Archive by Author

Analysis Orca mother grieves for what humans fight for the right to throw away

source site Originally posted at Live Action News

go here Currently, a grief-stricken orca mother is in the news. The aquatic mammal has spent weeks dragging a dead calf through the ocean off the coast of Washington. Like it or not, it appears nature is sending a visual message, not only to Washington State but the world, about what constitutes maternal instinct and how mothers should feel about the loss of offspring.

click On July 25th, an orca named Tahlequah (J35) gave birth to an orange-tinted 400-lb calf that survived a half hour. Since that day, Tahlequah has refused to let go of the calf and has transported her dead offspring through the Pacific Ocean assisted on occasion by other members of her pod.

Aciphex Online Purchase Allyson Chiu of The Washington Post explained:

Flonase Reviews Side Effects [t]he pod of killer whales that roam between Vancouver and San Juan Island has dwindled to 75 members over the decades. The cause is no mystery: Humans have netted up the whales’ salmon, driven ships through their hunting lanes and polluted their water, to the point that researchers fear Tahlequah’s generation may be the last of her family.

http://datasciencemelbourne.com/?pot=Where-Can-I-Buy-Topamax-Online&bb9=1f In response, biologists and government officials are currently working on a plan to save Scarlet (J50), a starving member of Tahlequah’s pod. In an attempt to rescue the whale, the critically ill 3-1/2-year-old is being tracked and fed antibiotic-laced salmon. Meanwhile, in America, there is another group at risk. According to an Abortion Surveillance Report issued by the CDC, in 2011, “black women [made] up 14% of the childbearing population, yet obtained 36.2% of reported abortions.” At the time, “Black women [had] the highest abortion ratio in the country, with 474 abortions per 1,000 live births.”

http://prohealthplans.ca/?llt=Ciprofloxacin-Online-Order&f74=e2 In other words, environmentalists and animal rights activists address diminishing pods and malnourished killer whales but seem unconcerned about the disproportionate number of Black children denied the right to live in humanity’s pod.

http://jeannie-ology.com/?fvn=Seroquel-Getting-Off&390=0a According to Chiu, as America aborts its unborn, this orca mother was “forever picking up the [calf’s] body as it sank, hoisting it out of the water to take a breath, and repeating.”

http://eurm.or.at/?qg=Where-To-Buy-Priligy-In-Canada&abe=8f Deborah Giles, a University of Washington killer whale biologist, said that based on the whale’s unusual behavior, “You cannot interpret it any other way. This is an animal that is grieving for its dead baby, and she doesn’t want to let it go. She’s not ready.”

Thus, according to TIME Magazine, Tahlequah has not been forced to release the corpse of the dead calf because scientists deem that “her emotional bond is simply too strong.” In turn, researchers have discontinued calling the whale’s treatment of her dead baby “rare” and are now calling it “unprecedented.”

It’s indeed telling to witness an inconsolable whale grieve for what human beings fight for the right to throw away.

Nevertheless, Giles told TIME Magazine that “Even if her family is foraging for and sharing fish with her, [she] cannot be getting the… nutrition she needs to regain any body-mass loss that would have naturally occurred during the gestation of her fetus.”

And while large numbers of unborn humans are destroyed, primarily for convenience’s sake, it’s interesting to note that Tahlequah’s pod is dwindling and finding it difficult to forage for food, with many orcas starving — and yet, each life matters to the pod. Although “the effort of pushing her calf – for about 1,000 miles by now – is probably making her weak and keeping her from finding enough food,” Tahlequah puts her life at risk for the sake of her child.

In fact, when reflecting upon Tahlequah’s plight, one can’t help but wonder whether supporters of the right to abort can see the cognitive dissonance in assigning an animal “a sense of interspecies kinship…[with]… mothers who … also lost children.” Many are grieving right along with this orca, with one scientist reportedly weeping over the whale, with people writing poems and drawing pictures of Tahlequah, or any of those who “lost sleep” lamenting over the heartsick orca. Yet they will dismiss the idea of human post-abortion grief.

Killer whale expert Peter Ross, vice president of research at conservation group Ocean Wise, said, “One of the reasons the story is rather heart-wrenching is the fact that we’ve grown to truly marvel at this iconic species and… we see a little bit of us in them. We look for things that we might understand or explain on the basis of our own experiences.”

With that in mind, as the whale funeral procession continues, pro-choice individuals who justify animal rights above human rights — and do so by assigning human virtues to animals — really should ask themselves how Tahlequah’s conduct toward her dead offspring reflects on the treatment 60 million human beings have suffered at the hands of their mothers.

The orca’s actions provoke a powerful image that should incite heartfelt response in both science and government and send a strong message to those who support the unfettered slaughter of the 51,000 babies who were aborted in the U.S. in the 17 days since Tahlequah’s calf died. Moreover, if it is true that whales are highly intelligent and exhibit similar emotions to humans, this ora mother’s behavior conveys a lot about those who march for the right to abort what a killer whale cherishes.

Trump, Churchill’s Chair, and Barack Obama

Image result for trump in churchill's chairOriginally posted at American Thinker

Recently, on Donald Trump’s “working visit” to the UK, environmentalist royal princes Charles and William refused to meet the President. Based on their boorish behavior, the population control liberals may be emulating Barack Obama, who exhibited hostility toward world leaders when he refused to attend Bibi Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress.

Despite Charles, William, and newlywed Harry’s absence, Mr. and Mrs. Trump arrived at Windsor Castle where they were greeted by the 92-year-old Queen who didn’t invite them to a sleepover like she did the Obamas, but did serve tea.

After the visit, no one reported whether or not Melania “charmed” the aging monarch by trapping her in a Michelle Obama-style death grip.  However, the press did allege that in place of DVDs and recordings of Trump rallies, the first couple broke with Southside of Chicago protocol and showed up instead with a historical artifact as a gift.

Petty British tabloids, behaving like a future mother-in-law sizing up her only son’s girlfriend, criticized the President for arriving late to meet Her Majesty (which he did not), strolling nonchalantly in front of the Queen (he’s a relaxed guy), and for shaking the Queen’s hand when he also bowed.  Stopping just short of accusing Donald Trump of exhaling when he should inhale, the British press must have forgotten that Obama, who bowed for Saudi kings, didn’t bow for the Queen.

The resentment comes from British colonialists who cooed over anti-colonialist Obama even after he thought “God Save the Queen,” was the musical accompaniment to his Shakespearian-themed toast at the Queen’s State Dinner, and who, behind closed doors, allegedly mocked America’s so-called  “special relationship” with Britain.

And while the Queen of England was courteous, amongst the commoners, Arab Spring-like, Soros-funded, pink pussy hat gatherings and street-level protests greeted America’s president with loud and boisterous animosity.

Thankfully for the protesters, Trump had rolled back the offshore safety rules that crashed British pensions when Obama trash-talked British Petroleum after the Gulf oil spills.   With rebounding annuities, demonstrators must have had extra cash to buy Dump Trump posters.  Thus, central London overflowed with Trump-bashers dressed in red, white and blue bikinis being shielded from the hot sun by a mini-blimp featuring Baby Trump in a nappy.

During the POTUS’s time at Prime Minister Theresa May’s residence at Chequers in Buckinghamshire, many were aghast when Trump sat in Winston Churchill’s chair.  Remembering back, these same Brits were only mildly offended when Kenyan Son, Barack ‘Neville Chamberlain’ Obama wrapped Winston Churchill’s bust in bubble wrap,  evicted it from the Oval Office, and banished it back to Britain.

Nonetheless, the outrage from Winston-defenders was so hateful toward Trump, one would think the POTUS had turned London into Little Mecca or dared sit in Rosa Park’s seat on the bus or rested his big feet on the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office.

Responding to Trump’s bold armchair move, the British Daily Mirror ran a cover story featuring  the words “How dare you?” The headline broadcasted an image of Donald sitting in Old Lion’s leather worn armchair.

The front-page story read:

You insult our country, attack our [National Health Service], embarrass our Queen, undermine our ‘special relationship,’ humiliate our [prime minister]… and then smugly pose in Winston Churchill’s armchair.

When compared to Barack meekly siding with Argentina over a war in the Falkland Islands, or the former president unpretentiously downgrading Great Britain and calling France America’s closest ally, in British circles, sitting in Churchill’s chair is considered “smug.”

Speaking of Churchill, the press observed that for a lavish dinner at Blenheim Palace in Oxford, Melania, resplendent in a luscious yellow couture gown, was reminiscent of Princess Belle in Beauty and the Beast dancing with her “bestial-looking prince.”  Meanwhile, when a grim-faced Michelle Obama showed up at a State Dinner at Buckingham Palace wrapped in gauze, not one publication compared the former first lady to a Q-Tip aiming for Obama’s ear.

After that sleepover, Michelle and Barry repaid the Queen’s hospitality by complaining about the lousy food at Buckingham Palace and publicly discussing the rodents.  Then, on a later trip, nary a British protester took to London’s streets to object when Obama threatened that if the British dared vote to leave the European Union, future trade agreements with the U.S. would place them at “the back of the queue.”

Based on the absence of a big black Baby Barack Balloon greeting Obama, President Trump sitting with his legs crossed at the knee in Churchill’s leather chair must far exceed the former president coaxing Moscow to sign the START Treaty by sharing sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrents.

In the end, after unfair British indictments, street-level protests, and rude treatment by left-leaning royals, it was the guy who owned the chair whose words should be President Trump’s take away from this UK visit: “You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”

McDonald’s, tossed salad, and toilet paper

Originally posted at American Thinker

Americans are encouraged to embrace diversity and be culturally sensitive to those who have flouted our laws and invaded our nation.  Meanwhile, illegal aliens arriving in America have no such requirement.  Instead, trespassing tribes relocate, and when they do, rather than assimilate, they transfer habits and activities indigenous to the countries from whence they migrated.

Thus, Americans suffer from illnesses that are easily traceable to third-world bathroom habits (TWBH) and lack of hygiene in the developing world.

It’s not news that illegals work in restaurants as food-handlers.  These restaurant workers migrate from countries where, prior to kneading tortilla dough, post-toilet hand-washing is not required.

Once they’re here in America, lack of hygienic practices translate into filthy hands arranging peaches in the produce rack and hombres with God knows what under their fingernails placing the apple slices in the see-through plastic containers stacked neatly in the Starbucks display counter.

Simply put, not only are illegals infiltrating our culture, defying our laws, and costing us oodles of money, but they are also infecting America’s food with foreign-born, albeit culturally diverse excrement.

Let’s face it: pooping outdoors is cultural diversity at its finest, and because poor people are usually the ones doing the illegal migrating, with them come elimination practices better left in the Andes.  Remember the E. coli-laden cilantro and romaine lettuce that had human waste on them belonging to farm workers who relieved themselves in the field while harvesting the crops?

Nonetheless, if by chance cilantro does make it from field to factory without the addition of feces and toilet paper, raw food always makes its way to restaurants staffed with individuals who, rather than flush, toss dirty Charmin into the corner of the restroom.  More disturbingly, by and large, those doing the toilet paper-tossing are mostly non-natives who cannot read the sign written in English that clearly says: “Employees must wash hands before returning to work.”

As a result, at Illinois and Iowa McDonald’s restaurants, 90 people were recently infected with the Cyclospora parasite.  For those who don’t know, the most common symptom of cyclospora is watery diarrhea, appetite and weight loss, intestinal pain, nausea, and fatigue.

After the outbreak, health officials alerted the public, saying that “people can become infected [with cyclospora] by consuming food or water contaminated with the microscopic parasite.”  Good to know.

What health officials haven’t admitted is that the only way for that particular parasite to end up on the veggies is through the hands of workers contaminated with the contents of plague-ridden intestines.

That’s why, based on its ethnically diverse staff, when McDonald’s raw salads are infected with cyclospora, it’s not a surprise.  People “deserving a break” venture to McDonald’s, and rather than eat a hamburger and fries, which burns the feces off on the grill and in the hot oil, they choose a salad because it’s supposedly a healthier choice.  Wrong.

Unbeknownst to the 90 customers currently hugging the porcelain throne in Iowa and Illinois, the “crisp … full of flavor” menu item they ordered was probably seasoned with the feculence of workers handling the “chopped romaine, baby spinach, baby kale, red leaf lettuce, ribbon-cut carrots and grape tomatoes.”  Yummy.

Americans who oppose the ongoing invasion currently sweeping over the nation like a bacteria-infested tsunami have many reasons for how they feel.  Meanwhile, the issue largely ignored is how illegal immigration ultimately impacts the health of Americans eating food handled by food service workers who come from motherlands who toss the salad after tossing the toilet paper.

Ocasio-Cortez pockets the tip cup?

Originally posted at American Thinker

New York’s 14th District’s congressional nominee, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is currently the darling of the Democratic Party.  Running as a Democratic Socialist, the 28-year-old Latina managed to defeat ten-term Democrat incumbent and number-four Democrat in the House Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), and she did it by touting the virtues of wealth being socially and collectively owned.

In addition to believing that it’s time for generational, racial, and ideological change, and in the spirit of former first lady Michelle Obama, who shared none of her pie but wanted the rest of us to “give up a piece of [our] pie so that someone else [could] have more,” allegedly, Alexandria, aka Sandy, isn’t all that into sharing, either.

According to a food-server who worked with the former bartender at an East 16th Street taco and tequila bar, Flats Fix, on Cinco de Mayo 2017, the newly minted politician proved that when it came to divvying up the tips, collective ownership lost its appeal.

On the Democratic Socialist website, it says that “Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically – to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few.”

If “profits for a few” is what Ocasio-Cortez condemned when running against Joe Crowley, why would she begrudgingly throw $50 at a waitress and pocket $510 for herself?  If the soon-to-be congressional contender was really against pay inequity, shouldn’t the server she worked alongside have been given half of Alexandria’s take?

The only explanation for pocketing 90% of the contents of the tip cup and doling out a pittance to a co-worker is that, deep down inside, “people vs. money” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez considered herself the top 1% of Flats Fix and secretly believed that mixing Mayan Mules has more worth than schlepping fish tacos.

Wasn’t it Ocasio-Cortez who said, “The definition of Democratic Socialism to me, again, is the fact that in a modern, moral, and wealthy society, no American should be too poor to live”?  Is this the same woman who allegedly gave a waitress $50 for a night’s work and kept $510 for herself?

The server was so shocked by the small amount of money she received that a complaint was registered with the management, who wrested another 50 bucks from Alexandria’s tightfisted Democrat-Socialist hands.

The offended waitress told Richard Johnson of the New York Post’s Page Six that after being treated that way by Ocasio-Cortez, “[f]rom that point on, I wouldn’t talk to her.  I couldn’t look at her.  It says so much about her character.”

Six months after slighting a low-wage worker trying to make an honest buck, Alexandria packed up her tip cup and left Flats Fix to run against Congressman Joe Crowley as a Democrat Socialist and won.

Official campaign photo.

Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a racist?

Originally posted at American Thinker

In New York’s 14th Congressional District, progressive Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won the Democrat primary by defeating ten-term Democrat incumbent Joseph Crowley.  The twenty-eight-year-old “girl from the Bronx” is a self-avowed Democratic-Socialist, community organizer, educator, former bartender and waitress, and groundbreaking political phenom living the American dream she claims to despise.

In addition to supporting things such as sharing wealth Bernie Sanders-style, Medicare for all, guaranteed jobs for everyone, free college tuition, the abolishment of ICE, ending the privatization of prisons, the impeachment of Donald Trump, and gun control policies – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez exhibits racist tendencies.

To win the primary, Alexandria convinced voters that based solely on her ethnicity and her working-class roots, she was the most qualified to represent eastern Bronx and portions of north-central Queens, whose demographic composition is 82% minority, 50% of which is Hispanic-Latino.

The problem is that Alexandria didn’t live in the projects and didn’t spend much time riding the El train.  Instead, since Alexandria was age two, the newly elected politician lived in a three-bedroom home in Yorktown Heights, purchased by her architect father, the late Sergio Cortez-Roman.

Yorktown Heights is a suburb of New York City located in wealthy Westchester County.  Unlike the district Alexandria won, the demographic in the town the political neophyte grew up in is 90% white and 5% Hispanic-Latino.

Sort of like Elizabeth Warren getting in touch with her Native American roots, to remain relevant to people in the 14th District, Alexandria thought it would be advantageous to present herself as a working-class Latina from the Bronx, average household income $50,000 a year, versus a middle-class Latina from White Yorktown Heights, average household income $141,254 a year.

Instead of being truthful, the progressive politician, raised in Yorktown Heights, portrayed herself as a Marxist “from the block,” so to speak.

The candidate’s official biography even went so far as to depict the Millennial, in search of a better education, as having to endure years of a 40-minute ride north from the Bronx to attend school.  The truth is that Alexandria didn’t live in the Boogie Down Bronx.  Until 2008, when she left for college, Ocasio-Cortez lived in a quaint house 40 minutes to the north.  From there she attended Boston University, which currently costs $70,000 a year, and interned in the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s office.

A far cry from looking for handouts, after Dad died, Ocasio-Cortez’s mother cleaned houses and drove school buses to keep the Yorktown Heights home out of foreclosure.  Instead of running on a platform that promoted hard work and sacrifice as a way to overcome hardship and advance in life, both of which she experienced, the newly minted politician chose to reject her mother’s example and tout socialism and wealth-sharing with a Hispanic edge instead.

To ensure that voters from New York’s 14th District would elect her, the Yorktown Heights schoolgirl concocted a story that she perceived would appeal to inner-city Hispanics.  Disguised as an ethnic and economic peer, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez represented Hispanics in the Bronx by pretending to relate to an educational, financial, and social demographic she knew little about from personal experience.

With that in mind, as a woman of color, Ocasio-Cortez seems to suffer from internalized racism, self-loathing, and animosity toward her cultural constituency.  Alexandria’s platform proved that the winner of the 14th District primary won by stereotyping Hispanics-Latinos as those unable to move out of the projects and as inbred xenophobes supportive only of minorities of similar economic and social experience who are eager to get free stuff.

Or why pretend?

If a woman from white Yorktown Heights has to make believe she’s a Hispanic-Latina from the Bronx because that’s the only way she thinks she’ll get Hispanics-Latinos to support her, that indicates that the candidate has racist feelings toward her own ethnicity.

Therefore, if the Bronx’s and Queens’s minority voters had realized that the girl in $22 lipstick from Nordstrom’s was masquerading as one of them, maybe, instead of throwing out Joe Crowley, the 14th District would have put Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on a train heading north to Yorktown Heights, where she belongs.

The Death of ICE Agent Jaime Zapata

Originally posted in American Thinker

Actress Cynthia “Sex in the City” Nixon, who is running for governor in the state of New York and New York senator Kirsten ‘Hottest Member’ of the Senate Gillibrand have joined forces to abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, also known as ICE.  Nixon even went so far as to call ICE a terrorist organization.

That means that in the twisted mind of a lefty a “terrorist” is someone who safeguards Americans from terrorists.

At present, the pick-and-choose/morally relativistic Democrats that maintain Roe v. Wade is “settled law” have decided it’s acceptable to discount “settled” immigration law. The same holds true for how the left approaches the Second Amendment.  When Barack Obama and Eric Holder ran guns to deadly Mexican cartels, anti-gun activists were shockingly silent.  Moreover, there was nary an objection when Fast and Furious guns were thought to be used in an ambush that resulted in the death of federal ICE agent  Jaime Zapata, whose agency is being targeted by the left.

Jaime died on February 15th, 2011 on Federal Highway 57, a busy four-lane Mexican road 200 miles north of Mexico City, while sitting in a State Department-issued SUV.   U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agents, Victor Avila and his partner Jaime J. Zapata had just finished eating when henchmen from the violent Mexican drug cartel, Los Zetas attacked them. The agents were shot with AK-47, and AR-15 semiautomatic rifles probably provided compliments of Barack Obama and Eric Holder’s failed gun running scheme.

As Jaime lay bleeding and dying in the driver’s seat of the armored car, Avila called the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, screaming for help, “This is Victor Avila from ICE! We are shot! We are shot. We are at a highway in Mexico; we’ve been shot and attacked on the highway!” Maybe Kirsten Gillibrand and Cynthia Nixon are unaware that while trying to find a pressure point to stop his partner’s bleeding, Agent Avila, a man Democrats like Maxine Waters (D-CA) now portray as “terrorists,” pleaded with his dying friend, “Jaime! Look at me, stay awake. Please don’t die.”

Avila’s request was futile, Jaime Zapata died, and at the time of his death, the 33-year-old ICE Agent was the first law enforcement officer to be killed in Mexico in the line of duty since 1985.

In 2013, 37-year-old cell leader Julian Zapata Espinoza, called “El Piolin,” or “Tweety Bird,” confessed to leading the four-man hit squads that ambushed Zapata and Avila claiming the hit was a bungled carjacking, not an assassination.

During the 2017 trial,  through an interpreter provided compliments of the U.S. taxpayer, Espinoza explained that at the time of Zapata’s death there was a Zeta cartel order to steal and replace the vehicles lost in a violent, bloody war with a rival cartel. Espinoza said that’s why the shooter’s team blocked the $160,000 armored Chevy Suburban occupied by two ICE agents.

In other words, drug cartel members wanted ICE’s armored SUV, didn’t see the diplomatic license plates, and things went awry.  Question: If cell leader Espinoza had never been captured and had managed to show up on the U.S. border with a gaggle of abducted children, would Gillibrand and Nixon-types have marched in defense of Señor “Tweety Bird?”

Unfortunately for Avila and Zapata, who hail from the ranks of those who are current targets of leftists looking to abolish ICE, when the SUV was put in park, because of a glitch never addressed, its doors automatically unlocked. Espinoza testified that when he pulled on the door, much to his amazement, it opened.

As Zapata struggled to shut and relock the heavy door, in the commotion the automatic window on his side accidentally lowered a few inches.  During the trial, speaking for the first time since the shooting Avila demonstrated what happened by holding one hand in the front of his head and the other a few inches from his right temple.  Avila told the jury, “They stuck in two barrels, two guns, an AR-15 rifle and a handgun, right here.” Avila, then said Los Zeta kept telling Zapata and Avila to open the door, “At that moment, they opened fire” with guns likely supplied by an American president and his Attorney General.

According to Avila’s testimony, bullets immediately struck Zapata. Avila attested, “I could see it leave a mark in his chest. Jaime said, ‘I’m hit. I’m shot’.”  In all, Zapata suffered six bullet wounds, including one that sliced through the femoral artery of his left leg. Avila received four gunshot wounds, two in his thigh and ankle.  When the hail of bullets stopped, there were 80 to 90 bullet casings strewn around the SUV.

While those endowed with a “spark of divinity” were sticking guns through car windows, and as an object of leftist contempt was bleeding out behind the steering wheel, Avila told the jury, “I got my left hand on the barrel of the handgun, trying to push it out [the window.]”

Avila miraculously found a way to raise the window and call the embassy.  According to testimony, an official on duty told Avila, “I need you to drive. I need you to move him.” Avila answered, “I can’t. He’s too slippery. I can’t move him.” Avila then said, “I can’t find the place to put pressure…He’s dying.”

In an attempt to escape, Avila pushed the dead man’s leg down on the accelerator pedal, the SUV lurched forward, crashed through a truck, screeched across a few lanes and eventually stalled.  The cartel trailed the SUV and before driving away sprayed the bulletproof windshield with a shower of bullets.

Nonetheless, hoping to avoid life without parole, in 2015 and 2016, with the help of Zeta against Zeta squad mates, Zapata’s killers were eventually rounded up and extradited to the U.S.  In 2017, Jose Emanuel Garcia Sota, aka Juan Manuel Moldonado Amezcua, aka “Zafado,” and Jesus Ivan Quezada Piña, aka “Loco,” were both convicted and found guilty on four charges including the murder of  a federal law enforcement agent.

Seven years after Zapata’s death, while illegals march in our nation’s Capitol for benefits they have no right to claim, ICE Agents still risk their lives to deter members of violent drug cartels like Los Zetas from crossing our southern border.

In response, rather than celebrate the dedication and bravery of all law enforcement personnel, Democrats choose instead to march to abolish ICE.  Meanwhile, for the crime of permanently separating Special Agent Jaime Zapata from his family, Sota and Piña are currently serving two consecutive life sentences in federal prison.

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 see url 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.

%d bloggers like this: