Archive / Politics

RSS feed for this section

Hillary’s excruciating onstage ballet with Katy Perry

Originally posted at American Thinker

A week ago, in an effort to inspire Latino voters, women’s advocate Hillary Clinton stood by as J-Lo exposed her ample booty to a Miami crowd.  A few nights later in Cleveland, to encourage black hip-hop voters, Hillary stood by again as Beyoncé trivialized her femininity while her husband, Jay-Z, dropped F-bombs and tossed around the N-word.

Then, just days before the 2016 election, in the hope of rousing disinterested millennials to pull the lever for Grandma, Hillary Clinton, looking completely out of place, was joined by a disgruntled pastor’s kid for yet another melodious arm-twister.

On a stage in Philadelphia, Hillary joined pop star Katy Perry, who must have realized that if she wanted to convince people to vote for the frumpy woman in the pantsuit, she’d need to do more than strip naked for a “Funny or Die” video.

Hence, in the City of Brotherly Love, after delivering a boring “better, fairer, stronger America” stump speech, Hillary introduced one-woman-lover of a very long list of “brothers” – Katy Perry.

Zany Katy, who acts as if she’s the Lucille Ball of pop music, poked fun at Donald Trump’s “nasty woman” comment by strutting onto the Mann Center stage in time to Janet Jackson’s “Nasty Boys.”  A recovering evangelical, Perry, who is no longer with Jesus, wore blue leather leggings and a flowing cape emblazoned with the words “I’m with Madame president.”

If votes are what Hillary really wants, maybe she should have just followed Katy’s lead and donned a blue wig and a cupcake bra.

Meanwhile, a rhythmically challenged “Hilly-C” got so caught up in the heat of the moment she made the fatal mistake of breaking into what looked like a spastic jig.  In all honesty, as the promiscuous pop star yelled things at the audience like “Let me hear you roar for Hillary!,” a clapping, grinning Clinton looked less like a candidate for president and more like an over-enthusiastic senior citizen trying really hard to fit in at a teenage dance party.

In truth, the whole thing was excruciating to watch.

At one point, Katy, decked out in over-the-top regalia, held hands with Mrs. Clinton and a curtain call of uncomfortable-looking Democrat politicians who were awkwardly pretending to have a blast.

After that strange lineup exited stage right, Katy, who learned how to proselytize growing up in a Christian home, attempted to cajole the crowd to vote for the socialist, pro-choice maven by weaving Hillary into songs like “Part of Me.”

After she sang the lyric that says, “Find out who is really there for me,” Katy hollered to the crowd, “Are you there for her?”

Evidently, K.P. is unaware that the presidential candidate she wanted people to be “there for,” wasn’t there for four Americans who returned home from Benghazi in coffins draped in the type of flag the pop star slipped into for the second half of the show.

As the evening progressed, Perry;s Hillary-4-President song metaphors included tunes like “Rise,” which is what Hillary had trouble doing after she collapsed on a New York City sidewalk on September 11, and “Roar,” which is what the gravelly-voiced shrew does whenever she tries to convince voters that Donald Trump is affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan.

Offering no explanation of how Hillary plans to “make the world a better place,” at one point, Katy exhorted the crowd, shouting, “Shouldn’t we have some fun whilst we make the world a better place?”

Maybe a more appropriate question would have been, “Shouldn’t we have some fun whilst we attempt to convince people to elect the most corrupt politician in American history?”

Besides falling in and out of love faster than Hillary can deposit other people’s money into a private bank account, Katy told the crowd that when she’s not courting Orlando Bloom, she’s out “knocking on doors.”

So, Beyoncé, Jay-Z, and Katy Perry followed up J-Lo, but not before the cumbersome Lena Dunham danced her heart out in a rap video that paid homage to a “sensual pantsuit.”

Next up, Bon Jovi and Mr. and Mrs. “Hope and Change” will join Hilly in Philly on Election Day eve.

In hopes of propelling the former secretary of state to victory, angry Michelle will play the sexist race card; sniveling provocateur Barry will scold and demand that the crowd “focus” entirely on him, and then John Bon Jovi will probably dedicate “Livin’ on a Prayer” to a woman suffering from seizure.

But in the end, if all the ballyhoo still doesn’t get out the vote in Philadelphia on Election Day, Obama can always stem the tide of Trump voters by dispatching a band of billy club-toting New Black Panthers.

JENNY FROM THE BLOCK Stumps for Hillary from the Cell Block

jennifer-lopez-hillary-clinton-marc-anthonyOriginally posted on CLASH Daily

Pop superstar Jennifer Lopez is likely one among many liberal hypocrites appalled by Trump’s treatment of women. That’s why, in support of Hillary Clinton, the man-eating, cradle-robber, and self-promoting hoochie, joined one of her many ex-husbands, for a free outdoor concert at Miami’s Bayfront Park Amphitheater.

To tone down the objectification of women, Jennifer appeared on stage sans pants, wearing only crotch-high studded leather boots and a mini black silk kimono.

To garner Hillary votes, the dancer shook her ample booty like Jell-O and swaggered around in the rain on stage dressed in a half-apron that resembled the American flag. Jennifer even caressed her own thigh while promising to “change things.”

The 47-year-old actress, singer, and dancer performed songs “Let’s Get Loud,” which is what the Democrat nominee does every time she opens her mouth, and “On the Floor,” which is where Hillary spends most of her time laying, where her poll numbers are heading, and where Hillary’s husband Bill’s pants always end up falling.

Confusing the right with the left, and in anticipation of electing the nation’s first president with ovaries, Jennifer instructed the crowd saying, “We have to take the right road to the future.”
Notwithstanding the absence of a high-powered fan to blow J-Lo’s hair around for effect, and Barack Obama not being present to command the wind and rain to cease, the wet weather did not mess up Jenny’s ponytail.

Then, after working up a sweat, Jenny from the Block was joined on stage by Hillary from the cellblock.

After nearly smothering J-Lo with a grandmotherly bear hug, a hoarse Hillary took to screaming at the raucous mob. The presidential hopeful told the wet concertgoers, “No matter what they throw at us, we don’t back down. Not now. Not ever.” Clinton reminded the gathering that there are only ten short days until “the most important election of our lives,” which is exactly what Barack Obama maintained during the last two election cycles.

Rather than spearheading a political uprising, and sounding as if it was time to take a potty break, Grandma Clinton then informed the free-concert goers, “We’re going to change things.” From there Hillary accused Donald Trump of fear mongering, scandalizing the Republic, and of committing unbridled offenses.

The problem for Hillary was that amid all the glamor, neon lights, and overall J-Lo-induced excitement, there was limited time for her to give specific examples as to how Trump “stokes fear, disgraces democracy and insults one group of Americans after another.”

In fact, those sorts of time constraints could also be why the former Secretary of State also forgot to explain why she left four Americans to die in Benghazi, erased 30+ thousand confidential emails, colluded with protestors to upset the democratic process, threatened to ruin the many women her husband raped, sexually assaulted, and abused, and made $153 million, via a pay-to-play scheme, by pretending money laundering was a charity organization.

According to Hillary, “if we turn out, we win!”

Hillary, when you say, “turn out,” does that also mean “turning out” dead people, illegals, and voting on the same Soros-provided machines that Venezuela employed when electing Hugo Chavez?

Either way, only Hillary Clinton, trying to be cool, could bring hyperbolic corniness to the unprecedented level she did when she hollered to the crowd in an uncomfortable decibel, “We just heard Jennifer perform ‘Let’s Get Loud,’ well I say let’s get loud at the voting booth.”

From there, Hillary cast her campaign advisor’s quiet voice instructions to the wind and inspired the Miami crowd to unparalleled heights by screeching out, “Don’t wait another day to vote and ‘let’s get loud’ by knocking on doors, making calls, take out your phones.”


Anyway, at the end of the concert, to protect Mrs. Clinton from having visually stimulated seizure, instead of shiny balloons, soggy ticker tape stuck to the the crowd.

Lopez’s former husband, Marc Anthony, finally joined the two ladies onstage.

Completely dwarfed next to a robust Hillary, the diminutive Anthony told concertgoers that even though he divorced J-Lo, and probably wouldn’t be caught dead in a room alone with Hil-C, “he would trust his life with,” either women – which, ends up being more than Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty can say.

Doug Schoen puts his support for Hillary on hold

694940094001_4924400766001_837f2e90-c864-49ce-b3d9-9f003cd636abOriginally posted at American Thinker

The evening the FBI reopened its criminal investigation into Hillary’s email server, Democrat political analyst, pollster, author, and Fox News commentator Doug Schoen, together with Justice host Judge Jeanine Pirro and Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), appeared on a segment of Hannity.

After discussing how during the FBI’s investigation into Anthony Weiner sexting a 15-year-old girl, new emails were discovered, Jeanine and Sean agreed that the findings had to be big for the FBI to open an investigation just 11 days prior to an election.

Critical of the FBI’s modus operandi, Jay Sekulow asked the panel how it was that “the FBI [did] not [initially] ask for and demand Huma Abedin’s personal e-mail accounts[.]”  Hannity cut in: “How did they agree to destroy evidence of other people?  Who destroys evidence in a case?”

Sekulow expounded upon Sean’s question, telling the panel members:

That is called obstruction of justice if anybody else did it[.] … Tonight, a grand jury needs to be impaneled, number one. Number two; a special prosecutor needs to be appointed immediately. Number three, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, and deputy director of the FBI McCabe need to not be involved in this process. A lot of people are praising James Comey because he opened it up. Let’s cut the nonsense. This whole thing is ridiculous.

Sekulow stressed that what the FBI did:

… [g]oes to the heart of our constitutional republic. And you don’t do this in the United States of America. So if they reopened it, whether it’s Wikileaks, whether it’s Huma Abedin, it has to be really significant. And I think 11 days out, even though these FBI directors are saying we’re just looking at it, for them to do this, it has to be big.


That’s when Hannity turned to Hillary promoter Schoen and asked for his opinion.  Sean queried: “Doug?”

Slightly adversarial, Schoen bristled in response to all the criticism by confidently stating, “Hillary is going to be elected!”  Then Schoen said, “She’s been under criminal investigation by the FBI for the bulk of the campaign, and, you know, she’s had a steady lead.  It’s 11 days out.”

In other words, Doug was sure that at this late date – 11 days out – Hillary Clinton would still be elected president.

Hannity shot back:

She may get elected. But if crimes are committed, maybe before she gets into office she’s going to be indicted. Maybe while she’s in office she’s going to be indicted. What, does Barack Hussein Obama give her a pardon as he leaves office? He could. Does she give herself a pardon?

Schoen said, “All of that could happen,” to which Hannity replied, “Really?  Is that what you want for your country?”

Schoen responded, “I want her elected!”

Sekulow interrupted the duo and said, “I think we’re on the precipice of a constitutional crisis if a grand jury is not empaneled and this is not handled correctly within our judicial system. “

After more banter and discussion among Pirro, Hannity, and Sekulow, a bold Doug Schoen closed out the discussion when he recommended, “A special prosecutor needs to look at the FBI.  It’s outrageous.”

For those who caught Schoen’s call for a special prosecutor to investigate the FBI, the suggestion seemed outrageous.

Then, much to everyone’s amazement, less than 72 hours later, on Fox Report Weekend, hosted by Harris Faulkner, the guy who wanted to see Hillary elected, and who called for a special prosecutor to investigate the FBI, made another unexpected statement.

On a panel made up of Fox political insiders former Republican congressman John LeBoutillier and Democrat public opinion pollster Pat Caddell, Schoen, the die-hard Hillary supporter shocked everyone with a public confession.

A sheepish Schoen spoke directly to Faulkner, saying:

As you know, I have been a supporter of Secretary Clinton … but … and the but is a big deal, at least to me, given that this investigation is going to go on for many months after the election, no matter who wins. But if the secretary of state wins, we will have a president under criminal investigation with Huma Abedin under investigation – the secretary of state – the president-elect, if she should win, under investigation.

Dumbfounded, Faulkner cut in, asking, “Whoa, whoa, whoa…wait a minute.  You’re not going to vote for Hillary Clinton?”

More concerned for country than party, a patriotic Schoen replied back:

Harris, under these circumstances I am actively reassessing my support…I’m deeply concerned that we will have a Constitutional crisis if she’s elected. I want to learn more this week see what we see, but as of today, I am not a supporter of the Secretary of State for the nation’s highest office.

So, two days after the FBI reopened the investigation into the Hillary email server debacle, Democrat faithful Doug Schoen, who has supported the Clintons for 22 years, publicly denounced his support for the former secretary of state’s bid for president.

MEGYN KELLY: Uses Sexuality When Convenient, Yet BITCHES About ‘Sexual Predators’

megyn-kelly-sexy-0Originally posted at CLASH Daily

In 2008, Fox News reporter Megyn Kelly began showing up regularly on Special Report with Brit Hume, Kelly’s Court and Weekend Live. From there, Megyn moved up to hosting All American New Year specials, sharing legal insights with Bill O’Reilly, and co-hosting America’s Newsroom and America Live.

Then, in 2013, after positioning her oiled-up gams under a see-thru glass desk Megyn Kelly made cable news history on The Kelly File.

Unfortunately, for three years Fox viewers have been subjected to Kelly’s unspoken fascination with Sly Stallone’s former girlfriend Brigitte Nielsen and her lame attempt to mimic political satirist Kennedy, both of which has made watching Megyn’s transformation extremely painful.

Among her many strategic career moves, “America’s most beautiful badass” has appeared on the covers of More, Variety and Vanity Fair and has been known to show up on air in a seductive leather bathing suit tank top donning hair extensions that resemble a dead animal. Clearly, a legend in her own mind, Megyn occasionally even attempts to one-up focus group guru, Frank Luntz, and when not hanging out with a smitten Mark McKinnon of HBO’s “The Circus,” obnoxiously plays cutesy to the camera.

In addition to all that, Megyn Kelly is also on a one-woman mission to take out Republican presidential candidate/billionaire Donald J. Trump.

Although she proudly posed in a black silk teddy for GQ, Megyn purports to care deeply about the problem of men objectifying women. Therefore, after interviewing the Duggars, discussing her breast size with Howard Stern, and accusing Roger Ailes of sexual harassment, it’s no surprise that Megyn is currently employing her lawyerly skills to portray Trump as nothing more than an oversexed fiend.

During the first primary debate, moderator Megyn began her attack by lobbing harsh accusation at the man she later also referred to as “Voldemort” the Dark Lord of the Harry Potter series. After hearing that Megyn was going to be a moderator, Trump responded by refusing to attend the Iowa debate.

More recently, Megyn thought it was as good a time as any to continue beating on Trump by asking the Republican candidate’s surrogate, Newt Gingrich, his thoughts concerning ten women accusing Donald Trump of sexual assault.

Bad move.

Gingrich responded by pointing out to the Fox News anchorette that she seems titillated by Trump’s alleged sexual indiscretions, and accused her of purposely ignoring verifiable crimes committed by Hillary Clinton.

Gingrich refuted Kelly’s argument that Trump may be a ‘sexual predator’ and said Kelly is an example of what Americans hate about media bias. Newt asked Megyn:

So, so it’s worth 23 minutes of the three networks to cover that story, and Hillary Clinton had a secret speech in Brazil to a bank that pays her 225,000 [dollars], saying her dream is an open border where 600 million people could come to America — that’s not worth covering ?
“That is worth covering,” Kelly shot back. “And we did.”

Gingrich defied the astonished analyst’s denial that she has an inordinate fascination with Trump and suggested she review recent tapes of her own show. Tapes, according to Newt, that prove Kelly is “fascinated with sex, and …[doesn’t] care about public policy.”

Clearly, uncomfortable with Newt’s observation, Megyn fluttered her false eyelashes at the camera, snickered, and said, “Me? Really?”

“Well, that’s what I get out of watching you tonight,” Gingrich said.

Ironically, after saying Newt’s heated response to her Trump allegations ‘spoke volumes’ about him, in reaction to being accused by Newt of being “fascinated with sex,” Megyn’s uncomfortable eye roll instead ‘spoke volumes’ about her.

An irked Megyn responded, “Mr. Speaker, I’m not fascinated by sex. But I am fascinated by the protection of women … and understanding what we’re getting in the Oval Office …and I think the American voters would like to know.”

That was when someone smarter than Megyn really should have warned the commentator that glitzy-fly-by-night-news anchors shouldn’t try to compete with Newt Gingrich’s unmatched brainpower.

Newt proceeded to counter Kelly’s faulty logic, saying, “And, therefore, we’re going to send Bill Clinton back to the East Wing, because, after all, you are worried about sexual predators?”

Gingrich challenged Kelly “to comment…on whether the Clinton ticket has a relationship to a sexual predator?” Megyn responded, “We on The Kelly File have covered that story as well, sir.”

“No,” he said, “I just want to hear you use the words…‘Bill Clinton, sexual predator.’ I dare you. Say ‘Bill Clinton, sexual predator’… Disbarred by the … Arkansas bar. Eight hundred fifty thousand dollar penalty.”

After that exchange, Megyn’s overworked stylist was probably praying pancake makeup and lopsided hair extensions could withstand being banished to the woodshed.

Even still, Kelly refused to say Bill Clinton and ‘sexual predator’ in the same sentence, proving Gingrich’s point that there’s a double standard.

Instead, Megyn stressed, “we’ve covered the examples of him being accused as well, but he’s not on the ticket. And the polls also show that the American public is less interested.”

The smack down continued with Gingrich forewarning that Bill and his cigar would be skulking around the East Wing, to which Megyn replied that the American public is less concerned with Hillary’s husband than they are the “deeds of the man who asks us to make him president, Donald Trump.”

That was when Newt really should have pointed out that Hillary hurts women by enabling the ‘deeds of her husband,’ and by threatening Bill’s accusers, all of whom are victims of indiscretions much worse than the ones Megyn claims she is trying to expose.

Sounding more like Rachel Maddow than the foxiest fox on Fox News, Megyn Kelly ended the squabble by calling out Newt for having “anger issues.”

In the end, during the primaries, Megyn Kelly’s stealthy Trump career move didn’t work. So, on behalf of American women, the star of The Kelly File bravely endured the threat of sexual assault at the hands of Donald Trump when she ventured to Trump Towers for a one-on-one interview.

After that self-serving endeavor failed to catapult Megyn into Barbara Walter’s empty seat at ABC, rather than behave like a Bernstein and Woodward, Kelly has chosen instead to try and make a name for herself by emulating the champion of women, Anita Hill.

COUNTER-PUNCH: Eighteen Ways Trump Can KO Hillary … With Her OWN Words

1465966659659-cachedOriginally posted at CLASH Daily

Evidently, when Donald made the decision to forgo impropriety at the first debate, he was unaware that the matriarch of the Clinton Crime Family was about to call him a cheating, tax-evading, lying, greedy, misogynist, racist, fraud and do it in front of his wife and children who were also sitting in the front row.

As a result, Hillary’s well-practiced tactics presented opportunities that Trump could have easily tied to 40 years of scandals but failed to do so.

Hillary fired the first salvo by bringing up class warfare when she said that:

Donald was very fortunate in his life… started his business with $14 million, borrowed from his father, and… really believes that the more you help wealthy people, the better off we’ll be [.]

An apt follow-up might have been for Donald to ask Hillary to explain how, with assistance from a non-transparent family foundation, and the deep pockets of Wall Street donors, she managed to accumulate $153 million in speaking fees between 2001 and 2015?

After Clinton accused Trump of “living in his own reality” Donald might have mentioned Hillary’s harrowing experiences with Bosnian snipers and Chelsea jogging near the WTC on 9-11.

Feeling confident in her ability to portray Trump as a liar, the Democrat presidential hopeful invited debate viewers to fact check her opponent on her website. Hillary said: “So if you want to see in real-time what the facts are, please go and take a look.”

That invitation was an open door for Trump to steer the conversation toward Benghazi by asking Hillary where the fact checker was on the night she told America that four Americans died because of an anti-Muslim video.

When Hillary brought up ISIS by saying, “Well, at least I have a plan to fight ISIS,” Trump should have asked whether her plan includes State Department Marie Harf’s Jobs-4-ISIS program or ISIS entering the U.S. through borders Hillary vows to keep open?

As for Clinton accusing Trump of lacking transparency on his taxes, Trump could have indicted her deleted emails by joking that he hired the same lawyers who deleted her emails to delete his tax returns.

Mrs. Clinton went on to impugn Mr. Trump’s character by implying that his tax returns may show that he’s “not as rich as he says he is…[and]… not as charitable as he claims to be.”

A good retort would have been for Trump to force Hillary to explain her pay-to-play scheme and ask her why her 2015 tax returns say that 96% her charitable contributions went to the Clinton Foundation?

Clinton accused Trump’s failure to make his financial disclosures public as an attempt to “hide something”. That and talk about cyber security presented the Republican candidate the chance to redirect the conversation towards Hillary’s mishandling confidential emails – but he didn’t.

Trump could have agreed with Clinton and said that secrecy is something he learned from former State Department employee Bryan Pagliano who, after defying Congress and refusing to answer questions about Hillary’s private e-mail server, appears to be also “hiding something”.

When Clinton asked Trump: “Do the thousands of people that you have stiffed over the course of your business not deserve some kind of apology?” That’s when Trump should have said: “If we’re discussing ‘stiffing’ people, in the famous words of the woman who ‘stiffed’ four Americans in Benghazi, ‘What difference, at this point, does it make’ if I apologize or not?”

Hillary censured Trump saying: “I can only say that I’m certainly relieved that my late father never did business with you.” Trump could have responded, “I can only say that I’m certainly relieved that I wasn’t in Benghazi when you were Secretary of State!”

When the birther debate came up, no one would have argued if Mr. Trump chose to remind America that Barack Obama has been known to lie.

Trump could have then said now is as good a time as any for the president to release those elusive college transcripts, or broached the subject of the pseudonym Obama used when communicating with Hillary on the private email server he claimed to know nothing about.

During Hillary’s attempt to paint the whole nation as racist, Donald really should have thanked Hillary for not arriving at the debate on “colored people’s time”, and, in light of her recent health issues, congratulated the pandering politician for looking “no ways tired!”

When Hillary mentioned “Donald started his career back in 1973 being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination,” he could have brought up Hillary starting her career defending a child rapist she knew was guilty.

After Hillary accused Trump of calling “women pigs, slobs and dogs, and someone who has said pregnancy is an inconvenience to employers,” Trump could have respectfully pointed out that her untrue comments are a “basket of deplorable” lies.

Trump would have also been justified in bringing up “bimbo eruptions”, which he chose not to do, and citing the first lady’s radical stance on abortion, which suggests that she, not he, is the one who thinks pregnancy is “an inconvenience”.

As for the segue into “equal pay,” Trump failed to inquire of Hillary whether “equal pay” means that everyone should earn $250K for a 15-minute speech like she does, or hired for a $600K entry-level job like her daughter.

Regarding Clinton mocking her debate opponent by saying he “loves…supporting. and hanging around beauty contests”; Trump wasted a picture-perfect opening to welcome Miss America pageant judge, and Hillary’s guest of honor, Mark Cuban.

All things considered, it’s clear from the first debate that when all is said and done liberals are more concerned with Trump sniffling than they are with Hillary lacking the “stamina” to walk up a flight of stairs.

Moreover, what is also clear is that instead of Trump defending himself in the next two debates, The Donald should listen to what the woman with the specially constructed podium has to say, and, then, use her own words to defeat her.

Hillary’s beauty pageant hypocrisy

197244_5_Originally posted at American Thinker

One of the most amazing examples of hypocrisy from the first presidential debate involved Hillary’s controversial guest list.

It happened at the end of the debate, when moderator Lester Holt pressed Trump about his alleged comment that Hillary lacks “the presidential look.”  The implied meaning of the question was that Trump was judging Hillary’s physical appearance as a presidential criterion.

Trump attempted to clarify what he had said, replying: “She doesn’t have the look. … She doesn’t have the stamina.”

In response, Clinton, whose wandering husband has already proven that stamina is a family trait, mockingly smiled and replied, “As soon as he travels to 112 countries, he can talk to me about stamina.”

Throughout the debate, Hillary suggested that Donald Trump is an ignorant, greedy, spoiled, lying, cheating, tax-evading fraud, as well as a racist.  Toward the end, Clinton was happy to add misogynist and sexist to the list.

Clinton accused Trump of trying to shift the conversation from her “look” to her “stamina.”  Then she said:

This is a man who has called women pigs, slobs, and dogs. One of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest. He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them. He called this woman ‘Miss Piggy,’ and then he called her ‘Miss Housekeeping,’ because she is Latina. She has a name, Donald.

The insinuation from Hillary’s rant was that Trump is a racist and sexist who hates Latinos and objectifies and judges women on how they look.

Judging from those remarks, the “smartest woman in the world” may believe she has plenty of stamina, but what is evident is that Hillary has a poor memory, poor eyesight, and poor taste in men.

Hillary’s attempt was to portray Trump who owns Miss Universe Inc. in a negative light.  In order to do that, the Democrat candidate submitted the idea to the debate audience that men who have an affinity for beauty pageants are lecherous fiends who don’t appreciate the intrinsic value of women.

Meanwhile, sitting in the front row were two men who embody every quality Hillary attempted to assign to Donald Trump.

One was her husband, a notorious philandering Lothario who supposedly had a one-night stand in the 1980s with a Playboy model and Miss America winner named Elizabeth Ward Gracen.  Maybe Hillary forgot, but Bill is a notorious cheater, womanizer, and adulterer, all of which Hillary has not only enabled, but also repeatedly ignored or shielded from criticism for more than 40 years.

In response to Hillary’s hubris, Trump did suggest that he had considered broaching the Clinton family’s tawdry reputation but decided, to his credit, to take the high road.

However, what Trump could have done was to ask Hillary, why, if she had such an aversion to beauty pageants, did she invite Mark Cuban as her special front row guest to the debate?

After all, on September 11, the day Hillary collapsed on a New York City street, the billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks was otherwise occupied on a panel of judges at the 2017 Miss America pageant in Atlantic City.  Hillary’s special guest Mark Cuban was so lewd during the bathing suit portion of the event that the Shark Tank star was caught licking his lips as Miss Arkansas, of all people, Savvy Shields, modeled her black bikini.

So, at the debate, Hillary portrayed men who have a connection to beauty pageants in a negative way and did it to vilify Donald Trump by saying, “He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them.”

Meanwhile, her philandering husband, who, allegedly, once had a one-night stand with a beauty queen, and a letch who judged a parade of women in swimsuits just two weeks prior, were both Hillary’s guests of honor.

Socialism, Babies in Cardboard Boxes, and the Right to Life

Originally posted at American Thinker

197232_5_Lately, a shocking percentage of American voters are eager to have a government that fails at everything from healthcare to illegal immigration put in charge of controlling more stuff.

Meanwhile, 2,800 miles away in Venezuela, the consequences of such wrongheaded thinking is starkly revealed in pictures of sleepy newborns snoozing in cardboard boxes in a maternity ward with no money for nursery bassinets.

The row of babies in boxes is a glaring example for socialist-minded American millennials that Marxism is not as glamorous as some politicians would have us believe.

That’s why, in hopes that the extent of his country’s healthcare catastrophe would be exposed to the world, a brave Venezuelan doctor anonymously leaked the photos of the infants in boxes to opposition lawmaker/Congressman Manuel Ferreira.

The truth is that oil-rich Venezuela was once a prospering nation. Now, except for a small group of political elite, the economic playing field has been leveled and ‘the wealth spread around,’ which has made everyone, including newborns, equally poor and miserable.

Yet rather than abort children for economic purposes, an excuse used by those convinced that being underprivileged is worse than being dead, at least thus far, pro-life Venezuela has not allowed paucity to preclude the right to life.

And so, from a maternity ward in the hospital Domingo Guzmán Lander, in Venezuela’s northeastern state of Anzoátegui, abortion advocates have gotten a message that, regardless of hardship and desperation, human beings still deserve to live.

Simply put, as bad as economic conditions may be, breathing infants sleeping in empty fruit crates are still a whole lot better off than aborted fetuses smoldering in trash heaps.

But the message out of Venezuela is two-fold.

One stresses that conditions should never determine sanctity of life and the other illustrates that free, government-run health care systems are doomed to fail. That’s why Americans who prefer régime ownership to private enterprise should take note of what happens when the central government promises to run things.

According to Ferreira, in maternity wards located in what were once Venezuela’s leading hospitals:

Mothers are not fed properly and babies are born really weak. On top of that, the shortage of medicines and vaccines creates a mortal situation that is like a death cocktail.

In fact, as the box baby images were made public, across town at Anzoátegui’s Luis Razetti Hospital, where 17 newborns died last year because of an opossum infestation, 15 newborns recently died because of lack of food and medicine.

Douglas León, the president of the Venezuelan Medical Federation (VMF) admitted that hospitals are operating with only 5% of the medical equipment needed. In fact, in the last four years, Venezuela has lost 20% of its medical staff as the best doctors flee the country.

Redistributive social policies made lofty promises to the Venezuelan people, so how did a nation with the world’s largest oil reserves get here?

As usual, rather than impart fairness and fix things, Marxism’s failure repeated itself and, instead of economic justice, inflicted misery on millions of people.

The downward spiral began under the administration of the late Hugo Chávez, where, from the start, the promised panacea of socialism proved to be no panacea at all. Then, in 2014, under Chávez’s successor Nicolás Maduro, global oil prices plummeted and things got worse.

As a result, the collectivist government that vowed it could deliver socialist utopia to 30 million people found itself with no money to provide staples like food, medicine, and toilet paper.

That’s why, besides newborns being forced to sleep in cardboard boxes, the Venezuelan people also suffer waiting in a line for half a day to buy a loaf of bread. The citizens of what should be a tropical paradise undergo rolling blackouts due to electricity shortages and endure water rationing, hyperinflation, and not being able to find a single Tylenol.

Meanwhile, rest assured, that if Nicolás Maduro Guerra, the only son of socialist president Nicolás Maduro, were a newborn, he would not be napping in a cardboard box, nor will he be forced at age twenty-six to eat dog, horse, or butcher zoo animals to survive.

Speaking of animals, according to the Venezuelan Pharmaceutical Federation, because of the 80 percent shortage in every kind of common and specialized drug government paid healthcare workers have resorted to using veterinary medicines on human beings.

Worse yet, empty grocery shelves and critical shortages in every basic need has resulted in an epidemic of violent crime, kidnappings, bloody protests, fatalities, human rights abuses, and, especially in the capital city of Caracas – the very thing the anonymous doctor feared – political oppression.

In defense of his government, Carlos Rotondaro, the country’s director of social security angrily reacted to the photos of the babies. Rather than blame the lack of nursery bassinets on a failed system, Rotondaro accused media manipulation of portraying Venezuela’s bankrupt government-run healthcare system in a negative light.

So, in other words, similar to what happens in the U.S., in socialist countries government goons also refuse to assume responsibility for their failures?

Either way, for those that prefer collectivism to capitalism, Venezuela’s purely man-made predicament provides undeniable proof that no matter how well intentioned it may be socialism always results in abject failure.

As for Venezuela’s now-famous box babies, their silent message is that although neediness can sometimes reduce a hungry person to rummage through trash for food, poverty, no matter how hopeless, should never determine the right to life.

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.

%d bloggers like this: