Archive / Culture and Politics

RSS feed for this section

Vacation Glutton Michelle’s June Jaunt

moa2Originally posted at American Thinker

Over the last 8 years, Michelle Obama has evolved into an exemplary world traveler.  Compliments of the struggling U.S. taxpayer, the FLOTUS consistently indulges in at least five or six multi-million dollar vacations per year.

In March, if things get boring, Michelle, mother Marian, and daughters Sasha and Malia, either fly solo or use Dad (if he’s not golfing) as an excuse to pamper their weary bones with an all expense paid “working vacation.”  Like clockwork, the girl gang jets off to destinations such as Cuba, China, Japan, Qatar, Argentina or Cambodia.

Predictably, there’s always a June pre-Martha’s Vineyard vacation where Michelle tours Paris, Spain, South Africa, London, and Italy.

In August, the Obamas take a Martha’s Vineyard breather for a few weeks. On the Vineyard, the Obama family and their large tag-along entourage, at a paltry cost of give-or-take $5-million or so, enjoy a well-deserved getaway.

That summer retreat is a crucial piece of the annual Obama vacation puzzle because two weeks of ice cream cones and body surfing help the first family prepare to spend $8-million vacationing in Hawaii at Christmas for 17 days.

And Michelle, for one, notoriously milks every vacation bone dry.

One year, she flew the family dog to Hawaii on a private plane.  Another year, for her 50th birthday, before repacking for a customary February date to ski in Aspen, Colorado, Michelle banished Barry and the kids from Hawaii and for another couple of days laid over with girlfriends at Oprah Winfrey’s Maui estate.

Recently, Michelle and her mother and daughters embarked on a “Let Girls Learn” jaunt to sub-Saharan and north Africa, as well as Europe.  This time, it was for six-days and, unlike 2011, did not include fried fat cakes.

Wait! Wasn’t it just last March that the Japanese let Michelle ‘You Go, Girl’ Obama learn to play the taiko drums in Kyoto? Now, one year later, the plan for this trip is for the FLOTUS’s Moroccan and Liberian stops to be recorded for a CNN “Let Girls Learn” documentary.

CNN Films must be so committed to propping up the Obama legacy, they paid for Academy Award-winning actress Meryl Streep, who recently mocked Donald Trump in a Park Public Theater Gala in New York, and “Slum Dog Millionaire” leading lady, Freida Pinto, to join the girly LGL globe-trotters.

In the end, chances are that Michelle’s expose on the educational inequity of culturally and politically oppressed girls will be rivaled only by HBO’s riveting Beyoncé biopic: “Life is But a Dream.”

On this trip, the FLOTUS has been focused on delivering a “Let Girls Learn” message to nations where most girls suffer from poverty, Ebola, gang rape, HIV-AIDs, premature death, murder for honor by dear old dad, and being forcibly married at age nine to old letches.

Resplendent in a $2,000 Peter Pilotto black silk dress, Michelle Obama travelled half way across the world to express to those worried about being genitally mutilated that it’s high time to “Let Girls Learn.”

Besides providing the FLOTUS with a way to justify spending oodles of taxpayer money on self-indulgent vacations, the U.S. government-wide “Let Girls Learn” initiative tacitly implies that getting 62-million unschooled girls into classrooms will be as easy as Obama getting transgenders into sex-specific bathrooms.

Last year, a generous Mrs. Obama pledged $70 million dollars, the equivalent of the cost of her first five years of vacation expenses, to Pakistan, a country where 74% of the people basically hate America.  This year, while struggling Americans scrimp and save to purchase groceries, Michelle upped the ante and pledged $100 million in U.S. foreign aid to 100,000 Moroccan students – 50,000 of whom are uneducated girls.

Which is why, after her visit with Nobel Peace Prize winner, President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in Ebola-stricken Liberia, and in keeping with Barack’s Muslim-apologist theme, Michelle commissioned the Marrakesh Express to shuttle her to Morocco. Dressed in what closely resembled a $3,000 black and white tablecloth, Michelle, the woman who hasn’t missed one meal in eight years, broke the Ramadan fast at an Iftar dinner hosted by Moroccan Princess Lalla Salma.

Meanwhile, female students Malia, Sasha, and Grandma the Grifter, are quickly learning that sumptuous perks are in store for those who tag along on whirlwind vacations with Michelle.  For example, Malia, who also cares deeply about illiterate girls living in poverty, showed up to the Moroccan food fest wearing a $4,295 Burberry Prorsum dress.

Either way, rather than stay in the U.S. and address the problem of immigrants who refuse to learn English, Michelle chose instead to fly to Madrid, where, after being joined by Queen Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano, spoke in English to girls in Spain about ‘letting girls learn.’

In other words, after pushing away from the Moroccan buffet table, America’s wayfaring freeloader, who last visited Malaga and Mallorca in 2010 on $500Kprivate mother/daughter trip, seamlessly segued from Marrakesh to Madrid.

And if all this seems strange, lest anyone forget, it was female education-advocate Michelle Obama who just finished making the college-graduation-speaker-circuit, where, instead of praising America, exploited keynote speeches to stir up racial tension and to grumble about “driving while black.”

Which proves that the FLOTUS’s efforts overseas have nothing to do with ‘girls learning.’

Instead, under the guise of some global gender-sensitive educational initiative that she knows is impossible to enforce, Michelle Obama has again finagled for herself a holiday. By feigning concern for girls who live in countries where socio-economic and political challenges preclude them from accessing an education, America’s vacation-glutton, Michelle Obama, has found yet another vehicle that justifies her indulging in a June vacation.

An honorary degree recipient stupefies Rutgers

ap_16136622960899_custom-db7f47d1aceed49fb7ff597157b7c22a602997f2-s900-c85Originally posted at American Thinker

Barack Obama recently accepted an invitation to be the keynote speaker at Rutgers University’s commencement.  After gracing the podium with the usual perfunctory niceties, rather than exhibit sensitivity toward Muslim graduates, Barack Hussein exercised his comedic chops by joking about whether New Jersey breakfast meat should be called pork roll or “Taylor ham.”

Then, after sharing that he has  “soft spot” for “typical white” and 99-year-oldgrandmas in need of pacemakers, America’s classless president spent a great deal of time rebuking the Republican presumptive nominee.

In addition to admonishing Trump, President Obama used the commencement speech as a platform to lift up progressive ideology, put down political adversaries, and defend the last eight years. His remarks started with lauding the diversity of a graduating class that included a South Asian philosophy student and a “first-generation Latina student from Jersey City” who probably wouldn’t need a translator to understand Target’s new all Spanish ad campaign.

As an entrée to challenging the class to pursue social justice, Obama told them, “I’m fond of quoting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who he believes once said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”  One small problem, MLK didn’t say it, the 19th-century Unitarian minister/abolitionist Theodore Parker did.

After Obama expunged Winston Churchill from the redecorated Oval Office, the president, who exploited the Rutgers discourse to ridicule his political adversaries for lack of brainpower, had the misquote emblazoned on the rug.

At Rutgers, the guy who just said he has a “soft spot” for grandmas also injected divisiveness by suggesting that the older Americans are full of  “fear… division and paralysis.”  Then he commended #feelthebern moochers for their “cooperation … innovation and hope.”

The president told the soon to be alumni, “So you’ve got the tools to lead us…you’ll look at things with fresher eyes, unencumbered by the biases and blind spots and inertia and general crankiness of your parents and grandparents and old heads like me.” In other words, anyone who doesn’t worship Barack Obama is biased, blind, inert, cranky and “longing for the ‘good old days’.”

That’s why, the president informed the graduates, “the ‘good old days’ weren’t that great.” He warned that all talk about the past should be taken “with a grain of salt,” because it comes from a generation that flourished when “America pretty much did whatever it wanted around the world.”

After belittling the elders, Obama praised himself when he said, “In fact, by almost every measure, America is better, and the world is better, than it was 50 years ago, or 30 years ago, or even eight years ago” – a comment that thrilled the clapping seals in mortarboards.

For good measure, the president also brought up slavery, Jim Crow, and the suppression of women’s rights.  Then he claimed that since 1983, the year his college transcripts went missing, crime, teenage pregnancy, and poverty rates have declined.

Obama chose not to quote statistics regarding illegal felons roaming our streets and threatening our children, 50+ million aborted American babies, and millions of unemployed people receiving government subsidies.

Nor did the equal pay advocate mention that in his own administration women still earn less than men.

Instead, Obama bedazzled spectators with bluster about jobs, Obamacare, clean energy, and marriage equality.  He even mentioned eliminating polio, and cutting infant mortality, but didn’t reference importing Third World diseases like MDR-TB, or Planned Parenthood peddling baby body parts.

Barack Obama is so clueless, that in an attempt to inspire his audience, the pro-choice president mentioned Alice Paul, who, besides being a “daughter of New Jersey” and a suffragette, was ardently pro-life.

After hearing the Rutgers University keynote commencement speech delivered by Barack Obama, it’s clear that the 44th president thinks he is the Bill Cosby of politics.  The difference is that unlike Cosby, who was accused of drugging women with Quaaludes, to stupefy his audience, Obama infuses his delusional rhetoric with Cosby-style humor.

Thanks to Obama, Rutgers graduates have much to fear; yet the president encouraged them not to fear the future.  That led him to a second point where he stressed globalism, which he defined as an “interconnected…world.”   Then, Obama hinted that he believes responsible border security is solving a problem “in isolation.”

This is Obama’s rationale:

When overseas states start falling apart, they become breeding grounds for terrorists …that ultimately can reach our shores.  When developing countries don’t have functioning health systems, epidemics like Zika or Ebola can spread and threaten Americans, too.

True, a wall won’t stop terrorism or disease. But, enforcing immigration law and refusing to import and resettle refugees that ISIS has vowed to infiltrate might help.

After hamstringing the U.S. military Obama then added:

But I worry if we think that the entire burden of our engagement with the world is up to the 1 percent who serve in our military, and the rest of us can just sit back and do nothing.  They can’t shoulder the entire burden.

Then, further along in the speech the keynote speaker contradicted that logic when he said, “We can close tax loopholes on hedge fund managers and take that money and give tax breaks to help families with child care or retirement.” Put simply, when it comes to “leveling the playing field,” the excuse Obama uses to demilitarize the armed forces, he then uses to justify forcing a small percentage of earners to support those who  “just sit back and do nothing.”

Lacking any quality input of his own, without uttering his name, Obama spent a lot of time taking Donald Trump to task.

After mocking Trump “building an endless wall,” Barack pulled out the “isolating and disparaging Muslims” card, the “betrayal of our values” card and the “important partners in the fight against violent extremism” card.

Oh, and right before some egghead in the audience yelled “Four more years!”, Obama insinuated Trump “blames [America’s] challenges on immigrants.”

From there, in an attempt to portray anyone who disagrees with his politics as uneducated, illogical, “anti-intellectual” and troglodyte in nature, Obama implied that those who contradict his views, namely Trump, lack “facts, evidence, reason, logic, [and] an understanding of science.” This from a guy who doesn’t believe partially born newborns are human and that greenhouse gasses are a bigger threat than ISIS teaching French boys how to kill.

With that in mind, maybe Obama should refrain from highlighting his own shortcomings by saying things like, “In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue.  It’s not cool to not know what you’re talking about. ”

After emphasizing that the “good old days” should be taken with a “grain of salt,” Obama painted a certain Republican presidential candidate as unenlightened by calling upon our  ‘enlightened’ limited government Founding Fathers, many of whom owned the slaves he alluded to when talking about disregarding our nation’s past.

Obama, who scorns rugged individualism and who once called our Constitution “deeply flawed” told his audience “rational thought and experimentation and the capacity of informed citizens to master our own fates…[is] embedded in our constitutional design.”

That was right before the man who thinks he’s “the smartest guy in the room” cited modern technology making us “more confident in our ignorance.” And, quite frankly, who better than Barack Obama to recognize that “a whole lot of folks who are book smart…have no common sense?”

Barack alluded to Donald when he mentioned leaders who have “a disdain for facts, when they’re not held accountable for repeating falsehoods.” Maybe, instead of expelling CO2 when talking climate change, Obama should take some time to self-reflect.

In a call to the citizenry that sounded more like a quote from Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto than a college commencement speech by an American president, Obama mentioned “collective decisions on behalf of a common good.”

Then, after implying that Donald Trump is a complete idiot, Obama, who clearly forgets what he’s reading off the Teleprompter, said progressive goals are reached through “advocacy… organizing… alliance-building, and deal-making, and …changing of public opinion.”  Obama claimed all this “happened because ordinary Americans who cared participated in the political process.”

A legend in his own mind, what’s clear is that Obama doesn’t realize that those are the very things that propelled the “Art of the Deal”-maker to the front of the pack.

In the end, Obama offered the Rutgers graduating Class of 2016 insights he’s never taken to heart himself. That’s why, when the president uttered the words, “your generation will feel the brunt of this catastrophe,” it sounded more like he was referring to his presidency than an issuing indictment on climate change denial or Donald Trump.

Caitlyn Jenner Reportedly Sabotages Obama’s Bathroom Agenda

IMG_2205Originally posted at American Thinker

Sixty-six-year-old Caitlyn Jenner, or “Cait,” as his or her friends like to call him or her, singlehandedly brought sexual identification awareness to the forefront of American culture.  Now Kardashian family biographer, Ian Halperin, has claimed that sources tell him Caitlyn is unhappy as a woman and is thinking seriously “in the next couple of years” of  transitioning back to male.

Halperin alleges that while researching his book Kardashian Dynasty: The Controversial Rise of America’s Royal Family, insiders indicated that, unlike Pat SuzukiGlamour magazine’s “Woman of the Year,” is no longer singing “I enjoy being a girl,” and instead is considering re-embracing his or her original manhood.

That’s right; after fashion retailer H&M partnered with Cait and came out with transgender sportswear, Caitlyn, a purported victim of “sex change regret,” may be leaning away from jogging bras and toward men’s golfing duds.

Forget the clothing line, Caitlyn’s backpedaling is sure to unsettle Barack Obama.

Thanks in part to the capricious Caitlyn bringing the plight of transgenderism to the fore, Obama who chooses to ignore immigration law, has expended an inordinate amount of energy focusing on elimination law.

After Caitlyn raised awareness, the president, who barely notices when a U.S. Navy Seal is killed by ISIS in Iraq or makes nary a comment when a 90-year-old Minnesota farmer is murdered by illegals, has had plenty to say about frightened schoolchildren sucking it up and venturing into creepy gender-neutral restrooms.

The Obama administration has been so concerned about where transgenders relieve themselves they flexed their muscles and decreed that heterosexuals being uncomfortable about using a same-sex bathroom does not justify keeping men dressed like women out of the ladies’ room, or vice versa. In fact, Obama issued an edict that all public schools had better provide transgender access to restrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities — or face the loss of federal funds.

That’s why, with blackmail on the table, now may not be the best time for news to come out that one of the reasons Caitlyn wants to transition away from estrogen back to testosterone is that he or she is still attracted to women.  The revelation is problematic because the left argues that gender-neutrality in the restroom is not a problem and that forcing little girls to shower with transgendered boys does not threaten privacy because boys who identify as girls aren’t attracted to girls.

Halperin says that Caitlyn feels otherwise.

And it gets weirder.

In 2015, with his junk tucked up in a silk teddy, Jenner was featured on the cover of Vanity Fair.  This summer, wearing nothing but an American flag and an Olympic gold medal as a fig leaf, Caitlyn plans to pose nude for Sports Illustrated.

Now, after ignoring Deuteronomy 22:5, which says, “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this,” Halperin asserts that Caitlyn’s devout Christianity has caused the transgendered cover girl angst.

Apparently, Caitlyn’s conflict arises from Scriptures that censure homosexual sex. So, for relationship reasons, Caitlyn is allegedly willing to drop being a lesbian, de-transition, find a female mate, and have heterosexual sex.  Then, instead of two “women exchanging the natural function for that which is unnatural,” as it says in Romans 1:26-27, Bruce will be free to fornicate with a totally clear conscience.

Meanwhile, in the wake of a father of ten/grandfather of five trying to decide whether to wear Spanx or a jock strap, Americans are left to deal with a president who publicly praised the former Olympiad for having the “courage to share his or her story.”

As a result of that inspiration, Obama’s nondiscriminatory bathroom edicts now demand that courageous feelings, rather than biology, should determine what Americans may have to endure whenever they venture into a public bathroom, shower, or college dorm.

Progressives understand that a transformational culture war will result in collateral damage. So, after terror takes place in the toilet, which it will, rest assured that Barack Obama will react to unfortunate bathroom catastrophes with the same emotionless shoulder shrug he exhibited when Kate Steinle was shot in the back by an un-deported illegal alien felon.

Therefore, after Barack Obama and Housing Secretary Julian Castro finish resettling our neighborhoods this fall, in addition to odd sightings in Target bathrooms, expect to see ISIS refugee infiltrators reapplying their lipstick in the public restroom at the local library.

That being said, lately, America feels like a 10,000-passenger cruise ship originally destined for the Virgin Islands. However, at the behest of merely 30 passengers, or 0.3%, who changed their minds and would rather sail to Cuba, for the last eight years, Captain Obama has steadily changed course.

The problem for the other 9,970 passengers is that, once again, the minority is steering the vessel.

With Caitlyn Jenner and others like him as poster children, Barack Obama preaches against intolerance.  But then, on a cruise to nowhere that the 99.7% didn’t sign on for, he forces the intolerable upon those averse to having their privacy subjected to sexual anomalies and theoretical gender distinctions.

So, regardless of what Barack Obama says, in the future, if a 6’ 2” woman who looks like Caitlyn Jenner enters the restroom wearing Christian Louboutin heels, just remember that he or she may be wearing sky-high pumps simply to have a clearer view over the top of your stall.

Michelle’s Historically Black Attempt to Malign Mississippi

cefc3c0ad71743eda75faf3c97bdcb2c_tx600Originally posted at at American Thinker

Last year, the first lady, Michelle Obama, gave a commencement speech at Alabama’s Tuskegee University that sounded more like she was paying homage to black activist W.E.B. DuBois than the school’s founder Booker T.  Washington who, as an ex-slave, believed character and hard work were key to improving the plight of the black man.

Then again, Michelle is part of the illiterate gang who ousted evil slave owner Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill without researching the philosophies escaped slave Harriet Tubman stood for. Wait until Obama, who misquoted MLK on his Oval Office rug, realizes Underground Railroad conductor Tubman was a devout Christian whose pistol-packing ways mirror Sarah Palin, not Maxine Waters.

Nonetheless, Michelle recently returned from a trip with the guy who lectures continents on gay rights and who, after wishing Queen Elizabeth happy 90th birthday, threatened Britain by warning that voting “Yes” on a referendum to bow out of the EU would place the UK at the ‘end of the TTIP trade deal queue.’ Sorry, but that sounds more like Chicago-style coercion than a friendly suggestion to an ally.

Either way, Mrs. Obama is not unlike her Saul Alinsky-trained husband. The FLOTUS also ‘sees the world not as it is but as it should be’ and feels it’s her duty to set the non-compliant straight.

That’s why, after returning from making enemies overseas, Michelle quickly donned her tam and gown and headed to give a confrontational commencement speech in a state still stigmatized by a dark image concerning civil rights.  It was at historically black Jackson State University that Michelle chose to include in her remarks a rebuke to Mississippi for daring to uphold the First Amendment.

As part of the discourse, the FLOTUS used voting rights as the vehicle to refer disparagingly to the “religious freedom bill” recently signed into law by governor Phil Bryant. The basis of the bill is to protect those who, because of a religious opposition to things like same-sex marriage, extramarital sex, or transgenderism, refuse to provide services to whose behavior falls outside what they believe to be Scriptural precepts.

Governor Bryant maintains that the “religious freedom bill” was passed “to protect sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions… from discriminatory action by state government.” Bryant said the new law “merely reinforces” existing religious freedom rights on the state level, “does not limit any constitutionally protected rights or actions,” and does not challenge federal law.

The bottom line is that Americans are still free to live any way they choose. With that in mind, religious freedom should mean that no one is strong-armed to accept or accommodate conduct that runs contrary to a person’s deeply held faith.

Much like her husband, Michelle Obama disagrees.

It’s good to know that, in the name of nondiscrimination, dear FLOTUS can always be counted on to verbally discriminate against anyone who desires to remain true to constitutional or religious convictions.

That’s why; by comparing the God-given civil rights of black Americans to gender identity confusion and illegal immigration Mrs. Obama pretty much exploited Jackson State University graduates. Michelle got all preachy saying, “We see it right here in Mississippi — just two weeks ago -– how swiftly progress can hurtle backward. How easy it is to single out a small group and marginalize them because of who they are or who they love.”

It’s obvious from that statement the FLOTUS believes that if ‘who you are and what you believe’ make you hesitant to share a restroom with a transgender; you are worthy to be discriminated against. Otherwise, according to Michelle, ‘singling out and marginalizing’ is unacceptable.

And so, rather than commend her audience’s achievements, or inspire black graduates to forthcoming success, the FLOTUS turned a graduation into an opportunity to publicly reprimand a Republican governor and to stir animosity by insinuating that Mississippi is reverting back to civil rights abuses.

Mrs. Obama pressed on:

So we’ve got to stand side by side with all our neighbors –- straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender; Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu immigrant, Native American — because the march for civil rights isn’t just about African-Americans, it’s about all Americans. It’s about making things more just, more equal, more free for all our kids and grandkids.

The FLOTUS must have gotten confused because, while secretly viewing Christians as the one’s doing the oppressing, she mistakenly included Jesus-following, gun, and Bible-clingers in her “march for civil rights” appeal.

More importantly, since when is a force against one’s will to benefit another’s will the definition for the upholding of civil rights? And if that is how things now work in Obama’s fundamentally transformed America, shouldn’t Halal butchers be mandated, despite religion, to sell legal pork products to customers who demand bacon?

Besides, if  ‘justice, equality and freedom’ are the goals, how does one carp about laws being passed that seek to ensure the right to “freedom of religion?” Moreover, in what way does the president saying, while in the UK, that a law “should be overturned” that preserves religious liberty make America “more just, more equal” and freer?

In the end, Michelle’s anti-freedom/ averse-to-equality rant are just more drivel issuing forth from a woman who, together with her subversive spouse, profess love for America and adherence to the Christian faith, but exhibit neither.

Instead, in an effort to destabilize the Constitution, disparage Biblical values, and chop away at conventional social mores, every year, Michelle “turns up like a bad penny” at historically black commencement ceremonies where she attempts to stir up racial divisiveness and gain political points by playing the victim card.

At the end of the day, Mrs. Obama can be counted upon to defend against intolerance by speaking prejudicially against the foundational principles held dear by great historical figures such as the Christian freedom fighter about to be memorialized on the front of the $20 bill.

Barry the Cable Guy

imagesOriginally posted at American Thinker

Barack Obama exhibits a pattern of behavior Americans should recognize by now. Whenever this president starts talking about “loosening the grip” of corporations, increasing competition, and opening markets to ensure lower prices it’s a sure sign that the noose of government is about to become tighter around America’s neck.

For nearly eight years, under the guise of shielding the American people from harm, Obama has methodically shifted power away from the private sector toward the most powerful and corrupt conglomerate on the face of the planet –- the U.S. federal government.

Let’s not beat around the bush; the prospect of thwarting corporate America gets the president all excited.

Obama began his reign of terror by “loosening the grip” of health insurance companies. The problem is that in order for his administration to rush in and patch things up, he first needed to break what wasn’t broken.

When the Affordable Care Act was being foisted on America, the president spent a full year attempting to convince the wary that insurance companies needed to be accountable. Americans were incessantly lectured to about how competition would lower prices, improve care, and expand access.

At the time, the president argued that:

In the end, this isn’t about politics. This is about people’s lives and livelihoods. This is about people’s businesses. This is about America’s future, and whether we will be able to look back and say that this was the moment when we made the changes we needed and gave our children a better life. I believe we can, and I believe we will.

ObamaCare has done none of that. Rather than be rescued by “changes we needed,” ever since healthcare reform was enacted Americans have been suffering the ramifications of ‘changes no one needed.’

Now, with an eye toward a government bailout, health insurance companies are citing unsustainable losses. Meanwhile, consumers are overburdened with high premiums, rising copayments, increasingly second-rate care, and exorbitant deductibles.

In response, drooling statists are anticipating the right moment to step forward and absorb a mess that was specifically created with a government fix in mind.

And so, contrary to popular opinion, ObamaCare is not nose-diving.

The whole process, from implementation to failure, was a government coup designed to bring America closer to having no other choice but to accept a single-payer system.

Moving right along, the elderly will next be denied medical care, but not before Obama persuades baby boomers that government absorption of 401Ks ensures a secure retirement.

In the interim, Barack is biding time golfing and undermining big business.

That’s why, as ISIS increases in power and North Korea ignites the fuse on the end of a nuke pointed toward California, instead of devoting energy to critical matters, the president is working hard to ‘fundamentally transform’ the future of cable boxes.

As the number of illegal immigrant children tunneling across our border rises 1,200% and peculiar bacteria kills 18+ and shootings in the gun-control capital of Chicago are up 200%, Obama’s FCC appointee, Chairman Tom Wheeler, and America’s Chief Executive have agreed that the pay television industry must be open the market to competition.

How nice of Barack Obama, who supports making the Internet into a public utility, to volunteer to support the F.C.C.’s effort to break up cable cartels that wrongly monopolize the sale of service.

Seems that Barry the Cable Guy would rather Americans buy their boxes from third parties who have the cutting-edge technology to gather, via smart TV,information currently unavailable on electronic health records.

Either way, to convince cable companies to “loosen their grip” on the black set-top boxes that deliver pay TV, the federal government plans to push a broad federal effort intended to increase the type of competition government intervention notoriously obstructs.

Speaking of competition, the president, who gained experience dabbling in the free cell phone business, had this to say about how the economic system he despises will benefit the cable industry:

One of America’s greatest strengths is our free market. A thriving private sector is the lifeblood of our economy — it’s how we create jobs, expand opportunities, and give everybody a shot at success. It’s what has made America the strongest country on Earth.

That kind of disingenuous rhetoric issuing forth from the mouth of a man with such antipathy towards private enterprise is a sign that another industry is about to become entangled in Barack Obama’s tentacles.

The only thing missing from that hogwash is the pledge that ‘if you like your cable box you can keep your cable box.’

The reasoning behind muscling into the cable business is that lonely little converters symbolize corporate dominance over the same folks Obama shamelessly exploits in his pursuit of power.  So, to justify throwing the full weight of his office behind the FCC, Obama will probably emphasize the plight of poor people paying too much for cable, which is true.

However, what the Fundraiser-in-Chief forgot to mention when he announced his support for Unlock the Box was that, just like the insurance donors that profited handsomely from Obamacare, the “competition” effort he currently supports benefits a tiny group of top Democrat techie donors like Apple, Amazon, and Google.

By bailing out banks, the auto industry, and destroying health care, this president has contributed mightily to the expansion of the federal behemoth. That’s why; peering into every citizen’s home makes pay TV setups the obvious next step.

So, as always, the goal of Obama-fairness has zilch to do with competition, consumer protection, or the broader economy.  Instead, Obama’s support of smashing up cable companies has everything to do with rewarding political friends and expanding an insidious regulatory organism that already controls too much and puts too much money in the pockets of the CEOs running the Washington DC monopoly.

In the end, government control of cable will likely result in the further loss of personal security protections.  Moreover, it will bring America one-step closer to the type of statism Barack ‘You Didn’t Build That’ Obama is in the business of building all by himself.

Michelle’s $4K casual Cuban cocktail dress

Originally posted at American Thinker

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

But hey, that’s just me.

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

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

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

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

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

And the thoughtlessness got worse.

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

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

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

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

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

Progressives Muscle into the Restroom

UnknownOriginally posted at American Thinker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that’s not the worst of it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is where we’re at, folks.

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

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

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

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

Straphanger Hillary sinks to new lows

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary Clinton’s Abortion Quagmire

196334_5_Originally posted at American Thinker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk about a quagmire.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary’s Haircut Inequity

dem_2016_clinton1Originally posted at American Thinker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

%d bloggers like this: