new president. He is juggling, mightily, two wars; he staved off the second Great Depression; he fielded rage from tea baggers; and he is working to accomplish what very few have — real health care reform. And that’s just the short list.

One short year later, Barack Obama, a man GQ lauded as being responsible for “usher[ing] in massive transformation, both domestically and to our standing around the world,” has been relegated to GQ’s roster of the year’s (whoa) “Least Influential People Alive.”

Allegedly when the list is posted online, the President will occupy the number 25 slot on GQ’s “25 Least Influential People Alive” list, which is somewhat encouraging, because least of the least Governor Tim Pawlenty came in at number one.

Besides T-Paw Obama shares the humiliating distinction with the likes of MSNBC host Ed Schultz, who is known for recently calling conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham a “right wing slut.” The roster also includes Newsweek editor and cover controversy queen Tina Brown, ousted Egyptian “President” Hosni Mubarak, C&W singer Hank ‘Hitler Hullabaloo’ Williams, Jr., and House Majority Leader John ‘Is it Safe to Smoke in a Tanning Bed’ Boehner, who probably earned the title of ‘least influential’ after spending the spring of 2011 golfing with the Duffer-in-Chief.

In 2009, Nobel Peace Prize winner/Leader of the Free World Barack Obama began his foray into the Hall of Influential Fame when it was revealed that, by his very existence, he had moved the international peace process forward.

Since then, few would argue that President Obama’s presence in Washington DC has resulted in a whole slew of extraordinary circumstances. If influence is defined as ” the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others,” then GQ’s ‘least influential’ standards obviously don’t take into account the power of negative influence.

Think of it — in three short years, this historic president has: influenced America’s unemployment rate, which presently hovers around 9%; contributed to the racial divide, which is now wider than ever; fostered class warfare, which is presently ‘occupying’ the nation’s streets; established lax national security standards; grown poverty; ignored a porous border; sued a couple of states; continued to push entitlement programs; and contributed to the national debt, which has ballooned out of control.

With the long list of liberal accomplishments Obama keeps accruing, for GQ to suggest that the President lacks influence is outrageous.

There’s got to be more to a liberal publication crowning Barack Obama one of the “least influential” people on the planet. It may very well be that while the President remains a dominant force, he may also be falling victim to the fickle nature of the world’s worship.

Either way, Barack Obama has proven he will not be deterred by popular opinion — not GQ’s or anyone else’s.  As one of America’s most influential presidents, if Barack Obama gets his way the influence he plans to wield has only just begun. In the end, at the rate he’s going, Obama’s boldest achievement may turn out to be singlehandedly transforming the greatest nation in the world into a vast wasteland of wilted grass, faded flowers and past glory.

CALL THE ACLU: Why Is Barack Obama Allowed to Say ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’?

85Originally posted at CLASH Daily

The government that keeps insisting that when it comes to things like killing 4,000 babies a day morality cannot be legislated is once again, via government fiat, attempting to legislate yet another one of Obama’s long list of unconstitutional commandments.

This time the secularized directive falls into the “Thou Shalt Not Kill” category.

Seems Obama believes that making a gun harder to get will somehow prevent psychos from obtaining the weaponry they need to murder and maim people. After all, everyone knows that when killers plan homicides, obtaining a legal murder weapon is their utmost priority.

The glaring fallacy in the president’s focus arises when discussing the illegal aliens he ordinarily supports. Obama doesn’t seem to care or notice that based on the number of crimes illegal felons commit, people crossing the border unlawfully are much more of a problem in America than law-abiding Americans with legal firearms.

Moreover, if Obama believes that “gun free zones” and stricter gun laws will work for individuals with malicious intent, then why not establish “beheading- and immolation-free zones” in Syria? Or better yet, why doesn’t the president personally demonstrate his faith in “gun free zones” by dismissing his security detail when visiting places that have stringent gun-control laws, like Chicago?

Nevertheless, what’s most ironic about this whole controversy is that while Barack Obama is attempting to legislatively thwart murderous tendencies in sinful human beings, at the same time, in the interest of separation of church and state, Oklahoma is about the business of removing a Ten Commandments memorial from the grounds of the state’s capitol building.

Lest we forget, long before Barack Obama graced the planet with his awesomeness, God had already suggested his idea of “Thou Shalt Not Kill.”

In fact, God is the reason why, under cover of the night, the stone six-foot high Oklahoma Ten Commandments monument that was erected in 2012 was moved off of public property. Oklahoma was so committed to ousting Yahweh from the public square that they paid $5,000 to relocate the two-ton symbol of ancient religiosity a few blocks from the capitol premises.

So there you have it. As the president prepares to put down his phone and pick up his pen to sign into law legislation he believes will prevent murder, the Oklahoma Supreme Court decided that a tribute to antiquity that says “Thou shalt not kill” violates a state constitutional prohibition on the use of public property to support “any sect, church, denomination or system of religion.”

I get it! The same people who for time immemorial have murdered simply because they were insulted by God’s suggestion that killing isn’t something “thou shalt” be doing are suddenly going to accept and submit to Barack Obama making the exact same suggestion because he proposes the same concept in a non-spiritual, legalistic way.

So, in other words, in a secular society, if God has something to say it’s prohibited from being mentioned in the public square. Yet Barack Obama believes that if someone like himself (who thinks he’s a god) says “Thou shalt not kill,” those who ordinarily balk at the idea of basic morality and reject religious edicts will graciously acquiesce.

By sheer force of his will, Obama believes he can stop the killing that has gone on for thousands of years and accomplish what God Himself, who has granted free will, has thus far been unable to accomplish.