Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

9-Year-Old and Hillary Deliberate the Gender Pay Equity Dilemma

Voltaren Gel Discount 195852_5_Originally posted at American Thinker

go here It was just two days after Hillary Clinton dressed up in a circus tent for an unrehearsed family walk on the streets of Manhattan that she showed up in New Hampshire to stage-manage another event.

source url This time, it was at a town hall meeting.

here Rather than exploit Bill, Marc, Chelsea, and baby Charlotte, the buzz is that Democrat toadies may have planted a 9-year-old in the audience to broach a scripted subject for Hillary to respond to. Although the boy’s mother denies preparing her son, it appears as if Relic Reilly, whose twin brother’s name is River, was coached to share his gender pay equity anxieties with Mrs. Clinton.

Can You Get Pregnant While On Flagyl Relic was called upon, stood up, motioned toward his mother Bita, and said, “My mother, over there, is complaining that she does not get much more money than my father.”

Cost Of Buspar Relic elaborated:

Lipitor Global Sales By Year My mother is an engineer, I meant, teacher. My father is the engineer. And I think that my mother is working more harder than my … I think my mother is working much harder, is working more harder than my father and she deserves to have more money, like, get more money, than my father. Because she’s taking care of children and I just don’t think it’s fair.

enter site Based on the concerns voiced by the boy, it appears as if he feels it’s unfair for males who design software to earn higher salaries than females overseeing naptime at the tony Massachusetts Groton School’s Cottage Children’s Center.

The direction of Master Reilly’s statement is not surprising because according to Kabalarian Philosophy, his unusual name describes someone who, “too often … [looks] … for an easy way of making money,” which could explain Relic’s obsession with seeing a glorified babysitter be paid an engineer’s salary.

The name Relic also describes an individual who associates with people who “could influence [them] unfavorably and thereby mislead” them to do things like pretending to be worried about complex issues at micromanaged town hall meetings.

That’s why, after Relic complained about gender pay inequity, his mother, who has been known to dabble in political activism, was accused of coaching her son. Mom denied any involvement but did admit that prior to coming to the town hall meeting, the family discussed what they might say to Mrs. Clinton if passed the microphone.

Then again, Relic also lives with his father Michael, a man who posted a question on social media as to whether a Republican member of Congress should be “lynched.”

A release engineer at British Telecommunications, in 2013 Michael Reilly admitted on Facebook that he used to consider himself “a bit of a moderate.” Then, in 2014, Michael went on a rant and posted that his idea of a perfect 2016 GOP presidential candidate would be an “illegal immigrant…female, pacifistic, unemployed, homosexual, Hispanic, Muslim, alternative energy professor from the Bible Belt, living on food stamps, who had had an abortion under Obama-Care.”

195850_5_

Now, lo and behold, 2016 is here, and out of the blue, Michael’s and Bita’s 9-year-old son is randomly selected to address the Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton about how gender affects pay scale differences in fields like software engineering and early childhood education.

What a coincidence!

Although well-versed in the subject, it did sound as if Relic was unaware of Hillary’s pay equity motto, which is, “How do you know you’re not being paid equally if you can’t get information about what your work colleagues are being paid for doing the same job?”

If Relic had only asked his dad whether the female software engineers he works with, much like former Senator Clinton’s female staffers, also earn 28% less than the men, the kid might have spared himself the pain of being dragged to another political event.

Either way, according to Relic, his mother feels she being unfairly compensated for running around all day wiping snotty noses and supervising finger-painting. In fact, Bita is so against everyone except herself making money that during the 2012 election, she had Relic carry a protest sign demanding that Mitt Romney release his filthy-rich tax forms.

Yet Bita doesn’t seem all that concerned about Hillary charging $200,000 for a half-hour or forty-five-minute speech, which may be why Relic neglected to ask the former first lady how one woman earning $24 million in a year advances the cause of pay equity.

Moreover, while he was on the topic of closing the pay gap, on behalf of Mom and Dad, Relic really should have pressed Hillary to outline the simple game plan she and Bill used to amass almost $50 million between 2013 and mid-2015.

And then, looking ahead to his own entry-level foray into the workforce, who better than a 9-year-old boy to find out from a mom how, despite having zero experience, her daughter managed to finagle a $600,000 starting salary as a “special correspondent” at NBC?

Anyway, in response to Relic’s original statement, the predictably disingenuous Hillary cackled uproariously before saying, “Oh, that is really so sweet!”

Problem is, when Hillary responded to Relic, she never mentioned her exorbitant speaking fees and didn’t discuss how, as mere public servants, both she and her husband managed to amass a multi-million-dollar empire for screwing around, making excuses, and covering up.

Instead, Hillary predictably told Relic all about her support of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and shared a distressing story about a man making more money on his first paycheck than his mother who was working at the same establishment, doing the same job, for four years.

After hearing such a sad story, thankfully, the thoughtful boy didn’t become so upset that he required medical attention. Instead, Hillary Clinton was able to give the 9-year-old political plant a superficial retort to a staged question about a gender pay standard she spouts off about but chooses to personally ignore.

Hillary the ‘Organ Grinder’ Grinds Up the Big Apple

posted at American Thinker

After the Washington Post published a political cartoon featuring Ted Cruz and his daughters Caroline, 7, and Catherine, 4, Hillary, the organ grinder, took her “dancing monkey” family for a walk in the Big Apple.

Hillary pounded the pavement with Bill; pro-choice daughter Chelsea, toting a female zygote who, thus far, has successfully survived the first trimester; and cherubic granddaughter Charlotte, who also outlasted the womb and is now a little over a year old.

In addition to the obvious stars of the show, the group dragged along hedge fund/investment banker son-in-law Marc Mezvinsky.

Trying desperately not to call attention to herself, Hillary, while holding onto the baby stroller like a walker, promenaded about, wearing a brightly colored Kashmir Company embroidered jacket she bought in Afghanistan in 2003.  The colors on the jacket were so intricate that it actually stirred up images of the carpet fibers found on Clinton friend and associate Vince Foster’s corpse when his body was found dumped in Fort Marcy Park.

Referred to in the press as a “festive walk,” in addition to perusing a bookstore and eating ice cream, the ex-president and his presidential-hopeful wife, the former carpetbagger senator from the State of New York, smiled and waved to admirers.

Unlike 8 million sitting ducks who inhabit a city notorious for strict gun laws, the woman who called gun rights advocates “terrorists” was safely surrounded on all sides by heavily armed security on hand to protect the organ grinder and her quartet of monkeys from being shot at again by Bosnian snipers.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post published and retracted the holiday-themed caricature drawn by editorial cartoonist and Planned Parenthood Award winner Ann Telnaes.  Ann’s Christmas cartoon featured Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), dressed like Santa, as an organ grinder, and his two daughters dressed as dancing monkeys.

Prior to the Washington Post pulling the cartoon, Telnaes justified mocking Ted Cruz’s small daughters in the following way:

But when a politician uses his children as political props, as Ted Cruz recently did in his Christmas parody video in which his eldest daughter read (with her father’s dramatic flourish) a passage of an edited Christmas classic, then I figure they are fair game.

The Cruz ad referenced hot-button issues like failed Obamacare, Lois Lerner, and the IRS scandal, as well as a missing server belonging to a certain grandma prancing around New York with a pretentious smile on her face.

That’s why; the liberal syndicated cartoonist was probably motivated more out of anger about the message in the spot-on parody than by the two little girls reading funny political Christmas stories with their dad.

Anyway, if the subject matter is really what the satirist is looking for, instead of drawing pictures of the children of Hispanic politicians as the dancing monkeys of a Mexican organ grinder, how about a cartoon depicting an ISIS sympathizer/San Bernardino jihadi bride named Tashfeen Malik?

Remember Tashfeen?  She’s the K-1 fiancée visa chick who slipped by DHS.  Then, prior to her and her husband blowing away 14 people at a Christmas buffet, much like a desperate politician using a granddaughter to impress the Baby Boomer set, Tashfeen hid her radicalism from her neighbors by carrying her six-month-old daughter around.

Then again, maybe the woman who calls herself a “pushy Pulitzer prize winning editorial cartoonist” is only looking to portray the family as props and children that like to mimic Mom and Dad.  If that’s the case, then Chelsea, Bill, Marc, little Charlotte, and the “clump of cells” due to be born this summer, if all goes well, are “fair game.”

For starters, Ann should definitely take note of Mrs. Mezvinsky.

This is a lady who is an expert at imitating her mother.

Take, for instance, Chelsea, like Hillary, pretending to see a long lost friend in every gathering.  Not only that, but before impersonating Mom’s fake smile, and pointing excitedly to a person in the crowd who doesn’t exist, Chelsea always claps along to the song that Hillary struts around in time to.

Granted, unlike Caroline Cruz’s father, Hillary Clinton does not speak with the “dramatic flourish” that is signature Ted.  However, Mrs. Clinton does speak with a delayed didactic tone that Chelsea seems to have picked up on and employed while doing things like getting paid $600,000 a year to work as a fake entry-level “special correspondent” at NBC.

Ann did creatively dress Cruz up in a Santa outfit.  So why not do a whole series on the grandma in the Afghani coat of many colors under which, if she wanted to, Hillary could hide her Benghazi incompetence, her squeaky-clean server, and all those missing emails?

Then there’s Bill; he’s the grandpa who, when not on Orgy Island with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, or in Chappaqua with the alleged “Energizer Bunny,” protectively steers his granddaughter’s stroller and pretends to enjoy wandering around Manhattan with the woman to whom he is unfaithful.

Ann could also sketch a caricature of straggler-in-law Marc, who, along with Bill, took his rightful place following behind the world’s most famous female organ grinder who, if she stands by her philosophy, should encourage her daughter to hand over baby Charlotte and her baby sister to be raised by the “village.”

With that in mind, Ann Telnaes should be all over the flimflam Clinton family tour, which made the Cruz Christmas ad seem like cold, hard authenticity.

But if none of those ideas ring true, surely Ann Telnaes can come up with at least one cartoon featuring Hillary grinding the organ, while Bill the organ grinder dances on a leash.

Either way, when the cigar smoke clears, imperious Hillary, wearing sunglasses, wrapped in a multi-colored Mao-collared coat, dragging political props on a stage-managed march through Manhattan provided more subject matter for a political cartoon than two sweet little girls ever could.

DOUBLE STANDARD: Why Was Carson Put On Blast Instead of Hillary?

ben cars jeannieOriginally posted at CLASH Daily

Most people seem to agree that the CNBC-moderated GOP debate proved to be less about Republican presidential hopefuls’ policy proposals and more of a glaring exhibition of brazen media bias. The partisan-driven indignation present in the way every question was posed transformed a political discussion into something just shy of hot bright-light police interrogation. The whole affair was so left-leaning, the only person missing from the moderator panel was MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry bedecked in a pair of dangling tampon earrings berating the panelists on women’s issues.

In the end, the accusatory tone and pugnacious stance of the moderators became a failed attempt to put Republican candidates on the defensive and to goad adversaries into impugning each other’s moral authority. The problem is that, as witnessed by Hillary Clinton’s recent testimony concerning Benghazi, unlike the Republican candidates participating in the CNBC debate the secretary of state did not face as aggressive a panel of denigrators.

A perfect example of this double standard was when CNBC “Squawk on the Street” anchor Carl Quintanilla followed up on an answer given by esteemed former pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson.

Immediately after failing to trip up Dr. Carson with a question about the hypocrisy of associating with homosexual groups while disapproving of same-sex marriage, Quintanilla segued into a query about the doctor’s purported link to Mannatech, a nutritional supplement company accused of making false curative claims regarding one of its products.

The unflappable Dr. Carson responded, “That’s easy to answer,” he said. “I didn’t have involvement with them. That is total propaganda.” Carson explained that his connection to Mannatech is not a business relationship and only involved his delivering a few speeches.

In predictable “gotcha” fashion, Quintanilla asked Carson why, if that was true, was his image with Mannatech’s logo used to market the questionable supplement on the company’s website? “If somebody put me on their homepage,” Carson said, “they did so without my knowledge.”

Unable to discredit Carson’s judgment for involving himself with Mannatech, Quintanilla quickly changed gears and used the “without my knowledge” statement as a springboard to question the presidential hopeful’s ability to manage those he’s responsible for overseeing.

Referring to someone placing Carson’s image alongside Mannatech’s logo on the company’s homepage without the doctor’s knowledge, Quintanilla probed, “Does that not speak to your vetting process or judgment in any way?”

The CNBC’s anchor’s absurd question/insult was met with boos from the crowd, to which Carson responded by pointing out that the audience recognized the bias and saying, “See? They know.”

Just a week prior to the GOP debate America sat through nine grueling hours of listening to Hillary Clinton implicitly absolve herself from guilt by passing blame to her security team for not responding to the cry for added security from Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi.

If Clinton had defended the men in Benghazi with a fraction of the effort she displayed while defending herself at the Benghazi hearing, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty would probably be alive today. Nonetheless, Hillary testified to the committee that she was not responsible for what happened that fateful night because fall-guy security professionals in the department handled the State Department security requests.

Based on her contradictory answers, the imperious Mrs. Clinton, who claims she was well aware of the very risks she sometimes implies she was unaware existed, proved she wouldn’t know the truth if it smacked her upside the head. She said of Stevens’ requests for added security, “I did not see them. I did not approve them. I did not deny them.”

Now that is a perfect example of the type of statement crying out to be challenged by the likes of Quintanilla at the next Democrat debate. After all, Hillary’s lack of hands-on involvement in securing adequate security for a frightened ambassador does speak directly to her faulty managerial skills and lack of judgment.

Quintanilla, who represents the mindset of the majority of the mainstream media, questioned Carson about his failure to check up on an anonymous graphic artist over a Photoshopped image on a website. Meanwhile, Hillary’s vetting ability goes unchallenged after she admits that the team for which she was ultimately responsible didn’t sense Americans were in danger in Libya. The result of Hillary’s vetting/judgment = four dead Americans.

Hillary did admit that Stevens did not have her personal email address and acknowledged that some of Stevens’ 600+ requests for additional security were approved while others were not. Clinton claimed that, based on her evaluation of the threat level, even though four people returned home in flag-draped coffins, “There is no doubt in [her] mind that [they] did the best [they] could with the information [they] had at the time.”

Again, someone should take note for the next Democrat debate that Hillary’s “best we could do” statement presents an opportunity for a question/assertion similar to the one Quintanilla made to Carson. How about something like this: “With all due respect Madam, seeing as your best wasn’t good enough, does that not speak to your lack of judgment and inability to fulfill the demanding role of Secretary of State? And if so, do you deserve a promotion?”

At the CNBC-hosted debate, a presidential candidate who dedicated his life to saving lives was grilled and demeaned because he accepted a speaking engagement from a company that falsely claimed without his knowledge that their “glyconutrient” heals autism and cancer.

Instead of Dr. Carson, who operates on brains, America has a smooth operator with no brains at all running for president named Hillary Rodham Clinton. Meanwhile Hillary’s gross incompetence and flagrant falsehoods go unchallenged by the same left-wing media types who ignore her deadly ineptitude while claiming to be journalists.

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 http://webbizideas.com/?where=Propecia-Cheap-Online&82b=b7 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 Benefici Del Sale Nero Di Cipro 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.”

%d bloggers like this: