Tag Archives: Chicago

Chicago mother tosses newborn from 8th floor window

2E74263000000578-0-image-a-30_1447550758240-636x372Originally posted at LiveAction News

In yet another example of blatant disregard for the sanctity of life, minutes after giving birth, a young woman, frightened of her Pakistani Muslim parent’s response to her pregnancy, threw her newborn from the eighth-floor window of a Chicago high-rise.

Sadly, flinging infants to their death seems to be a popular new way to dispose of unwanted children.

Recently in New York there have been three similar cases where mothers murdered their infants by pitching them out of apartment house windows.

The mothers were Rashida Chowdhury of Richmond Hill, Jennifer Berry of Yonkers, and Tenisha N. Fearon of the Bronx. (Fearon’s baby girl was 6-months-old when she plunged six floors to her death.)

690376d52524a6bd78587882ee49b358The most recent mother is Mubashra Uddin, who threw her 25-minutes-old baby girl from a window in a bedroom she shared with her younger sister. At around 11:20 pm, the infant was found dying from fractures to the skull, spine, and ribs. The naked and bloody newborn had landed on the grass where she was found by a passerby still breathing and struggling to stay alive. After being rushed to Weiss Memorial Hospital, at 12:25 am, the baby died of extensive blunt force trauma which included a lacerated liver and bowel.

According to officials from the Cook County sheriff’s office, the 19-year-old DeVry University A-student tossed her full-term, 7 pound 11-ounce daughter out of her bedroom window because she heard her mother walking towards her room.

Except for one close friend and the father of the child, Uddin had kept her pregnancy a secret from everyone by wearing loose clothing. That’s why, immediately after giving birth, rather than put her baby’s life before her own, Miss Uddin chose to protect herself from parental disapproval by murdering her newborn child.

When police arrived at the Uddin family apartment, despite finding a dead baby in the street below, bloody sheets, bloody scissors and blood on the floor, the woman denied everything. However, once in police custody, the young mother eventually admitted “multiple times” on video to dropping her baby out of a window to the concrete sidewalk below.

For killing “Baby Jane Uddin,” Uddin, who was initially hospitalized and held without bail, is being charged with first-degree murder. According to her family lawyer Adam Sheppard, her “family is standing by her,” and, after the fact, she seems both “contrite” and “humble.”

According to police sources, the motive for Uddin disposing of the newborn like trash was fear of her East Indian family’s reaction to her having a child with her African-American boyfriend (of whom the family disapproved).

Judge Peggy Chiampas said the teen should be held without bond while she was in the hospital having a surgical procedure. After her release from the hospital, at a  hearing where Uddin was again denied bail and told she would be held until she is tried for murder, Judge James Brown said that “Dropping a baby out of an eighth-story window to its eventual death is exceedingly evil and exceedingly cruel.”

Chiampas also said that family circumstances, which apparently played into the infant’s death, would be considered. In other words, it appears that to some, if a woman decides to toss a baby out an 8thfloor window, culturally diverse child-rearing, racism, and downright ignorance should be considered an excuse to grant lesser charges.

Meanwhile, Illinois has a safe haven law which permits infants up to 30 days old to be dropped off at safe locations, including hospitals, with no questions asked.

That means ‘contrite and humble,’ honor roll college student Uddin – who was clever enough conceal her pregnancy from her parents for nine months, and had three-months-shy-of-a-year to figure out how to deliver her baby to a safe haven – simply decided to kill her instead.

CALL THE ACLU: Why Is Barack Obama Allowed to Say ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’?

85Originally posted at CLASH Daily

The government that keeps insisting that when it comes to things like killing 4,000 babies a day morality cannot be legislated is once again, via government fiat, attempting to legislate yet another one of Obama’s long list of unconstitutional commandments.

This time the secularized directive falls into the “Thou Shalt Not Kill” category.

Seems Obama believes that making a gun harder to get will somehow prevent psychos from obtaining the weaponry they need to murder and maim people. After all, everyone knows that when killers plan homicides, obtaining a legal murder weapon is their utmost priority.

The glaring fallacy in the president’s focus arises when discussing the illegal aliens he ordinarily supports. Obama doesn’t seem to care or notice that based on the number of crimes illegal felons commit, people crossing the border unlawfully are much more of a problem in America than law-abiding Americans with legal firearms.

Moreover, if Obama believes that “gun free zones” and stricter gun laws will work for individuals with malicious intent, then why not establish “beheading- and immolation-free zones” in Syria? Or better yet, why doesn’t the president personally demonstrate his faith in “gun free zones” by dismissing his security detail when visiting places that have stringent gun-control laws, like Chicago?

Nevertheless, what’s most ironic about this whole controversy is that while Barack Obama is attempting to legislatively thwart murderous tendencies in sinful human beings, at the same time, in the interest of separation of church and state, Oklahoma is about the business of removing a Ten Commandments memorial from the grounds of the state’s capitol building.

Lest we forget, long before Barack Obama graced the planet with his awesomeness, God had already suggested his idea of “Thou Shalt Not Kill.”

In fact, God is the reason why, under cover of the night, the stone six-foot high Oklahoma Ten Commandments monument that was erected in 2012 was moved off of public property. Oklahoma was so committed to ousting Yahweh from the public square that they paid $5,000 to relocate the two-ton symbol of ancient religiosity a few blocks from the capitol premises.

So there you have it. As the president prepares to put down his phone and pick up his pen to sign into law legislation he believes will prevent murder, the Oklahoma Supreme Court decided that a tribute to antiquity that says “Thou shalt not kill” violates a state constitutional prohibition on the use of public property to support “any sect, church, denomination or system of religion.”

I get it! The same people who for time immemorial have murdered simply because they were insulted by God’s suggestion that killing isn’t something “thou shalt” be doing are suddenly going to accept and submit to Barack Obama making the exact same suggestion because he proposes the same concept in a non-spiritual, legalistic way.

So, in other words, in a secular society, if God has something to say it’s prohibited from being mentioned in the public square. Yet Barack Obama believes that if someone like himself (who thinks he’s a god) says “Thou shalt not kill,” those who ordinarily balk at the idea of basic morality and reject religious edicts will graciously acquiesce.

By sheer force of his will, Obama believes he can stop the killing that has gone on for thousands of years and accomplish what God Himself, who has granted free will, has thus far been unable to accomplish.

Are Native Americans Our European Ancestors?

three_young_native_american_menOriginally posted at American Thinker

Immediately following a massacre at the hands of a U.S. Army major who, before killing 13 American soldiers, was the first person to inject Islam into “workplace violence” by shouting “Allahu Akbar,” the president appeared at a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian affairs. Before mentioning the tragic events at Ft. Hood, Obama apparently felt it was imperative to give a cheerful “shout-out” to “Congressional Medal of Honor winner” Dr. Joe Medicine Crow.

In 2009 the president delayed statements that condemn domestic terrorism to acknowledge a Native American; now, in 2014, Barack Obama has directed his comments to those who oppose his executive amnesty, citing ineligibility to protest the invasion if a protestor’s ancestry is not directly rooted in America.

Desperate to defend his push to “fundamentally transform” the nation against the will of the American people, many of whom are of European descent, Obama told a Chicago audience:

If you look at the history of immigration in this country, each successive wave there have been periods where the folks who were already here have said, ‘Well I don’t want those folks.’

With those words, the president sent a message to his critics that there was once a time when white people weren’t welcome in America either. That cheap shot was an attempt to rally support for amnesty by reminding those gathered in Chicago that when they arrived here Europeans also met with anti-immigrant sentiment.

The kicker is that he then added this caveat: “the only people who have the right to [object to immigration] are some Native Americans.”

By making such an absurd statement, Barack Obama expressed the opinion that the only ones who have a legitimate right to oppose an invasion by “those folks” are Native Americans, because they were in America first.

The president’s skewed logic is that those whose ancestors he believes conquered Native Americans have no right to object to being conquered.

In addition, Obama, who favors one race, identifies with the liberal tribe, and seems to loathe bitter Bible clingers, chided the audience by pointing out: “Sometimes we get attached to our particular tribe, our particular race, our particular religion, and then we start treating other folks differently[.]”

Yeah! And the one “treating other folks differently” would be you.

Different or not, what is plain is that in Obama’s opinion, the descendants of those who he thinks subjugated Native Americans should accept a modern-day Christopher Columbus named Barack Obama who, like the Columbus of old, is also “governing as he pleases.”

After all, according to Obama, Christian European colonizers oppressed the indigenous people, so six centuries later those with Christian European lineage had better not grumble.

For all intents and purposes, Obama conquering and transforming America may very well be the president’s version of Native American reparations. Executive amnesty could be Barack’s way of teaching the descendants of White Europeans what being occupied feels like.

One sure way to share the pain is by importing the Third-World diseases that are currently infecting and killing healthy Americans with things like Enterovirus D-68, MDR-TB, and Chagas. In a way, Barack is doing what many on the left accuse White European settlers of doing, which is to expose an uncontaminated population to diseases to which they have no immunity.

The problem with the logic of the traveler of 57 states (not counting Alaska and his highly dubious birth state of Hawaii) is that his type of vindictive compensation is rooted in historical fiction.

If a present-day American’s heritage includes a relative migrating to the U.S. from anywhere else in the world and said individual is disqualified from expressing an opinion on illegal immigration, then Native Americans should be disqualified too.

In addition to archeological evidence that claims humans were in North America thousands of years before Native Americans arrived, over the years genetic clues have indicated America’s first colonists migrated from Siberia. It is believed that the people Obama refers to as native, much like the illegal aliens who walk across the border into the U.S., actually walked across the ice from Russia to what is now called America.

More recently, scientists in Denmark extracted DNA from a juvenile skeleton from a Siberian site in Mal’ta, Russia near Lake Baikal that was found with miniature Venus sculptures similar to small figurines made by European hunter-gatherers.

Scientists now believe it’s quite possible, based on that and a newly discovered sequenced genome, that one-third of Native American genes come from west Eurasian people linked to the Middle East and Europe, not solely from East Asia as previously thought.

What science indicates is that unbeknownst to Barack Obama, the very people he’s using as a weapon to suppress criticism of his attempt to circumvent the Constitution were migrants too.

Worse yet, it could be that one-third of those Obama said are the only people who have the right to object to illegal immigration actually originated from the same part of the world as those Obama says have no right to complain: Europe.

So try as he might to justify his lawlessness by endeavoring to inflict guilt on Americans for having a heritage in countries other than America, the truth is that the supposedly native peoples Obama is politically exploiting are not native at all.

The crux of the issue is that the only individuals indigenous to one part of the world are those who originated in the “cradle of civilization.” Everyone else, including American Indians, migrated and then settled far from home.

If the president is maintaining that modern-day Americans have no right to complain because their ancestors trekked to the New World from somewhere else, then neither do Native Americans. And as nightmarish as it might be for Obama’s liberal fantasy, both modern-day illegals and Native Americans may actually possess the same DNA as the European New World explorers Barack Obama seeks to vilify.

Chicago Children Inform Barack Obama ‘We Want to Live!’

9168567_448x252-300x238Originally posted at The Blacksphere

It was the South Side of Chicago — city of meat slicing machine mishaps, 9½-fingered mayors like Rahm Emanuel and childhood home to Michelle “Hadiya Pendleton was me and I was her” Obama.

The Chicago children were given a lesson plan that is sure to add even more drama to Barack Obama’s ongoing effort to wrest legal firearms out of the hands of law-abiding American citizens.

At Freedom Schools National Day of Social Action hosted by Trinity United Church of Christ, the church that Obama’s former minister Jeremiah “America’s Chickens are Coming Home to Roost” Wright once headed, Chicago children spent the day telling personal gut-wrenching death and destruction stories.

In a city where gun laws are strict and gun-related deaths are at unprecedented levels, dead cousins and aunts were mourned and heartbreaking tales of woe told.

The program coordinator, Minister Jasmine Taylor, maintained that dragging out vulnerable children whose lives were touched by gun violence to assist liberal politicians in furthering progressive policies, in the end, helps children heal.

Minister Jasmine shared:

“I think they’re able to connect better when they’re in a group of their peers, learning and talking about the things they’ve had go on in their families and their experiences.”

And if at some point these stories can be woven into an anti-Second Amendment speech delivered by a quivering-lipped Barack or Michelle Obama, all the better.

The day of social action was chock full of anti-gun-related activities.  The children were read poetry, and then were given a drum demonstration, which was an odd choice.  Wouldn’t a piccolo concert have been better than subjecting already-spooked children to a rat-a-tat-tat that sounds a lot like the pop of a gun?

Then, although purely as a cathartic experience, in the style of the children who wrote to the president about gun violence and then attended the signing of 23 executive actions establishing stricter gun control, these children also gave Obama additional fodder for… er, I mean, explained to the Protector of [only] Wanted Children their desire to live.

As an aside, it’s too bad unborn babies can’t write similar letters to Obama expressing their desire to live.

Nonetheless, looking to President Obama to ensure that they do get to live, the children expressed future hopes and dreams, if, and only if, Barack Obama does allow them to live.

Some of those dreams include becoming a doctor (shackled like a slave to the Obamacare system), a police officer (castrated by the DOJ), the President (if, that is, by the time they grow up Obama has lifted Martial Law and finally left office), a princess (like Michelle Obama), and a man of God (like Liberation Theologist/anti-Semite/America-hating racist, the ex-reverend Jeremiah Wright).

So America now has something to look forward to.

In the future, sure to be woven into the next anti-gun speech, will be excerpts from letters written by Chicago children to the President of the United States demanding that elected officials “protect children” (who could have been, but miraculously were not aborted), “not guns,” nor the Second Amendment.

Obama’s ‘Saving Even One Child’ Policy Falls Short

obama1Originally posted at American Thinker

Something happened between the time the president talked about Christina Taylor Green, the 9-year-old girl shot dead in the Tucson Gabrielle Giffords shooting, jumping through rain puddles in heaven, and the country finding out that Sara Murnaghan, a 10-year-old Pennsylvania child with cystic fibrosis, is being denied a life-saving lung because of government regulations dictating age restrictions on organ transplants.

Sara Murnaghan does qualify for pediatric lungs.  However, there are currently none available.  Without transplanting adult lungs into Murnaghan’s body, the little girl has about five weeks to live and will qualify for a transplant one year and eleven months too late.

Lately, America has been subjected to radically pro-choice Barack attempting to advance an anti-gun agenda by pretending to care about saving the lives of children he’d have otherwise been fine with aborting had they still been in utero.

Undermining Second-Amendment rights is why the president shows up at memorials, fake-cries on camera, hugs grieving parents, signs legislation surrounded by high-fiving youngsters, and repeatedly vows that saving the life of one child is worth the effort.

Piling it on, Michelle Obama even flew to Chicago to attend the funeral of 15-year-old gun violence victim Hadiya Pendleton and then invited the dead girl’s parents, Cleo and Nathaniel, to grace the State of the Union skybox, just to add a good dose of parental bereavement to the anti-gun atmosphere.

Now, after hearing Kathleen Sebelius make the cold comment that “someone lives and someone dies” in response to questions about why she refuses to intervene in the Sara Murnaghan emergency lung transplant case, it’s clear that anti-gun political pragmatism is at the root of concern over the saving of some lives and not others.

It’s clear that in the Obama administration, if gun violence kills a child, it matters.  However, if cystic fibrosis is the killer, oh well — as Kathleen Sebelius says, “someone lives and someone dies.”

In response to the Sandy Hook shooting where 20 children and six adults lost their lives in Newtown, Connecticut, the president stressed that “if there is a step we can take that will save even one child from what happened in Newtown, we should take that step.”

Yet, during a recent House hearing, when Lou Barletta (R-Pa) implored HHS Secretary Sebelius to “take that step” so that a little girl can have a shot at life, and to “please, suspend the [lung transplant] rules until we look at this policy,” Sebelius, who does have the authority to waive the rule on Sara’s behalf, refused.

At the Tucson Memorial, Scripture-quoting Barack Obama said, “If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate, as it should, let’s make sure it’s worthy of those we have lost. Let’s make sure it’s not on the usual plane of politics and point scoring and pettiness that drifts away with the next news cycle.”

At the Newtown Vigil, Obama reaffirmed those sentiments when he said that “[t]his job of keeping our children safe…is something we can only do together … we bear a responsibility for every child because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours; that we’re all parents; that they’re all our children.”

Then, while signing executive orders aimed at curbing gun violence, flanked by four anti-gun youngsters, Obama said, “This is our first task as a society. Keeping our children safe. This is how we will be judged. And their voices should compel us to change.”

So if saving children’s lives are “not on the usual plane of politics” when an opportunity to fulfill “our first task — caring for our children,” arises for one little girl, why does Kathleen Sebelius respond by coldly reminding Congressman Barletta that although it’s an “incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies … 40 [other] people in Pennsylvania are on the ‘highest acuity list’ for lung transplants”?

And while caution is in order because the government changing the rules for the benefit of the one sets a dangerous precedent — in the future, the government could be inclined to change the rules to detriment of the many — there is a huge amount of liberal hypocrisy afoot here.

Why?  Because in the end, little Sara Murnaghan will likely die, and not as the result of a gunshot wound, so Barack Obama won’t care.  Moreover, Michelle Obama will not attend Sara’s funeral, and neither will Sara’s mom and dad, Janet and Fran, be sitting beside the first lady next year in the State of the Union skybox as representatives of the need to change organ transplant laws.

Rest assured, in the short time that Sara has left, Barack Obama will not be reminding America that “we bear a responsibility” for Sara.  Nor will he sign a middle-of-the-night executive order overriding Kathleen Sebelius’s stubborn refusal to waive the adult lung transplant rule in time to save the child’s life.

It’s also unlikely that health care reformer Barack “Doesn’t Care” Obama will be on hand to shed one fake tear or quote a single out-of-context Scripture passage at Sara’s funeral.

Instead, as a result of refusing to “take that step … [to] save even one child,” Barack Obama and his self-serving administration have exposed the true nature of an agenda that has nothing to do with shielding the lives of helpless children from harm and everything to do with advancing a progressive anti-gun agenda.

Michelle Obama’s ‘Plan B’ Gun Control Effort

largerOriginally posted at American Thinker

Plan B is not just a controversial morning-after pill; it’s also an effort on Michelle Obama’s part to paint anyone who doesn’t agree with her husband’s restrictive gun measures as people who are willing to force children to live their lives in terror. Michelle attempted to paint that picture during an interview with Lee Cowan on “CBS Sunday Morning,” when she dredged up sob stories from her gun violence visit to Chicago last month.

The first lady said that after delivering her speech on gun violence in April, she was amazed at the extent to which Chicago’s children were forced to live in subjugation to the fear of being shot. Thus, the unspoken premise of Michelle Obama’s comments is that the cure for children in Chicago being dominated by the fear of being killed by a stray bullet is to subjugate the entire nation’s Second Amendment rights.

Michelle shared that students at Harper High School in Englewood, Illinois told her, “Every day they wake up and wonder whether they’re going to make it out of school alive.” Mrs. Obama said, “I mean, every single kid worries about their own death, or the death of someone, every single day.” Michelle Obama uttering those words is a prime example of liberal duplicity. This is a woman who supports 3,500 babies a day being aborted, and she’s preaching to us about teenagers who, no thanks to her or her husband, miraculously made it out of the womb alive — not making it out of school alive?

To add insult to injury, Mrs. Obama then said “we” have an “obligation to these kids” to try again. When Mrs. Obama uses words like “obligation to these…” anything, it’s a clear sign that hubby, on behalf of some victimized group, believes he is bound to a higher authority than Congress and is probably out searching desperately for some way to circumvent the law.

Michelle Obama, savior of America’s children, then pointed out, “We have millions of kids living in these kinds of circumstances who are doing everything right.” What she forgot to mention was that, despite restrictive gun laws already in place, children living in Chicago “who are doing everything right” will still be victimized by those in Chicago, children or otherwise, who will continue to do everything wrong.

Bordering on tears, the first lady went on to say: “And we, as a nation, have to embrace these kids and let them know that we hear them, and see them.” Disregard that “we as a nation” part, because rest assured, Mrs. Obama believes that no one except her and her husband hear and see the fearful children of Chicago. And only those who adhere to the liberal vision have the power and authority to quell anxiety by finding a way to restrict the ability of the nation’s gun owners to exercise their right to “keep and bear arms.”

Ratcheting up the sympathy factor yet another notch, Michelle then shared with a sycophantic Lee Cowan that “One kid told me he felt like he lived in a cage, because he feels like his community is unseen, unheard and nobody cares about it.” What that caged kid probably hasn’t realized just yet is that the first lady of the United States comes to Chicago regularly to use the “unseen, unheard” and uncared-for children of the Windy City as stage props to help push a progressive gun agenda.

Speaking of guns, Barry visited Mexico where, thanks to him and Eric Holder, it’s even worse than Chicago when it comes to gun violence. Careful not to mention beheadings and machetes in his speech, Obama did suggest to a rapt audience of Mexican students that gun control would save lives on both sides of the border. Ohhh… so that explains why the president decided not to control gunrunners taking illegal high-capacity rifles from one side of the border to the other.

In a rare moment of honesty, Obama did acknowledge his own involvement in supplying Mexico with guns when he said, “Most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States.” No Shiite, Sherlock.

Then the president gave the crowd an impromptu refresher course on the U.S. Constitution, saying, “I think many of you know that in America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms. And as president, I swore an oath to uphold that right, and I always will.” While pushing amnesty in Mexico, what he didn’t do was explain how United States immigration law works. Trawling for future voters, the president chose to conveniently skip that particular lesson.

Instead, immediately following the mini-course on the Second Amendment came the ‘but’ portion of the president’s speech, which is also known as the unofficial ‘Obama clarification.’ That’s where an unspoken ‘but’ cues the president to insert an addendum that corrects what he perceives to be one of the fundamental flaws in the Constitution.

Obama then said “At the same time (which is really a ‘but’), as I’ve said in the United States, I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms,” (which are really ‘Barack Obama-approved modifications’) “that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people,” (that would be law-abiding Americans) “that can save lives here in Mexico and back home in the United States. It’s the right thing to do.”

Sorry, Mr. President, it’s a little too late to ‘do the right thing.’ Why wasn’t that option proposed prior to illegally arming drug cartels with AK-47s? Who knows, maybe some of those guns have even made their way up to Illinois where your wife is now claiming we need to make an effort to “embrace… hear and see” Chicago’s terrified children who live each day in fear of being shot.

Michelle Obama Supports Gun Control that Doesn’t Work

041013-national-michelle-obama-chicago-gun-violence-300x168First Lady Michelle Obama recently headed home to the Southside of Chicago where she dipped her perfectly exercised toe into the gun violence debate.

Mrs. O arrived in the city that has enacted the most stringent gun-control laws in America to address local business leaders on the problem of gun violence.  Oddly, Michelle forgot to consider the possibility that  gun legislation is the reason for the high percentage of gun-related deaths in Chicago.

Richard A. Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, believes that “The gun laws in Chicago only restrict the law-abiding citizens and they’ve essentially made the citizens prey.”

Yet the anti-gun Left keeps on keeping on in the push to make it even more dangerous for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.  The Left’s argument is that stricter gun laws outside of Chicago would ensure that fewer illegal guns make it into Chicago.  It’s sort of like the liberal argument that freezing weather is proof of global warming.

David Spielfogel, senior adviser to Hizzoner Rahm Emanuel, agrees and argues that “Chicago is not an island.  We’re only as strong as the weakest gun law in surrounding states.”  So in other words, if nothing else works to convince Americans to willingly relinquish their Second Amendment rights, what might do the trick is having Michelle Obama stress that dead children in Chicago are only dead because of relaxed gun laws in other states.

That sort of rationale coincides with the bizarre legalistic belief that if you remove junk food from school cafeterias and vending machines, when the chubby kids leave school grounds, rather than mainlining Fluffernutter, raw string beans will become their after-school snack of choice.

And so it seems that the anti-gun lobby is firmly convinced that the cure for gun violence is to nationalize what has failed so miserably in Chicago. Which raises the question: What is it about the Obamas that if something isn’t working, they work on it even harder?

Even more stunning is that supporters of an administration that purposely funneled guns into Mexico are now blaming Chicago’s crime rate on guns making their way into the Windy City from outside the city limits.

That must be why Michelle gave up her fantasy of being Beyoncé for the day, and rather than equate herself with Brian Terry and Jamie Zapata and hundreds of dead Mexicans shot with Eric Holder-provided high-power weapons, said this: “Hadiya Pendleton was me, and I was her.”

Speaking to concerned business leaders, Mama Obama compared herself to “a walking angel” who, soon after attending Obama’s Second Inauguration, was tragically cut down while talking with friends in Vivian Gordon Harsh Park.

After Hadiya’s murder, Michelle rushed to Chicago to attend the teen’s funeral and invited her parents Nate and Cleo to sit beside her in the State of the Union sky box.  Excelling at the liberal practice of exploiting death for political purposes, Mrs. Obama reminded her audience that in Chicago burying a child is not unusual and that young people are killed after “wandering onto the wrong street… [or]… standing on their own porch.”

About Hadiya’s funeral, Michelle said:

Let me tell you, it is hard to know what to say to a room full of teenagers who are about to bury their best friend…I told them that there is a reason that we’re here on this earth, that each of us has a mission in this world, and I urged them to use their lives to give meaning to Hadiya’s life.

Clearly, Mrs. Obama believes she has a “mission in this world,” and that that self-appointed mission involves assisting her husband in mitigating the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans.  So to accomplish that goal, posing as an anti-gun raconteur Michelle relayed the heart-wrenching story of Hadiya’s untimely death.

According to Shelley O, “Hadiya’s family did everything right, but she still didn’t have a chance.” And so, because Cleo and Nate couldn’t keep their child safe, liberals like Michelle Obama who hold the collective view that our children are their children plan to step in to implement legislation they mistakenly believe saves lives.

Hey somebody, please tell Michelle Obama that while she was in Chicago speaking to business leaders about eliminating gun violence, an unarmed lunatic in Texas stabbed 14 people with a knife.

In Chicago, the first lady’s work was to get business leaders to agree that in the long run the survival of a future little Michelle Obama far outweighs the preservation of the tenets and freedoms that have abided for two centuries in the US Constitution.

The first lady’s purpose in going to Chicago was not to discuss reality, nor was it to reveal intriguing autobiographical insights about how she and Hadiya Pendleton are a lot alike. Instead, the true purpose of the trip was to prod America further along the road toward a society whose power-hungry government claims it’s attempting to eradicate gun violence by disarming its people.

The Segregated SOTU Sympathy Skybox

pendleton-obama-2The most infuriating thing about the ‘Fat Tuesday’ State of the Union address was not the fact that bespectacled Bob Menendez (D-NJ), who is under investigation for having sex with underage prostitutes, was milling around in the crowd as if nothing is going on, or having to tolerate seeing elected officials act like hormonal teenagers grabbing at the President like he was Justin Bieber working a velvet rope line.

It wasn’t the president’s predictable left-wing drivel, or seeing a comatose Ruth Bader Ginsburg being propped up on either side by John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy.

The most unnerving part of the event took place in the SOTU Sympathy Sky Box. As first lady Michelle got a standing ovation for God knows what, it was apparent that the gallery was packed with a diverse group of people there only because their stories supported the president’s anti-gun, pro-illegal immigrant, pro-woman, green ribbon-wearing, big-spending agenda.

Read the rest of the article at The Blacksphere

Rahmbo: Shape Up or Fork Out

Originally posted at Taki’s Mag

An Israeli ballerina-turned-Mayor of Chicago is now demanding that Windy City workers participate—willingly or not—in a wellness plan. If those on the city payroll refuse to register, they’ll pay $50 a month as a penalty for not choosing what Rahm Emanuel, a big believer in the right to choose, has chosen for them.

Initially, city workers will be lined up for screening like soldiers taking a military conscription exam. If you have asthma, heart disease, or diabetes, you’ll get “wellness training to achieve long-term health goals” whether you want it or not.

How about an implanted oral sensor that detects Newport Lights, traces of Crisco, Oreo DoubleStufs, and Heineken, and then triggers a shock collar that comes in a variety of colors from which the mayor will allow city workers to choose?

In addition to incentives, the mayor’s proposal employs “advisers” who will oversee the “program.” This group of scrutinizers will “monitor progress on a bimonthly basis,” which means, on average, you get 60 days between examinations to relax and keep your PayDay candy bar on your desk rather than in a locked box in a safe hidden under the spare tire (no pun intended) in your car trunk.

“In the runup to Obamacare, what better venue than Chicago to launch another unofficial pilot program?” Hiring “advisers” proves Rahm Emanuel is a job-creation genius! Bet he’ll even have the wherewithal to hire uniformed officers to do “Paunch Patrol” and “Adipose Analysis.”

Those who successfully stop smoking, “Party Off the Pounds,” and are found sipping wheatgrass juice from their Barack “MADE in the USA” 2012 coffee mug during impromptu visits by advisers “could”—I repeat, “could”—be rewarded by “seeing their healthcare premiums reduced.”

Ever the dedicated Boy Scout, Rahm Emanuel pledges that, like it or not, “We will help you be a good steward for your health.” Such “help” could include mandatory weigh-ins and grocery-bag inspections.

Rahm warned that “if you choose not to [participate], you’ll pay that price and that is the price you’ll have to pay.” Sorry, but that is a teensy-weensy bit scary, even for a person who doesn’t live in Chicago.

Nonetheless, good intentions are likely at the core of Rahm’s “Keep Corpulent Chicago City Workers Well” initiative. Chances are that the city’s pirouetting mayor is only trying to help out. Either that or he enjoys presenting city workers an “offer [they definitely] can’t refuse.”

Let’s hope workout gear is provided gratis, because Lou Phillips, business manager of Laborers Union Local 1001, is just itching to get physical. Phillips supports the mayor’s effort and maintains that “There’s no penalty for getting sick. But if you choose not to participate, you’re gonna pay $50 more a month and $50 for your wife.” A diabetic, Phillips promised, “It’ll get us in shape. You’re actually making yourself better. In the end, it’s gonna save millions and millions of dollars. If people are healthy, they won’t be going to doctors to get toes or feet amputated.”

Not to worry, though—accidental amputations, such as losing half a finger in a meat-slicing machine, are definitely covered, as are assault-related injuries such as broken kneecaps and loose teeth.

In the future if Americans should go blind or need treatment for kidney failure, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and a team of cost-control analysts will step in to decide whether a city worker in Chicago, and ultimately Obamacare recipients nationwide, will receive lifesaving dialysis or short-term, cost-efficient, end-of-life care.

In the runup to Obamacare, what better venue than Chicago to launch another unofficial pilot program? The government will probably be interested to see if improving Chicagoans’ health against their will or collecting penalty fees—also against their will—can “help cut the annual $500 million bill for healthcare for city employees.” If it does, it can then be translated into a nationwide “Ditch the Cookies and the Camels or Suffer the Financial Consequences” effort.

Hizzoner maintains the program is a “necessary step to getting healthcare costs under control.” If you work for the City of Chicago in the CDOT’s alleys division and happen to need an abortion, it’s likely the mayor will enthusiastically agree to foot the bill; but if you’d rather not spend 45 minutes a day on a stair climber, pay up!

Instead of eating deep-dish pizza, Mayor Rahmbo’s Dumpster Task Force and Office of Underground Coordination workers will soon either be shaping up or forking out.

It’s probable that Chicagoans are slowly coming to realize that in Mayor Emanuel’s version of “pro-choice” America, the guy with the foul mouth sporting the occasional leotard gets to do the choosing.

A ‘Windshield Rancher’ and the Nouveau Riche

Originally posted at BIG Government

In reaction to the criticism over the Obama family heading to Martha’s Vineyard amidst gargantuan economic woes and unemployment rates so high even the dead are disturbed, liberals have taken to defending Obama’s vacation time (transportation compliments of two tax-payer funded jets) by portraying George W. Bush as a man who never worked.

According to Obama’s defenders, Bush vacation days were disproportionately greater when compared to Barack “nose-to-the-grindstone” Obama’s. The left argues that Obama has earned 10 days in a haven for multimillionaires because Bush spent eight years in perpetual party mode.

Mr. Bush did spend time on “vacation.” But Obama and Michelle closing down Bar Harbor, Maine to dine in upscale restaurants with a “Latin flair” is quite different from G.W. fishing on his family’s estate in Kennebunkport prior to hosting a “Lobster Summit” for Vladimir Putin.

According to CBS reporter Mark Knoller, a vacationing President Bush would go into town for an annual cheeseburger. On the other hand, every chance he gets, Barack relaxes seaside, sipping sunset cocktails and eating lobster while the Secret Service keep peons at bay.

Maybe scorekeepers could refresh America’s memory and cite the instance when Mr. and Mrs. Bush nearly brought the Big Apple to a halt while they leisurely took in dinner and a show.

Intermittently, George W. did head home to conduct business from the “Western White House” in Crawford, Texas. For fun, Mr. Bush would be seen with a “power saw in his hand going after brush and dead trees.” President Obama has got to know that no one would condemn a decision to head home to his Tony Rezko-acquired property on South Greenwood Avenue in Chicago, instead of his $4,000 a night “Winter White House” in Hawaii.

Moreover, is there a liberal apologist honest enough to calculate the difference between Bush floating around in his father’s row boat in Maine and the untold millions Obama spent, mixing business with pleasure, on a 250-person, GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt-enhanced traveling entourage that reserved 500 rooms in the Taj Mahal hotel in Mumbai?

During his tenure, Bush was regularly criticized for making 77 visits to Prairie Chapel Ranch. What detractors rarely mention is the former president voluntarily doing double-duty by entertaining 19 world leaders in his home. For those keeping track, that averages to be 2.375 working vacations a year.

When not gathering cedar wood, Bush spent many a vacation day serving “Southern-inspired” meals to dignitaries like China’s former leader Jiāng Zémín.

Some other notables feted at Mr. Bush’s heartland ranch were: Tony Blair; Putin and his pectorals; King Abdullah; Australian and Italian Prime Ministers John Howard and Silvio “Bunga Bunga” Berlusconi; Vicente Fox; Hosni Mubarak; Juan Carlos and Queen Sofía of Spain; German Chancellor Andrea Merkel; and Israel’s Ariel Sharon.

On the other hand, Barack prefers to reserve fine dining for family getaways.  Unlike his predecessor, Obama’s unique down-home style includes treating Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to greasy spoon at Ray’s Hell Burger, a hamburger joint in downtown DC that Obama frequents with trusty sidekick Joe Biden.

Listening to liberals justify the President spending more time in a golf cart than with his feet up on the Resolute Desk, one would think Barry needs to be pried from the Oval Office and convinced to take a few days off against his will.

What is never mentioned is that the Obamas get a reprieve every time they’re visited at the White House by Motown stars, ex-Beatles, “Desperate Housewives”/Border security advisors, and Super Bowl party guests like the ex-Mrs. Marc Anthony, JLo.  Moreover, the Obamas regularly blow off steam with at-home Latina cultural events and on Wagyu beef, cocktail parties, and Conga lines.

Mr. and Mrs. Obama also shuffle together official business with throwing back pints of Guinness and Diwali dancing. Makes one wonder how liberals, who define Bush entertaining world leaders in Crawford as a vacation, can consider Obama touring Rio with Michelle, Sasha and Malia official business.

However, had George W. Bush not boycotted the Earth Summit in 2002, there’s a good chance he too could have delighted poor Brazilian kids with his adroit soccer ball dexterity.

Bush aside, the Queen of R and R is Michelle. In between vacations, Mrs. Obama manages to sandwich in NYC tasting tours, BBQ eating romance, jaunts to Oregon, “whirlwind” shopping in Paris, ancho-chile short ribs and skiing in Vail, and miniature golf sessions in Panama City Beach. After tuckering herself out on a $375,000 Spanish pre-vacation/vacation and a fried fat-cake-eating African safari, the woman deserves two-weeks off in August.

Nevertheless, the debate isn’t about Michelle; it’s about Barry and George. The question is how Barack Obama body surfing in the cool waves of the Atlantic while the economy tanks and desperate Americans stand in line at job fairs baking in the hot summer sun compares with Bush holding official meetings at Camp David and choosing to spend time in Crawford brandishing a chain saw and a cheeseburger in a strong economy.

The truth is, despite 9-11, while Bush was president and until the Pelosi Democrats took over Congress, both the stock market, and nation’s employment rate remained relatively healthy. Yet Bush, who quit playing golf during the Iraqi war because he felt it sent the “wrong signal,” still maintained a low vacation profile.

For Barack Obama, whose horrendous fiscal policies are responsible for much of America’s misery, to take a highbrow vacation during a double-dip recession reveals a lot about his character.  Although George W. defines himself as a “windshield rancher,” it’s Obama who clearly lacks class, because his habitual insensitivity and self-indulgence proves he cares for no one but himself.

The President’s defenders should quit comparing the arriviste-nouveau riche-Obama side show with the restraint and discretion Bush exhibited throughout his presidency.  George W’s vacation days were just another excuse for him to extend a unique brand of “ranch diplomacy,” as opposed to the frivolous opulence that, despite America’s ongoing economic despair, a shameless Barack Obama continues to enjoy.

%d bloggers like this: