Tag Archives: Liberalism

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.”


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 Secret to Understanding Liberals

Posted at Renew America

Personal perception is everything, especially when it comes to liberals.  Barack Obama is a perfect case in point.  Here you have an individual with minimal qualifications and expertise who thinks so highly of himself, and so little of the American people, that he had the impudence to run for a leadership position that he had no business seeking.

Unfortunately, in American politics as well as in personal relationships, the least qualified are the most driven to control. Those lacking authentic confidence are the braggadocios in the group, reminding everyone how ahead-of-the-pack they are regardless of the topic, circumstance or discussion. That is precisely how someone of Barack Obama’s character made an unbelievable move from a highchair to the Oval Office chair.

Liberals gain power through a finely tuned mix of self-exaltation and subjugation – traits not exclusive to politics. Ordinary self-exalting subjugators are found everywhere. In day-to-day life, you meet them on the street and sit next to them at Thanksgiving dinner. They busily push their self-important weight around in the business world and, to the detriment of America, have recently taken up residence in the White House.

The President is a liberal subjugator. The definition of subjugation is: the act or process of bringing someone or something under one’s control. Rest assured, Barack Obama is a master of subdue-and-conquer.  The way Obama maintains power is to woo detractors to a front-row seat at a speech and then proceed to do what liberals do by nature: castigate, publicly humiliate, and attempt to crush.

Liberals are notorious for corralling the herd, scrambling to the self-erected balcony seat, and standing apart from the ignorant. In the delusional mind of a liberal, self-righteous authority becomes the justification to be an abusive – albeit seemingly empathetic – disciplinarian.

The excuse for targeted abuse? Liberals are charity champions, the self-styled protectors of the downtrodden, self-aggrandizing deliverers of the destitute, and protectors of the neglected.

Think of it – Obama is possessed of a subtle cruelty and displays it on a regular basis.  The Supreme Court justices, Pete Hoekstra and Aaron Schock (R-IL), and most recently deficit whiz kid Paul Ryan (R-WI) were all taken to task by Obama. Like most liberal subjugators, Barack makes no apology for lifting a leg over a situation to mark territory and maintain aggressive control.

As mentioned before,  subjugators aren’t limited to politics; they expand the effort into every venue and toward all the ‘little people,’ regardless of location.  If common folk want a better understanding of Obama’s style, look to the liberals in everyday life and soon the spirit presently governing the nation will be better understood.

Most normal people have experienced the controlling tendency of a liberal.  Always the upbeat friend, initially a liberal will cozy up in a sociable way. Without fail, things quickly devolve and eventually casual banter is peppered with demeaning innuendos, snide remarks, self-exalting commentary, and perfectly placed put-downs. Obama does it from the podium; Uncle Chester does it at the family picnic.

Over the course of any encounter, there’s at least one inappropriate “correction” or hostile outburst to remind the dupes of the superiority of the liberal in charge.  Correction is always coupled with a firm, chiding reminder of who is smarter and more compassionate.  It’s pervasive. It’s endemic to their species. If Liberals aren’t emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, and physically dominating, they’re either under the weather or not an authentic liberal.

For our own good, the left dictates how much of our own money we can keep, what doctor to go to, and which causes are worthy of support. Subjugators take it so far that they even have the temerity to define the boundaries of what others say and do. Liberals are deluded into perceiving themselves as the kindest people on the planet.  However, if the uninformed dare step outside the designated boundary of thought, word or deed, a bona fide liberal will find a way to vilify, mock, deride, and publicly rebuke, and then to drive home a point, a la Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg, proceed to stomp out of the room.

Another deceptive liberal ploy is to feign personal angst for the less fortunate. To prove caring concern, the left heavily publicizes every act of altruism.  Liberals notoriously seek face time on live-aid telethons, weep the loudest at funerals, march in gay parades, adopt African babies, and volunteer for inner city organizations. It is upon that sanctimonious foundation; those on the left are able to rationalize verbal mistreatment and dictator-like attitudes toward those who choose to keep philanthropic outreach private.

Liberal benevolence is fodder for billboards and former recipients of liberal kindness are beholden to express undying gratitude, because liberals expect to be repaid with lifelong worship expressed through mindless votes at election time.  The loving, compassionate liberal will choose downtrodden victims to support and then proceed to make a public display of personal goodness, because helping the weak is more about liberals being lauded than not letting “the right hand know what the left hand is doing.”

America witnesses it yearly in the balcony of the House chambers at the annual State of Union address.  It’s the “Everybody, please look at me I hug people with HIV/AIDS” syndrome.

But ultimately, it’s really about power. If Michelle Obama didn’t drive home her acute concern for the health of children, then the supreme child authority could not point an authoritative finger in America’s face when instituting policy that prohibits parents from sending their own children to school with a peanut butter and fluff sandwich in a non-recyclable lunch bag.

After awhile, from the White House to the backyard greenhouse it’s impossible to deny that liberals believe they know more about things than certified experts in diverse fields. Regardless of the venue or subject, those on the left believe they are wiser, more knowledgeable, more savvy and, above all, able to see the bigger picture. In the liberal mind they can run any type of business and are convinced, on day one, they should be CEO.  Uneducated liberals believe they can academically manage educational institutions, raise other people’s children, and organize low-income communities, after which the natural progression is to  follow Obama’s example and segue into “saving” the nation and then conquering the world.

It’s a simple formula, applicable on both a micro and a macro level. Liberals establish themselves as the world’s benevolent caretakers, authorities on all subjects, and based on an overwhelming need to subjugate attempt to gain superiority through humiliation and chastisement. Then liberals demand the right to dictate based on a perverted sense of moral supremacy, self-enhanced dominance, and an obsessive need to control everyone and everything.

It doesn’t take much experience to figure out that couched within every demagogic comment uttered from the lips of a liberal contains is an underlying message of  judgmental disdain and mocking dismissal.  The propensity is identifiable from Barack Obama to the lady next door with the Hope and Change sign on her lawn. Liberals are predictable and all the same.

%d bloggers like this: