Archive by Author

Silent Obama sends a message

Related imageOriginally posted at American Thinker

Whether on the world stage, at paid speaking engagements, or on social media, former president Barack Obama always finds a way to finesse his way into the limelight to express his support of things like open borders, women’s rights, and anti-gun efforts.  With that in mind, it’s safe to assume that Obama’s silence is an unspoken endorsement of what he chooses to verbally ignore.

From the Supreme Court to the Republican Congress, during his presidency, Barack would publicly berate those who disagreed with him.  The former president would accuse anyone who didn’t cooperate with his effort to advance a progressive agenda of “not being faithful to what this country was all about.”

After the 2009 election, during a contentious meeting with congressional Republicans about his economic proposals, Obama was quoted as telling GOP leaders that “elections have consequences” and, for those who might doubt, “I won.”

In 2013, while clashing again with Republicans, this time over the debt ceiling and the government shutdown, like a schoolmarm, the haughty former president instructed political adversaries, telling them:

You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president?  Then argue for your position.  Go out there and win an election.  Push to change it.  But don’t break it.  Don’t break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building.  That’s not being faithful to what this country’s about.

After the 2012 election, Obama’s “I won!” mentality emanated from an egotistical belief that his re-election meant that the American voter was pleased with his handling of the economy, health care reform, the border, and everything from Easter egg rolls to gay rights.

The problem for Obama is that in 2016, Republicans took his advice, Americans rejected his eight-year reign of terror, and Trump won the election.

Because the “Make America Great Again” “push to change” didn’t turn out the way Obama or his party had anticipated, there is now a collaborative effort, through orchestrated chaos, to “break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building” by attempting to unseat a sitting president via ongoing investigations and temper tantrums.

Maybe someone needs to remind Obama’s legion of deranged disciples that it was their esteemed leader who once said that “elections have consequences” and that Donald J. Trump won the last election!

In the meantime, Obama seems undecided about calling off those on the left who are currently shadowing, harassing, and heckling Republican officials and threatening to resurrect Weather Underground ’70s-style bombings.

Could it be that Alinsky’s star pupil is discreetly signaling to the opposition that he agrees with what they’re doing?  Could it also be that, although somewhat silent, Barack is hard at work somewhere on his own behalf, fanning the fires of anarchy while pretending to be occupied writing a book and producing “non-political” Netflix documentaries?

If all that is true, would it be fair for Americans to assume that because the former street activist isn’t stepping in to quell the turmoil, he hopes that a new generation of left-wing agents of change will vindicate his legacy by “getting inTrump supporters’ faces” and bringing guns to knife fights?

Barack Obama’s hesitancy to inject calm in the midst of a brewing political storm may send a message to the resistance that harassment is wrong except if aimed at Trump-supporters and that one can support deporting Trump’s press secretary from a farm-to-table restaurant while protesting deportation of illegals from America.

In the end, Democrats who express dislike for a “particular policy or … president” are refusing to grant Trump the same consideration Obama demanded from Republicans when he was in office.  If Barack was so adamant about Republicans respecting – without question – the results of 2008 and 2012 – why doesn’t he reiterate for liberals to “push to change it” “but don’t break it”?  Instead, amid violence cultivated by disgruntled Democrats, the “I won.  Deal with it!” president’s silence is deafening.

Red Hen bigotry, or ‘moral conviction’?

Image result for red hen lexington va

Originally posted at American Thinker

This nation is now at a place where those who have no “moral conviction” about the things that matter view unbridled bigotry directed at conservatives as “moral conviction.” Case in point, recently, a pink pussy hat-wearing restaurant owner in Lexington, Virginia decided to expose her narrow-mindedness by asking President Trump’s White House Press Secretary to leave a small chapel-like restaurant she calls the Red Hen.

According to the Washington Post, Stephanie Wilkinson, who loves to write, knit, community organize, and march in women’s rights parades, responded to an emergency phone call from the chef of her small veggies-from-Mexican-immigrant-run Rancho Calixto farm-to-table restaurant.

The cause for alarm was Sarah Huckabee Sanders and a small party of seven being seated and (OMG) snacking on “Cheese to You” cheese boards while waiting to be served dinner.  Wilkerson told the Washington Post that when Sanders showed up, the staff was “a little concerned,” asking her, “What should we do?”

Not for nothing – as they say in Brooklyn – “concerned” about what?

The ethical knitter, who was probably crafting her husband and son pink pussy hats, dropped her sustainable knitting needles and rushed down to E. Washington Street to save the day.

Sounding like Barack Obama weaving hate into flowery rhetoric and justifying stirring racial division by painting lofty word pictures, in an article entitled: The owner of the Red Hen explains why she asked Sarah Huckabee Sanders to leave, Avi Selk and Sarah Murray explain how while driving Stephanie mulled over the moral dilemma.

Like a Big Hen in the little Red Henhouse, Stephanie contemplated her community’s opinions on Confederate flags, and how Sarah worked in the service of an ‘inhumane and unethical’ administration, and “publicly defended” what Wilkinson viewed were “the president’s cruelest policies.”  In the brain of the social justice warrior, “that that could not stand.”

So, as Meryl Streep’s cousin neared the eatery, she decided a confrontation on behalf of Mexican farmers and flying fox farm duck eggs was in order.

Located in a town that voted against Trump, in a county that voted for Trump, Wilkinson told the Washington Post, “I’m not a huge fan of confrontation. I have a business, and I want the business to thrive.” Even still, Stephanie Wilkinson must have considered the chance to get in Sarah Sanders’s face a seminal “moment in our democracy.” So, rather than just sell Palmers Prairie Quail Eggs, Wilkinson decided to “make uncomfortable actions and decisions to uphold [her] morals.”

Fired up with righteous indignation, Wilkinson marched into the 26-seat restaurant, made a positive identification that the suspect was indeed Sarah Sanders, and decided that cheese board, or no cheese board, the White House Press Secretary deserved to be escorted out of the Red Hen. However, rather than rush in and rip the flatbread and pickled beets from Sanders’s hands, Wilkinson decided first to call an emergency summit with “concerned” employees.

Because Sanders defended Trump’s stance on transgenders in the military, Stephanie was uneasy for her gay employees. Meanwhile, as parsnip puree boiled over, the restaurant’s painfully misinformed employees discussed with Wilkinson how Sanders evaded questions and defended a Trump policy that they believed “caused migrant children to be separated from their parents.”

In other words, the staff at the Red Hen would have had no problem with the White House Press Secretary eating in the restaurant if, rather than concur with Trump, Sarah agreed with them that it is far better to place migrant children in the care of coyotes, human traffickers, and drug cartel members.

As the Sanders party munched on appetizers, a conflicted Wilkinson told the Washington Post that she inquired of the staff, “Tell me what you want me to do. I can ask her to leave?”   The staff agreed that Sanders should go.  So, after making sure Sarah was already served, Wilkinson approached the table and announced, “I’m the owner, I’d like you to come out to the patio with me for a word.”

Wilkinson shared that once outside, “I was babbling a little, but I got my point across in a polite and direct fashion.” Wilkinson then shared, “I explained that the restaurant has certain standards that I feel it has to uphold, such as honesty, and compassion, and cooperation. I’d like to ask you to leave.”

Stephanie Wilkinson and the staff of her “red diaper doper baby” Red Hen restaurant threw the White House Press Secretary out in the middle of appetizers and cited “honesty, compassion and cooperation” as the reason?

Even still, Wilkinson said that at the time she didn’t know how Sarah would react.

Stephanie, who was in attendance at the Women’s March on Washington when Madonna threatened to bomb the White House, didn’t see Sarah Sanders comport herself with dignity while being publicly ridiculed by low rent comic Michelle Wolf at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner.

Always the lady, Sanders’s response to being 86’ed by a pack of classless political activists was immediate. According to the Red Hen owner, Sarah said, “That’s fine. I’ll go.”

Wilkinson, who expressed that separating families on the border was immoral, mentioned that the rest of Sarah’s family was welcome to stay.  They didn’t.  Never getting a chance to dig into the Red Hen’s leftover gay wedding cake served by a transgender waitress, or given the courtesy of a chocolate meal finisher, the party gathered their things as concerned staff hurriedly fumigated the table.

Wasn’t it just a few months ago that two men loitering in a Starbucks, who happened to be black, asked to use the restroom and were arrested after they refused to free up space for paying customers?  Didn’t bias allegations and diversity training result from the incident?

Now, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a paying customer, is refused service because of her religious and political convictions and bigotry is entertained as moral conviction?

Nonetheless, Red Hen proprietor, Stephanie Wilkinson did mention that although “They offered to pay,” in the spirit of munificent liberal kindness, she told the woman she refers to as “the mouthpiece of Trump,” that, “No. It’s on the house.”

Asked if she would do it again, the Red Hen owner said, “Absolutely, yes, I would have done the same thing again. We just felt there are moments in time when people need to live their convictions. This appeared to be one.”

Obama uses ‘World Refugee Day’ to pipe up on border apprehensions

Image result for open borders ObamaOriginally posted at American Thinker

On World Refugee Day (whatever that is), Barack Obama had an excuse to crawl out of his underground bunker to take stock of the kind of uproar he thrives upon. In a Facebook post, Obama, who views policies established by Trump as personal rejection, attempted to stroke his massive ego in the midst of a heated illegal immigration debate.

Although no one has ever seen Barry Soetoro’s college transcripts or viewed his original birth certificate, the “son” of Kenya began his post by reminding everyone that he was, “fortunate enough to have been born in America.” After re-establishing that crucial fact, Obama then invited Facebook readers to take an imaginary trip with him to Third World countries inhabited with future Democrat voters eager to disregard the laws of a sovereign nation.

Without mentioning that his administration established detention centers, the purported smartest guy in the room began the tutorial on illegal immigration in the following way:

Imagine if you’d been born in a country where you grew up fearing for your life, and eventually the lives of your children. A place where you finally found yourself so desperate to flee persecution, violence, and suffering that you’d be willing to travel thousands of miles under cover of darkness, enduring dangerous conditions, propelled forward by that very human impulse to create for our kids a better life.

Isn’t America a constitutional republic established and protected by law?  So why doesn’t America’s former chief law enforcer ever mention that lawlessness motivates illegal immigrants to make that “desperate” journey through “darkness and danger?”

Contextual truths aside, Mr. Obama, who doesn’t hear what he says, when he says it, continued with this stunning statement:

That’s the reality for so many of the families whose plights we see and heart-rending cries we hear. And to watch those families broken apart in real time puts to us a very simple question: are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parents’ arms, or are we a nation that values families, and works to keep them together?

Barack Obama has a habit of feigning concern for children when there is a policy he’s hoping to promote like gun control or open borders. What’s especially strange about his statement on illegal families is that every day American men lose families to a procedure Obama heartily supports – abortion.  Families are broken apart by an act committed by women who destroy children that also belong to fathers that cannot save their offspring from a travesty that Barack Obama supports.

Moreover, while having the audacity to ask the question: “are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from parents’ arms?” Obama approves of America ripping full-term babies from the womb.

In his lengthy post, the illegal immigration advocate asked a question yet to be proposed by Democrats concerning the “heart-rending cries” of the 3,000 unborn American babies placed in biohazard bags and dragged to incinerators every day.  And that question is: “Do we look away, or do we choose to see something of ourselves and our children?”

Barack Obama not only “looks away” but also encourages others to do likewise. Hearing rhetoric about valuing families almost makes one forget that this is a guy who is all for babies born alive in botched abortions being left to die without oxygen, warmth or hydration.

After touching upon the plight of tearful children and babies ripped from parent’s arms, rather than quoting Saul Alinsky, this time, “My brother’s keeper” waxed mystical saying:

Our ability to imagine ourselves in the shoes of others, to say, “there but for the grace of God go I,” is part of what makes us human. And to find a way to welcome the refugee and the immigrant – to be big enough and wise enough to uphold our laws and honor our values at the same time – is part of what makes us American.

Recently, in Sweden, a country that has welcomed in hordes of refugees and immigrants, a 21-year-old girl was stabbed 130 times and beheaded by a Syrian neighbor who believed she made a racist comment.  So, the dead girl’s sister, who is currently in an insane asylum, might disagree with Obama’s proposition “to find a way to welcome the refugee and the immigrant.”

Moving on, Obama portrayed wading across the Rio Grande as equal to settlers who respectfully and legally came to America via the appropriate channels:

After all, almost all of us were strangers once, too. Whether our families crossed the Atlantic, the Pacific, or the Rio Grande, we’re only here because this country welcomed them in, and taught them that to be an American is about something more than what we look like, how our last names sound, or the way we worship.

Again, let’s not forget that every chance he gets Barack Obama emphasizes race, ethnicity, religion, and sexuality.  That’s why it’s disingenuous for him to write that “to be an American is about something more,” which, in essence, is Obama admitting that he’s un-American. In like manner, when it comes to American ideals, the very anarchy, chaos, and lack of respect for constitutional law Obama encourages on behalf of illegal immigrants is what dissolves nations rather than strengthens them.

When Barack asserted “To be an American is to have a shared commitment to an ideal – that all of us are created equal, and all of us deserve the chance to become something better,” was he saying that merely believing in equality and opportunity makes people sneaking over the border American?

Either way, while esteeming the “legacy our parents and grandparents and generations before created for us…[as]… something we have to protect for the generations to come,” Obama’s open border sentiments encourage the ruination of a nation our parents and grandparents built.

Nonetheless, according to all-knowing, wise man Barack Obama, “we have to do more than say ‘this isn’t who we are.’ We have to prove it – through our policies, our laws, our actions, and our votes” – and, most importantly, through the continued stirring of orchestrated crises that usher in the kind of sea change Americans would typically reject.

Haven’t the Obamas Made Enough Money?

Image result for Rich ObamasOriginally posted at American Thinker

For a guy who said, “at some point, you’ve made enough money,” and a gal who said, “someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more” the Obamas sure rake in plenty of dough.

Unless installing an in-ground pool in the yard of an  $8.2-million home located in a fancy Washington, DC neighborhood  is considered spreading the wealth?  Since, leaving the White House the duo seems to be gathering, not “spreading, the wealth.”

Fresh out of the White House, Michelle and Barack began “leveling their playing field” with a joint book deal in excess of $65-million penned with Penguin Random House.  Let’s face it, $65-million is not a bad payday for people who earn oodles of capital reiterating the same hardscrabble story about impoverished childhoods, suffering racial injustice, and how understanding gender inequity and the plight of poor people is something only they can do.

The $65-million the Obamas will earn on their books will trickle into the couple’s bank accounts in dribs and drabs, first for Michelle, whose long-awaited memoir is due out in November and is entitled: “Becoming.”

While the Mrs. is busy showing up angry on book tours, hubby will be pleasantly giving speeches at $400,000 a pop where he can pontificate about community organizing and commiserate with the problems poverty-stricken Americans suffer.  And while payroll is processing Barack’s speaking stipend, the former president can continue to bide his time with extemporaneous musings about American prejudice, minority mistreatment, and how Trump-style capitalism is a global blight.

Just recently, the Obama $65-million+pie expanded, receiving a fresh infusion of cash from internet entertainment company Netflix.  Netflix is perfect for the Obamas because the network’s programming includes liberal topics that cover subjects such as sexual awareness in children and normalizing abortion.

It was a top Obama campaign contributor named Ted Sarandos that provided the Obamas the opportunity to community organize 125-million Netflix subscribers in 190 nations worldwide. Sarandos is the chief content officer and manager of the $8-billion Netflix budget who brokered a deal that industry sources say could be worth more than $50-million for Mr. and Mrs. “You Didn’t Build That.”

Any way you look at it, the Obama creative production deal with Netflix is an impressive promotion from the church basement on the Southside of Chicago where Barry Soetoro strategized Marxist troop formation on a chalkboard.

More importantly, at Netflix, the opportunities presented are endless for the Obamas to bring their unique brand of hostility to a much broader audience – which is always the pair’s underlying objective.

According to the multiyear contract, when not out inspiring dissatisfaction at live appearances and college commencement ceremonies, the twosome, will be called on “to produce a diverse mix of content, including the potential for scripted series, unscripted series, docu-series, documentaries and features.”

The whole thing works out beautifully because by signing on with Netflix, the Obamas get to assist their good friend George Soros in his quest to ‘slow the rising oceans’ of freedom and ‘heal the planet’ from the ravages of democracy.  Soros and the Soros Fund Management own about 71,500 shares of Netflix stock.

Barack Obama recently said that the original deal at Netflix provides an opportunity for him and his wife to communicate inspiring stories about individuals who’ve made a difference.  But, in reality, and based on what both Obamas consider inspirational difference making,  Netflix will most definitely double as a high-tech training ground to prepare legions of socialist-leaning youth to converge on democratic nations transforming the whole planet into one big Arab Spring.

Ted Sarandos had this to say about his friends, Barack and Michelle:

Barack and Michelle Obama are among the world’s most respected and highly recognized public figures and are uniquely positioned to discover and highlight stories of people who make a difference in their communities and strive to change the world for the better. We are incredibly proud they have chosen to make Netflix the home for their formidable storytelling abilities.

And so thanks to Netflix the community organizer and his sullen spouse are going global with their “formidable storytelling abilities,” or what is more accurately described as going global with the Obamas unique ability to twist the truth, incite discontent, and drive the naïve toward total ruin.

Rest assured, regardless of what Barack and Michelle say, the Obama Storytelling Show likely will be multiyear streaming of left-wing churlishness presented to the world on brightly colored sound stages complete with progressive guests, distorted tales of woe and radical rants.  Both Obamas will be front and center infusing the conversation with manipulative mind control tactics and jazzing it up with aerobic dance routines choreographed by Bruno Mars.

In addition to all that obnoxiousness, the Raconteurs probably will feature rhetoric interspersed with pleas for a more significant piece of the pie.   Likewise, there will also be admonishments that at some point enough money has been made, exhortations to spread the wealth around, and constant reminders that, regardless of what Americans think, “they didn’t build that.”

But most importantly, Barack and Michelle will have an international platform to counterpoint President Trump’s policies and do it from a $50-million podium where they will be paid handsomely to undermine Trump’s accomplishments with lies and distortions from the left.

Barack Obama’s ‘World as It Should Be’

Related imageOriginally posted at American Thinker

The former president, Barack Obama’s presence on the world stage has coincided with chaos springing up everywhere globalists seek to make an impact. Obama’s stance is not surprising especially because the community organizer hasn’t kept secret his affinity for the Marxist/communist worldview as detailed in the late Saul Alinsky’s textbook for militants titled, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.

Alinsky once warned:

Society has good reason to fear the radical. Every shaking advance of mankind toward equality and justice has come from the radical. He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous. Conservative interests know that while liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of conservatives.

Like his mentor before him, unabashed radical Barack Obama’s goal has always been “breaking the necks of conservatives.” One of Barack’s original Chicago mentors Mike Kruglik described Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama, as “the best student he ever had,” a “natural… undisputed master of agitation,” a description that explains why Obama has been capable of inspiring turmoil via propaganda cleverly disguised as global concern and non-partisan politics.

During his presidency, Barack recited the “world as it should be” mantra in every nation he visited. On tour, he blamed the United States for the world’s woes and promised a future where the planet would heal from American domination.

What Obama failed to articulate was that in his “world as it should be” there is a class of power elite that rule over useful eaters who possess limited rights, are unarmed, are forced to share the wealth, and whose numbers are controlled via abortion and government-run healthcare. Obama never disclosed that his anti-American world would be gender neutral, militarily weak, antagonistic toward white males, Western Civilization, and prosperity, Muslim friendly, success adverse, and racially volatile.

Although Obama’s presidential tenure ended two years ago, the former president continues to tirelessly goad the world’s youth toward implementing the Alinsky agenda. If anything, he is even more motivated to fundamentally transform “the world as it is” into “the world as [Alinsky thought] it should be.”

Recently, when radical leftist types surfaced in response to the shooting in Parkland, Florida, Obama used it as an opportunity to address the raw potential he sees in America’s youth. Unable to contain himself, Obama appeared on Twitter to laud anti-gun activist teens and to applaud chaos, rebellion, and unpatriotic sentiment.

In his tweet, Obama quoted Saul Alinsky when he flattered the student protesters for attempting to “remake the world as it should be,” which translated means, “the world as it should be” per Barack Obama’s anti-Constitutional vision.

More recently, the former president cited Alinsky again. This time his commentary was in response to his $500-million presidential library, located in war-torn Chicago, being given the green light. In part, Obama’s tweet said that the presidential center, “[i]s for the leaders of tomorrow who are ready to step up and build “the world as it should be.”

Again, Obama used Twitter to issue a clarion call to young people asking them to pick up the transformational torch and to help change the world into the Marxist communitarian enclave Barack and Michelle Obama think it should be.

The good news for Obama is that, of late, the Chicago-based presidential library isn’t the only training ground available to do what Alinsky described as “rubbing raw the sores of discontent.”

The ability for Obama to foment problems began on Southside of Chicago and then advanced to the Oval Office. Now, thanks to a multiyear Netflix deal, Obama’s community organizing platform is about to ascend to a global stage. The paid cable entertainment enterprise will assist Obama in his effort and pay him millions to agitate international restlessness concerning things like racial, gender, and economic inequity.

Recently, at a Okta tech conference, held in Las Vegas, when asked about his plans for Netflix, the former president shared that, right out of college, an older well-practiced community organizer (probably Mike Kruglik) counseled him to spend time listening to people’s stories before suggesting solutions to problems he didn’t understand.

If Barack were truthful, he would have told the audience that the entertainment company will pay him exorbitant amounts of money to tell stories he hopes will prompt people to believe they’ve been mistreated. Despite what Obama says, his aim at Netflix will be to advance a venue where a particular brand of story is considered fair, valued, and contributory toward “the world as it should be.”

After mentioning Bruce Springsteen and Lin-Manuel Miranda, Obama went on to criticize America, and offer the techy audience “world as it should be” answers that feigned a disingenuous desire to cultivate “institutions based on rule of law,” principles, and recognition of “the dignity and worth of every individual” — none of which Barack Obama believes in.

The former president then expounded further by inserting references to racism and gender equality issues he has successfully employed in his ongoing effort to generate the type of antagonism Alinsky taught was necessary to usher in “world as it should be” modifications.

Politicizing what was supposed to be apolitical, Obama said, “We are all human. I know this sounds trite, and yet, right now globally, we have competing narratives.” Then, without mentioning President Trump by name, Obama hinted, “And now there’s a clash in those two ways of seeing the world.”

On the point of “two ways of seeing the world,” Barack Obama is 100% correct; currently, there is a clash of world visions. Unlike his predecessor, President Trump sees the world as a place where an exceptional America is powerful, human life respected, and borders are secure. A world where racial enmity minimized, patriotism strong, and America preeminent, which, according to Alinsky pupil, Barack Obama, is not “the world as it should be.”

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: