Tag Archives: It Takes a Village

BEFORE HILLARY LECTURES AMERICA ABOUT FAMILY: She Needs to Send Huma Packing

Originally posted at CLASH Daily

Hillary Rodham Clinton loves to portray herself as pro-family. This is a woman who has been un-blissfully wed for 40 years to the world’s most notorious philanderer and yet, on their anniversary, she unabashedly tweeted to Bill, who was probably enjoying a cigar on Pedophile Island with Jeffrey Epstein, that he’s still “got it,” whatever “it” is

In addition to “taking a village” of nubile Lolitas to keep her lecherous husband sexually satisfied, when it comes to family values Mrs. Clinton also believes “It Takes a Village” to raise a child.

And thank God for the village, because from the looks of things Huma Abedin, Hillary’s right-hand woman, has had to leave her little boy with the village people so that she can aid and abet the most power-hungry female on the planet.

You remember Huma – she’s the humiliated wife of former Congressman Anthony “Naked Selfies” Weiner (D-NY). After Anthony got caught with his pants down the last time Huma was off tending to Mrs. Clinton’s needs, Hillary’s closest confidante took her mentor’s advice and stayed married to Sydney Leathers’ boyfriend.

This time around, while Huma is again on the road, besides being more careful while sexting Mr. Weiner spends the lion’s share of his time tending to the couple’s three-year-old son Jordan Zain.

While the tousled-haired tot is home eating stale Cheerios with Dad, besides ordering Her HRC Chipotle chicken burrito bowls, Huma serves as vice chairwoman of Hillary for America and travels around in the Scooby-Doo van listening to Hillary drone on and on incessantly about her plans to take over the world.

While Hillary markets herself as mother and grandmother of the year, instead of suggesting Huma go home and potty train her child, Clinton stands by while Abedin embroils herself in the Clinton email scandal, takes to Twitter to trash Republican candidates like Ben Carson for his Muslim remarks, and single-handedly makes sure the creases in the legs of Hillary’s pantsuits adequately elongate the presidential hopeful’s lithe physique.

Fake, phony fraud that she is, Hillary wants America to believe that she’s “standing up for kids and families.” But in reality, having Huma with her is more important to Hillary than her assistant’s husband, who seems to still be struggling with infidelity, and child, both of whom need to have a wife and mother in closer proximity than a presidential debate in Nevada.

Mrs. Clinton is well aware that much like herself and Bill, Huma has had to deal with Anthony’s very public indiscretions. Yet rather than suggest her sounding-board gofer girl mend her marriage and tend to her small son, a self-centered Hillary has permitted Huma to put mothering and marital restoration aside to assist her on the campaign trail.

Then again, Hillary, a strong supporter of abortion, may say she’s all for families, but based on the message her lifestyle sends and some of her more ridiculous campaign ads, what’s patently clear is that Hillary believes that climate change has a more negative effect on children than an abortion, absentee mother, or a pervert father.

Nonetheless, even those things have not prevented Hillary from having a campaign slogan that says she believes that “when families are strong, America is strong.” The problem with such a disingenuous statement coming from Hillary is that the tireless political hack has a family life and marriage that is, has been, and always will be a sad, pathetic sham.

Remember way back when Hillary stated her feminist goals, saying, “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.”

In other words, Hillary is proud that her dedication to her profession took precedence over her commitment to her husband and marriage.

Lest we forget that as part of the almost half-century long cohabitating ruse, while goal-oriented Mom is out frenetically pursuing her hollow fantasy, on 20 acres in Chappaqua, New York sits an $11 million mansion furnished with cold-hearted unfaithfulness, complete with a fully-equipped kitchen that is absent of the smell of freshly baked cookies and devoted nurturing.

And Hillary is preaching to us about the importance of family values?

By allowing Huma to follow the lonesome path she’s chosen, hypocrite Hillary is promoting more of the same self-inflicted maternal and marital dysfunction she’s suffered for a lifetime.

For 40 years Clinton has endured her husband’s voracious desire for other women and now, rather than admit that her selfish pursuit of power may be largely responsible for her own domestic dismay, a pretentious Hillary dares to tout strong families as if she’s an authority on the subject.

Moreover, on behalf of a selfish goal, rather than send Abedin home where the young mother belongs, in order to help her claw her way into the Oval Office, Hillary Clinton is allowing her personal aide to virtually abandon her child and marriage.

God forbid, but if Clinton does somehow manage to bamboozle her way back into the White House, she’ll reside there a bitter old woman who gave up everything that matters in order to occupy for a fleeting moment in time what she foolishly believed to be the fulfillment of her own historic vision.

Still, it was Hillary who once said: “Don’t confuse having a career with having a life.”

With that in mind, maybe the next time Huma and Hillary put their heads together for a tête-à-tête, the aging careerist whose bifocals are fixed like a laser on the White House could turn things around for Huma by telling the young woman that it would be in her family’s best interest if she went home.

Are the lives of children the ‘price of our freedom?’

NewtownThe other night Barack Obama came to Newtown, Connecticut to attend the Sandy Hook Prayer Vigil.  He was there to offer condolences to the grieving and to honor the memory to the individuals killed in the massacre, whom he described as “twenty beautiful children and six remarkable adults.”

Of the six women who died, Obama conceded that “[t]hey responded as we all hope we might respond in such terrifying circumstances — with courage and with love, giving their lives to protect the children in their care.” Right from the start, women being praised for laying down their lives for a child provided a stark contrast to the Sandra Fluke culture Obama usually promotes, where selfishness trumps the sanctity of life.

Nonetheless, the man who warned against tying politics to tragedy segued smoothly from grief and prayerfulness into using a catastrophe for his own political purposes.

Oblivious to the contradiction posed when a person who believes that a fetus is not a human and that medical care should not be given to infants born alive in botched abortions speaks touchingly of newborn babes, Obama said “With their very first cry, this most precious, vital part of ourselves — our child — is suddenly exposed to the world, to possible mishap or malice.”

The President, who in the past has likened unwanted pregnancy to punishment, then shared that “[e]very parent knows there is nothing we will not do to shield our children from harm.”

After discussing parents protecting their children, Obama entered African proverb “it takes a village to raise a child” territory. The President suggested that parents are shocked when they realize that “loving your children isn’t enough to keep them safe.” According to Obama, “teaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community” – and most importantly, “with the help of a nation,” otherwise known as a liberal-ideology-pushing entity called the U.S. government.

The Collectivist-in-Chief then proceeded to shepherd America’s children into the village with the following pronouncement: “And in that way, we come to realize that we bear a responsibility for every child because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours; that we’re all parents; that they’re all our children.”

Then, he said “This is our first task — caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.” Amen to that one Mr. President, because right about now it’s good to know that caring for all our children is what could stem the tide of judgment.

From there, the Planned Parenthood cheerleader with the 100% NARAL voting record asked a question that he should pose to himself:

And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we are meeting our obligations? Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children — all of them — safe from harm? Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?

America’s most famous feticide and infanticide crusader, answered himself correctly when he then stated, “[i]f we’re honest with ourselves, the answer is no… And we will have to change.”

He then recounted the grim fact that “Since [he’s] been President, this is the fourth time [America] came together to comfort a grieving community torn apart by a mass shooting.” What Obama failed, or chose not to point out, was that since 1966 there have been 16 mass shootings in America, eight of which – 50 percent – took place on his watch.

In response to a 953% increase in the annual mass-shooting rate in the last four years as compared to the previous 42 years, what did the President propose?  More change, of course!

Therefore, in anticipation of the forthcoming arguments that are bound to arise in response to the sort of ‘change’ he plans to implement, the President took preliminary steps to defuse predictable resistance. Obama’s vigil visit lay the groundwork for the “meaningful action” he promised on the night of the shootings, by jumping in front of the debate.

The President argued that “We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true.”  However, in anticipation of enacting new laws, he then said “No single law — no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.” Using that kind reasoning, the truth should not be an “excuse for inaction.”

From the sound of things, it seems America’s most ardent advocate for choice is about to circumvent the opposition to address gun laws, because “what other choice do we have” besides his choice?  During a prayer service, America’s Executive Power addict inappropriately flexed his sovereign muscle when he said that “in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this” he would, once again, use “whatever power this office holds.”

Liberals believe 60 million dead babies and counting is a price worth paying for the right to choose. Now it sounds like the Second Amendment might be the price America is about to pay to ensure the safety of the same children who, were they inside a womb instead of a classroom, Obama would have zero problem aborting.

Signaling that freedom is about to be targeted and after expressing unwillingness to “accept events like this as routine,” Obama then posed an unsettling question: “Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard?”

Let’s remember – for community organizer types, random carnage is not only a crisis, it’s an opportunity that cries out for a remedy, especially when the death of innocent children provide the motivation to guilt the resistant into submission.  Therefore, the tone and direction of the President’s remarks seemed to suggest that disagreeable Constitutionalists had better get out of the way.

Then, exploiting a grieving community, the President probed further, “Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?” That statement should incite terror in every American who cherishes liberty.

And so Barack Obama offered Sandy Hook his presidential condolences, tearless weeping, and poignant personal anecdotes on parenting. However, after the statement that indicated he plans to place the unpredictable security of a few above the established freedom of many, “the price of our freedom” was truly a chilling choice of words.

In Seattle school, mother kept in the dark about her child’s abortion – American Thinker Blog – March 24, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker Blog

Liberals believe It Takes a Village, to raise a child.  In fact, the goal of those running the village is to supplant biological parenthood and determine the number of children allowed to exist.

Many African cultures share the school of thought echoed on Barack Obama’s Organizing for America website, which says the following, “‘Omwana ni wa bhone,’ meaning regardless of a child’s biological parent(s) its upbringing belongs to the community.” Translation:  In Obamamerica biology is inferior to bureaucracy, especially when it comes to village management as demonstrated by the “right to choose.”

In fact parents are so second rate, the state of Washington facilitates “confidential” abortions for underage school children without the unwelcome intrusion of parental knowledge.

School officials in Seattle believe in the superior role of the “community” so much so that tax funded campus health centers have been transformed into abortion clinics.  During school hours, while mothers and fathers naively believe children are at cheerleading practice, underage girls are being treated to suction and curettage under the benevolent eye of governmental guardians.

Recently, the mother of a Ballard High School revealed magnanimous custodians assisted her 15-year old daughter’s abortion, without her knowledge, because the clinic “kept the information confidential.” The distraught mother explained that at one point she signed a consent form allowing her daughter access to the Ballard Teen Health Center for, “an earache, sports physical, even birth control, but not for help terminating a pregnancy.”

If it’s any comfort Mom, it would have been futile to read the fine print because “Nowhere in the paperwork [did] it even mention abortion.”

Apparently, the Seattle woman’s daughter, who was obviously participating in activities other than soccer, “took a pregnancy test at school at the teen health center.”  Immediately following the appearance of a   + positive- smiley face, the village went into parental overdrive.

The mother, identifying herself as “Jill” said, her daughter, who claims to be a “pro-life advocate,” was excused from class, put in a “taxi and sent off to have an abortion…without family knowing.”  The girl contends village elders told her that if she “concealed it from her family, that it would be free of charge and no financial responsibility.”

In cases such as these, confidentiality works to everyone’s benefit. Girls can go home after school and talk about home economics class and discuss the prohibition of sugary soft drinks on campus without suspicion, and do so while the population of the village is strictly controlled by the chieftains.

The Seattle School District, together with the Swedish Medical Center, who in all probability can’t wait to acquire access to health records on line, vehemently defended the right to “protect the students’ privacy.” Privacy defined as school officials, in lieu of parents, having full access to the clandestine decision of underage students terminating pregnancies during 4th period.

In a liberal, highly touted village, parents have a key biological role–after which, respect for the boundaries of progeny is strictly demanded.  T.J. Cosgrove of King County Health Department says, “It’s always best if parents are involved in children’s health care, but don’t always have a say.”   Cosgrove maintains, “At any age in the state of Washington, an individual can consent to a termination of pregnancy” – free of charge, unencumbered by parental interference and devoid of personal responsibility.

The mother of the teenage girl, who received the gratis abortion, said not being made aware of her daughter’s abortion made her, “feel like [her] rights were completely stripped away.”  Get used to it Mom, because in Obamamerica, more appropriately called, The Village, everyone’s rights are “completely stripped away.”

Michelle Obama Nourishes Hillary’s ‘Village’ – American Thinker Blog – February 11, 2010

Originally posted on American Thinker Blog

Two years after appearing on Larry King Live Michelle Obama returned as First Lady to discuss inspiring FLOTUS initiatives.  Other than Larry’s strange hair color overall the interview seemed uneventful.  However, “for those who have ears to hear” a disingenuous Michelle delivered more then just a dietary diatribe. Listening closely to the King interview Michelle had some very peculiar things to say.

Unbeknownst to sycophantic Larry King, Shelley’s anti-obesity campaign stands poised to marshal herds of children into Hillary’s still sparsely settled “village.” The First Lady knows that for the national service corps to become reality healthy children, not corpulent corpses, ensure contenders to the ranks. The utopian community Michelle imagines teams with slender children;  “raised not just by their parents, but also by society… schools and the government.”

Exhibiting uncharacteristic candidness during the interview the First Lady invited America into the vacated kitchen at 5046 S. Greenwood Avenue, sharing with Larry Chicago-living consumption challenges. As two hard working parents Michelle claimed for years both she and Barry failed to provide the family with healthy food choices.

Michelle’s assertion was curious based on the fact that Windy City living for the Obama’s included personal chef, Sam Kass who supposedly has a “particular interest in healthy…local food.” Kass was featured on the Biggest Loser, yet Michelle told the captivated Larry King the “uptick” in her daughter’s BMI, alarming a Chicago pediatrician, occurred while consuming Sam-food.

Then, failing to mention Kass’s involvement, the First Lady contended the girls slimmed down after, weekday desserts were eliminated; the harried couple providing “fresh squeezed juices” and family night conversations revolving around the evils of “processed foods.”

Michelle agreed with Larry that childhood weight issues are a “delicate subject.” To spare embarrassment, the First Lady never broached the girl’s weight directly suggesting only, “We have to change how we eat.”  However, now as representative of an anti-podgy kiddy campaign, in conjunction with a national taskforce, Michelle feels it necessary to “personalize” the message by sharing Sasha and Malia’s prepubescent weight struggles with the whole country.

Michelle said small dietary changes worked because both daughters “Wouldn’t go for absolutes [emphasis mine].” Then when Larry asked about the possibility of health care not being accomplished Michelle replied, “Doing nothing is absolutely [emphasis mine] not an option.”

Healthy eating maven Michelle continued to exhibit delusional opinions throughout the interview, starting with the assertion that Barack “stays humble.” Mrs. Obama also claimed to know little about the Tea Party movementmade up of people from all political parties, claiming to stay focused only on “issues that have no political party.”  The First Lady also applauded Barack’s “important steps and quick smart strategic thinking,” for saving America from the “brink of an inevitable depression.”

Relishing private time behind closed doors in the White House family residence, a First Lady who avoids maternal absolutes provided Larry a litany of absolutes to address chunky-child issues for Americans to follow in the privacy of their homes. “Turn off the TV, eat dinner together, provide structured bed time, cut down portion sizes, turn on the radio and dance ‘til you sweat, walk to school and run up and down the stairs.”

Michelle’s King interview, lacked consistent sincerity, but had one ray of candor amidst prevarications and partial truths. The First Lady readily agreed with Larry King’s evaluation of her superior intelligence perking up saying, “I’m very smart but I like to limit my intake to things I can control.”  How true Michelle, how very, very true.

%d bloggers like this: