Tag Archives: hypocrisy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad move.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RVqTfIKGbU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The DNC wall to guard Hillary’s Armani jacket collection

Hillary-Clinton-wears-pricey-jacket-1Originally posted at American Thinker

Before the first-historic-female-to-run-for-president-while-under-federal-investigation was against border security, Hillary Clinton was for it.  In 2006, the former first lady even called for “physical barriers … secure borders … tougher employer sanctions,” and deportation for illegals who have “committed transgression.”

Recently, Hillary evolved, and all that changed.  Now, the presumptuous presumptive Democratic nominee has altered her protectionist viewpoint and vowed that when she’s in charge, “[w]e’re going to be building bridges, not walls.”

You know what?  Hillary might be onto something with her bridge-not-wall idea.

A 100-yard footbridge over the Rio Grande would be a great way to do away with the rafts, jet skis, and blown out tire tubes.  If Hillary is elected, she can expand on Obama’s “shovel ready” jobs program by employing ISIS-infiltrated Syrian refugees to build bridges for Democrat voters to cross over from Mexico into the U.S.

But right now, it’s still 2016, and the Democratic National Convention is scheduled to take place on July 25-28 at Philadelphia’s Wells Fargo Center Xfinity Live!  Therefore, the bridges will have to wait.  Instead, to keep out rowdy protesters sporting well thought out man buns and bad attitudes, the City of Brotherly Love is taking Donald Trump’s advice and building a wall around the arena.

So a wall will be built around the location where Hillary will formally denounce the idea of Trump building a wall.

Put simply, Hillary Clinton does not condone walls that keep out illegal gangs, Mexican drug lords, felons, murderers, rapists, and undocumented child molesters.  However, if a barrier can keep out First Amendment types, Bernie supporters, and disgruntled vagina voters, Hillary believes in building walls.

In February, after winning the South Carolina Democratic primary, Hillary screeched out the following words:

 [W]e’re going to start by working together with more love and kindness in our hearts, and more respect for each other, even when we disagree. Despite what you hear, we don’t need to make America great. America has never stopped being great. But we do need to make America whole again. Instead of building walls, we need to be tearing down barriers.

This is the woman who once objected to Mexico “pushing migration north across our border.”  Now, in an effort that will involve lots of government agencies examining “infrastructure, transportation, security, and crowd management,” Hillary is standing by and allowing more than 20 subcommittees to erect a barrier around the amphitheater where the coronation she has slavered after for decades is about to be realized.

The question is, how can Mrs. Clinton renounce “no-scale fencing” to protect Americans from illegal invasion while simultaneously allowing the Secret Service to orchestrate the building of a wall to protect her and her wardrobe of $12,000 Armani jackets for three days?

Shouldn’t Hillary Clinton, the self-appointed champion of paths to citizenship and blanket amnesty be demanding that bridges of love span from the footpaths of Philadelphia right onto the floor of the sports arena?

Besides, how will illegal immigrants who’ve successfully made it over the border feel if they make it all the way to the City of Brotherly Love only to find out that the woman who beckoned them with promises of “love … kindness … [and] more respect” has excluded them from getting a donkey-shaped balloon and a free Philly cheesesteak sandwich?

By refusing to disavow the security perimeter being placed around the arena, Hillary, whose latest mantra is “comprehensive immigration reform with a path to full and equal citizenship,” is missing the chance to make a symbolic statement about how she differs from an opponent she believes is a wall-obsessed, xenophobic racist.

So instead of “tearing down barriers,” as she advocated in South Carolina, to keep out Americans who disagree in Philadelphia, Hillary Clinton is about to permit what Trump says we should construct on the border to be built around the Democratic National Convention.

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

195852_5_Originally posted at American Thinker

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.

This time, it was at a town hall meeting.

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.

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.”

Relic elaborated:

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.

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.

The President’s Water-Guzzling Golf and Other Grifter Activities

ObamaGolf071113_2Originally posted at The Clash Daily

After discussing the urgency of drought conditions in California, in a move that could be likened to hosting a televised banquet where Obama and his friends frolic in giant vats of caviar after promoting food rationing to famished people, the president went golfing on a desert golf course.

For those who don’t know anything about desert golf courses, they’re what Zeke J. Miller of TIME magazine, in an article entitled “Obama Plays Water Guzzling Desert Golf Courses Amid California Drought”, called “water hogs.”

Talking about a water shortage and then golfing on a water-guzzling golf green is certainly not out of character for the president. With Barack Obama it works like this: he issues an edict and then instantly defies it.

This is a man who cares deeply about the well-being of the middle class, healthcare reform, and income equality. However, that caring stops if he wants to golf in a place that just so happens to be suffering from a water shortage. In that case, as long as the golf course is green he couldn’t care less if everything else withers and dies of dehydration.

Before hitting the links, the environmentally-concerned president with the 41,000-ton per-year carbon footprint traveled to California to speak to drought victims about the scarcity of water.

His message, in short: “Shared sacrifice”.

Then, moving from what RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski called a “soapbox [that] doubles as a tee box” Obama spent President’s Day weekend golfing at two exclusive golf courses in Palm Springs with three of his high school buddies: twice on the nine-hole course at late billionaire Walter Annenberg’s Sunnylands estate, and one round at a course owned by billionaire non-golfer Oracle founder Larry Ellison, named Porcupine Creek.

No one would guess there’s a water shortage while golfing at Porcupine Creek. The property is 246 acres and features an “80-foot-diameter fountain ringed with 90 individually lit jets that shoot water up to 80 feet high.”

In such a hot and dry climate, each one of the 124 golf courses in the drought-stricken Coachella Valley soaks up about one million gallons a day for irrigation, which is 3-4 times more than the average golf course.

That little tidbit of information makes one wonder why, out of the 15,500 public and private golf courses in America, Obama didn’t choose to chase his balls around on one of the 15,498 other greens that require less water?

What’s important to know is that before hitting the links, Obama did tell the water-deprived with great conviction and heartfelt passion that “It can’t just be a matter of there’s going to be less and less water so I’m going to grab more and more of a shrinking share of water.”

Translation: Keep your thirsty paws off the water because my billionaire friends need to irrigate their 200-acre golf courses and supply their fountains with 80-ft water jets.

Barack Obama stressed, “What we have to do is all come together and figure out how we all are going to make sure that agricultural needs, urban needs, industrial needs, environmental and conservation concerns are all addressed” – but not until after he’s done golfing at water-saturated Sunnylands and Porcupine Creek.

Common courtesy aside, as in all things, Obama’s hypocrisy almost always provides a silver lining – for him.

For instance, if by chance the water table is lowered by keeping golf courses green, that could work in the Duffer-in-Chief’s favor.

The president could set up another photo op in the dry desert sun and then fly to Fresno where he can propose investing federal monies to help alleviate water emergencies. On the way back to Washington DC, he could make a pit stop in Palm Springs and do some golfing on a 200-acre golf course somehow kept verdant in a hot dusty valley short on water.

In other words, this is how Barack Obama defines “shared sacrifice”: Forcibly propelling one quarter of the water from the endangered underground water aquifer to the surface of his billionaire friend’s property so that when he decides to fly out and goof around on the green it’s lush and cushy under his golf shoes.

Ginning-up an income equality crisis while hanging out with billionaires and lamenting a drought in front of an audience of scorched, dehydrated people before immediately retreating to a man-made oasis in the middle of an arid desert to play golf – this, thirsty pilgrims, is how Barack Obama rolls.

America’s Throwaway Children

newtown-victim-400It is heartbreaking to think about the horror that ensued in that small Connecticut town where 28 innocent people were gunned down, eighteen of whom were the most innocent of innocents – wide-eyed, angelic first graders – and one of whom was the shooter’s own mother.

Babies – little munchkins who came to school to learn to count, read and sit cross-legged on the floor during story hour – these were the victims of a terror too unspeakable to comprehend.

Nonetheless, while America takes in and tries to process the sights, sounds and anguish of a tragedy of this magnitude, it’s hard for those who are committed to the sanctity of life to ignore the hypocrisy currently afoot in the aftermath surrounding the ordeal.

Some may argue that it is highly inappropriate and insensitive, while 20 first-graders are being prepared for burial, to tie human suffering to the topic of abortion.  But since liberals “never want to let a serious crisis to go to waste,” why not follow that lead by using this tragedy as a “teachable moment?”

For starters, it’s important to recognize that some do not understand that for most conservatives it’s the babies that drive our politics.  A problem arises whenever little ones are hurt and liberals respond by condemning violence against children. Instantly, the prolife community is criticized for recognizing the absurd paradox and pointing out the left’s hypocrisy.

As pint-sized bodies are shuttled away from the Connecticut crime scene, it’s important to remember that our nation legalized the slaughter of innocents more than 40 years ago.  Then, recently we put our approbation on continuing the carnage by reelecting the most radical advocate for abortion rights in our nation’s history. Five weeks later, in broad daylight, when slaughter and carnage come out of hiding we wonder why?

The brutality of senseless violence is hard to comprehend, especially when a high-powered rifle mows down precious little ones. But daily, Americans ignore the fact that weaponry like scalpels, saline, and suction exterminate far many more children than those who die in classrooms.

In essence, what happened in Newtown merely pulled back the curtain and revealed the spirit behind the everyday viciousness perpetrated against America’s children.  The difference is that normally the bloody massacre is hidden from the public’s eye.

As for those on the left who now weep for the lost, nice try, but not convincing.  Prochoice advocates shedding tears for the loss of the pure and the blameless just doesn’t fly. Neither does hearing partial birth abortion backers pontificate about preserving and protecting life. Doing so is comparable to the world’s most famous butcher, Dario Cecchini, lending his face to a PETA ad.

And while no one can, or should, judge the heart of a man, it is also quite perplexing to see infanticide supporter Barack Obama crying over the demise of small children when, if they were 6½ months in utero versus 6½ years old in a classroom, he’d be defending an individual’s right to terminate their lives.

Furthermore, after earning a 100% voting record score from NARAL, it’s also mindboggling at best to hear President Obama utter the following words about a select group of children: “The majority of those who died today were children — beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old. They had their entire lives ahead of them — birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own.”

The only difference between the dead Obama wept for on national television and those that Planned Parenthood deprives daily of “birthdays, graduations, weddings [and] kids of their own” is that the latter are victims of the kind of violence the President approves of.

Nonetheless, in response to the tragedy Obama is now talking about “meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.”  What he’s really talking about is taking “meaningful action” to institute more stringent gun control laws that will restrict law-abiding gun owners

Someone should remind Planned Parenthood’s presidential cheerleader that on the same day children were sprayed with bullets in a Connecticut elementary school, 3,500 innocent babies died at the hands of abortionists – and not one gun was involved in those murders.

Moreover, the words “regardless of politics,” are being used to support the gun control argument. Yet, while claiming to omit politics from the ‘violence against children’ issue, Obama is predictably using politics to retain his prochoice political base by conveniently disregarding the fact that in America every 10 days, 35,000 viable infants are victims of feticide.

As America deals with the horror in Connecticut, it’s clear to some that what happened in Newtown, Connecticut is the heartbreaking symptom of a national disease where to some the life of a child is nothing more than a disposable throwaway.

The sad truth is that the small and defenseless die horrific deaths everyday in America – some huddled under a desk and others under cold florescent lights in an abortion clinic.  Either way, the formula is the same: violence and the intent to kill which, regardless of the method, both deliver the same result – dead babies.  In a first grade classroom there are 20; in a clinic across town there could be 220.

What’s stunning is that this truth has not deterred the disingenuous from campaigning for the right to kill the unborn on Monday and then publicly quoting Scripture, weeping, and lighting memorial candles for murdered children on Friday.

And so, as usual, liberals try to have it both ways. Yet, for those who recognize hypocrisy it will be painful to watch as a nation in mourning accepts the feigning of grief from those who, under different circumstances, would heartily support killing the children they now weep for.

Obama’s Ocular Redwood

Whenever Barack Obama strides up that long red rug and approaches the presidential podium to deliver a statement to the nation, two sentences after he opens his mouth, idioms having to with planks and splinters; glass houses and stones; and pots calling kettles black immediately come to mind.

Another example of “One donkey calls the other one long ears” was Obama’s most recent prime time outburst to address the debt issue.  Determined to not be blamed for the debt ceiling impasse, in accusatory mode a petulant President cited the usual suspects: villainous corporate jet owners; wealthy Americans; corporate tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires; special deductions; hedge fund managers; oil companies; and of course the accusation that the right stacks the deck “against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few.”

Other than rehearsing a campaign speech and chiding Republicans, the President offered not one substantive solution to the debt crisis.  However, he did cover the usual Republican-induced debt threats that included the standard fare of fewer college graduates, public servant layoffs, broken roads and collapsing bridges, e coli-ridden uninspected food, homeless veterans lying along the side of the road, Medicare and Medicaid recipients sitting in broken-down wheelchairs, dying for lack of adequate health care, and medical research going the way of NASA.

Although he’s been back in Texas for over three years now, even GW Bush was called on to make a perfunctory appearance in absentia.  In the oddest moment of the entire evening, Obama intimated that former President Bush was responsible for the debt crisis, and then while lobbying for raising the debt ceiling he praised Bush for raising it seven times, even though Obama had voted against it as Senator.  Within the context of his remarks, the first negative comment was so far from the second laudatory statement that the President must not have even noticed the obvious contradiction, proving once again that befuddled people should avoid being haughty.

A presidential aide should have slipped him a reminder note:  Mr. President, if you’re going to blame Republicans, whatever you do, don’t accuse Bush of leaving you a dire economic situation and then praise him for an economic fix that you voted against as Senator, but that you now want to implement.

So caught up in relinquishing personal responsibility for the impasse, the President failed to realize that he was boasting to 9.2% of the struggling unemployed population and those “bone-tired” Americans “scraping by, just to put food on the table,” that his being wildly successful makes him unlike the rest of America.

For the third time in three weeks, the President mentioned how unreasonable it is to “ask people like [himself] to give up tax breaks [he didn’t] need and didn’t ask for” – but has yet to reject.  The “I’m really rich, you’re really poor” message was surpassed only by a didactic-style insult that implied most Americans are too dense to understand what the term “debt ceiling” means.

After bringing up every President short of George Washington to support his raise-the-debt-ceiling/ continue-spending/more-entitlements/non-plan plan, the President had the gall to place himself in the economic company of Ronald Reagan.  Sorry, but Barack Obama comparing his fiscal philosophy with Ronald Reagan’s is on par with formerly bankrupt Donald Trump thinking he has the investment savvy of Warren Buffett.

Obama implied that America is ‘offended’ by everyone other than himself, never once accepting responsibility for how offensive he’s been on issues such as health care reform, immigration, the border, the economy, Israel, and the basic foundational tenets of freedom.

Always arrogant, cheeky, and overconfident, the President cited “dysfunctional government.” But, based on his comments he didn’t seem to recognize his own face looming high above the rabble of dysfunction.  Moreover, while polls continue to indicate that most Americans are “fed up” with Obama, the President apparently doesn’t think America relegates him to the same category as they do the rest of Washington DC.

With each passing primetime pity party, it becomes clearer to anyone with eyes to see that unbeknownst to only himself, by blaming others for things he’s far more guilty of the President of the United States exemplifies what the Arabs mean when they say, “The camel cannot see the crookedness of its own neck.”

President Barack Obama said, “This is no way to run the greatest country on Earth,” and it sure as heck isn’t. Defiant and exempt from blame, Obama maintained that Republicans’ refusal to act in accordance with his treacherous approach to economics places the future of the nation at risk.  According to the President, the “dangerous game” America is playing hinges squarely on Congress’s failure to comply with – you guessed it – his wishes.

Barack Obama was correct when he said that “American history remembers the ones who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good,” but he does neither of those. Furthermore, he was also accurate when he said: “Our nation remembers the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union” – which again is something rock-throwing, sulky child Barack Obama, living inside his glass house, has yet to do.

By refusing to acknowledge the massive collateral damage he has caused in three short years, Barack Obama, the guy with the 360-foot Sequoia stuck in his eye, has spent the greater part of his tenure attempting to pick at the splinters of those doing everything they can to save the nation.

Regardless of his monotonous, repetitive rhetoric, “rigid ideologue” Barack Obama has proven time and again that he lacks the self-control to resist having “I want my way” temper tantrums in primetime and the honesty to assume culpability for the results of the poor policy decisions to which he has subjected the nation. Moreover, publicly rebuking his adversaries by exploiting Thomas Jefferson’s words that “Every man cannot have his way in all things” indicates that Obama is a man stricken with a mind-numbing lack of self-awareness that rears its ugly head every time he approaches the podium.

‘Better Homes’ and a Shake Shack Burger

Originally posted at BIG Journalism

Americans are notorious for pointing out hypocrisy, especially when a religious preacher falls into sin.  Who can forget televangelist Jimmy Swaggart being caught frequenting prostitutes after crying, sermonizing and calling fire down from heaven to consume the adulterous.   After Swaggart confessed his infidelity, secular America gloated with satisfaction over a sanctimonious person falling from grace and having to endure public humiliation.

Yet, despite it being a similar type of duplicity, thus far Americans have not reacted with the same level of indignation if a public figure establishes him/herself as a lifestyle preacher and then fails live up to their own edicts.

That trend may change as Michelle Obama continues to man the pulpit as the Vicar of Victuals promoting herself as America’s authority on healthy lifestyles.  The problem Mrs. Obama faces is that, like Reverend Ted Haggard who preached against homosexuality on Sunday and played with boys on Monday, the first lady fancies herself the face of organically grown salads and then makes fried potatoes her vegetable of choice.

One would think a supposedly smart woman like Michelle Obama would know that after being chosen as the first female public figure ever to grace the cover of Better Homes and Gardens in a “fresh and healthy” interview, it might be wise to resist indulging in public food lapses.  The magazine, due out mid-July, pictures a sunny Michelle sitting at a picnic table next to a basket brimming with fresh fruits and vegetables.  The caption says:  Ideas and inspiration to help American families eat right.

The cover shot and interview were done in May.  However, since May Michelle has eaten fried fat cakes in Botswana and scarfed down 1,700 calories worth of Shake Shack fare in Washington DC.  A week prior to appearing on a magazine cover touting healthy eating and the first lady doesn’t have the sense to realize that passing on the humongous Shack burger, fries and chocolate shake might have bolstered her credibility in the “Let’s Move” Away from the Greasy Spoon campaign? Then again, Michelle did attempt to redeem her backslide by washing down globs of artery-clogging saturated fat with a super-sized Diet Coke.

In addition, Mrs. Obama is also in the process of convincing restaurants to list nutritional information on menus.  With that in mind, it’s more than fair to review Michelle’s Shake Shack lunch menu, which consisted of 1,700 calories, 98 grams of fat, and 163 grams of carbohydrates.

Seeing as how the first lady indulged in that fat-laden gastronomical Xanadu, maybe before Better Homes and Gardens hits the newsstands the editor should take precautionary measures by adding a disclaimer to the Michelle Obama health and fitness article.

At least Mrs. Obama admitted her clothes are tighter than they were in 2008 when she took up healthy, organic kale promotion as her signature issue.  In Better Homes and Gardens Michelle Obama said “that after moving into the White House she was not as active as she had been—and her clothes began to get tight.”

Although it would be generous to give the woman the benefit of the doubt, it’s unlikely that lack of exercise is the only culprit making her haute a little snug around the couture.  For the past three years the first lady has eaten her way through a NYC tasting tour, various and sundry BBQ spots, and a panoply of international cuisine. And all along the way she hasn’t failed, wherever she is, to tuck into any nearby hot fudge sundae.

Eating unhealthily and not finding the time to exercise while insisting that busy Americans working more and making less do what Mrs. Obama (with chefs, maids, 24 personal attendants and child care) supposedly doesn’t have time to do places Michelle in the same category and is as disingenuous as a preacher who decries adultery, leaves the pulpit, and meets with his paramour.

Bottom line: Mrs. Obama can eat whatever she wants.  However, she should practice what she preaches before she turns into the Jimmy Swaggart of healthy eating.  After being caught prostituting herself with a double portion of fried fat cakes, Michelle Obama should take a break from calling down upon the heads of the American public fat-free fire and Brussels sprouts brimstone.

Moreover, instead of  a reputable publication like Better Homes and Gardens swooning over Michelle’s heirloom tomatoes, which are ultimately destined to end up on the first lady’s 200-lb Hypocrite Burger, maybe the magazine should pick a cover girl whose ‘better home’ isn’t the White House and whose ‘garden’ provides organic arugula that she actually eats.

 

The Obamas: Chilidogs and Couture

Originally posted at American Thinker

In these perilous times, people accuse me of being obsessed with pap like Michelle and Barack Obama’s food and clothing. But it should be obvious that it’s not about the food or the clothes, it’s about double standards, arrogance and hypocrisy, all of which impact policy and governing, whether directly or indirectly.

The truth is, Mr. and Mrs. Obama are free to eat a side of beef every day and take two cargo planes full of couture everywhere they go if they want to. However, a problem arises when the first couple exercises a lifestyle that their policy edicts try to deny everyone else.

Case in point:  One day after ‘piece of the pie’ maven Michelle Obama “unveiled the USDA’s new nutritional plate,” Obama chose to eat outside the colored lines. The new pyramid replacement plate is split into four easy-to-follow sections – red for fruits, orange for grains, purple for protein, green, the largest section, for veggies, and a blue circular satellite for dairy.

Michelle and the USDA put their heads together and decided what, and how much, we should eat. One problem – Barry isn’t obeying, and if I had to guess, based on history, neither is Shelley.

Customarily, the day after an Obama directive is issued the President usually makes some sort of public announcement, in word or deed, exempting himself and his wife from what they demand from the rest of us. For example:  Ridicule SUV drivers and then soon after, gas up Air Force One and fly cross-country just to make a TV appearance or attend a fundraiser.

In this case, Michelle promoted healthy foods like quinoa and Brussels sprouts one day and the next day Obama brazenly stuffed his face with such a large hunk of chilidog that he made champion hot dog eaters Joey Chestnut and Kobayashi look like rank amateurs.

By choosing to eat at Rudy’s Hot Dog in Toledo, Ohio, Barack made yet another in a long list of symbolic exemptions for himself, except this time the statement took the form of two frankfurters smothered in chili and a pile of greasy, salty French fries.

Maybe between the “the house specialty chili dog, which comes with mustard, onion, chili sauce and cheese, and topped …with a bowl of chili and a portion of fries on the side,” Obama convinced himself he was eating protein, veggies, dairy and grain and by doing so was dutifully participating in Michelle’s healthy plate initiative.

After all, “The First Lady is renowned for her toned arms and vegetable patch.” Yet despite the organic fare in the White House garden the only sign of vegetables on her husband’s plate “appeared to be some fried onions.”

To compensate for straying off the reservation, Obama did try to balance the scales by offering a few dietary suggestions to Ohio representative Marcy Kaptur, who requested ketchup on her dog.  A mortified Obama, cheeks bulging with a gargantuan mouthful of chilidog, told Marcy, “By the way, as an aficionado of hot dogs, you shouldn’t put ketchup on hot dogs… I’m trying to teach my girls.”  Aficionado of hot dogs?

The cat is officially out of the bag. The Obama girls eat nitrate-infused ground mystery meat stuffed into pig-intestine casings, and we know this because Dad admitted he’s been advising Sasha and Malia on how to properly choose hot dog condiments.

Anyway, while America obediently tried to squeeze brown rice and tofu into purple and orange triangles, Obama “happily munched on the unhealthy meal before he visited the city’s Chrysler factory” where he was booed for reasons unrelated to the gas-inducing lunch.

So, as always, chilidogs and fried onion rings are not the issue; nor is it that Michelle wore designer Peter Som to launch the USDA’s MyPlate initiative.  What continues to be of concern is what is represented by the dichotomy of combining the unveiling of the food pyramid replacement with a rousing pig fest at Rudy’s Hot Dog joint. That type of superciliousness is the perfect embodiment of the Obamas’ arrogance and hypocrisy – and two chilidogs and a side of fries is just another in a long list of in-your-face examples to confirm the double standard.

***

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6MKDqIKuVQ&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

State of the Union Smoking Seminar

Watching Barack Obama’s first State of the Union address was like attending an anti-smoking seminar led by a spokesperson that takes intermittent smoke breaks. Obama chided, corrected and set out moral commands—none of which the President adheres to himself.

If followed in logical succession, the contradictions embodied in the State of Union were nothing less than stunning.  Obama treated America to seventy-one minutes of lies, half-truths, poor policy proposals and revisionist history, all things the nation has come to expect from our historic president.  Even more astonishing then the job bill, student loan and “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” propositions was the President’s incongruous statements addressing political etiquette.

Woven throughout his misleading and deluded statements Obama graduated to unprecedented heights of insincerity.   For all intents and purposes, Obama set about collecting Newports and Virginia Slims in the chamber and then left the emergency exit open where those who hesitantly relinquished cigarettes witnessed Barry toking filterless Camels.

Take for instance the absurdity of Obama calling on George W. Bush to assist the Haiti Relief Fund. In the Rose Garden and in a show of solidarity Obama portrayed a united front with his predecessor.  Yet, at the State of the Union, Obama lit up under the No Smoking sign and dragged out ole’ Georgie to serve as fall guy for year of presidential inadequacy.

In one breath, Obama appointed Bush half a presidential team to oversee Haiti relief. In the next breath, Barack depicted Bush as an inept “torturer” devoid of values, solely responsible for “… two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse and a government deeply in debt.”

Either Obama doesn’t recall what he says and does, or the President believes Americans lack the ability to draw a parallel between words and actions.

America should be reminded that Reverend Jeremiah Wright, an anti-Semite, racist preacher of the “Gospel” mentored Barack Obama. Barry spent twenty years at Oxymoronic University sitting under the tutelage of Right Reverend Wrong.  In the State of the Union homily Reverend Obama lectured on “peace and harmony,” then undermined the concepts in classic Trinity United Church of Christ-style.

Obama took repeated swats at Bush, the Senate, the Supreme Court and even members of Congress and then segwayed directly into chiding those who received presidential reproofs on how politicians should treat one and other.  Sorry, but one remark juxtaposed against the other reveals Obama’s state of mind borders on psychotic. Doesn’t Obama know that when teaching smoking cessation, you need to remove the nicotine patch before going out back to sneak in a couple of butts?  Overdosing on carcinogens has been proven to affect clear thinking.

For a decision upholding 1st amendment rights, the supposed Constitutional scholar openly chastised Supreme Court judges like unruly kindergarteners. Immediately following, the President steered the conversation toward righteous moralization. Barack subjected ensnared judges to “winner” statements like,  “We can’t wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side – a belief that if you lose, I win.”

“In the double bind there are two conflicting levels of communication and an injunction against commenting on the conflict.” Obama’s erratic statements are on par with a parent sending conflicting messages to schizophrenic offspring.

At the State of the Union, Obama repeatedly dragged out a bloody G.W. from behind the podium depicting Bush as irresponsible, thoughtless and negligent.  Obama strongly suggested America’s financial battle had its genesis in Bush’s, “recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy.” Then, Obama followed up his critical statements with petitions for political unity,

Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game.  But it’s precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people.  Worse yet, it’s sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government.

In the address Barack Obama also hinted at Bush’s indecency and weakness saying, “In this new decade, it’s time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength.” Obama implied Bush’s administration was both secretive and unaccountable saying, “…when we took that program [financial rescue program] over we made it more transparent and more accountable.” Can anyone say C-Span?

After mortifying Bush, and less than twenty-minutes later, Obama vowed to “start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more.”

Obama did not leave out of the tirade self-rewarding CEO’s, or bankers risking America’s future for what the pious president defines as “selfish gain.”  The president included lobbyists “gaming the system” and politicians, other than himself, who “tear each other down instead of lifting this country up.”

The “working to change the tone of politics” President shared that “Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership.  We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions.” [Ahem]. After rebuking the crowd, Obama urged the same lousy, self-serving, ruthless politicians to work with him to “show the American people that we can do it together.”

Obama spoke to “smokers” at the seminar and then borrowed a lighter, excusing himself from kicking a habit he refuses to shake. The truest statement Obama made, while fostering a State of Disunion was, “I don’t quit!”   America is choking because every time Obama speaks a duplicitous scolding follows, then the President inhales deeply and blows second-hand smoke straight into the nations’s face.

The sanctimonious spreader of “quit-it,” refuses to do what he demands from everyone else. Hey Barry, “No wonder there’s so much cynicism out there. No wonder there’s so much disappointment.”

Barry the Fred Astaire of Public Speaking

Barack Obama is a complex character and hard to describe in words.  For me the chasm between what the President says, and contradictory things he does, can only be explained visually.

When Obama takes to the podium smoothness, precision and succinct accuracy extraordinaire are on full display.  By far, Barack Obama is the Fred Astaire of speechifying.  Every time the President’s lips open to utter a word,  “the Ritz is put on” equal to, or exceeding, Fred stunning audiences by slipping on a pair of  tap shoes.  Fred Astaire shined at the RKO, and when it comes to public speaking, without fail, Obama scores a TKO.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_o9pXLZKtM[/youtube]

However, a pesky problem arises after Barry leaves the dance floor and removes the spats, tails and  top hat.  What follows doesn’t even remotely resemble “Swing Time.” The actions of “Daddy Long Legs -Obama, ” if compared to dance floor finesse, more closely resembles  Steve Stifler in American Pie.

Obama’s words never match political or personal actions — be it hypocrisy, misstatements, or prevaricating.  Politically, Obama does a ton of Dirty Dancing.  Yet, when it comes to living out what he verbally professes,  Obama has two-left feet.

Hearing the leader of the free world speak may be like watching an elegant waltz, but when the President sits one out and leaves the teleprompter backstage,  the Commander-in-Chief resembles sophomoric dancers on a beer binge, attempting to execute a mistimed square dance.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwVa06LSlxk[/youtube]

For me, pictures speak louder than words. How about you?

%d bloggers like this: