Tag Archives: Fox News

Is Megyn the Man-Eater Receiving Her Just Reward?

Originally posted at American Thinker

Like a Black Widow spider, infotainment sensation Megyn Kelly has advanced both her personal and career life sniffing out testosterone and then feeding off male prey.

Prior to her meteoric rise to fame, Megyn was married to an anesthesiologist named David Kendall.  Mr. Kendall said that on the day the couple married, the priest counseled Megyn on the importance of  ‘taking care of her husband.’ Megyn responded to the advice by asking, “What about him taking care of his wife?”

The ambitious celebrity enhanced her résumé, transforming from a rookie news anchor into a self-impressed show boater with the same self-regard.

Unlike the deadly arachnoid, Megyn doesn’t need to physically mate with her prey to get what she needs before the poison flows, but she openly exploits her female sexuality.

Nightly, on The Kelly File, the commentator showcased her legs under a glass-top table.

As her hubris grew, Megyn endeavored to act cutesy on camera and restyled her hair into an edgy updated version of Sly Stallone’s 1980’s love interest, Brigitte Nielsen.

 

To cover the Republican National Convention, Megyn showed up in a spaghetti strap dress.

Then, after being criticized, she defended her choice of beachwear by saying,  “women can be smart and feminine at the same time.”

Four years after that wedding ceremony, the woman who wanted a wife sought a better way to get men to provide for her needs, something she apparently felt neither a husband nor a 10-year career in the legal profession was delivering.  Megyn divorced David, left her job as an attorney, and latched onto a guy named Bill Lord, who gave the fledgling news personality her first break at an ABC affiliate in Washington DC.

From there, Kelly advanced by moving on to well-respected television journalist Brit Hume, who became her mentor.  In response to his wife Kim’s urging, a dutiful Hume delivered Megyn’s audition tape to the late Chairman and CEO of Fox News, Roger Ailes.  Ailes responded by creating a spot for Kelly and putting her on the air.

In 2014, Megyn told Business Insider “My boss, Roger Ailes, has been a huge inspiration.”  Yet two years later, in her 2016 autobiography, Settle for More, Megyn expressed thanks to that inspirational boss by revealing that Ailes offered to advance her career in “exchange for sexual favors.”  Mr. Ailes  denied Megyn Kelly’s allegations, calling them pure fiction.

And Megyn certainly did advance.

Maybe David Kendall could provide insight as to why his ex-wife, who once falsely implied he committed adultery, has a propensity to advance her interests via false accusations.

Nonetheless, in addition seeking out powerful men do her bidding,

Meanwhile, back at Fox News, Megyn’s bevy of manservants included a kindhearted mentor, a now-deceased boss, Bill O’Reilly, and a newer more compliant stay-at-home husband named Doug Brunt.

In addition to that short list, Megyn’s ladder to the top was soon notched with notable and notorious male names like Josh Duggar, Bill Ayers, Michael Moore, and Mark McKinnon of Showtime’s Political Circus.  McKinnon is the guy in the Stetson who enjoyed sitting on the other side of Megyn’s  see-through desk.

Among those the news anchor allegedly “demolished” to advance her career is radio talk show host Mike Gallagher, Fox News political consultant Karl Rove, and psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow.  At one point, Megyn was feeling so feisty she attempted to go brain cell-to-brain cell with Newt Gingrich – that was a smack down Megyn should have avoided.

It was Kelly who once said, “Television is just like typing — there’s no way to get better without doing it a lot, over and over,” which apparently also holds true for chewing up and spitting out men.

Even still, to date, Kelly’s most daring man-scapade took place at the first Republican presidential debate when, in an attempt to portray him as a womanizer, Megyn posed an in-your-face “temperament” question to candidate Donald Trump.  By depicting Trump in a negative light, in her mind, the news anchor had managed to accomplish more for her career in a few minutes of verbal abuse than Hume, Ailes, and O’Reilly were able to deliver in 12-years.

As a result of the Trump hysteria that followed, the Murdoch brothers negotiated a $20-million a year contract renewal to keep Kelly at Fox.  Rather than accept the offer, Megyn dissociated herself from the cable news giant and got Andrew Lack, the chairman of NBC’s news division, to convince NBC to shell out between 15 and 20 million.

Sadly for her, the woman who thought she would strut in and own the peacock is now finding it more difficult to employ the same methods at NBC that worked so well for her at Fox News.

For example, during the début of her new show, “Sunday Night With Megyn Kelly,” for a state dinner at Konstantin Palace in St. Petersburg Megyn showed up in a thigh-high slit skirt and stiletto heels.  Russian President Vladimir Putin appeared less than impressed with both the outfit and her interviewing skills.

Not to be deterred by the abysmal ratings that followed the Putin premiere, Megyn segued from a Russian president to a controversial – love him or hate him – conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.  Jones anticipated Megyn was setting him up.  So, instead of being distracted by blonde curls and false eyelashes, Jones focused on secretly taping both the actual and pre-interview discussions.

When the parents of Sandy Hook victims found out about the show’s topic, advertisers threatened to boycott NBC for agreeing to allow Kelly to give credibility to a man who once said the mass shooting a “hoax.”  Megyn responded to the outcry by using it as an opportunity to diss Jones and tie him and his  “outrageous conspiracy theories” to Donald Trump.

Alex then ‘trumped’ Kelly by leaking a tape of Megyn sounding more flirtatious toward Jones than ‘personally revolted.’

In the end, Megyn ‘blowhards beware’ Kelly has worked very hard mastering the craft of elevating herself at the expense of men.  Now, after all the “exploitation and impunity” Kelly enjoyed at Fox, in her first two weeks at NBC, Megyn is finally receiving a just reward for the man-eating methods she’s employed making a name for herself.

Foxy News fires O’Reilly

Originally posted at American Thinker

No one would deny that in advertising, sex sells.  If that weren’t the case, then attractive women wouldn’t be promoting things like cat food and sparkling water.  Over at the Fox cable news network, conservative news is the profit-making vehicle of choice, and Fox sells that product with the help of provocatively clothed commentators.

Take, for instance, Megyn Kelly.  Before setting her sights on NBC, the former Foxy News diva primed her meteoric rise to fame by discussing the events of the day in a spaghetti strap halter while showcasing designer shoes and oiled legs under a see-through glass-top desk.  For a time, the Fox News golden girl’s foray into serious journalism included ditching soft curls for a robotic ’80s hairdo that closely resembled Sly Stallone’s ex-wife, Brigitte Nielsen.

The gams and glamor worked so well for Miss Megyn that the combo jettisoned the precocious pundit right into the center of a debate confrontation with then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.

In the end, Megyn’s “world’s most beautiful people” allure ended up outweighing the seriousness of anything else in Ms. “Kelly’s File.”  And so, with Megyn gone, Fox should be honest and just confess that in addition to clips of Geraldo Rivera going mano a mano with a hurricane, the network’s official policy remains committed to daintily posing shimmering pins on sky-high stools.

The problem is that unlike men who are clueless when being beguiled by feminine wiles, women can usually discern when other women are flaunting their sexuality to attract male attention.  That’s why, to the feminine half of the Fox News audience, it’s obvious that the conservative cable news channel considers it “fair and balanced” to coerce two thirds of its on-camera personalities to double as eye candy.

Surely, Fox News would argue that the parade of gorgeousness coincidentally belongs to a group of doubly blessed politically minded female newscasters.  Either way, the Murdoch men should know that making a woman’s cleavage the emphasis of a news alert distracts from the intellect of highly accomplished women.

In fact, predictable décolletage displays are the very thing transforming Fox News into a kind of cable news Hooters.  The only difference between the two is that Hooters girls in revealing T-shirts serve chicken wings to hungry men, while Fox News fillies, outfitted in sleeveless skin-tight sheaths, serve up cable news to bored men sitting home in their pajamas.

Speaking of men sitting home in their pajamas, for the sin of responding like a man to having the news of the day shared by women emulating peacocks doing a mating dance, Bill O’Reilly of Fox’s wildly popular The O’Reilly Factor is the second high-profile loss from a network guilty of fostering an environment where Victoria Secret models sell the news.

In addition to embarrassing the Fox news giant, Bill O’Reilly’s fall from grace also exposes the hypocrisy of Fox News.

Think about it: how can Fox stand by and watch female news anchors struggle to find a ladylike position for their bare legs on a curvy couch in the morning, and then penalize their most popular host for reacting to the bait at night?  After hawking a full array of bodacious bosoms, flowing tresses and skin-tight mini-skirts, Fox firing a dude for being seduced by the wares being peddled smacks of conservative cable news entrapment.

At any point in time, did Rupert and his sons Lachlan and James advise Bill O’Reilly that if a female guest on his show bats her mink eyelash extensions and puckers her bee-stung lips, it’s not because she’s signaling interest in attending a pajama party at his Long Island home, nor is it a green light for the 6’4″ bloviator to kiss her on the lips?

In other words, other than the receptionist Bill referred to as “ hot chocolate,” what appears to have happened was that some of the women who used sex to attract a male audience on one side of the camera ended up garnering unwanted attention from Bill on the other side.

Now, in response, a self-righteous Fox News Channel is playing the politically correct prude by describing uninvited attention toward the very women Fox encouraged to seek male attention…as sexual harassment?

So even though the gangly senior citizen answered his hotel door in his skivvies, Bill O’Reilly deserves a break.  After all, if hairspray fumes could be converted into pheromones, judging from the line-up night after night on The Factor, poor Bill’s hypothalamus gland was likely in perpetual overdrive.

That’s why, after being in the presence of a bevy of newscasters who share the news while crisscrossing their legs like Sharon Stone under interrogation, it stands to reason that the big guy couldn’t help grunting at some of them like a testosterone-infused boor.

Even still, instead of succumbing to the sexually charged atmosphere nurtured by the Fox News Channel, Catholic school- and Harvard-educated O’Reilly should have at least known not to bite the carrot.  Bill should never have behaved like a troglodyte.  Instead, the host of The Factor should have exercised self-control by aligning his 1960s caveman thinking with current safe-space standards.

Regrettably for O’Reilly fans, it’s too late for Bill to embrace his feminist side, don a man-bun, and save his job.

In the end, if Bill did harass the women alleging he made unwanted advances toward them, then there his no defense for his behavior.  However, Bill is still a man and would have to be either castrated or dead not to react to some of the sensuality being passed off as journalism over at the Foxy News network.

 

MICHELLE O COUNSELS: Use Your ‘Voice’ (As Long as It Agrees with Obama)

angry michelle_thumb[12]Originally posted at CLASH Daily

Michelle “Mixed Message” Obama traveled to Cambodia to encourage young girls to speak up. While there, the U.S. first lady told a Cambodian audience that educating girls allows them “to participate in the political life of their country and hold their leaders accountable,” an idea that should float nicely in a country run by a dictator.

Meanwhile, here in America, with the approval, funding, and hearty endorsement by the Obama administration, by way of feticide, every day 3,000-4,000 babies are denied the right to ever use their voices, half of them girls. So in essence Michelle’s message about girls using their voice only applies if Cambodian mothers choose not to use their voice to say “I’m here to have an abortion.”

While we’re on the subject of abortion, participating in political life, and holding leaders accountable, Mrs. Obama’s husband Barack has been delving into a similar realm, politically speaking. Seems that despite Michelle encouraging “voice usage”, her husband apparently believes that Israeli voters speaking out at the polls is something they shouldn’t be permitted to do.

Melding the quashing of voices and abortive tactics the same way he uses the tax dollars of pro-lifers to pay for abortion procedures they disagree with, it has been revealed that Barack Obama moved U.S. taxpayer monies through non-profit organizations to interfere in the Israel election.

Evidently Obama was exercising his right to choose who should be Prime Minister of Israel and sent a team of government-funded abortionists to Israel to abort Bibi Netanyahu. The only thing missing from this scenario was a bereted band of New Black Panthers stationed outside Israeli polling stations beating back Likud voters with billysticks.

Unfortunately, despite Barack’s best efforts, Bibi was “Born Alive”, so to speak.

Now the only hope Barack Obama has to fulfill his dream of political abortion is to find another way to undermine Bibi’s survival. From the looks of things, the president is counting on Iran to bring to fruition what appears to be his original intent to terminate the Jewish state.

Here’s the problem with all of this: How can Michelle Obama travel to a country ruled by an authoritarian strongman leader, large numbers of school dropouts, and endemic poverty to speak against the very conditions Barack Obama is intentionally cultivating here in America? Worse yet, in Cambodia she encouraged schoolgirls to do what her husband absolutely forbids here at home, which is to allow citizens “participation in political life” by holding him accountable.

Moreover, how can a representative of a government that is restricting First Amendment rights more and more every day be taken seriously when she encourages girls to “use” their voices?

After all, under the Obama regime those who express views that disagree with the president’s are retaliated against by government entities such as the IRS. Fox News and Tea Party activists are publicly mocked and derided for expressing an adversarial opinion, and conservative commentators vilified endlessly by the husband of the woman inspiring others to speak up.

Not only that, but when Bibi came to the United States to verbally express the dangers he believes will ensue if Obama assists Tehran in acquiring a nuclear bomb, Obama did what Michelle suggested schoolgirls in the Cambodian city of Siem Reap do to those who discourage voicing one’s opinion – he ignored Bibi.

Nevertheless, in an effort to undermine an entire sovereign nation from expressing their preference at the polls, if Obama does what he usually does it’s highly likely he’ll attempt to quell the voice of the Israeli people because a democratic election delivered a result opposite to what Barack Obama had hoped.

The truth is that much to Barack Obama’s chagrin, like a woman who visits an abortion clinic late-term only to give birth to a living baby destined to be aborted, Bibi survived.

Now, without an available laundry room to toss the prime minister into in hopes he’ll fade away without oxygen, warmth, and hydration, not to burden the original intent of getting rid of Bibi, Barack Obama must find an alternate route to rid the world, once and for all, of Bibi Netanyahu’s voice.

And so the Obama hypocrisy continues.

We have Mrs. Obama circumnavigating the globe promoting education, political activism, the benefit of holding politicians accountable, as well as free expression for girls. Meanwhile here at home, both girls and boys are being deprived of a voice because, with Michelle’s hearty approval, they’re being denied the right to life. Not to mention Michelle’s husband sic’ing the federal government on any political adversary that demands he become accountable to the nation.

Couple those double standards with President Obama opposing both nationally and internationally the right of individuals and nations to exercise their voice if what is voiced differs from his planetary vision for a progressive Islamic panacea.

Compounding that glaring dichotomy is Obama orchestrating a Chicago-style effort to abort the Israeli Prime Minister by sending a taxpayer-funded goon squad to pulverize the fearless leader whose voice advocates dealing with Iran in ways contrary to what Barack Obama demands.

‘Big Sis’ Pushes Orwellian (1984) Lies and Tyranny

BigBrotherOriginally posted at Clash Daily

In his 1949 novel 1984, George Orwell wrote something that seems to be very applicable today, especially as it relates to the things liberals say when trying to explain away what is undeniably true. Orwell said that “Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”

When it comes to the power of “tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of [his] own choosing,” President Barack Obama is a pro. Responding to the NSA scandal, Barack Obama shared the opinion that “You can’t have 100% security and 100% privacy.”

While that premise may be somewhat true, it’s still amazing that when it comes to abortion Barack Obama is able to overcome every obstacle to ensure that the right to 100% privacy is always 100% secure.

In like manner, taking a few minutes off from purchasing billions of rounds of ammunition and ordering riot gear, on New York City’s political show Road to City Hall, Homeland Security Secretary/catcher of dangerous border-crossing hairdryers Janet Napolitano told Errol Louis that she thinks “people have gotten the idea that there’s an Orwellian state out there that somehow we’re operating in. That’s far from the case.”

Sounds like some “tearing and putting together” may be going on, because Janet Napolitano’s comments on the NSA controversy sound very similar to Barack Obama’s over at Ohio State. Giving the keynote address, Obama warned graduates to “reject these voices” that caution of the evils of government, saying, “Still, you’ll hear voices that incessantly warn of government … or that tyranny always lurks just around the corner. You should reject these voices.”

Now, despite denying an Orwellian state, Janet Napolitano has done exactly what Orwell was talking about when she pointed out to Mr. Louis the various difficulties involved in “striking the right balance between security and civil liberties.”

That explanation not only supports Obama’s ongoing “tearing and putting back together” endeavor, but also explains why Big Sis allows our porous border to remain open – the DHS’s “shape of its own choosing” worries that the civil liberties of illegal aliens may be infringed upon.

Nonetheless, on Road to City HallMs. Napolitano urged Americans not to worry about government reconnaissance efforts infringing on Constitutional rights, because there are lots of protections built into a system. That’s the same system that dropped the ball when Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev came back to the United States after spending six months being trained in terrorism tactics in Chechnya.

To reinforce that built-in protections argument, Ms. Napolitano then pointed to a privacy office embedded in her own department that is “constantly reviewing our policies and procedures.”

Janet Napolitano touting protections “embedded” into a system that she’s in charge of – to keep a check on her – is sort of like Obama appointing Eric Holder to investigate why Eric Holder authorized the seizure of Fox News reporter James Rosen’s private emails after accusing Rosen of being a “possible co-conspirator” in violation of the Espionage Act. It would be laughable if it weren’t so appalling.

Then, as if disrespecting Americans’ privacy is the only area where Janet stressed that, although the government is indeed going “willy-nilly and using any kind of data” they can gather, “No one should believe that we are simply going willy-nilly and using any kind of data that we can gather.”the government falls short, Ms. Napolitano mentioned that she felt the “federal government hasn’t done the best job keeping the public informed about how it is treating the enormous amounts of personal information that could potentially be used in intelligence gathering.”

Janet shared that “I think we need to do a better job of explaining to the American people exactly what is kept, what are the real restrictions on how — I’m just talking now for DHS, Department of Homeland Security – how we use it, how long we can keep it, how we share it, all those things.”

Then, citing certain challenges as an excuse to brazenly flout the US Constitution, Janet Napolitano denied an Orwellian state as she advanced the Orwellian state. On behalf of Barack Obama, Big Sis gently excused government intrusion into the right to privacy because of the difficulty technology poses when it comes to striking a balance between “security and privacy and other values.”

Therefore, in an effort to explain away what is undeniably true, with Orwellian proficiency Janet Napolitano has proven that with this administration it’s not so much the “100% security and 100% privacy” issue we should be worried about. Instead, it’s the Orwellian tendency for Barack Obama and Janet Napolitano to present 100% lies and 100% tyranny as 100% truth and 100% liberty.

Bebé Glotón and the Gender Benders

Originally posted at American Thinker

Bebé Glotón, the doll that teaches non-lactating seven-year-olds how to nurse, is back in the news.  Fox News contributor Dr. Keith Ablow, who finds the doll age-inappropriate, was attacked on air by “Mommy Blogger” and “Parenting Expert” Jessica Gottlieb who all but accused the good doctor of being some kind of depraved pedophile.

When Alisyn Camerota of Fox News asked Ablow what he thought about Bebé Glotón (Glutton Baby) teaching the under-10 set the ins and outs of let down, lanolin nursing bras, and suckling sounds, Dr. Ablow replied:

It’s beyond ridiculous. It’s destructive. Little girls aren’t even aware how their secondary sexual characteristics will develop, let alone imitating how they’ll be used after childbirth. This is another way of turning little girls into adults. It blurs the boundary between children and adults in society. It contributes to the sexualization of children and it makes them targets of assailants, frankly, because it blurs that boundary. It’s a terrible, terrible idea.

Jessica Gottlieb, BA in Kinesiology and MA in Education, wasn’t going to stand by and let a sexist like Dr. Keith Ablow, Doctor of Medicine with a degree from John Hopkins Medical School, a psychiatry residency at Tufts-New England Medical Center, Newsweek writer, and medical director of two mental health centers, insinuate that sex organs are sex organs.

Oh no!  Ms. Gottlieb corrected Ablow, immediately saying, “I’m going to have to respectfully disagree.”  Jessica Gottlieb (supposed left-coast registered Republican who voted for Obama) told Ablow, “I’m not sure that if you see a little girl as her breasts being sexual that that doesn’t reflect more on you than on what breasts are.”

Really?  Mommy Blogger Jessica pulled the usual liberal stunt of undermining the sane one with wild accusations.  Or is it that Jessica is so busy blogging that she isn’t aware that mammary glands are part of the female reproductive anatomy and Dr. Ablow was merely saying that little girls don’t need to be focusing on a process that starts with sex and ends with nursing?

Mommy Jess succeeded in putting Dr. Keith on the defensive by forcing him to explain that just because he doesn’t believe a breastfeeding doll is appropriate for children doesn’t mean he has a predisposition toward seeing kindergarteners as sex objects.

Nonetheless, if one listened closely, there was an even more disturbing comment made during the debate that needs to be prefaced with a little background having to do with a new trend whose goal is to foist gender confusion upon children at a time in their lives when tender psyches are developing.

Presently, in conjunction with redefining marriage, there is a movement picking up steam across liberal America where the goal is to blur the lines between the sexes and do away with evil gender stereotypes.  For some liberals, the new blue is now pink for boys and the consensus is that “gender cages,” where boys play with trucks and girls play with Barbie dolls, is a place where children who would otherwise be gender-neutral have been held captive too long.

Interestingly, the current gender discussion seems to be more focused on getting males to wear more feminine colors than on emphasizing that little Sally should emulate tomboy Shiloh Pitt, who Angelina Jolie insists dresses up “Montenegro style.”  Right now the goal isn’t convincing little girls to toss out the Little Mermaid costume and dress like Chaz Bono for Halloween, but rather to get little boys named Boo to don a red wig like Daphne from Scooby Doo.

One compliant gender-bender is a six-year-old from Missouri, pageant contestant Zander Miller, who was featured in TLC’s Toddlers in Tiaras and on Good Morning America.  Proud mom Tracy says little Zander loves to join the girls in applying mascara and hairspray, and does so with the same enthusiasm as tow-headed Beckett in the J. Crew ad, whose toes are adorned with fuchsia pink nail polish applied by fun-loving/open-minded Mom Jenna.

Yet, despite her gender-neutral attitude, Jenna doesn’t compare with Toronto trendsetters Kathy Witterick and husband David Stocker who raise their children Storm, Jazz, and Kio “genderless.”

Recently, it was learned both Jazz and Kio are male, a revelation having nothing to do with clothing choice.

Jazz wears pink dresses and has three braids; purplish-pink-loving Kio prefers his blond curls long enough for people to mistake him for a girl.  Dad says that “[i]f you really want to get to know someone, you don’t ask what’s between their legs.”  Unless, of course, you’re trying to find someone to copulate with in order to produce a gaggle of genderless children — then what’s hiding under the pink tutu becomes a major issue.

Then of course there is Dyson Kilodavis, more aptly known as “Princess Boy.”  Little Dyson loves to dress up in Disney princess clothes.  Cheryl, Dyson’s mom and author of My Princess Boy, realized that her discomfort with her son’s predilection for pretending to be Cinderella was her problem, not his.  Mrs. Kilodavis said that “[a]fter taking a second to do some self-searching” she realized she was a victim of “years of preconceived” spiritual and cultural “notions from [her] childhood.”  So, to deal with those predetermined ideas, Cheryl, who says Dyson has a “unique eye for all things beautiful,” bought her son all the frilly clothes he could stuff into his Disney Princess Dress-up Trunk.

Getting back to Dr. Keith Ablow telling Ms. Jessica “Mommy Blogger” Gottlieb that “I assure you I’m not a pedophile at all,” she replied with a statement that would do Princess Boy, pageant boy, and the Toronto parents of those asexual children proud.  In the midst of correcting a mental health expert, Gottleib expressed her own biased perspective that “[l]ittle girls and little boys watch their mothers feed babies and then they pretend to feed babies.”  Little boys want to pretend to breastfeed?

It sounds as if over at parenting expert Jessica’s Los Angeles house, in conjunction with fostering a genderless society where breasts are no longer sex organs, the Mommy Blogger would have no problem if nine-year-old son Alexander took a break from Yo Baby Kick Flipper and spent the afternoon nursing his very own edition of gluttonous little Bebé Gottlieb.

So there you have it: the gender reprogrammers have a new tool.  In the hands of a parent or parents more determined to abolish gender, a doll now becomes an implement in the war on sex roles.

Barack’s Bankruptcy/Birthday Bash

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

After struggling with noncompliant Republicans over the debt-ceiling debate, in what appears to be an effort to soothe his “agitated” self, President Obama has scheduled a high-priced 50th birthday bash in honor of the day he graced the planet with his greatness.  The news comes just days after Obama was lamenting the burden of having to keep “hundreds of thousands of [unnecessary] dollars in additional income.”  The President encouraged people to take the extra money that would otherwise provide stuffing for the worn-out mattresses Americans haven’t been able to replace in a recession and look for an opportunity to help a brother or sister in need.

Barack’s Birthday Bonanza has been scheduled for August 4th — the day after the United States of America is due to officially downshift from the black into the red. The festivities should be a pleasant albeit bizarre distraction from the weeping and gnashing of teeth taking place outside the walls of the concert hall, if the nation actually defaults.

Either way, the elaborate Chicago event will serve as an all-in-one Obama 2012 campaign fundraiser, concert, and birthday celebration.  The affair comes complete with celebrities, crooning, swooning, and singing praises to the man who just needs more time to usher in the Hope and Change he’s yet to deliver thanks to obstacles like former president G. W. Bush, the intractable Eric Cantor (R-VA), and the perpetually pesky Fox News.

Still, Obama exhorting self-sacrifice one day and then charging to attend a function in his honor the next is where this party thing gets a little dicey.

The entry fee to get into the Aragon Ballroom for Barry’s big day will cost well-heeled couples a large pile of the type of “additional income” Obama just the other day suggested they should give to the needy. Without having to win the “Dinner with Barack and Biden” raffle, donors willing to part with $35,800 get to enjoy a private dinner with the President and VIP seating at a birthday concert rumored to be featuring native Chicagoans.

Spending thousands of dollars worth of “additional income” to see Obama blow out 50 birthday candles isn’t exactly the type of altruistic endeavor the President promoted when he mentioned parents struggling to pay college tuition.  Nevertheless, at least the President is doing a good deed by helping ease the burden he suffers daily of having to keep “additional income” that could be put to better use.

Heaven knows most people can always manage with a little less, and even if they can’t, the President is convinced that most Americans, regardless of their situation, have more than they actually need. In fact, the real reason behind the President hosting a function where he’ll stuff disposable cash into his campaign coffers, contributed by anyone willing to cough it up, is to reaffirm his commitment to training the nation to make do with less.

President Obama is even making sure, regardless of economic strata, that “shared sacrifice” is truly shared.  At the birthday show, there’ll even be a limited-availability $50 “neediest among us” section for those who view the cost of admittance as an investment in an Obama second term, where he’ll have another chance to fulfill his promise to provide free gas and monthly mortgage payments to those still having trouble making ends meet.

General admission will be more costly for the wealthier devotee who would rather splurge on a $200 glimpse of Barack Obama across a crowded ballroom than contribute “additional income” to a family in need of groceries.  For those who don’t consider a party a real party without access to adult beverages, the evening will cost $1000 worth of “additional income” to clink glasses with likeminded people in between rounds of party games, which could include Pin the Tail on the Donkeycrat.

Finally, one semester’s worth of tuition monies that could assist a struggling family with college-age children will purchase birthday celebrants a photo with the guest of honor.  Funny, wasn’t it just yesterday that Obama hammered away at top earners and corporate jet owners who, ironically, are the only ones with the money to plunk down $10,000 for a $5.99 prom-photo-quality souvenir featuring a smiling President with pockets full of evil rich people’s “additional income?”

As Barack Obama tries to decide whether or not to have Jennifer Hudson sing what is fast becoming the perfect Obama Victory Fund 2012 theme song – “And I Am Telling You I’m Not Going,” the President’s insolvency/$35K per couple birthday party will provide the perfect milieu to juxtapose against the monetary mayhem wreaking havoc across the nation.

However, there remains one glaring contradiction surrounding the expensive social event, which is that the festivities are being financed with donations gathered from the very people Barack Obama has just criticized for hoarding the “additional income” they need to afford entry into a high-priced shindig like the one he decided to throw for himself.

In the end, the Barack Bankruptcy/Birthday Bash, which will likely feature a 10-tiered “Yes We Can” birthday cake, turns out to be another opportunity for the President to illustrate to the American public he’s dead serious about his refusal to bow to spending cuts, and he’s willing to pull out all the stops to prove it.  In addition, Barack can use the event to clarify his recent comments concerning Americans giving money they don’t need to the needy and explain that the only time charitable “shared sacrifice” gets a pass is if those with extra funds decide to shower those extras on him.

Pick-pocketing the Dead

In Tucson, Arizona, Democrat Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was gravely injured in a horrific shooting that seriously injured 12 and killed six, including a nine year-old child. “Shocked and saddened lawmakers” are now grappling with the idea that “new laws and regulations are needed to curb incendiary speech.”

Although despondent and disgusted over the bloodbath, Americans should not be fooled. Compassionate concern from the left has little to do with protection for politicians and everything to do with reining in freedom of speech.  If inflammatory words – not politics – were the real issue, “Allahu Akbar” would be relegated along with “targeted…crosshairs…kill the bill…the ‘N’ word and Hawaiian Punch” to the no-no column of the vocabulary list. The last time I checked, the terrorist battle cry “Allahu Akbar” was not on that list.

It’s safe to say that it’s not beneath liberal logic to tie together fire/arson/shouting/panic and Rush Limbaugh if the result accomplishes the curtailing of First Amendment rights. Democrats would love to apply to unrelated circumstances the 1919 US Supreme Court case of Schenck v. United States where Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Using legislative duct tape, the left can seal the mouths of anyone who disagrees with liberalism and promote it as prevention of political violence ignited by the use of combustible words.

In 2007, a tow truck driver was convicted of stealing from a victim “in a double-fatal car crash.”  As the crumpled casualties lay in the road, Ronald Forget of Pawtucket, Massachusetts “took the wallet of one of the victims and used credit cards from the wallet to pay his cell phone bill and to buy gasoline.”

The truck driver’s actions, cold as they seem, are eerily similar to the response of liberal politicians and left-wing media types to the carnage brought about by the psychotic madman in Tucson, Arizona.   The left smells blood from miles away and will pull up alongside any convenient casualty.  In this case, liberals all but politically picked the pockets of the deceased in hopes of furthering a freedom-stifling agenda.

Granted, caution should be used when accusing anyone of heartlessly exploiting tragedy.  However, following the horrendous shooting, and based on the left’s ghoulish behavior, the only conclusion that seems reasonable is that the crisis provided a prime opening for liberal government bureaucrats to look for another excuse to further restrict the Constitutional rights and freedoms of US citizens, and to do it on the backs of those who suffered and died.

Based on public disapproval of healthcare reform and reeling from stinging defeat, Democrats came across a pileup in Arizona that has provided a liberal Thought Police scenario with the potential to justify a “warning against a return to [what they call] the divisive rhetoric of last year’s healthcare debate.”

Misfortune provided post-election Democrats the perfect storm.  The situation culminated in an impeccably timed critical mass, where politics, guns, conservatism, the healthcare reform debate, and the Tea Party could be directly tied to a massacre.  Rather than focus on truth, the left chose to manipulate terror to quash telltale condemnation of an out-of-control left-wing ideologue President, an ousted Congress, and a Democrat-controlled Senate hell-bent on placing a yoke of socialism on the back of a resistant nation.

After the fact, in a pseudo-display of false solidarity, the shooting is now being described as a “rare moment of unity on Capitol Hill.”  That is pure political spin. What transpired was the Democrat ambuscade hit pay dirt.  The left patiently laid in wait for an excuse to blame unrelated violence on “inflammatory rhetoric,” Fox News, conservative talk radio, and popular politicians, and in the process are using a self-righteous demeanor to chide anyone who dares disparage liberal/Democrat policies or politicians.

Rhetoric-reaction to the shooting has been so bizarre that Maine Congresswoman Chellie Pingree proposed expunging the word “killing” from the name of the “Repeal the Job-Killing Healthcare Law Act.”

Phantom Democrats are parsing words and pointing fingers at the innocent, making ridiculous statements such as Pingree saying “I’m not suggesting that the name of that one piece of legislation somehow led to the horror of this weekend — but is it really necessary to put the word ‘killing’ in the title of a major piece of legislation?”

Hey Chellie, do we really need the word “punch” in punch line? How about bullet proof, gun shy, slaphappy, choke hold, and shoot off your mouth?  The words kilt and kiln sound too much like “kill,” which poses a potential problem in a heated political environment. How about cutting the rug, loaded for bear or pipe down?

So far, despite the highly charged atmosphere surrounding the shootings, the left has yet to acknowledge the multitudinous examples of provocative language used by Democrats. For example, for twenty years, Barack Obama was mentored by a racist, anti-Semite, anti-American deranged preacher whose revolting rhetoric far exceeded use of the word “target,” or the metaphoric placement of benign symbols on a map.

There is still not one scintilla of evidence that the Arizona shooter was motivated by political rhetoric.  Nevertheless, even before the police and ambulance arrive the left continues to cruise the Arizona crash site by censuring crosshairs, touting the merits of the Fairness Doctrine, and blaming Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle for influencing a person who was unbalanced long before either woman showed up on the national scene.

So as Gabrielle Giffords heals and six innocent murder victims, including nine year-old Christina-Taylor Green, are laid to rest, it appears the left will continue to pick-pocket the dead by taking advantage of heartbreak, feigning righteous indignation over nothing more than hyperbole, and looking for obscure excuses to muzzle political opposition in the name of moderating incendiary rhetoric.

Unfortunate Coincidence – American Thinker – April 12, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker

“I don’t think it was done intentionally. I excluded such a possibility, but it was an unfortunate coincidence, yes.” Those haunting words were spoken by “lifelong skeptic of Russia” Lech Kaczynski, the late president of Poland. Kaczynski discussed with Brett Baier of Fox News the unusual concurrence of President Obama reversing the Bush administration’s U.S. Patriot missile defense decision on the 70thanniversary of Russia invading Poland.

In 2008, the United States and Poland sealed a deal that in 2010, ten interceptor missiles would be deployed to a military base near the Baltic coast. The missiles were due to be situated in that location to “protect much of NATO against possible long-range attacks,” mostly from a volatile Middle East. According to then-U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the weaponry was “defensive and aimed at no-one” and merely a means to respond to “the threats of the 21st century.”

The agreement between the U.S. and Poland infuriated Russia. At the time, deputy chief of general staff General Anatoly Nogovitsyn said the plans for a missile base in Poland, “could not go unpunished.”

At the time, the Polish president expressed the logical view that because the shield was purely defensive and not a threat, “for that reason, no-one who had good intentions toward [Poland] and toward the Western world should be afraid of it.”

Recently, the anti-communist, conservative Polish President Lech Kaczynski and an entourage of dignitaries, including his wife Maria, were en route to Russia to pay homage to 22,000 Polish military and intellectual elite massacred in the Katyn Woods in 1940 by the Soviet Union. Eerily, Kaczynski’s plane, carrying 88 members of Poland’s political, military, church, and business leaders, went down in the same wooded area in the Smolensk region of western Russia, killing everyone on board.

President Kaczynski admitted, after suffering a scare on a Tupolev 154 Soviet-designed plane in 2008, “Any flight brings with it a certain risk, but a very serious risk attaches to the responsibilities of a president, because it is necessary to fly constantly.” And so, in December of 2009, Kaczynski had Russia’s Aviakor aviation maintenance company fully overhaul the plane, deeming the aircraft “airworthy.”

There is no denying that flying from Poland to Russia in a Russian-maintained airplane and then crashing into the woods where Soviet secret police murdered 22,000 Poles can be described only as an “unfortunate coincidence,” especially after being warned that something you did “could not go unpunished.”

This isn’t the first time Poles experienced such a shocking loss. Seventy years ago, after the Soviets denied involvement for the Katyn bloodbath and blamed the Nazis for the slaughter, then-Prime Minister Wladyslaw Sikorski “called for an independent investigation” into the massacre. Four months later, Sikorski and sixteen others suffered an untimely end, perishing in a plane crash in Gibraltar. Another unfortunate coincidence.

Last week in Prague, Barack Obama signed a nuclear disarmament treaty with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, and he probably believes that the decision transformed the world into a safer place, deeming extensive missile defense passé. Medvedev called the treaty “a truly historic event.”

The initial U-turn on the decision to place a missile defense system in Poland initiated cooperation between Medvedev and Obama, which was followed up with an agreement to cut strategic nuclear arsenals by 30 percent. As spurned Lech Kaczynski watched from afar, Medvedev expressed the belief that the treaty “opened a new page” in Russian-American relations.

Obama, having signed the treaty with Russia, accomplished what Brett Baier intimated to Kaczynski two years prior to be a foreign policy goal for the newly minted president.

During the 2008 interview, Baier told Kaczynski, “The Obama administration … wants to reset its relationship with Russia.” Pressing the Polish president, Brett asked, “Are you worried about this reset and how it will affect your country? Do you think Russia was emboldened by the [defense reversal] decision?”

Exquisitely aware of Poland’s long, dark history with Russia, Kaczynski did not hesitate to respond, “Russia is always bold, but if it’s encouraged, then it becomes even bolder.”

Lech Kaczynski lived just long enough to see America break faith with Poland and then sign a treaty with a nation that expressed hostility and aggression toward Poland — very possibly revitalizing an aggressive adversary.

The Polish president articulated in the 2008 Fox News interview the belief that “[t]he United States … [has] a right to conduct [their] own policy, and there is nothing I can say about this and cannot question it. But the United States, like any other country in the world, can be right or can be wrong.”

Baier retorted, “Is it wrong?” Kaczynski cautiously replied, “So far we don’t know it yet. Russia can play a big constructive role in the world because it is a big country. But, however, the development in Russia at the moment does not give any indication that this is how it will continue, that this will be so.”

In 2008, Kaczynski worked hard to sign an agreement with the United States for a missile defense system to be placed on Polish soil. The agreement was met with a warning from Russia that Poland would be disciplined. In 2009, President Obama reversed the Bush administration’s U.S. Patriot missile defense decision on the 70th anniversary of Russia invading Poland. In December of that same year, Lech’s Russian-made Tupolev 154 received an overhaul and thumbs-up Russian approval.

In 2010, President Obama signed a “historic” nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia. Less than three days later, in an effort to take a step toward improved relations with Russia, the Polish President died in a fiery crash in the Russian-maintained Tupolev 154 en route to a memorial commemorating the Soviet massacre of 22,000 Poles in the Katyn woods — one fortuitous incident after another.

Hearkening back to the words of deceased President Kaczynski, who said, “I don’t think it was done intentionally” — one can’t help but marvel at the observable facts surrounding Russia’s involvement in Poland’s history of “unfortunate coincidence[s],” yes?

First Amendment Fatwa

iran-protesters-415x349

Down through history the only obstacle to independence and liberty being exercised by free people are totalitarian leaders and governments that restrict what God has divinely bestowed on mankind — freedom. Recently, that quest for freedom has emerged in two diametrically opposed protests, one in the United States, and another, thousands of miles away, in Iran. Yet, as both exhibit the intrinsic cry of the human spirit to be free, American president, Barack Obama has essentially brushed aside the significance of both.

Obama’s failure to acknowledge one and denounce the other implies a latent disdain toward free speech and peaceful assembly.  On Tax Day, Obama disregarded free citizens exercising First Amendment rights to peaceful protest and recently, in like manner, failed to forcefully condemn aggression against the Iranian people demanding justice for what appears to be a dishonest election.

Former Supreme Court Justice, William Orville Douglas once said that, “The First Amendment takes confidence in the common sense of our people and in the maturity of their judgment the great postulate of our democracy.” Based on Obama’s blasé stance toward the first of our Constitutional rights, could it be that he doesn’t believe the public has common sense or maturity of judgment?  Does he think the American electorate should be prevented from speaking out in protest against government autocracy? One has to wonder whether the power of the people’s voices irritate Obama because the president seems to bristle at the sight of large numbers of people demanding to be heard.

In April over a half a million American citizens exercised their First Amendment rights at nation-wide tea parties.  Citizens gathered to voice discontent with taxation, government regulation, over-spending, bailouts, government control of production and the redistribution of wealth.  Yet, as five hundred thousand Americans peacefully protested, the White House reported that Obama was, “…unaware of the Tea Parties.” Obama, threatened by populist disapproval of his tax and spend agenda, chose to ignore and disregard the dissent of those he views as his detractors.

When the president did choose to address the demonstrations he did so in a derogatory style.  He coupled derision for the protesters with criticism of a major news organization, which he never fails to mention in a deprecating manner. The president interpreted the free exercise of First Amendment rights by thousands of Americans as “…folks waving tea bags around.” The leader of the free world’s smarmy description appeared to be an attempt to demean the power of the right to assemble in peaceful protest, an odd reaction from the one who swore to uphold the Constitution, which guarantees Americans those rights.

Obama is not secretive about his disdain for opposing viewpoints.  During the run-up to the election Obama was, “…convinced that if there were no Fox News, he might be two or three points higher in the polls.”  More recently he blamed Fox News exclusively for the growing opposition to his health care policy saying, “First of all, I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration.”  Does Obama consider his policy initiatives so crucial that he might justify potentially quelling open debate by news organizations viewed as adversarial to his agenda?

Obama’s comments and attitudes toward protests, contradictory news organizations and pundits sound frighteningly like what is being heard in Iran. In an attempt to silence all media and quash the election protests the Iranian Revolutionary Guard have taken action against what they refer to as “deviant news sites“.  Much like Obama, the present powers of Iran believe that open and free press curtails theocratic control, undermining the mullahs plan to remain in power.

Defeated Mir Hossein Mousavi called for the protest rallies in response to what he called a “shameful fraud” in the supposed landslide re-election Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Protesters responded by risking their lives to march in silent challenge to the authority of Iran’s despotic regime. Ordinary Iranian people hungry for freedom, demanding justice boldly flout both violence and intimidation in Tiananmen Square defiance.

The bravery of common Iranian citizens defying their government to peacefully assemble and publicly protest has been met with very little support from an American president who appears to brush aside the political courage of a new generation of Iranian freedom fighters. Iran’s youthful protesters are exercising what can only be described as a version of American First Amendment rights. Obama’s response begs the obvious question, does he view thousands of Iranian reformist candidate supporters, adorned in green and waving photos of defeated Mousavi, the same way as the folks he described on April 15th as “waving around tea bags?

Obama’s only response has been to prematurely announce Admadinejad’s victory followed up by expressing what he says is “deep concern” about the results.  Curiously, he then articulated that it is not, “…productive…to be seen as meddling…in Iranian elections.” Barack Obama declined the opportunity to voice support for democratic reform from repressive despots.  He morally equated condemning vicious governmental crackdown on peaceful protesters as interfering.   Obama enthusiastically meddles when wresting the means of production from the American private sector but when enslaved people fight for democratic ideals Obama avoids voicing his opinion for fear of being viewed as intrusive.

A disturbing trend is emerging. Obama trivializes abuses against citizens of oppressive regimes fighting for democratic rights and is attentive toward the rights of Black Panthers intimidating voters outside polls during an American election. It stands to reason that Obama, who may have benefited personally from electoral dishonesty and inconsistency, would find it hard to condemn Iranian elections where, “People feel humiliated because they came and voted in large numbers,” yet, their vote went unrecognized

As our nation watches the violence against peaceful protest and free press in an oppressive nation it would be wise to pay close attention to subtle nuances and similarities with our own president’s actions. Some leaders believe that their political agenda justifies the means of attaining power.  Obama seems to display an acute awareness that his condemnation of Iran’s power grab could threaten his own authority.  His lack of action and reaction illustrates an obvious disdain for the political nemesis of peaceful protest.

Our leader swore to uphold the Constitutional rights of every American and to insure the safety of our freedoms. Yet, Obama ignores peaceful protest by large portions of the American electorate, views free press as a menace, and seems to demand total compliance from citizens and media alike.  And, as the world waits, he chooses to remain silent as Iranian reformers are beaten and die on the streets of Tehran fighting for the rights he swore to champion.

The example of fearless Iranians, marching through the streets of Iran, behooves Americans to continue to worship, speak, write, petition and gather, notwithstanding the potential of future costs to our own well being.  Americans have been passed, from those who fought and died for freedom, the torch of truth, common sense and maturity. Despite our leaders, we are ultimately responsible for the great postulate of democracy remaining intact.  We remain the beacon to a world that cries out for God given rights to liberties, which presently are jeopardized in a great nation where once they were secure.

%d bloggers like this: