Archive / Politics

RSS feed for this section

OPINION ‘The World’s Smallest Baby’ has lesson for Amy Brenneman

Originally posted at Live Action News

amy-brenneman2Of late, abortion advocates like activist, actress, and self-proclaimed progressive Amy Brenneman are trying to convince themselves, as well as gullible women, that killing offspring is as benign an activity as getting a pedicure.

Brenneman said she spoke out about her abortion because the “light of community and shared experience” dispels shame. Apparently, Amy, ‘who has never not for one moment, regretted her abortion’ is of the opinion that being unwanted is worse than being dead and that wantedness is the determining factor as to whether an unborn child gets to live, or ends up dying.

If given the chance to speak, nine-month-old Emilia Grabarczyk would likely disagree with Amy.

Delivered by emergency caesarean section in the German city of Witten at 25-weeks, Emilia, weighing in at just 8-ounces, puts a face on the life Ms. Brenneman bragged in Cosmopolitan magazine she lackadaisically disposed of in a “clean and respectable” abortion clinic 31-years ago.

At just 8 inches, or 22 centimeters long, Emilia is believed to be the “world’s smallest baby” ever to survive such an early delivery. At the time of her birth, Emilia weighed no more than a “bell pepper” and her tiny, inch-long feet were the size of one of Amy Brenneman’s perfectly manicured fingernails.

At 25 weeks, a healthy baby in its mother’s womb typically weighs about a pound and a half. Because Emilia’s mother Sabine’s placenta was not nourishing her unborn child, at 25 weeks, the baby girl’s birth weight was equivalent to a baby 19 weeks in utero. In fact, on the day she was born, Emilia was almost half the weight of babies that are routinely aborted at 22 weeks.

Rather than discard or leave her to die, German pediatricians, gynecologists, and pediatric surgeons saved Emilia’s life. And despite her minuscule size, just like many babies born alive in botched abortions, Emilia was in good health. At just 12 ounces, she even survived abdominal surgery.

During the six months following her birth, her parents and her doctors were unsure whether or not Emilia Grabarczyk would live and questioned if she did survive, whether she would be plagued with lifelong hyperactivity and learning difficulties.

Currently, 9-months-old, Emilia shows no visible signs of disability. The miracle baby weighs 7 lbs.-2 ounces, and, according to doctors, seems to be growing stronger with each passing day.

Head of the Children and Youth Clinic at St Mary’s hospital, Dr. Bahman Gharavi described Emilia’s birth as exceptional. Gharavi said: “Even children with a birth weight of 14 ounces rarely survive. We have to thank Emilia as well for her own survival. She is a little fighter.”

According to her mother’s obstetrician Dr. Sven Schiermeier, over the past 9-months, “There were many difficult days and many tears, but [Emilia] clearly wanted to survive…[and]… in recent weeks she is getting more robust.”

Meanwhile, in the name of choice, every day two-dozen late-term babies are scraped into red biohazard bags and dragged to an incinerator similar to the one Amy Brenneman’s son or daughter probably occupied more than three decades ago.

Nonetheless, what we learn from Emilia’s story is that contrary to actress Amy Brenneman’s taciturn attitude toward the value of her own child’s life, and despite a small size and questionable ability to survive, the right to life is not measured by whether or not a woman wants a child, but rather, by a God-given will to live.

In the end, feisty Emilia Grabarczyk’s existence sends a message to prochoice/#shoutyourabortion types like ‘responsible family planner’ Amy Brenneman who, after her abortion, breathed a sigh of relief and said, “I get my life back!”

To ‘get her life back’ Amy Brenneman is proud that she forfeited the life of her child who, Emilia Grabarczyk has proven if given the choice, would have struggled to live.

Did Anthony Weiner homeschool a 15-year-old?



Originally posted at American Thinker

Last month, while his wife was at work, and his 4-year-old son Jordan Zain slept beside him, Anthony Weiner, aka Carlos Danger, spent the evening sexting a picture of his engorged manhood to a shapely Trump supporter. Weiner got sloppy and got caught.

Recently, the world’s most famous sexter was caught again.

For months, while his wife Huma was busy administering CPR to Hillary Clinton, Weiner, with too much free time on his hands, was sending lewd messages to a school-aged girl. This time, the object of the sext addict’s online attention was a 15-year-old teenager from North Carolina.

And while that may be shocking to some, what’s more shocking is the liberal outrage over Weiner’s purported shenanigans. Aren’t liberals usually the ones celebrating unbridled sexuality? And don’t the left make it their life’s work to sexualize children as early as possible?

Yet extreme abortion supporter Governor Andrew Cuomo responded to the Weiner revelations in the following way: “If the reports are true, it’s possibly criminal and it is sick.”

Cuomo expressed an amazing level of moral indignation, especially because the judgmental New York governor supports underage girls having access to abortion without parental notification. If liberals like Cuomo believe that youthful girls have the right to choose at 13 years old, why shouldn’t a 51-year-old man feel comfortable sexting a consenting child of fifteen?

The same holds true for New York City mayor de Blasio, who recently signed an executive order mandating that city facilities provide gender-neutral bathrooms. If de Blasio would allow a little girl to share a bathroom with a 45-year-old sexually confused male, who is he to condemn Anthony Weiner by suggesting that the ex-congressman “address his issues”?

Moreover, in keeping with de Blasio’s bathroom logic, wouldn’t a man participating in online sex play with a high school sophomore be exonerated if the girl self-identifies as a consenting adult?

Let’s not forget, Anthony Weiner is a former politician from a city where kindergarten teachers are asked to refer to students by their preferred gender. So if a 6-year-old can select a gender, why can’t a schoolgirl choose to exchange salacious texts with a guy who posts pictures of his Johnson while his wife is otherwise playing handmaiden to a presidential hopeful?

Add to all those glaring contradictions, Anthony Weiner hailing from a state where high school student’s sex education includes activities where:

Teens are referred to resources such as Columbia University’s Web site Go Ask Alice, which explores topics like “doggie-style” and other positions, “sadomasochistic sex play,” phone sex, oral sex with braces, fetishes, porn stars, vibrators, and bestiality.

With that in mind, maybe Anthony was merely homeschooling the girl. Or maybe, like last month, the self-proclaimed “chick-magnet” was seeking a play date for his son.

Play date or not, Weiner still has to deal with the ramifications stemming from a teenaged girl telling the Daily Mail she met her sext-mate on Twitter last January and that the two conversed for months through direct messages.

Based on screenshots, in their first chat, Weiner told the teen she was “kinda sorta gorgeous.” From there, the duo moved up to Skype and an encrypted app that, unlike the cloth Hillary used when she wiped her email server, deletes messages after a first reading.

Besides allegedly sending the schoolgirl extremely vulgar direct messages referring to what he’d do to her private parts, Weiner also sent shirtless pictures of his torso, a swimming pool selfie, and one photo with his hand stuffed down his infamous drawers.

The North Carolinian student shared that Weiner, whose estranged wife spends most of her time with a woman whose husband is actually accused of rape encouraged her to engage in “rape fantasies.” Judging from the captured images, the former congressman, who also asked the girl to “to touch herself” and “dress up in schoolgirl outfits,” knew full well he was chatting with a minor.

After last month’s scandal involving the raunchy text Weiner sent featuring his sleeping son, the Administration for Children’s Service said it would investigate what went on at home while Huma was on a campaign bus placing cold rags on Hillary’s forehead. The agency would not comment on the teen sexting disclosure, but despite Huma calling the accusations a “hoax,” said it “routinely investigate(s) new allegations pertaining to current open cases.” Federal authorities in North Carolina did not return comment.

Meanwhile, sounding a lot like Hillary Clinton admitting that her email setup was a “mistake,” Weiner, who didn’t deny “flirtatiously” sexting the girl he called “Baby,” confessed that he had “repeatedly demonstrated terrible judgment about the people [he had] communicated with online and the things [he had] sent.”

And just as when he was nabbed in 2011 and 2013, Weiner also said:

I am filled with regret and heartbroken for those I have hurt. While I have provided the Daily Mail with information showing that I have likely been the subject of a hoax, I have no one to blame but me for putting myself in this position. I am sorry.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but since when does a morally relativistic liberal pronounce anything as “terrible,” especially if it concerns sex?

Either way, disingenuous regrets, liberal contradictions, hyper-sexualized children, and gender-identity issues aside, now that he’s single again, if Anthony Weiner really does have a proclivity for underage girls, the former congressman should really visit Slick Willy on “Pedophile Island.” Because at the end of the day, after being caught in the act three times, Weiner has a lot to learn from Bill Clinton about how to elude negative consequences when caught with your pants down.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

DIVERSITY: Feds Grant CITIZENSHIP to 800+ People from TERRORIST Nations

cs7mioeviaewb3yOriginally posted at CLASH Daily

One of the most inept mistakes the US federal government makes is to send billions of dollars to dead people in the form of welfare, farm subsidies, and social security. Although economically wasteful, those sorts of errors do not threaten lives. After all, deceased people can’t hurt anyone, and although they’ve been known to vote a time or two, “corpse men” usually don’t cash checks.

Meanwhile, from a government that promises to be good stewards of our money, oversee healthcare for 300+ million people, and properly vet 110,000 ISIS–infiltrated Syrian refugees, a problem exists for the living. It’s hard to believe but, according to Inspector General John Roth of the Homeland Security Department, the government that sends checks to dead people, mistakenly granted citizenship to 800+ living breathing immigrants with pending deportation orders from countries that threaten national security, or with high rates of immigration fraud.

The auditors reported that America’s newest citizens used fraud and aliases to apply for citizenship with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Unfortunately for America, those incongruities weren’t caught because old records can’t be searched electronically, therefore immigrants from “special interest countries” didn’t have fingerprints on file in government databases.

This database gap occurred when obsolete fingerprint paper records were never added to the system that the defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service and the FBI created in the 1990s. In addition, until 2010, neither ICE nor the DHS, both of which were responsible for locating and deporting illegal immigrants, were diligent about adding fingerprint records to their databases.

Bottom line: If the fingerprints were missing and there were gaps in the records, citizenship should never be granted to anyone.

So, after being “mistakenly awarded” US citizenship, instead of being sent back to places like Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan, nefarious characters, like three of the immigrants-turned-citizens who received aviation and transportation worker credentials used their US citizenship to receive security clearances where they had access to secure areas in air and seaports. In fact, the report states that a fourth person, whose lack of fingerprints did not deter his citizenship, is now a law enforcement officer, who didn’t, but could have, killed a lot of people with a gun hanging from his duty belt.

Since 2008, the year Barack Obama was elected, the government has specifically known about problems concerning 206 immigrants who applied for citizenship using aliases and discrepancies in biographical information. Yet despite the president’s massive push to flood America with immigrants, many of whom are coming from the Middle East, Customs and Border Protection did nothing to investigate or correct the “alias…discrepancy” problem or follow through on the 206 cases.

According to the Chicago Tribune:

Roth’s report noted that fingerprints are missing from federal databases for upwards of 315,000 immigrants with final deportation orders or who are fugitive criminals. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has not reviewed about 148,000 of those immigrants’ files to add fingerprints to the digital record.

ICE officials told the DHS that many of these cases have not been pursued because federal prosecutors “generally did not accept immigration benefits fraud cases.” ICE also stated that the DOJ did agree to investigate cases involving people who have acquired security clearances, jobs of public trust, or other security credentials. Good idea.

The Chicago Tribune also reported that:

Roth’s report said federal prosecutors have accepted two criminal cases that led to the immigrants being stripped of their citizenship. But prosecutors declined another 26 cases. ICE is investigating 32 other cases after closing 90 investigations.

Roth recommended that all of the outstanding cases be reviewed and fingerprints in those cases be added to the government’s database and that immigration enforcement officials create a system to evaluate each of the cases of immigrants who were improperly granted citizenship. DHS officials agreed with the recommendations and said the agency is working to implement the changes.

So, for future reference, if a terrorist from a “special interest country” seeks American citizenship, all he or she needs to do for an alias is attain a government check sent to a dead person and a falsified birth certificate from Hawaii signed by a registrar named Mr. Ukulele.

Meanwhile, immigrants who run Afghani fried chicken joints in New Jersey and Somalis who like to slash their way through Minnesota malls are free to come and go as they please.

That’s why the whole mistaken citizenship thing is suspect. After all, granting citizenship to 800+ disreputable, fraudulent, dangerous potential terrorists does provide those like Obama who apologize for Islam a larger pool of homegrown terrorists to blame the mayhem on.

Either way, in the end, sending checks to the deceased and granting citizenship to 800+ could-be terrorists may be slip-ups. However, much like erasing confidential emails from a server in a bathroom closet, the latter “mistake” appears too politically expedient to not be purposeful.

WOOF-WOOF! Is Hillary’s Barking Exposing Her Own Lies?

hillary-coughing-attacks-01Originally posted at CLASH Daily

On February 16, 2016, at a campaign event in Reno, Nevada, Hillary reminisced about an old political ad from Bill’s Arkansas days where a rural radio announcer talked about training dogs to bark whenever a politician tells a lie. Hillary said that, at the time, Arkansans went around for days barking at one and other.

To the delight of the audience, Hillary then suggested training dogs to follow around Republicans and when those on the right “with a straight face” say things like the Great Recession was caused by “too much regulation”, the lie-detecting dogs could respond by barking.

Hillary barked — and much to her own dismay — has been barking uncontrollably ever since.

That’s right; America is just two months shy of Election Day, and lo-and-behold there’s a “dog” in the fight that has been barking like crazy and that bloodhound is none other than the woman who came up with the idea to sniff out lies with a bark — Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As confirmed at the Benghazi hearings, Hillary is a serial liar. That’s why; every time the presidential hopeful speaks it’s like a barking dog returning to its own “vomit.” So, instead of siccing dogs on her political adversaries, it’s Hillary’s lies that are being exposed to a chronic cough that sounds like a dog’s yelp.

Of late, every time Hillary opens her lying mouth to speak, a dry hacking irrepressible woof issues forth stopping her dead in her tracks. Although she proposed employing barking dogs to keep Republicans honest, Hillary’s relentless hacking has become her own fact checker.
Recently in Cleveland, Ohio, a coughing Hillary blamed Trump for making her “allergic”! As soon as she uttered the words, the hacking and spewing overwhelmed her ability to continue.

Hillary made a valiant effort to suppress the cough but (thank the good Lord) could not speak. Every time the presidential hopeful attempted to press forward with her blather she was inconveniently overwhelmed by her own bark!

A little later in the day, aboard her spanking new campaign plane, Hillary tried to talk with reporters.

First, she made the suggestion that her opponent Donald Trump is aligned with Vladimir Putin. Then, she brought up Arkansas again by sharing a quaint image of a turtle on a fence post. Referring to a Trump/Putin alliance, Hillary said, “If you find a turtle on a fence post it didn’t get there by accident.”

Hillary should know. Like a turtle on a fence post, didn’t other people’s money, her emails, Whitewater files, and her husband’s wayward cigar end up somewhere they didn’t belong – and not “by accident”?

Either way, no sooner were the words “Trump has a bizarre attraction to dictators” out of Hillary’s mouth than a coughing fit that sounded strangely similar to a dog barking reared its ugly head.

For me, Hillary’s barking brings to mind a Scripture from Exodus 11:7. In that verse the Lord differentiates between Israel and Egypt when He tells Moses, “But against any of the sons of Israel a dog will not even bark… that you may understand how the LORD makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel.”

In other words, it was Hillary Clinton who originally advocated sniffing out Republican lies via dog trainnig. Now, after making that peculiar suggestion, it’s Lying Hillary that is being exposed by an affliction that has her drowning out her own words like a barking dog.

Is Putin Poking Hillary?

140605065920-newday-dnt-keilar-putin-hillary-clinton-00013325-story-topOriginally posted at American Thinker

By accusing Vladimir Putin of (believe it or not) rigging Russia’s 2012 election, then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton gave new meaning to the theory of psychological projection.

The potential problem for Hillary is that Putin is not as naïve as most Democrat voters, and when affronted, the Russian president usually finds a way to exact vengeance, or at least deliver what Peter Rutland, an expert on Russia at Wesleyan University, calls a Putin “poke in the eye.”

Putin eye-poking was on full display when Obama, the doyen of gay rights, acted the complete fool after finding out that, in Russia, White House LGBTQ restroom users would face jail time for public displays of “non-traditional sexual relationships.”  Obama expressed his displeasure with the Russian law by recruiting three openly gay athletes to join the U.S. delegation headed to the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi.

Putin, a man who doesn’t suffer fools gladly, responded to Obama’s insult by selecting Olympic figure skater Irina Rodnina to participate in Sochi’s opening ceremonies.  Obama flouted Russia’s tough stance on homosexuality, and Putin poked Obama in the eye by choosing a woman to light the Olympic flame who once tweeted a picture of Obama and his wife Michelle ogling a banana.

Get the picture?

Now rumor has it that Russian hackers may have gained access to the unsecured server full of confidential emails Hillary Clinton stored in a bathroom closet of  the Chappaqua home national-security-risk Bill (when not nodding off) shares with a mistress the Secret Service nicknamed “The Energizer Bunny.”

If the Russians really are in possession of Hillary’s emails, that means Vladimir Putin may be preparing to give Hillary Clinton the poke in the eye she deserves.

It also means the Russian president knows whether or not Hillary actually mastered the “destroyer of the universe” yoga pose, has specifics concerning the recipe for Chelsea’s $10K gluten-free wedding cake, and is aware of the particulars surrounding how the DNC mocked and subverted the political aspirations of a popular Jewish socialist.

Notwithstanding Hillary’s tall tales about her successes as secretary of state, Eugene Rumer, a former national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the National Intelligence Council, begs to differ.  According to Rumer, “I think there is good and credible evidence that there is no love lost in Moscow for Mrs. Clinton.”

It all started in 2011, when, after two terms as prime minister and after serving as Russia’s president from 2000 to 2008, Putin hoped to win the presidency again.  Prior to the March 2012 election, Secretary of State Clinton suggested that the Russian leader had “rigged” the system and sided with thousands of anti-Putin demonstrators, journalists, and political activists, all of whom believed that the process was flawed.  Furious, Putin accused Clinton of attempting to undermine his candidacy and of inciting street protesters.

Lest we forget, Saul Alinsky-trained community organizers Obama and Clinton have already proven to be well schooled in the tactics of how to advance an agenda via agitation on the street.

Wary of the “unacceptable” practice of “foreign money being pumped into election processes,” the Siberian Swimmer was wise to be suspicious of Obama and members of his “flexible” administration.

Putin asserted that by calling the elections “dishonest and unfair,” Hillary’s tone had sent a signal to groups opposed to his re-election. Putin alleged that the opposition recognized Hillary’s signal, and, in response to her attempt to impose negative influence, dutifully “launched active work with the U.S. State Department’s support.”

Granted, Vladimir Putin is no choir boy.  However, rather than “reset relations” with Russia, which was supposedly the goal, Secretary Clinton’s accusation that Russia’s  parliamentary election was “neither free nor fair” resulted only in provoking the bear.

Fast-forward five years.  America is currently in the throes of a contentious election of our own, and from where we currently sit, Putin’s suspicions that Hillary is trying to usher in Russian “regime change” don’t seem all that far-fetched.

Recently, the Obama international election machine did a similar thing in Israel, when the President’s operatives, funded by the State Department, attempted to disrupt Bibi Netanyahu’s 2015 bid to remain prime minister.

According to The Washington Times, in a bipartisan staff report, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that during the Israeli election, anti-Netanyahu group OneVoice received $465K in State Department grant monies to “build a voter database, train activists and hire a political consulting firm with ties to President Obama’s campaign.”

Lo and behold, that same Senate subcommittee also found that State Department officials deleted emails containing information pertaining to Obama’s surreptitious campaign to oust Netanyahu.

So, within the last few years, two foreign leaders charged the U.S. State Department with being directly involved in two parliamentary elections.

In response to the original accusation Putin made in 2011, Hillary responded in the following way: “We value our relationship with Russia.  At the same time … we expressed concerns that we thought were well-founded about the conduct of the elections.”

Hillary, the bastion of election transparency and fairness, argued that “Russian voters deserve a full investigation of electoral fraud and manipulation” – something Bernie supporters, thus far, are being denied here at home.

“Regardless of where you live,” said the woman who, together with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, frustrated the will of 12 million voters, “citizenship requires holding your government accountable.”

Sorry, but Hillary Clinton expressing apprehension over voters’ voices not being heard or condemning conduct during an election or lamenting the lack of government accountability is like Angela Merkel questioning François  Hollande’s decision to continue to accept Syrian refugees.

For all intents and purposes, by accusing Putin of dirty doings, Hillary, the self-appointed successor to the American presidency, projected onto him the dark impulse that astute voters recognize as the force that drives Hillary Clinton’s insatiable appetite for power.

Either way, much like Barack Obama, Hillary miscalculated when she poked a Russkiy bear.  That’s why, in the end, if Russia exacts revenge by releasing Hillary’s 30,000 missing emails, a Putin poke may be the very thing that saves America.

Liberal Feminist Refuses to ‘Vote with Her Vagina’ for Hillary… But Then Does THIS

CYM6APmWYAAcA2cOriginally posted at CLASH Daily

Susan Sarandon is the 69-year-old liberal actress who #feelsthebern so intensely that when weighing in on Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency tweeted “I don’t vote with my vagina.” No doubt a vagina voting is, indeed, a disturbing word-picture. However, when she said it, Susan was adamant about making clear that “It’s so insulting to women to think that you would follow a candidate JUST because she’s a woman.”

Now Susan has announced that when not dating men young enough to be her son, marching in pro-choice parades, speaking out to raise the minimum wage, or campaigning for that other erotic beast, Bernie Sanders, she wants to contribute to society by directing pornographic films aimed at female audiences.

For analytical purposes let’s leave aside the bawdy nature of Marlow Mae Marino’s grandmother wanting to direct, let alone watch, porn and focus instead on the hypocrisy of the liberal mindset.

Didn’t Susan say that it was insulting for people to think that she would “follow a candidate JUST because she’s a woman?”

If that’s true then how come at the Cannes Film Festival recently, at an event to promote women in film, sex expert Susan lamented that the pornography industry is too focused on men and is in dire need of a woman’s touch, so to speak.

In other words, according to Susan, in film, women can promote their gender but in politics, women cannot and sexy senior citizen Sarandon is the one who sets the rules.

Speaking of porn, when former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright found out some women weren’t voting for Hillary “Woman Card” Clinton, Albright told a New Hampshire audience that “there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.” Wonder whether Madeline believes there is a “special place in hell” for Granny’s who fornicate in retirement, exploit women in porn, or argue that the females have a better (ahem) eye for exploring sex on the screen?

Either way, fallen away Catholic Sarandon, who played Sister Helen Prejean in Dead Man Walking, told the British newspaper The Times, “I have threatened in my eighties to direct porn. I haven’t watched enough to know what the problems are.”

If I may? Isn’t it just like a promiscuous liberal to make a statement about wanting to fix something they admit they know nothing about?

Susan continued, “Most pornography is brutal and doesn’t look pleasurable from a female point of view. So I’ve been saying when I no longer want to act, I want to do that.” Again, for someone who supposedly doesn’t watch porn Ms. Sarandon sure has a strong opinion on the topic.

Not only that, but an 80-year-old directing porn is as terrifying as 87-year-old Dr. Ruth Westheimer doling out titillating sex advice to twenty-year-olds. Moreover, when Susan says: “When I no longer want to act, I want to do that,” what exactly is the “that” she wants to “do”?

For such a smart liberal, activist Sarandon, who has spoken out for women at risk, hasn’t made the connection that women at risk are the ones who typically get involved in porn?

Apparently not.

Either way, suffice it to say that besides playing characters like Louise Sawyer in Thelma and Louise, Sarandon’s prolific filmography includes Marmee March in Little Women, Randy Jammer in Ping Pong Summer and Beverly Farley in Mr. Woodcock, as well as a whole host of naked romps on and off screen.

[Susan] was the older, bolder woman who seduced a young widower played by James Spader in White Palace(1988). In Bull Durham (1990), she was a philosophical baseball groupie who bedded dim fireballer Tim Robbins. Atlantic City (1980) saw her slowly wiping down with a sponge while Burt Lancaster’s aging gangster peeps through her open window.

Of late, when not opining about women in sexually explicit filmmaking, Sarandon has also been criticized for parading around with her aging saggy breasts exposed at the aptly named SAG Awards.

A supporter of socialism worth $50-million, Susan also supports fornication because she gave birth to three children with men she never married. And when not lecturing on sex in the cinema, Sarandon grants interviews in magazines where she recommends old ladies have more sex to stay young looking.

In other words, the nana who wants to direct pornography at 80 is no prude:

Sarandon’s most famous erotic scene, though, is undoubtedly her tryst with Catherine Deneuve — the latter is a vampire attempting to swap blood, or “transfuse,” with Sarandon’s non-vamp — in Tony Scott’s 1983 horror flick The Hunger.

Can we all agree that this future porn director/Bernie Sanders supporter is a colorful character?

And here America thought Susan Sarandon, who keeps her vagina out of politics but reinserts it into discussions concerning women and porn, was just another big mouth hypocrite liberal sleaze bag with a crush on a cantankerous old socialist.

The DNC wall to guard Hillary’s Armani jacket collection

Hillary-Clinton-wears-pricey-jacket-1Originally posted at American Thinker

Before the first-historic-female-to-run-for-president-while-under-federal-investigation was against border security, Hillary Clinton was for it.  In 2006, the former first lady even called for “physical barriers … secure borders … tougher employer sanctions,” and deportation for illegals who have “committed transgression.”

Recently, Hillary evolved, and all that changed.  Now, the presumptuous presumptive Democratic nominee has altered her protectionist viewpoint and vowed that when she’s in charge, “[w]e’re going to be building bridges, not walls.”

You know what?  Hillary might be onto something with her bridge-not-wall idea.

A 100-yard footbridge over the Rio Grande would be a great way to do away with the rafts, jet skis, and blown out tire tubes.  If Hillary is elected, she can expand on Obama’s “shovel ready” jobs program by employing ISIS-infiltrated Syrian refugees to build bridges for Democrat voters to cross over from Mexico into the U.S.

But right now, it’s still 2016, and the Democratic National Convention is scheduled to take place on July 25-28 at Philadelphia’s Wells Fargo Center Xfinity Live!  Therefore, the bridges will have to wait.  Instead, to keep out rowdy protesters sporting well thought out man buns and bad attitudes, the City of Brotherly Love is taking Donald Trump’s advice and building a wall around the arena.

So a wall will be built around the location where Hillary will formally denounce the idea of Trump building a wall.

Put simply, Hillary Clinton does not condone walls that keep out illegal gangs, Mexican drug lords, felons, murderers, rapists, and undocumented child molesters.  However, if a barrier can keep out First Amendment types, Bernie supporters, and disgruntled vagina voters, Hillary believes in building walls.

In February, after winning the South Carolina Democratic primary, Hillary screeched out the following words:

 [W]e’re going to start by working together with more love and kindness in our hearts, and more respect for each other, even when we disagree. Despite what you hear, we don’t need to make America great. America has never stopped being great. But we do need to make America whole again. Instead of building walls, we need to be tearing down barriers.

This is the woman who once objected to Mexico “pushing migration north across our border.”  Now, in an effort that will involve lots of government agencies examining “infrastructure, transportation, security, and crowd management,” Hillary is standing by and allowing more than 20 subcommittees to erect a barrier around the amphitheater where the coronation she has slavered after for decades is about to be realized.

The question is, how can Mrs. Clinton renounce “no-scale fencing” to protect Americans from illegal invasion while simultaneously allowing the Secret Service to orchestrate the building of a wall to protect her and her wardrobe of $12,000 Armani jackets for three days?

Shouldn’t Hillary Clinton, the self-appointed champion of paths to citizenship and blanket amnesty be demanding that bridges of love span from the footpaths of Philadelphia right onto the floor of the sports arena?

Besides, how will illegal immigrants who’ve successfully made it over the border feel if they make it all the way to the City of Brotherly Love only to find out that the woman who beckoned them with promises of “love … kindness … [and] more respect” has excluded them from getting a donkey-shaped balloon and a free Philly cheesesteak sandwich?

By refusing to disavow the security perimeter being placed around the arena, Hillary, whose latest mantra is “comprehensive immigration reform with a path to full and equal citizenship,” is missing the chance to make a symbolic statement about how she differs from an opponent she believes is a wall-obsessed, xenophobic racist.

So instead of “tearing down barriers,” as she advocated in South Carolina, to keep out Americans who disagree in Philadelphia, Hillary Clinton is about to permit what Trump says we should construct on the border to be built around the Democratic National Convention.

Michelle Obama Lectures the World on Girl Power

196774_5_Originally posted at American Thinker

First lady Michelle Obama has wrapped up her six-day “Let Girls Learn” tour of Liberia, Morocco and Spain.  Together with her mother Marian and two daughters Sasha and Malia, the FLOTUS, under the guise of promoting access to education for 62 million girls worldwide, embarked on a multimillion-dollar excursion where she ate great food, wore great clothes, hung out with celebrities, and spent $600,000 for one night in Marrakesh.

In Madrid, while speaking to schoolgirls about equality, Michelle did what her husband Obama does in African nations that ban homosexuality; she interfered by making a comment about abortion that was better left unsaid.  Ignoring the fact that Spain is 68% Catholic, the wife of a man who boycotted Netanyahu for bringing a message to America he’d rather not hear, Michelle stressed that female equality is tied to aborting offspring.

In a clever way, Michelle shared her husband’s message that “If [girls] make a mistake,” they don’t need to be “punished with a baby.” Simply put, Mrs. Obama must believe that ‘letting girls learn’ sometimes means ‘letting girls die.’

Nonetheless, besides teaching her own daughters how to flaunt $4,000 outfits in the face of impoverished girls, Michelle clearly felt authorized to discuss how having children “If you choose to have them” impacts a girl’s future.

Joined by Spain’s fetching Queen Letizia Mrs. Obama had this to say about how childrearing positively impacts gender equity, “You can start with how you raise your own children. Maybe [that] means telling your sons that it’s OK to cry, and your daughters that it’s OK to be bossy.”

In gay-friendly Spain, Michelle could have just as easily said, “Maybe it means telling your sons that it’s OK to use the girl’s bathroom and your daughters that it’s OK to ask a girl to the prom.”

But she didn’t.

Instead, the Guru of Girl Power attempted to inspire her female audience to great heights by talking about the accomplishments of a certain Democratic presumptive presidential nominee whose husband, on a tarmac in Phoenix, in an effort to thwart an impending indictment, intimidated a female U.S. Attorney General on his wife’s behalf.

Then Mrs. Obama, who abandoned “Lets Move!” for a less food restrictive government-funded initiative, lamented young age girls around the world forsaking schooling for marriage. For such a supposedly bright individual, is Michelle unaware that in countries other than Spain and the U.S. encouraging girls to seek out an education could get them killed?

Nonetheless, while pushing “Let Girls Learn” the FLOTUS asked if “families and communities” who believe in things like underage marriage, and mutilating the genitals of young women, “think that girls are even worthy of an education in the first place?”

Yes, Michelle, girls are worthy of an education! However, in countries like Morocco and Liberia women are also worthy of being regularly subjected to beatings and rape by their husbands. And, on occasion, girls are even worthy of being forced into prostitution, and burnt alive. So, with so many other dangerous and more oppressive laws plaguing girls, why would Michelle Obama choose as her primary focus women being denied access to a classroom?

In Madrid, the first lady, a victim of catcalls herself, also reminded the spectators that education is “[a]bout whether girls are valued only for their bodies — for their labor, for their reproductive capacities — or … valued for their minds as well.” By telling girls in Spain that it was okay to choose education over an unborn life, Michelle Obama seemed to imply that “labor,” whether outside or inside a delivery room, may diminish opportunities for girls.

Either way, it’s hard to believe that these bitter sentiments continue to issue from the mouth of a woman who incessantly complains about gender bias and racial discrimination while enjoying the abundant fruit of a nation like America.

Moreover, Michelle’s ‘mind over body’ shtick calls into question why the first lady insists on showing off her beefy biceps.  In Madrid complete with a $2,000 price tag and a Delpozo designer label the first lady called attention to herself again by displaying arms that in the sunlight resembled two glistening rolls of bologna wrapped in a white, queen-sized bed sheet.

Nonetheless, without giving one solid example, Michelle, who hasn’t washed a dish, or scrubbed a toilet in 35-years, continued to bemoan that despite advancement for women in both the U.S. and Spain, “men and women are often held to very different standards.” Mrs. Obama reminded the girls that:

Changes in our laws haven’t always translated to changes in our cultures. And many of us still struggle with outdated norms and assumptions about the proper role for women, especially when it comes to our families and our workplaces.

And so, once again, it cost the U.S. taxpayer millions of tax dollars to transport the first lady to Liberia, Morocco, and Spain.  This time, under the banner of “Let Girls Learn,” America’s petulant FLOTUS, decked out in haute couture, represented our nation’s values by insulting cultural norms, complaining about male oppression, and peddling unrestricted abortion to Catholic schoolgirls.

Update on Baby Jose and the state of Venezuela

13227764_10209241916227927_7742520625139512155_oOriginally posted at American Thinker

Three weeks ago my friend Jacqueline O, a retired government surgeon in Venezuela, mentioned that a child of a friend’s relative needed a procedure on his heart because he was born with one ventricle.

The baby’s name is Jose Manuel Villamizar Zambrano, and because of a birth defect, Jose requires a cardiac catheterization and almost surely will require follow-up heart surgery.

Jacqueline and I became online friends because she is so ardently anti-Marxist and attracted politically to people of like mind.  Jacqueline is an activist at heart and has a soft spot for suffering children, which may be why my big mouth and my politics piqued her interest.

For the last seventeen years, this brave woman has lamented the mayhem socialism is wreaking on her once beautiful country.  For eight of those years, she oftentimes would agree with my assessment of socialists or just ask for prayer.

Jacqueline found out and conveyed to me that Jose’s mother Evelyn took her son to the government-run free Venezuelan health care hospitals, where the baby, despite his oxygen-deprived blue lips, was turned away because the equipment was broken.

Naturally, when I heard about the baby’s plight, I asked my friend if there was something I could do to help.  Jacqueline again asked for prayer, because for the child to be treated at a private clinic, his mother would need what amounted to 10,000 American dollars.

Rather impulsively, and with not one iota of experience raising money, I ran headlong into starting a GoFundMe campaign, and within one week, I raised, by the grace of God, and the help of many generous people, $10,000.  There was even one selfless individual who said that if the campaign fell short of the goal, he, after donating quite generously to begin with, would provide the remainder.

GoFundMe was wonderful and vetted the campaign thoroughly.  The organization requested backup verification including documentation from Jose’s mother, pictures, medical records, official letters, and even a photo of her government ID.

Since all this happened, Jacqueline and I have been in almost constant contact, either online or by phone, and what was once a casual understanding of the plight these people suffer every day has become something quite different for me.

Since raising the money, there have been all sorts of obstacles and barriers.

Getting the funds converted and sent to Jose has also been a bit of a trial.

Thanks to GoFundMe, and the wonderful people that made this miracle happen, Jose, who lives in San Cristobal, estado Tachira, which is about 14 hours each way by bus to Caracas, will receive the initial part of his care at the private Clinica Santa Sofia, in Caracas.

In the meantime, the plight this baby and his mother are suffering has been verified by correspondence I’ve had with Jacqueline over the past few weeks.

One day, this woman spent four hours standing in line to buy a stick of butter!

In Venezuela, the shelves are empty, and things Americans take for granted are nowhere to be found.  When Venezuelans go to the market, there is no oil, butter, toilet paper, diapers, medicine, or baby formula.  In fact, this good woman respectfully asked if some of the donated money could be designated to buy Jose diapers and formula, both of which are in short supply.

My friend has expressed to me that she longs for the day when she will again enjoy a bowl of cornflakes and milk.  Right now, in Venezuela, there is no milk.

After posting an MSN article about embattled leftist Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro titled “Maduro in crackdown under Venezuela emergency decree,” in the best way she could express it in English, Jacqueline replied to the post, saying this:

You’re seeing only a piece what’s the reality. Maybe today we’ll get water, from last week and nada of water set. We have a médium water tank and 10 médium bottles potable water. From 4 bathroom we close 3. No bread. Ore arepa (our national food) have to paid more money for toilet papers, no butter, milk even for baby, Etc, etc.

That grim picture needs no translation.

So, with that in mind, I’m writing an update for two reasons.

First, I want to reassure all of you that gave money and prayed – we’re doing the right thing.  Just two weeks after the GoFundMe campaign was started by someone who never raised a dollar in her life – namely, me – the New York Times published an article titled “Dying Infants and No Medicine: Inside Venezuela’s Failing Hospitals.”

Here’s an excerpt from the piece:

Gloves and soap have vanished from some hospitals. Cancer medicines are often found only on the black market. There is so little electricity that the government works only two days a week to save what energy is left…  Late last fall, the aging pumps that supplied water to the University of the Andes Hospital exploded. They were not repaired for months.

So without water, gloves, soap or antibiotics, a group of surgeons prepared to remove an appendix that was about to burst, even though the operating room was still covered in other people’s blood.

A little farther along, the article says that because of the devastating conditions, President Maduro’s “opponents in the legislature declared a humanitarian crisis … [and] passed a law that would allow Venezuela to accept international aid to prop up the health care system.”

Mr. Maduro, who is Chávez’s successor, “[r]ejected the effort, describing the move as a bid to undermine him and privatize the hospital system.”  Delusional Maduro said this: “I doubt that anywhere in the world, except in Cuba, there exists a better health system than this one.”

Sound familiar?

This brings me to the second reason I chose to write all this.  I do it to warn anyone who thinks this couldn’t happen in America.  Seventeen years ago, Venezuela wasn’t what it is today.  The people of Venezuela embraced socialism because Hugo Chávez promised them that if they did, they would eat – today, if they don’t die, they get to stand on line for four hours for a stick of butter.

Update: David Paulin writes:

Hugo Chávez initially ran as a political outsider and had pledged to steer a “third-way” between socialism and capitalism. It wasn’t until well into his presidency (I think his second term) that he finally declared himself a socialist. In other words, the socialist take-over of Venezuela was a gigantic bait and switch. See my articles on this at AT and FPM.

That said, it might be said that Venezuela was on a slippery slope toward all of this — in light of a long-time political climate of bread-and-circuses populism fueled by its oil wealth.


QUESTION: Do You Believe for ONE Second That Hillary Connects to the ‘Common Person’?

hillary-clinton-celebrates-new-york-primary-winOriginally posted at CLASH Daily

On the night of the New York State Democrat primary, after beating Bernie Sanders who was raised in a rent-stabilized apartment in the Midwood section of Brooklyn, Hillary Clinton’s pretentiousness was on full display.

Sporting an affectatious grin, Miss Hillary, with her usual dose of disingenuous corniness, told the doting flock of misguided sheeple, “Today you proved once again there’s no place like home!”

What became clear that night was that the room full of toadies cheering on Hillary were either unaware, or didn’t care, that the unscrupulous carpetbagger calling New York “home” is an Illinois-born, Connecticut schooled, Arkansas groomed, and ultimately, Washington DC bound — fake, phony, fraud.

In other words, in the claw to the top, Hillary misuses whole states like rungs on a ladder.

And, believe it or not, the fault lies with intellectually challenged folks in states like New York who feel that inducting a post-menopausal pair of ovaries into the White House is long overdue.

Therefore, with low stores of estrogen as the primary criteria, the sycophants wearing balloon hats and waving Hillary placards seem willing to overlook prevarications from a woman whose whole life has been a sham. Let’s not forget, when not coughing up a lung, Hillary feigns being married to a philanderer she hasn’t co-habited with for almost four decades.

It has to be that candidate Clinton is clever enough to know that for people with questionable character, to be accepted by voters afflicted with equally questionable character, a constant barrage of balderdash is an indispensable tool.

An attempt to barrage the unwashed masses must be why nouveau riche multimillionaire Hillary recently felt moved to malign billionaire Donald for having a fleet of golf carts stuffed to the gills with cash. The problem is that Hillary critiquing Donald for being rich is sort of like Madonna condemning Kim Kardashian for being an exhibitionist.

After all, in a little more than a decade, the Clinton machine has managed to bilk $153 million out of the coffers of Wall Street firms by giving speeches for $250K a pop. So, Hillary criticizing anyone’s affluence is a perfect example of how this well-practiced chameleon changes color to trick the easily duped.

According to the woman whose daughter lives in a 5,000 square foot, $10.5 million, Madison Avenue apartment, self-made billionaire Trump’s problem is that he jets into a campaign stop in the lap of luxury, then flies out to return to his opulent digs in Trump Towers.

Hillary, who never created a job in her whole miserable life, and has lived primarily off the largesse of the American taxpayer, criticized the businessman who created 34,000 jobs, because she said, he said, “wages are too high in America and [he] doesn’t support raising the minimum wage.”

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton pays her female staff 28% less than her male staff.

The doyenne of The Clinton Foundation, a family organization whose logo features Clinton name, then offered guidance to a man whose surname adorns the Trump Towers, saying:

Come out of those towers named for yourself and actually talk and listen to people. At some point, if you want to be president of the United States, you have to get familiar with the United States; you have to spend time with Americans of all sorts and backgrounds in every part of our country.

Did Hillary say: “Americans of all sorts and backgrounds?” Wait! The woman admonishing Donald for lack of multicultural exposure is the same individual who teamed up with corrupt NYC mayor Bill de Blasio to crack “CP time” jokes.

Either way, maybe Mr. Trump should pay heed to Hillary when she says:

Don’t just fly that big jet in and land it and go give a big speech and insult everybody you can think of and then get on the big jet and go back to your country clubhouse in Florida or your penthouse in New York. I somehow don’t think that puts you in touch with what is going on.

After all, before flying exclusively in a $39 million, 16-passenger, Gulfstream G450 private jet, and after being chauffeured around for 36 years, Hillary did get “in touch with what is going on” by enduring the Scooby-Doo for a week, and riding in a Bronx subway for two stops.

And when not ignoring commoners in wheelchairs, it’s Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, who willingly braves the threat of E Coli to eat Chipotle like the little people.

However, there is one problem. “Crooked Hillary” did target Donald’s penthouse, but forgot about her own $3-million mansion in Chappaqua, New York, and her $3-million mansion in Washington DC as well as apartments in NYC and Little Rock.

Notwithstanding those and many other hypocrisies, when not tying up NYC traffic to get a $600 haircut at Bergdorf Goodman, or demanding a luxury presidential suite, this populist pretender, with her eye fixed like a laser on the White House, spends time on Listening Tours “talking and listening to people” she cares nothing about.

That’s why, despite Hillary’s history of deceitfulness and unbridled ambition, it’s astounding that there are still minions who support someone who left the White House in 2001 driving a U-Haul packed with stolen items, and who later claimed that, at the time, she was “dead broke.”

In the end, if fake Benghazi videos, dead Americans, and compromised email servers fail to shake up Clinton’s supporters, then, come November, not even a Trump Train will be able to stop Sir Edmund Hillary’s namesake from pulling off her greatest hoodwink.

%d bloggers like this: