Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

HILLARY AND BERNIE: The King and Queen of the Illogical and the Irrational

Screen-Shot-2015-10-29-at-9.45.09-PM-300x180Originally posted at CLASH Daily

Liberalism – although widely accepted by the illogical among us – continues to confuse the reasoned and rational. On most issues, liberals promote contradictory polices that when viewed in a coherent context make no sense whatsoever.

Let’s take the two leading presidential hopefuls for the Democrat party: Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. What we already know is that Hillary stands up for non-traditional gay marriage while remaining for 40 years in a sham of a traditional marriage. And Bernie, while glorifying the middle class, really views everyday workers as a “mass of hot dazed humanity heading uptown for the 9-5… [sentenced to endless days of]… moron[ic] … monotonous work” just aching to be taxed.

In like manner, a schmear of egg salad Bernie and “Orange is the new black” pantsuit Hillary make zero sense when proposing policy.

Take for instance Bern-Hill’s passionate albeit contradictory commitment to funding both abortion AND paid family leave.

Political opponents can’t win for losing. Which is it? Are we paying women to kill the unborn during the first three months of gestation or are we paying them to stay home for three months after giving birth to the same baby the liberal left would have happily aborted six months earlier?

How about taxing the rich, an economic status Hillary epitomizes. Hillary doesn’t seem to mind that she and Bill swindled $101.5 million from the American people, nor does she have any shame when talking about women’s pay inequity despite her daughter Chelsea, who lives in a $10 million NYC apartment, having earned $600K per year for an entry-level position at NBC.

Hillary apparently thinks there is plenty more where that came from and views the American people as a source of limitless cash from whence she can gather what she wants unto herself by projecting a level of remorse onto those who are duped by theatrics.

Hillary, like Bernie, exempts herself from the demonization of the uber rich and joins the Brooklyn native in shilling for things like free college educations for all. To accomplish their socialist utopia the Bern-Hill duo plan to take outrageous measures.

Take Bernie for instance – this guy is unabashed when talking about taxing the upper 10% of wage earners 90% of their income. But taxing the rich is not enough, so Bernie the maternity leave maven has also said that every taxpayer, both rich and middle class, will help finance things like paying pro-choice women to give birth and stay home for three months.

In a perverted sort of way, liberals like Bernie and Hillary are economic geniuses, and to gain more followers maybe they should explain how in the long run aborting 4,000 babies a day saves on future paid family and medical leave and free college.

The notion behind the Bern-Hill free-college proposal is the lofty idea that even the least among us should have a chance to succeed. The problem is that the inspiration to do so is impeded by the knowledge that after going to college and becoming financially prosperous, pit bulls Bern-Hill will come after your earnings as punishment for what they helped you achieve.

Talk about a brilliant motivator for success!

Although the truth is that the rich pay the largest share of taxes, Bern-Hill plan to punish the affluent even more by taking a bigger portion of what they earn and using free college, which they maintain is a stepping stone to economic achievement, as justification to do so.

So in other words, in addition to cultivating Americans for future 90% taxation, liberal fairness consists of depriving the well-heeled of the opportunity to spend the money they earned any way they want and allowing liberal politicians like Bernie and Hillary to spend the dough they’ve extorted from the rich in any socially justifiable way they see fit.

And yet despite the US federal government being the biggest, most corrupt filthy-rich corporation on the face of the earth there are still anti-corporate socialists who agree it’s a brilliant idea to enrich Corporate Entitlement Officiator Bernie Sanders’s business plan.

Here’s an idea: sort of like a long term investment, maybe Bernie Sanders supporters could lead the way to fairness and set a pre-election example by living off just 10% of their income and sending the other 90% to the Sanders campaign. That way, if Brooklyn Bernie is elected, the example of sustaining oneself on the barest minimum can be set forth as a laudable goal even Mrs. Marc Mezvinsky would want to achieve.

Then again, Bernie and Hillary followers are more about punishment than personal sacrifice!

Nonetheless, leaving aside climate change, illegal immigration, gun control and healthcare, a few obvious questions remain: Are Americans being asked to fund both abortion and postpartum vacations? Are the rich being asked to finance free college so that college grads can become rich and then be bilked for someone else’s free education? But most importantly, are all wealthy people intrinsically evil or only the well-off types who chose not to enrich themselves on the backs of American taxpayers?

America will have to wait for those answers. In the meantime, the scariest part of Bernie and Hillary’s popularity is that the contradictory messages these two send actually make perfect sense to a high percentage of the voting public.

Hillary Says! ‘We are all immigrants!’

Originally posted at American Thinkerindex

Voilà!  In addition to handling a private/official email problem, flying coach, and carrying her own luggage, Hillary Clinton may now be able to add to her list of outstanding accomplishments singlehandedly resolving the contention surrounding immigration reform.

Recently, on a tightly stage-managed listening tour Hillary, granddaughter of alleged immigrants, revealed her acute sensitivity for the plight of – you guessed it – immigrants.

An empathetic Hillary had this to say about how illegal immigrants are being treated in America:

We are turning down people who really want to work. I mean they are here to work and a lot of them now have children who are American citizens, and they are doing the best they can to try to make a good life for themselves and their families.

Pontificating further, she said:

And you know, I think if we were to just go around this room, there are a lot of immigrant stories. All my grandparents, you know, came over here and you know my grandfather went to work in [a] lace mill in Scranton, Pennsylvania and worked there until he retired at 65.

Ratcheting up the relatability factor to new heights, the presidential hopeful finished her immigration tale saying:

So I sit here and I think well you’re talking about the second, third generation. That’s me, that’s you. And we are saying to all these other people who want the same dreams and the same aspirations and the willingness to work hard just like our families did that no, we’re not going to make it easy for you, we’re not going to make it legal for you. And I just think that’s such a short term, unfortunate outcome for us [as] well as for them.

Besides the total staging of a fake impromptu gathering, there are a lot of things wrong with what Hillary had to say, the most glaring of which is her exaltation of lawbreakers.

But then again, as we’ve already witnessed, the most famous woman in a pantsuit will say and do just about anything to get elected. In Hillary’s world the ends always justify whatever sordid means are necessary to accomplish her goal to finally seize and maintain power.

In this case, besides encouraging criminal behavior Hillary prevaricated about “All [her] grandparents, you know, [coming] over here.” Unfortunately, based on easily-accessible public census records, as it turns out Sir Edmund Hillary’s pseudo-namesake’s soaring tale of settlers’ struggle and courage is yet another in a long list of self-serving lies.

It’s either that, or Clinton can’t keep track of her emails or remember where her maternal and paternal grandparents were born, in which case, for the sake of the country she seeks to lead, maybe she should reconsider trying to gain control of the nuclear launch codes.

That’s not likely to happen, so instead, added to a roster that already includes a fake marriage, a fake laugh, a fake love for “everyday people,” a fake listening tour, and fake stories about Bosnia, Benghazi, Bill and all manner of other baloney, Hillary must have felt it was as good a time as any to add fake immigrant grandparents.

For those of us who prefer the truth, Hillary Clinton’s ongoing lies are infuriating, and her attempt to dumb-down legal immigration is downright offensive. The truth is that Clinton’s sole foreign-born grandparent, Hugh Rodham Sr., migrated to Pennsylvania from Northumberland, England in the late 1800s.

From the perspective of being the grandchild of genuine immigrants, three of whom emigrated legally from Italy in the early 1900s, Hillary, who diminishes everything from the sanctity of life to the murder of four Americans in Libya, denigrates lawful entry into the U.S. as well as the hard work and character that most legal immigrants are known for.

Nonetheless, after the truth about Mrs. Clinton’s ancestral heritage was revealed, one of her lapdogs explained her brazen lie like this: “[Hillary’s] grandparents always spoke about the immigrant experience and, as a result she has always thought of them as immigrants.”

And my grandparents always spoke about music, and as a result I’ve always thought of them as musicians.  Even though none of them ever picked up a musical instrument and couldn’t play a note if their life depended on it.

And as if the Clinton representative’s absurd justification wasn’t insulting enough, Hillary’s spokes-liar clarified further:

“As has been correctly pointed out, while her grandfather was an immigrant, it appears that Hillary’s grandmother was born shortly after her parents and siblings arrived in the U.S. in the early 1880s.”

If that explanation sets the new standard, then being born in the U.S. now defines an immigrant, especially if the birth takes place shortly after one’s parents arrive here – which, ironically, totally disqualifies every anchor baby from claiming U.S. citizenship.

Furthermore, besides her foreign-born grandfather and the grandmother who was born soon after her parents came to America, Hillary has two other U.S.-born grandparents whom she also identified as immigrants. That means that in her own uniquely mendacious way, Hillary Clinton may have settled the whole controversy surrounding immigration by classifying everyone, whether foreign- or American-born, as immigrants.

In fact, Hillary’s definition is rife with possibility because it does away with the legal/illegal distinction and “levels the playing field” for anyone living in America.

In other words, in Hillary’s mind, if you’re born in or out of the U.S., you, like her three American-born grandparents, are now considered an immigrant, which means that thanks to the genius logic of the smartest woman in the world, all are immigrants!

That is unless, despite what the census data and other records say, like Barack Obama’s dubious beginnings, Hillary’s maternal and paternal grandparents were really all foreign-born. If so, America might as well just believe Hillary citing her foreign family’s origins, because like everything else, the definitive evidence is probably forever hidden away on her private email server.

The Delicious Irony of Hillary’s Potential Political Demise

Hillary-ClintonOriginally posted at American Thinker

In what may turn out to be the most delicious irony in the history of politics, an archived tape recently resurfaced featuring Hillary Clinton chuckling about defending a lowlife rapist named Thomas Alfred Taylor. That dusty old tape may be what finally halts Hillary Clinton’s decades-long climb to what she had hoped would be the top of the political power heap.

Back in 1975, Thomas Alfred Taylor lured a 12-year-old girl into his car and raped her. At the time, Yale Law School graduate Hillary Rodham knew Taylor was guilty, but as a favor to a prosecutor friend she provided the rapist a legal defense, pleaded him down, and years later was taped laughingly recalling her clever courtroom strategy. 

In pursuit of her long-term goal to become the first female president of the United States, besides carpet-bagging and pretending to be the better half of a sham marriage, forbearing Hillary Clinton has spent most of her married life regularly defending her cigar-smoking husband’s sexual improprieties.

Mr. Clinton’s extracurricular activities have included groping married women in the Oval Office, introducing Little Willy to frightened registration clerks at governors’ conventions, and messing up blue Gap dresses. 

It’s also common knowledge that notorious Lothario Bill Clinton once had an ongoing affair with a cabaret singer, not to mention one-night stands with various actresses, politicians, and ex-beauty pageant winners. Besides Monica there were names like Markie Post, Sally Perdue, Elizabeth Gracen, Dolly Kyle Browning, and last but certainly not the last, Clinton campaign volunteer Juanita Broaddrick. 

Sometime in 1978, just three years after Hillary got Thomas off the hook, Ms. Broaddrick alleged that then- Arkansas attorney general Bill Clinton raped her in a Little Rock hotel room. Bloodied, stunned and violated, Broaddrick said, “I tried to get away from him. I told him ‘no’… He wouldn’t listen to me.”

By the time the Broaddrick accusation surfaced, Hillary had already successfully defended Thomas Alfred Taylor. That’s why Mrs. Clinton certainly wasn’t going to let a lowly nursing home administrator from Arkansas get in the way of her political ambitions.

Two weeks after the alleged crime, during which Broaddrick claimed Bill Clinton assured her that she needn’t worry about pregnancy because he was rendered sterile from the mumps, women’s advocate Hillary thanked her for ‘all she’s done for Bill,’ which Juanita understood to be a veiled threat.

In an accurate assessment of Hillary’s ongoing defense of the indefensible, years later Broaddrick accused the inventor of the “vast right wing conspiracy” of spending her entire life ‘covering up’ Slick Willy’s actions for “power and money.”

Fast-forward to the Washington Free Beacon recently gaining access to a recorded interview that was archived at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, now dubbed the Hillary Tapes. 

On those tapes, the woman in pursuit of the ultimate power can be heard giggling about how she singlehandedly managed to get the rapist of a 12-year-old child a lesser charge of unlawful fondling of a minor under the age of 14. Self-professed women’s advocate Hillary Clinton’s defense effectively lowered a five-year prison sentence to four years of probation with one year in county jail, which was then reduced to 10 months for time already served.

During the trial,a little girl was put through what she now, at age 52, describes as “hell” by none other than Hillary Clinton, whose defense strategy was to “impugn the credibility of the victim,” a skill Mrs. Clinton has continued to honeover the years.  Case in point: Hillary calling Monica Lewinsky “a narcissistic loony toon.”

Hillary had zero compunction about exploiting the tried-and-true “putting the victim on trial” technique on a young girl. After accusing the 12-year-old rape victim of seeking out older men, Hillary, who Bill once called “smartest woman in the world,” deceitfully used that allegation to request that the injured child undergo a psychiatric evaluation.

That despicable strategy leaves rape victims, even as adults, still feeling they need to defend themselves, which is what Taylor’s victim recently did when she said, “I never sought out older men. I was raped.”  Having been traumatized by both Taylor and Clinton, after hearing the tape the victim courageously challenged Mrs. Clinton’s feminist credentials, asking, “You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? [sic]”

Hillary, who more recently lied that a judge appointed her to defend the rapist – thus implying that she had no choice but to take the case – is neither for women, children, nor men being sodomized and murdered in Benghazi, for that matter. As Juanita Broaddrick correctly discerned, Hillary Clinton has proven that the only woman she is for is herself.

On the tapes, Hillary can be overheard confessing, “I had [Taylor] take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.” That admission, in effect, confirmed that Hillary revictimized the child, knowing full well the attacker was guilty.

Mrs. Clinton was also overheard laughing when discussing the crime lab’s unintentional destruction of DNA evidence tying the rapist to the crime.The ability to discredit the DNA evidence during the rape trial was what, in her 2003 autobiography Living History, Hillary claimed inspired her to set up Arkansas’ first rape hotline, which must have come in handy for at least some of Bill’s alleged victims.

Judging from her track record of defending a sexual predator to benefit personal political aspirations, from what can be overheard on the tape apparently Hillary was rather amused that she managed to elevate her own status by putting a child rapist back on the street.

That’s why, after spending decades protecting her professional aspirations at the expense of women victimized by her philandering husband, it would be deliciously ironic for Hillary to be publicly disgraced for having defended a fiend who had raped a 12-year-old child while knowing full well he was guilty.

Moreover, after subjecting America to the ongoing Clinton charade and now being caught snickering about a child rape case, it’s time Bill’s victims finally get to see Hillary ‘What Difference Does it Make’ Clinton exposed for the deceitful, ruthless opportunist she really is.

Michelle Obama a Senator from Illinois?

Michelle-Obama-Dance-Lets-MoveOriginally posted at American Thinker blog

After Michelle and Barry leave the White House – if they leave the White House, which is certainly up in the air – there are rumors afoot that they may emulate Bill and Hillary and take up residence as far away from each other as humanly possible.  To add intrigue to connubial conjecture, it is also alleged that Michelle may do a Hillary Clinton and run for a Senate seat in Illinois.

Speculation abounds that when she’s not “playing politics with our kid’s health,” doing the Dougie on late-night talk shows, vacationing with mom and the girls, scolding schools begging to opt out of her vegetarian stuffed cabbage lunch, or giving hubby the ole stink eye, Shelley has her other eye on a seat in the Illinois senate.

It is already firmly established that Michelle Obama relishes the trappings of power, frittering away tax dollars, and bossing large numbers of people around.  Moreover, if she makes her mind up about something, she absolutely refuses to take “no” for an answer, so it makes sense she’d want to embark on a political career of her own.

To date, just like Hillary Clinton has not officially expressed interest in parking her pantsuit in the Oval Office, the FLOTUS has not officially expressed interest in running for the Senate.

However, her recent foray into politics has Washington, D.C. tongues wagging.  After all, Michelle has taken a diplomatic trip to China and debated (more like berated) Republicans critical of her overbearing, bad-tasting, calorie-deficient school lunch program.  Michelle has raised beaucoup bucks for Democrats and sent personal #hashtag messages to Boko Haram. 

All in all, with those kinds of credentials the FLOTUS has much more experience than her husband had in 2008 when he decided to run for president and “fundamentally transform” the United States of America.

If Michelle were to decide to dip her size 11.5 feet into the political waters in 2016 and attempt to unseat Republican Mark Kirk, according to a Public Polling Policy survey she’s got a good shot.  The survey says Mrs. Obama would pick up 51 percent of the vote, Kirk 40 percent.

As an added bonus, if senatorial hopeful LaVaughn-Robinson-Obama does decide to run, Illinois resident Oprah Winfrey will have her back, and, unlike Hillary, the South Side, Chicago native won’t have to resort to wasting time and possibly a full-term carpet-bagging in a blue state.

Regardless of whether she runs and decides to dedicate herself full-time to fostering racial animosity and furthering the socialist agenda, what’s unique about the idea is that Michelle could surpass both Hillary and Barack in the first politically correct president realm. 

In 2016, Grandma Hillary Clinton is planning on smashing through the “highest hardest glass ceiling” and replacing our first biracial president to become America’s first baby-boomer former first lady to be elected president for two – count ’em, two – long, grueling terms.  

Then, in 2024, with the help of illegal aliens, ex-ACORN community organizers, and the New Black Panthers, Michelle, who will be 60 years old by then and probably a grandmother herself, could become our very first former best-dressed first lady/African-American female president.

So America has 16 years of exciting political possibilities ahead.  After Barack Obama leaves town – if he leaves town – President Clinton and her dashing First Gentleman (ahem) Bill hope to grace 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue again with their glorious selves for another fabulous eight years.  If America survives those two terms, Hillary could very well be followed by Illinois senator/prospective presidential hopeful Michelle, who, if she runs and wins, would move back into the White House with Mr. “Fundamental Transformation” himself, Barack – and really finish us off.

The ‘sum’ of God’s word is truth, not ‘some’ of God’s word

bible-3

Originally posted at Live Action News

In the longest chapter in the Bible, Psalm 119, in the 160th verse it is believed it was the psalmist David who wrote: “The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.”

If those who profess Christianity understood that the “sum” of God’s Word is truth, they might be more careful to make sure that the verses from the Scripture they quote are not cherry-picked and that uncomfortable, inconvenient sayings are not ignored.

There are certain well-known political superstars that habitually inject pseudo-religiosity into pet policy initiatives and emphasize caring for the poor and feeding the hungry while misapplying Scriptures such as “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Meanwhile, the Scriptures having to do with the sanctity of God-ordained life are consistently ignored.

Jesus commanded His followers to care for the poor and feed the hungry. Yet there are many influential politicians who don’t understand the contradiction posed when they emphasize feeding and caring for the poor in His name, but simultaneously sanction exterminating the unborn despite His disapproval.

If, as Scripture says, our existence is predestined by God, and He “chose us in Him before the creation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4), then killing in utero what He fashioned for life, for any reason whatsoever, is understandably not on the Biblical list of approved rights.

When Jesus said, “truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to … even the least of them, you did it to Me” – surely the helpless unborn would be much better described as “the least” than the poor and hungry who, although underprivileged, made it out of the womb alive.

But then again, to some policymakers it’s political expediency that matters, not godly approval.

Take for instance the likely Democrat nominee for president in 2016, Hillary Clinton. In an effort to sculpt her image into a presidential one, the former Secretary of State is pulling out all the stops. She touted her foreign policy experience at the University of Connecticut and is promoting her upcoming book, “Hard Choices” – a story whose title sounds more like something her philandering husband would choose for his own tome about his adulterous antics in the White House.

Adding a much-needed folksy vibe to Hillary’s pre-2016 image, next year Grandma Clinton will conveniently be burping a new grandbaby on the campaign trail.

Kicking it up a notch, Ms. Rodham Clinton decided it might be a good idea to bring out her Methodist upbringing in front of 7,000 members of the United Methodist Church in Louisville, Kentucky.

Recently in Louisville, Clinton talked about her personal faith to the United Methodist Women, the denomination’s 800,000-member female mission group that focuses on women, children and youth. The theme of the gathering was “Make it Happen.” Its emphasis: Jesus feeding 5,000 people with just loaves of bread and two fish. Prior to her appearance, Selby Ewing, communications director for the women attending the conference, said “[Hillary’s] appearance here transcends politics.” Ewing pointed out that “Our tagline is putting faith, hope and love into action.”

The problem is that Hillary is also an avid supporter of abortion, which every day affects 3,000 women and children.

Besides, if the sum of God’s Word is truth as the Bible says it is, regardless of Hillary’s rationale for supporting worldwide feticide, slaughtering 60 million pre-ordained human beings in America alone isn’t something the Jesus Christ Mrs. Clinton claims to walk with would view as an acceptable position.

The United Methodist Church, whose subsidiaries have been known to donate large sums of money to Planned Parenthood, in their Book of Discipline, without coming right out and saying it, subtly grants leeway for members searching for reasons to justify abortion:

Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy.

In response to those who prefer a liberal interpretation, 17th Century English Presbyterian minister and Biblical commentator Matthew Henry wrote something Hillary Clinton and the abortion supporting segment of the Methodist sisterhood should take time to ponder: “Those whose hearts stand in awe of God’s word, will rather endure the wrath of man, than break the law of God.”

Nonetheless, Methodist founders George Whitefield and John and Charles Wesley would be appalled at the modern Methodist church’s lack of outright condemnation for abortion, which explains why the women at the conference were thrilled to hear from a political proponent of Molech, the Old Testament Semitic idol to whom the book of Leviticus forbade the Israelites to sacrifice their children.

In 1667, English poet John Milton wrote of Molech in Paradise Lost and described the calf-like bronze god as a “frightening and terrible demon covered with mothers’ tears and children’s blood.” Four centuries later, the abortion that Hillary Clinton endorses is an act that is also “covered with mothers’ tears and children’s blood.”

In his letter to Timothy, Paul the Apostle warned that “God’s spirit specifically tells us that in later days there will be men who abandon the true faith and allow themselves to be spiritually seduced by teachings of demons, teachings given by men who are lying hypocrites, whose consciences are as dead as seared flesh” (1 Tim 4:1-2).

Considering that her core beliefs fail to respect the sanctity of human life, Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to embrace her faith while rejecting the Bible’s bold proclamation of “loving the least.”

Bible Thumper? Hillary Says, ‘It Takes a Village to Feed a Crowd’

loaves fishOriginally posted at The Clash Daily

Hillary Clinton, the oxymoronic, pro-choice Methodist and overall disingenuous fraud put on her 18th century powdered Wesley/Whitefield wig and took to the pulpit for some Methodist preaching.

Remember when Hillary carpet-bagged her way into a senate seat in the blue state of New York? Gravely mistaken though she is, Mrs. Clinton apparently thinks she can carpet-bag her way into God’s good graces in spite of perverting Scripture for political expediency.

Earth to Hillary: With God, your ability to manipulate people’s minds holds no power.

As Abraham Lincoln reportedly once said, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time,” especially if you’re a liberal playacting like a Christian.

Pretending to be a Christian is exactly what Hillary Rodham Clinton did this past weekend at a United Methodist women’s conference, where she preached about Jesus performing the miracle of the loaves and the fishes.

Explaining her desire for balance in all things, sorta like the balance she has in her sham of a marriage to Bill, Hillary shared with a rapt audience of nominal Christian women that in her youth she was acutely aware of the tension between her father Hugh Ellsworth’s insistence on self-reliance and her mother Dorothy Emma’s emphasis on compassion.

Dorothy’s compassionate influence must be what helped form little Hillary’s “compassionate” stance on destroying the unborn.

Bible literalist that she is, Hillary claimed that over the years she reconciled compassion and self-reliance by way of the story in the Gospels where Jesus instructed his disciples to feed 5,000 people with five loaves of bread and two fishes. What’s amazing is how Hillary is unable to make the connection of “Thou shalt not kill” with slaughtering the unborn, but feeding 5,000 and government socialism resolves just fine.

Nonetheless, Hillary told the Methodist ladies, “The disciples come to Jesus and suggest they send away the people to find food to fend for themselves.” Funny, why didn’t Jesus just say “What difference, at this point, does it make?” Instead, Hillary told the ladies, “Jesus said ‘No. You feed them.’”

Über-responsible Clinton, who knows a thing or two about duty, pointed out to the Methodist women that “He was teaching a lesson about the responsibility we all share.”

Translation: The disciples come to Jesus and suggest they send away the people to find food to fend for themselves,’ and in Hillary-speak what Jesus really told them was, “it takes a village to feed a crowd.”

Speaking of responsibility, what about the responsibility Hillary shared on 9/11/2012 to protect those begging, not for loaves and fishes, but for someone, anyone, to save their lives? Again, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Eschewing the subject of a 2016 run for the White House, the very thing non-political Hillary desires so much that the drool running down her hyper-ambitious chin gives her away, Benghazi and other pertinent topics were supposedly not brought up.

Yet, much like Barack Obama, the man who also misapplies the Scripture to imply Jesus was a socialist and who recently managed to inject U.S. immigration reform into a visit to the National Korean War Memorial in Seoul, South Korea, Methodist moral arbiter Hillary made the case for increasing the minimum wage and equalizing pay for men and women, something Barack ‘”income inequality” Obama has failed to do for the women who work in his own White House.

Hillary completely missed the aspect of faith, obedience, and trust in God’s power in the loaves and fishes story, and as for Barry, he quoted the words of Cain after murdering his brother Abel as a basis to justify government enforcement of socialism.

In other words, liberals should just stick to what they know, like abortion on demand; raising taxes; negotiating with madmen; being overall hypocrites; and justifying blatant insanity. For the love of God, liberals, just avoid quoting Scripture!

In both Barack’s and Hillary’s cases, how cynical can these two human beings get, cherry-picking Scriptures out of context and using them as a vehicle for self-promotion?

Obama is bad enough, but what is especially infuriating is when the so-called “smartest woman in the world” thinks the rest of America is too stupid to recognize how transparent and deceitful her promotion of herself is as a Christ-like teacher of morality and compassion, when she lacks both ethics and empathy.

Hillary can feed as many people as she likes in the name of government munificence. Regrettably for Mrs. Clinton, the effort is unimpressive because she ignores Biblical commands about what Jesus considers “the more important matters,” such as truth, humility, marital fidelity, respect for God-ordained marriage between one man and one woman, and most notably, the sanctity of life.

Methodist or not, if Jesus got a chance to speak with Mrs. Clinton she would likely be astounded to find out that feeding 5,000 people with a few loaves and fishes while simultaneously approving of slaughtering 3,000 babies a day is not exactly what the God of the Bible considers kindness

Liberals Love to Get Liquored Up

Liberals

Originally posted at The Blacksphere

Rumor has it that Liberal First Lady Michelle Obama loves “top shelf” vodka.

As for hubby, who comes from a long line of Uncle Omar-style alcoholics, well, he’s has been known to pound down…I mean sip… a martini or two with friends, raise a glass of champagne now and then, and chug-a-lug a frosty cold one.

Then there’s ultra-liberal Hillary Clinton.  Mrs. Clinton likes to tear up the dance floor with a nice Columbian-brewed Aguila in hand. Napa Valley vineyard owner Nancy Pelosi enjoys in-flight liquor (which may explain the slurred speech).

Even Max Baucus, the democrat senator from Montana, allegedly does not let inebriation prevent him from sharing deep thoughts on the House floor.

On the Republican side, John Boehner had almost succeeded in convincing America that drinking wine while mowing the lawn was a bipartisin pastime. But a new study, published by the Journal of Wine Economics, reveals that “alcohol consumption in American states rises as the population’s politics becomes more liberal.”

Pavel Yakovlev and Walter P. Guessford, of Duquesne University in Pennsylvania, ran a study whose findings show a direct correlation between liberal beliefs and alcohol use. The data show that people in states with liberal representatives tend to consume up to three times more alcohol per person than politically conservative states.

In other words, by getting all liquored up, lefties evade the sorrows they create.

The study concluded that “[e]ven after controlling for economic, demographic, and geographic differences across states…liberal ideology has a statistically significant positive association with the consumption of alcohol in the United States.” Yakovlev and Guessford offer two possible theories to explain why there’s such variance in liberal and conservative alcohol consumption.

As verified by Choom gang member/cocaine user Barry Soetoro, who, unlike white powder-nosed, cigar-smoking Bill Clinton, actually did admit to inhaling, one theory is that liberals tend to be more “open to new experiences, such as the consumption of alcohol or drugs.”

The other theory Yakovlev and Guessford put forth to explain liberals’ liberal libation habits is their reliance on government health care and social welfare to come to the rescue.

And while all those notions are plausible, if I may be so bold, there are a few additional theories the authors of the survey failed to include.

Is it possible that alcohol consumption and debauchery rise in relation to godlessness and lack of patriotism. Remember, there is a marked increase in alcohol abuse in communist or statist regimes, which are notorious for heavy drinking.

Liberals support socialism. Then, as freedom wanes, they manufacture artificial freedom by living in an intoxicated state.

Here in America alcoholism is a problem in neighborhoods where liberal policies cultivate despair. Folks stuck in the urban ghettos would rather drink Thunderbird concealed in a brown paper bag than face the harsh reality resulting from policies they voted for.

How about those ‘drunk with power’ like the Obamas, the Clintons, the late Ted Kennedy, and whoever else is running up liquor bills for taxpayers to cover?

For those Lefties (aka Socialists) cocktail parties come in handy to drown the guilt over things like late term abortion, lying incessantly to the American people, and systematically dismantling the Constitution.

Makes perfect sense: rather than face the dreadful consequences of their failed policies, Liberals prefer to “become comfortably numb.”

Not Joking: Hillary ‘Benghazi’ Clinton Accepts the Liberty Medal

medalOriginally posted at CLASH DAILY

For the last 20-plus years, Hillary Clinton has been champing at the bit to assume the position of first female president of the most powerful nation in the history of the world. Let’s face it – Ms. Rodham has more than proven that she thinks very highly of herself and is of the opinion that she’s smarter and more qualified than any man, including her philandering husband, to run the United States of America.

Every breath she’s taken and every move she’s made has been with her eye on the prize. It’s likely that: while other women dream of commonplace things, Hillary fantasizes about putting her hand on the Bible on a cold windy day in January 2017 and swearing to uphold the Constitution, knowing that she won’t.

As she inches closer and closer to her lifelong dream, Mrs. Clinton probably thinks that having her as president is so appealing to most people that any mistakes she’s made, from the decades-old Whitewater scandal to her culpability in the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, are mere incidentals when compared to the prospect of having her in charge.

In Hillary’s mind, her pluses far outweigh the ‘What difference does it make’ controversies that have her guilty ‘Madame Secretary’ fingerprints all over them.

It is precisely that attitude that endows Hillary Clinton with the brazen effrontery, on the anniversary of 9/11 and the sodomizing and murder of an American ambassador in Libya, to accept the 2013 Liberty Medal.

Before handing out awards to a woman who promised to investigate and then bring to justice the parties responsible for what happened in Benghazi, shouldn’t someone broach the subject of why the investigation into the death of four Americans seems to have been kicked to the curb?

The reason is that Hillary’s got more important things on her mind. She’s got big, highfalutin things to do and places to go. That’s why the late Christopher Stevens and the other three Americans who died that tragic night, Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and diplomat Sean Smith, are just bumps on the road to the presidency.

That’s also how, in Philadelphia at the National Constitution Center, Mrs. Clinton could shamelessly accept an award as hundreds of trained seals applauded her greatness. Clinton, an ambitious, self-promoting manipulator and prevaricator, was honored and recognized for her sterling career in public service, as well as her advocacy for women’s rights. The problem is that Hillary’s impressive contributions are more about a self-serving agenda than self-sacrificial service.

Up at the podium, never once mentioning Benghazi, “overwhelmed by the tribute,” and speaking like the great sage of wisdom and experience she perceives herself to be, Hillary reminded the acolytes that she knows better than anyone that the U.S. needs to work toward balancing national security with human rights issues in Syria.

Then the partisan Piranha called for bipartisan unity in Washington DC, something she’s never contributed to and likely has no plans to do so in the future.

Said Hillary, “When we fail to make progress on the challenges facing our people at home, our standing in the world suffers.” America is now getting improving-our-world-standing advice from a woman whose husband, when he was president, was canoodling in the Oval Office with a Cuban cigar and a chunky intern.

Moreover, someone should ask Hillary: What happens to our standing in the world when four Americans are killed in a terrorist attack and the Obama administration falsely blames an absurd, anti-Muslim film, gets found out, and goes on to silence witnesses and act as if nothing happened?

But all is not lost! Speaking out from the midst of the crowd came a sole voice, crying out in the wilderness, demanding answers from a Liberty Medal winner trying desperately to forget, screaming: “Benghazi!

Benghazi! Benghazi!” And so, as she goes flailing about trying to remediate her sullied reputation in time for 2016, it should be our patriotic duty to make sure that every time the self-aggrandizing Hillary shows her guilty face, she’s reminded of her betrayal of those four Americans in Benghazi.

Weiner’s Got Hillary’s Pantsuit in a Bunch

hillaryfeet2Originally posted at American Thinker blog

It’s taken Hillary Clinton decades to politically circumvent Bill’s sexual peccadilloes and put enough distance between his bad behavior and her fantastical self-image of a strong, capable leader.

In her unending quest to occupy the Oval Office, Mrs. Clinton lives her pantsuit-centered life in one locale while wandering Bill lives his pantsless life in another, and with God’s grace the twain meet as infrequently as possible.

Now, as Hillary sets her sights on the White House for yet a second time, out of the shadows comes another XY chromosome character with a zipper that seems to be stuck in the down position.

Complicating matters is his patient wife, who just so happens to be Hillary’s right-hand woman and who has fashioned her response to her husband’s repeated transgressions after the ever-stoic faithful spouse Hillary.

That scenario is precisely why Ms. Rodham-Clinton’s pantsuit is in a bunch. Seems mayoral hopeful Tiny… oops, I mean Tony Weiner and wife Huma Abedin are comparing Weinergate I and II to the cock-up that well-known cigar aficionado Bill Clinton perpetrated on America during his eight-year stint.

For most people, emulation would be a compliment, but not for Mrs. Clinton. The problem is that after almost 25 years of carving a place for herself that protects her from her husband’s notorious inability to control his wandering libido, the last thing Hillary needs right now is to have Weiner’s image associated with Slick Willy’s and a rejected but forbearing Huma linked to her own.

In classic Clinton style, Weiner is desperately trying to deflect attention away from the iPhone pictures of his penis and proclaim his concern for the middle class. Meanwhile, Democrats are saying that “The Clintons are upset with the comparisons that the Weiners seem to be encouraging — that Huma is ‘standing by her man’ the way Hillary did with Bill, which is not what she in fact did.”

Hillary didn’t ‘stand by her man?’ Oh, that’s right, what Hillary did had nothing to do with ‘standing.’ Instead, Hillary vanished into the nether regions of solitude, sat right down, and crafted a new plan of action. Then, when the time was right, Hillary emerged stronger, more enduring, and more determined to move forward with her systematic plan to realize her dream of presidential omnipotence.

As for Bill, his being upset is understandable. After all, let’s give credit where credit is due. Weiner’s ‘vast iPhone conspiracy’ is small potatoes in comparison to the escapades of an unmatched swordsman like Bill Clinton. Not only that, but Bill doesn’t want a weenie like Weiner to ruin his chances of parking his humidor on a shelf in the Oval Office for old time’s sake.

That’s supposedly why the Clintons are angry. It’s alleged that Hill and Bill believe that Weiner and his campaign aides are pointing to their experiences in desperation, to convince those who want Weiner to throw in the towel, so to speak, that marital infidelity is a private matter. After all, Bill Clinton did prove that refusing to let go of the (ahem) presidency together with a supportive wife was key to his being undeterred by minor details like a blue Gap dress, perjury, and impeachment.

According to one Clinton source, “The Clintons are pissed off that Weiner’s campaign is saying that Huma is just like Hillary. How dare they compare Huma with Hillary? Hillary was the first lady. Hillary was a senator. She was secretary of state.” Yeah! How dare anybody compare anyone to Hillary? Doing so borders on blasphemy.

Question: When the Weiner campaign says Huma “is just like Hillary,” do they mean in ways other than imitating Clinton’s haltingly didactic lilt when publicly defending her husband’s spicy sexts? And yes, it’s true, Hillary was the first lady, but at the height of the Lewinsky scandal she was neither a senator nor the secretary of state.

Moreover, since when does the position held by the spouse of a pervert define one reaction as being superior to another? Hillary sets the scorned-woman tone and then punishes a supposed protégé for imitating an attitude that has repeatedly delivered Hillary political rewards?

The consensus among Hillary defenders is that the Weiners are making thinly-veiled allusions to the Clintons. For instance, at the press conference where Abedin dutifully declared that “Our marriage, like many others, has had its ups and its downs,” a prominent Democrat asked, “Who didn’t think Huma was referring to the Clintons when she said [like many others]?” Now that’s just plain unfair. For the Weiners it may be “ups and downs,” but for the Clintons, it’s different — it’s “ins and outs.”

Clinton’s aides claim that Abedin supporting a husband who continued acting out after he resigned from Congress in 2011 has “the Clintons stunned.” Hillary, wife of sex addict Bill, being “stunned” over Weiner being unable to discontinue his sexual shenanigans is like Nicole Kidman being “stunned” that ex-husband and notorious control freak Tom Cruise stifled Katie Holmes.

Are the Clintons, who refuse to drop out of anything and continue to drag home medals for sitting on the sidelines, attempting to further desensitize America to their own dysfunction by demanding Weiner drop out of the race for behaving just like them?

Yep! And after being mortified and humiliated by her husband, power-hungry Huma is now being cast aside by power-hungry Hillary, whose needs Abedin faithfully attended to while Tony was home pitching ideas for erotic encounters to Sydney Leathers.

Let’s face it — Hillary Clinton is not going to allow her political ambitions to be mucked up by a sex scandal that pales in comparison to the one she survived with Bill. And so, as she forges ahead in her relentless quest for the White House, the unstoppable Hillary ‘Benghazi’ Clinton will continue to do what she does best: dodge scandals and fling friends aside.

Diane Lane to Channel Hillary Clinton

Diane Lane Hot

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

If ever there were proof that Hollywood liberals are delusional, it was when NBC announced that in preparation for 2016, fetching actress Diane Lane will star in a Hillary Clinton miniseries. Casting Diane Lane as Hillary Clinton is kind of like having Brad Pitt star as Harry Reid.

Nonetheless, the miniseries will subject viewers to four hours of a). Trying to figure out why in the world Diane Lane ever agreed to play Hillary Clinton; and b). How in tarnation Oscar-nominated director Courtney Hunt managed to make it seem as though the Whitewater scandal, the death of Vince Foster, Hillary’s naked ambition, and her rumored involvement in covering up accusations of Bill’s limitless sexual improprieties warranted Mrs. Clinton assuming the position of first female president.

NBC will air the miniseries before Hillary Clinton formally announces that she’ll be running again in 2016. According to top entertainment executive Robert Greenblatt, that decision was made to ensure that other (more qualified) candidates do not cry favoritism and demand their own miniseries.

Greenblatt said that NBC signed on to the Hillary project even before it had a script. One selling point was that the proposal came complete with an actress best known for her role in a film whose title describes Hillary’s husband Bill.

In “Unfaithful,” Diane Lane played an adulterous wife whose jealous husband, Richard Gere, bludgeoned her lover Olivier Martinez to death with a snow globe, which is what many Americans feel like doing to themselves when Chillary Hillary starts talking.

Diane Lane in tubFor her starring role in the miniseries, rather than take a steamy bubble bath, the sultry Ms. Lane will don a turquoise pants suit and channel the greatness of the former Secretary of State.

The series will begin with Mrs. Clinton living in the White House as her beloved Bill is serving his second term as president. What is unclear is whether the screenplay will touch upon the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” revisit all the tawdry details surrounding allegations of her philandering husband fooling around with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office, or dwell upon the pain Hillary suffered when Bill perjured himself under oath and was subsequently impeached.

To date, casting of the other parts isn’t complete, but when Bill finds out that Diane Lane is playing Hillary he’ll undoubtedly audition to play himself.

Thus far, what is known is that the Hilliseries will “recount Clinton’s life as a wife, politician and Cabinet member from 1998 to present” and will include her first run for the 2008 presidential nomination against Barack Obama.

I hope that NBC won’t neglect to feature Hillary’s talent for stuffing carpetbags with assorted pantsuits, her collection of Yankee baseball caps, her cookie-baking skills, or her unmatched prowess at busting through glass ceilings.

To be historically accurate, the miniseries should also highlight her love for the Palestinian people, her enjoyment of Colombian beer bashes, and her affinity for slogans like “I do not recall” when under oath, and “What difference, at this point, does it make,” when Americans are sodomized and murdered by Islamic terrorists.

Either way, the script probably won’t cover Hillary’s failed socialized healthcare effort, her opportunistic tactics to grab the New York Senate seat, or her personal oversight of the debacle in Benghazi, which cost the lives of an American ambassador, an American diplomat, and two former Navy SEALs.

Yet despite those inadequacies and many others, there’s a good chance that NBC, with the help of “hot liberal” Diane Lane, will transform Hillary Clinton in the minds of TV viewers from the dowdy 65-year-old political hack that she is into a Hollywood goddess deserving of the presidency.

%d bloggers like this: