Tag Archives: no featured image

MUSLIM KOWTOWER: Obama Mourns for a Saudi King

saidi-300x180Originally posted at Clash Daily

Based on which funerals and memorials he chooses to attend and which ones he chooses to ignore, in the past President Obama has relayed unspoken sentiments about the deceased.

Take for instance his weeping at the memorial services of children killed by gun violence versus his absence at the funerals of the children who died of Enterovirus D-68. The president attended the former because it furthered his ongoing gun-grab effort, but not the latter, because children dying from imported Third World diseases are synonymous with being a victim of Obama’s illegal immigration policy.

At a moment’s notice, Barack and Michelle were willing to fly off to South Africa for Nelson Mandela’s funeral, but because U.S. Border Agent Brian Terry and ICE agent Jaime Zapata were killed with Obama administration “Fast and Furious”-provided guns, the president chose to skip those events.

Regrettably for Major General Harold J. Green, the highest-ranking military officer killed in combat in a half-century, on the same day the major general was laid to rest Obama chose to play his second round of golf in three days.

Unlike he did with drug-addled pop star Whitney Houston, cancer-victim ESPN announcer Stuart Scott, and the suicidal Robin Williams, the president made no statement concerning the death of decorated Navy SEAL of American Sniper fame, Chris Kyle, the Iraqi war hero who did four tours of duty and saved thousands of American lives. Obama didn’t even acknowledge the murdered Kyle’s funeral, which included a 200-mile procession from Midlothian, Texas to Austin.

The same held true with James Foley, the American journalist beheaded by renowned ISIS decapitator Jihadi John. At Foley’s memorial service, there was nary a White House representative in sight.

To his credit, Obama blubbered like a baby at the funeral of the “Godmother” of the civil rights movement, Dr. Dorothy Height, and recognized the death of the first Cherokee Nation female chief Wilma Mankiller.

After the passing of fantasy/science fiction author Ray Bradbury, pop star/disco singer Donna Summer, Apple founder Steve Jobs, and American Bandstand/New Year’s Eve icon Dick Clark, Obama publicly extended his condolences.

And just as he did with Trayvon Martin, Obama issued a statement concerning the death of Ferguson, Missouri thug Michael Brown. Concerned about gun violence, the president dispatched Michelle to Chicago for the funeral of murdered teen Hadiya Pendleton.

On the other hand, the president chose to sit out the funeral of U.S. ally and good friend to former president Ronald Reagan, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Citing volcanic ash as a deterrent, the president chose to golf on the day of Polish president Lech Kaczynski’s 2010 funeral.

Speaking of Poland, on the way home from India Obama will not be attending the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, the largest mass murder site in human history.

However, six million murdered Jews aside, while returning from India, Obama decided to make a $267,787 four-hour stopover in Saudi Arabia to pay his respects to the late King Abdullah and to meet the newly crowned Saudi monarch King Salman. The president touched down in Riyadh hauling a huge American delegation that included Condoleezza Rice and John McCain (R-AZ).

Barack Obama didn’t feel inclined to pay his respects to NYPD Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, whose funeral services were both held close to New York City’s Times Square. But maybe, after dining at the Saudi Erga Palace, he did some secret sightseeing in Deera “Chop-Chop Square,” the place where decapitations routinely take place as a form of entertainment and where, after losing their heads, some of the corpses are then crucified.

Disguised as diplomacy, Barack Obama, the man who ignored the deaths of America’s true allies, chose to spend American tax dollars to fund his transparently selective funeral attendance. And he did it in the largest Arab nation that controls most of the world’s oil for a dead King whose legacy has been the persecution of women, imprisonment or death for political dissidents, the flogging of outspoken bloggers, chopping off the limbs of thieves, and beheading people.

Meanwhile, Muslim kowtower Obama couldn’t make it to the Paris protest renouncing terrorism attended by 44 other world leaders, and asked a White House official to promise on his behalf that Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu will “pay a price” for agreeing to come to America to address Congress on the threat of a nuclear Iran.

Meanwhile, feigning funerary obligations, again Obama exposes his blatant favoritism with yet another non-verbal statement. But this time, he’s not expressing sympathy for dead thugs or deceased celebrities, but a dead Saudi Arabian king and a nation rumored to be a “cash machine” for worldwide terrorism.

SNIPING AT ‘SNIPER’: Hollywood Applauds Losers, Belittles Heroes

AMERICAN SNIPEROriginally posted at CLASH Daily

Hollywood is a place where movies about gay cowboys earn tears, inspire repeated standing ovations, and win Academy Awards. Hollywood is place where movies like Cider House Rules and Vera Drake, both of which commend slaughtering the unborn, are lauded as noble.

Hollywood is also a place where America-hating, Cuba-loving collectivists can become millionaires while criticizing capitalism, and the pot-smoking offspring of “radical Jewish socialists” can be catapulted to the heights of stardom for telling dirty jokes.

Hollywood is home to those who champion freedom of expression as long as what is being expressed supports the left-wing agenda. Yet those same people refuse to recognize that the right to express those opinions, regardless of how vile, was won thanks to the sacrifices of the men and women of our military.

Now, as American Sniper breaks all box-office records and receives six Oscar nominations, including Bradley Cooper for Best Actor, the usual Hollywood blowhards are expressing disdain for a film chronicling the experiences of the most lethal sniper in American history.

When recounting his role as an assassin, the subject of the Clint Eastwood movie, the late US Navy Seal Chris Kyle, nickname by insurgents “The Devil of Ramadi,” has been quoted as describing the adversary as “Savage, despicable evil.”

Those kinds of adjectives offend liberals because to them America’s enemies are heroes and America’s heroes are enemies.

In fact, based on some of the negative reaction to the movie’s success, it appears that there are those who would have preferred that Eastwood make a movie sympathetic to the Marine Corps veteran with PTSD who shot and killed Kyle and his friend Chad Littlefield at a gun range.

One Hollywood detractor bashing American Sniper is portly comedic actor Seth Rogen. Besides the recent controversial film about interviewing-in-hopes-of-assassinating North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un, Rogen has written, produced, and starred in such cinematic greats as the gripping and enthralling Knocked Up, the life-affirming Zack and Miri Makes a Porno, and the divinely-inspired The 40-Year-Old Virgin.

On Twitter, Rogen, who is beloved by the star of Eastwood’s “Empty Chair” series, President Barack Obama, compared the movie American Sniper to the fictional Nazi-sniper propaganda film featured in the plot of Quentin Tarentino’s Inglourious Basterds.

Seems Rogen, who once said “I mean, where I come from, ‘communism’ is not a terrible word,” is bent out of shape because Eastwood has made a hero out of a man who says things like “It was my duty to shoot the enemy, and I don’t regret it. My regrets are for the people I couldn’t save: Marines, soldiers, buddies.”

Similar to the lines wrapping around theaters nationwide, when Chris Kyle was memorialized at Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas, there was a funeral procession stretching over 200 miles from Midlothian, Texas to Texas State Cemetery in Austin.

Sadly, for Seth there are no lines for his movies. Instead, while he’s busy criticizing American Sniper, which grossed $105.3 million in four days, The Interview, the lemon Rogen starred in with James Franco, is predicted to lose $75 million.

Nonetheless, Seth Rogen is not the only paunchy Hollywood type who enjoys the freedoms American sniper Chris Kyle protected. The other bigmouth hefty trying to demean true fearlessness is the corpulent anti-capitalist owner of nine properties and obvious consumer of lots of foie gras, director/producer/writer/author/ multimillionaire Michael Moore.

Chris Kyle once said, “It’s not a problem taking out someone who wants your people dead. That’s not a problem at all.”

Michael Moore, a man who has zero clue when it comes to valor, love of country, or heroism, took to Twitter to call Chris Kyle a “coward” who “shoots u in the back.” According to America-hating Moore, “snipers aren’t heroes, and invaders are worse.”

Michael the “Sicko” seems to be morally equating murderers like the DC sniper, who hid in the trunk of a car shooting random people going about their daily business, with the duties of a warrior protecting the lives of other soldiers.

This bunkum comes from a guy who embraces a health system instituted by a Cuban dictator renowned for lining up thousands and mowing them down with firing squads.

Then there’s writer and film critic Lindy West. In an article in the Guardian West, who received a social media award from Hanoi Jane, opines, “The real American Sniper was a hate-filled killer.” Then she asks the question: “Why are simplistic patriots treating him as a hero?”

West wrote of the film, “If [Eastwood], intentionally or not, makes a hero out of Kyle – who, bare minimum, was a racist who took pleasure in dehumanizing and killing brown people – is he responsible for validating racism, murder, and dehumanization?”

If she believes that’s true, then why doesn’t Lindy West admit that those who refuse to acknowledge that the religion responsible for the killing of white, black and brown people and for the raping and beheading of thousands in the name of Allah are also responsible for “validating racism, murder, and dehumanization?”

Rogen, Moore, and West are among those who wouldn’t hesitate to call Kyle an “American Psycho”. Yet that same group would probably refuse to label a Muslim extremist who kills to avenge Mohammed an Islamic terrorist.

This pathetic group of individuals scorns the memory of a dead soldier who, had he been in Libya on September 11th 2012, would have done more to help than a missing president who may have been busy watching a rerun of Rogen’s stoner flick Pineapple Express while four Americans, including an American ambassador, were being murdered.

In the end, the sad truth is that, predictably, liberals would rather support killing an unborn baby than a terrorist. But above all, be they in Hollywood, the media, or academia, liberals can always be counted on to disparage patriotism, censure heroism, and generally condemn anyone who dares to harm America’s enemies.

WHAT’S THE STORY? The Truth Behind Obama’s Defense of Islam

Ob-Islam-300x180Originally posted at Clash Daily

Regardless of what Muslim adherents say, every time a terrorist beheads, shoots, or blows up civilized human beings, an unsolicited handful of world leaders feel it’s their duty to step forward to clarify that those doing the terrorizing aren’t really Muslims. That’s why someone should really find out who is convincing non-Muslim terrorists to pretend to be Muslim, because if ever there was cause for confusion, the “terrorists aren’t Muslim” issue is it.

From France’s President François Hollande to America’s very own President Barack Obama, apologists simply refuse to agree that those who openly admit dedication to the prophet Mohammed are fervent followers of the Islamic faith.

Although with great regularity Islamic extremists begin and end their bloodbaths by shouting “Allahu Akbar” and go enthusiastically to their deaths proud to be “avenging the prophet” Mohammed, for some strange reason President Obama feels it is his obligation to repudiate the testimony of martyrs.

Not only that, but a contradiction arises, because as the president has already proven with his “bitter clinger” remark, if a shooter were to shout “Praise Jesus” instead of “Allahu Akbar”, it’s highly unlikely similar PR would be offered on behalf of Christians.

Let’s face it – in the ongoing effort to place Christians in the crosshairs of progressive criticism, those on the left cannot afford to have Muslims out-evil the “right wing extremists” and Bible-thumpers. That’s why, regardless of how many body bags jihadists fill, Obama will always be at the ready to remediate the reputation of Islam in the eyes of those who see it for what it is.

So what if Muslims blow away political cartoonists for exercising the right to free expression. As evidenced by the Ferguson, Missouri street riots and the tacitly government-approved animosity directed toward police officers, here in Obama’s America, lack of tolerance exhibited by one group no longer justifies refusal to tolerate the intolerable in the other.

Yet the question here is why does Barack Obama refuse to take Muslim jihadists at their word?

Could it be because terrorism places Mohammed in a bad light, and according to a politically pragmatic president attempting to cultivate cultural and religious diversity, “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam?”

Also, according to Barack Obama, “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.” Therefore, by his insistence on portraying Islam in a light contrary to reality, what the president is actually doing is ensuring tolerance be extended to the intolerant.

As the body count continues to rise, Barack Obama continues to assert that “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.”

Huh?

Who cares if three individuals declaring vengeance for Allah wreak bloody havoc on an iconic European city? If Barack Obama decides that Islamic “rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings,” then even if what he says is contradicted by what is actually happening, one way or another his complicated rhetoric will twist the truth and blatant lies will eventually be accepted.

Let’s not forget, this is Barack Obama, the man who has redefined everything from Hope and Change to what constitutes police “acting stupidly.” Therefore, why shouldn’t he also redefine Islam, even if doing so controverts the profession of faith by those willing to be die for their beliefs?

What’s odd is that this defense of Islam is coming from a man who claims to be a Christian. Then again, it’s probably easy for Obama to disavow the claims of terrorists who call themselves Muslims because, despite admitting belief in Jesus, the president lives a life alien to the creed Christ lays out for His followers.

By his own example, Barack Obama has shed much-needed light on individuals who identify with a religious dogma and then act in a way contrary to their stated beliefs. Whether the president realizes it or not, the benchmarks he’s put forth in defense of Islam are standards that can also be applied to his own dubious relationship with God of the New Testament.

In truth, when it comes to liberal social edicts that support abortion on demand, gay marriage and free contraceptives, the president of the United States is nothing more than another radical extremist who, instead of an AK-47 or a machete, uses a phone and a pen. Moreover, everything that is “honorable, and right, and pure, and lovely” has already been dumbed down and ascribed a new meaning, so why not Islam?

Even still, notwithstanding the president’s effort to whitewash the “religion of peace,” in addition to Obama’s dogged assertion that disciples of Mohammed blowing away shoppers in a deli merely for being Jewish has nothing to do with the faith they proclaim, there may be other, more useful benefits that can result from the president reinventing reality.

Maybe what Obama is doing has little to do with Islam. The same way basic concepts of freedom and fairness have been redefined, mischaracterizing Islam may be just another example of the world’s most dedicated cultural Marxist assigning different meanings to conventional perceptions in order to skew the truth and control the opinion of the masses.

After all, the president’s socialist vision hinges on framing a make-believe world. That’s why the left’s most valuable tool is still propaganda. So, although initially the president’s “terrorists aren’t Muslim” posturing seemed confusing, on second thought it may not be confusing at all.

Barack Obama’s attempt to redefine a 1,400-year-old religion to suit his political agenda may have nothing to do with protecting Islam. Instead, shielding Muslims from condemnation may be part of an ongoing effort to remake, redefine, and impact reality so dramatically that what will finally take hold is unquestioning compliance.

Fully developed twins discarded in San Diego

twins-blue-672x372Originally posted at Live Action News

A woman somewhere in the vicinity of San Diego, California, recently delivered full-term twins. Whether the babies were born alive or were stillborn is yet to be determined by the San Diego Medical Examiner’s office and homicide detectives who are currently investigating the cause of death.

What authorities do know is that at some point, fully developed twins who appeared to have reached 20 weeks’ or more gestation were delivered, wrapped in a blanket, and dumped outside the gate of a private home.

Clearly, whoever discarded these babies didn’t swaddle them to provide comfort or warmth.

Instead, homeowner David Branford spotted the blanket in his driveway, which is located on the north side of St. Peter’s Catholic Church in Fallbrook. At first, Branford thought what he was seeing was a discarded doll. After doing his morning chores, Branford, who was still unsure, went back to check and realized it wasn’t a toy in the blanket, but two dead human babies.

Branford immediately called 911, after which paramedics verified that the twins, with umbilical cords still attached to one placenta, were both dead.

An investigation is now underway, and the San Diego Sheriff’s Department’s homicide detectives are requesting information from anyone who knows of a woman in the area who has no baby to show as a result of a recent pregnancy.

The Bible in Micah 6:7 asks, “Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” That pointed question is crying out to be answered by a nation whose transgressions have resulted in millions of women hiding their sin by tossing away the fruit of life from within their bodies.

In the meantime, regardless of the woman’s reason for her horrific act or the outcome of this particular investigation, any mother who would discard her child, dead or alive, on a cold street where garbage, glass, cigarette butts, and chewed gum litter the ground defies human imagination. And as disturbing as this tragedy may be, the case of the dead twins wrapped in a blanket lying in the street is just one more on a long list of examples of children, like rubbish, being coldly thrown away.

BILL CLINTON: Friend of Pedophiles

clinton-liel-peres-partyOriginally posted at Clash Daily

Bill Clinton has been named in a lawsuit against a onetime billionaire “Friend of Bill” named Jeffrey Epstein. That means there may be another vast right wing conspiracy afoot. Accused by over 40 women of being a sexual predator, American financier Mr. Epstein is a man who, in a way similar to Bill Clinton’s weakness for White House interns, has a weakness for female jailbait.

Before Epstein admitted and was convicted of pedophilia and, thanks to his political connections, sent to jail for only 13 months, Clinton, who probably only has an affinity for the juicy fruit native to the Virgin Islands, was a frequent guest at the Caribbean playground.

No one is accusing Bill of participating in the “regular” orgies that were held at the ex-billionaire’s Caribbean compound. And even though flight records show that the former president visited Epstein’s private island, Little St. James, between 2002 and 2005, two or 20 or 200 times, that doesn’t mean the supporter of the Children’s Health Fund was doing anything untoward with the little ones on the private compound.

Humanitarian that he is, Slick Willy was probably in the Caribbean raising money for charity and sipping Cruzan Rum. Or maybe Bill was on a mission hoping to encourage his good pal to seek out age appropriate women as sex partners.

In addition to Bill Clinton, Epstein was also chummy with former Governor Eliot “Black Socks” Spitzer and Prince Andrew, the latter of whom recently was also accused of underage sexual abuse. British royal Prince Andrew even stayed at the ex-con’s New York City mansion months after Epstein was released from jail in 2010.

The lawsuit claims that in the early 2000s, while working on his philanthropic endeavors and while a distracted Hillary the Carpetbagger was busy clawing her way to the top of the New York State political heap, hubby was off consorting with a pervert who hosted orgies featuring young girls who were shipped to the island to service older men.

Epstein was investigated and ultimately convicted after a woman reported that the former billionaire paid her 14-year-old daughter $300 for a massage and sex. According to the women, Epstein hosted orgies attended by two young girls from New York and a least one young girl the suit identifies as Jane Doe 102 who allegedly was being kept there unwillingly.

It was reported in the National Enquirer that Jane Doe 102 was forced to live as one of Epstein’s underage sex slaves for years and had sex under duress with “politicians, businessmen, royalty, academicians, etc.”

According to the lawsuit, when Epstein was busted in 2008 for diddling around with underage prostitutes, Bill dropped him like a chewed-on cigar butt.

Far be it from anyone, let alone a Clinton fan like myself, to imply that the beret-and-blue dress connoisseur visiting Little St. James was one of the politicians serviced by a youthful sex slave. And anyone that would even suggest such a thing would likely be part of the same “vast right wing conspiracy” that Hillary says has been dogging Bill Clinton ever since his brilliance and charisma burst unto the political scene 30-something years ago.

Accusations of teenage prostitution aside, the lawsuit does reveal that Bill did have a grownup female friend who photographed young girls in sexually explicit positions. That friend provided Jeffrey Epstein with those photos as a kind of shopping list. In fact, Clinton was so friendly with this particular shutterbug that she took an afternoon off from distributing child porn to attend Chelsea Clinton’s $6 million 2010 wedding.

Still, there’s no proof of Bill Clinton’s guilt. However, as past history has proven, the likelihood of the ex-president visiting the Caribbean sex island and choosing not to participate in the festivities is about as probable as a cigar aficionado visiting the Gurkha $1,000 cigar factory in Miami and taking a pass on the hand-rolled stogies.

Nonetheless, just because he poses with prostitutes from the Nevada Bunny Ranch doesn’t mean Slick Willy would venture into the dark netherworld of pedophilia by having sex with underage girls against their will.

As for Hillary, in the run-up to 2016 a sex scandal comes at a very bad time. How will Hillary accuse Republicans of not doing enough for the children if her husband is suspected of statutory rape? That’s why only time will tell whether Bill Clinton’s affiliation with a pedophile will impact his chances to park his humidor back in the White House.

In the meantime, if Bill Clinton finds himself in another sexual pickle, so to speak, he can always wiggle his way out by reminding his accusers that when it comes to these tawdry, illegal accusations, “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘pedophile’ is.” If that doesn’t work, irreverent liberal comedian Bill Maher can always deflect on Hillary and Bill’s behalf by placing added emphasis on Catholic priests molesting little boys.

Still, whether the man with the unquenchable libido had sex with little girls or not, what is undeniable is his friendship with an admitted pedophile and his time spent cavorting at the scene of the crime. Not to worry though, because when confronted with the topic of underage sex slaves, all Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky’s totally believable grandpa has to do to clear his name is swear that he “did not have sexual relations with that 15-year-old girl.”

PETA, Palin, and the human life hypocrisy

0102-sbs-palin-son-on-dog-facebook-4-227x300Originally posted at Live Action News

Sarah Palin is under fire again, and not for her Naughty Monkey shoes. This time it’s because of a post on Facebook showing her six-year-old son Trig, a child diagnosed with Down syndrome, to reach an otherwise out-of-reach countertop, “step, baby, step[ping]” on the back of Jill Hadassa, the family’s black Labrador retriever.

Besides the fact that the dog appears totally at ease with the situation and not at all perturbed about providing the elevation barefoot Trig needed to reach the kitchen counter, once again hypocrisy is revealed in feigned outrage  when it comes to what’s acceptable and what’s despicable.

PETA woman of the year Ellen DeGeneres’s adorable Facebook posts aside, the reality is that labs are service dogs – good-natured, loveable, and strong.

10517550_10152602026212240_5446525939227889681_n
Source: The Ellen DeGeneres Show Facebook page.

 

One service dog website, anythingpawsable.com, described the breed this way: “Once you’re ready to face the world, they’ll always be by your side, shoring you up, no matter what you’re doing or where you’re going.”

And shoring up Trig is exactly what this wonderfully sturdy dog did.

And while standing on a dog isn’t something that one should make a habit of, the larger issue here is not whether Trig balanced his little body on the Lab; it’s that there’s just something wildly hypocritical about a group of individuals who largely support unborn baby abuse alleging dog abuse.

After all, in the group doing most of the criticizing, having an extra chromosome like Trig Palin is usually the only “stepping stone” needed to support the decision to dispose of unborn life.

So while radically pro-choice politicians like Barack Obama might be praised by animal rights groups for treating his dogs Sunny and Bo better than he treats humans, pro-lifers like Sarah Palin, a woman who defends the sanctity of life, is being condemned for allowing a barefoot child, determined to wash the dishes, to use a dog for a stepping stool.

Let’s just say that because of Sarah’s Facebook post, the “Save the Whales” activists came out of the woodwork for the ethical treatment of Labrador spines.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals called Palin’s New Years’ Day post unfitting, saying, “It’s odd that anyone — let alone a mother — would find it appropriate to post such a thing, with no apparent sympathy for the dog in the photo.”

Maybe PETA would have more credibility if they expressed concern over the unethical treatment of all mammals, including unborn baby humans, who are burned, suctioned, and dismembered by mothers concerned for their own convenience and not for their own offspring.

PETA president Ingrid Newkirk had this to say: “Then again, PETA, along with everyone else, is used to the hard-hearted, seeming obliviousness of this bizarrely callous woman.” The “callous woman” Ingrid is talking about is Sarah Palin, who, according to the saviors of eagle eggs, had the audacity in 2008 to grant an interview from a turkey farm where turkeys were being slaughtered.

PETA takes no official stand against abortion; and as long as members defend the life of non-human animals like turkeys, flies, and, any day now, amoebas, they can be either pro-choice or pro-life. Which means that just as long as it wasn’t in a turkey slaughterhouse, PETA would have reserved judgment had Sarah given that 2008 interview at an abortion clinic where fetuses were being slaughtered.

Based in Darien, Connecticut, the animal rights group Friends of Animals is headed up by President Priscilla Feral (as in cat). When presented with the frequently asked question What do you mean by animal rights?, Friends of Animals’ online response mentions “conscious beings…[having]…interests that should be respected.” The word “conscious” is code language that in animal rights circles would include the Palin family dog but exclude Trig in utero.

President Feral had this to say about the Palin dog-balancing to-do:

It’s no surprise to Friends of Animals that Sarah Palin is so insensitive she thinks a Black Lab should be tolerant of a child who isn’t told to not put his full weight on top of the dog’s back by standing on him. How lazy of Sarah Palin not to move the dog out of the way and teach her child the right lessons.

What is surprising is how the same people busy advocating for veganism remain insensitive to the reality and tolerant of the tragedy of 3,000 human babies exterminated per day.

What is also surprising is the audacity of people who make excuses for the millions of women who shirk motherhood and call it choice, but label Sarah Palin lazy for praising the disabled son she granted life.

In her supposedly controversial post, Sarah Palin said:

Trig just reminded me. He, determined to help wash dishes with an oblivious mama not acknowledging his signs for ‘up!’ found me and a lazy dog blocking his way. He made his stepping stone.

In the end, the Sarah Palin/Trig/Hadassa debate has little to do with whether it’s right or wrong to stand on a dog’s back and everything to do with the duplicity of the outraged.

As owner of two standard poodles, it is my belief that Palin commending Trig’s practical doggy-maneuver is much less troubling than animal activists who defend the spines of Labrador retrievers, but ignore “oblivious mamas” who deny children the God-given right to human life.

CHRISTMAS SURPRISE! At Least Obama Thinks Kindly of Iran

Originally posted at Hassan_Rouhani-300x180Clash Daily

It’s confirmed: Barack Obama has zero clue what’s going on. After his praising Iran and saying in a White House interview that the Persians could be “successful” members of the international community, on Christmas morning the regime responded by hanging seven prisoners.

Nothing says “successful member of the international community” like dragging seven terrified hostages from the Abdelebad prison “at dawn on Christmas day” to the gallows to be hanged by a rope and then suspended in the air with the full weight of their condemned bodies causing strangulation and death.

Although it seems cruel to hang people on Christmas, the decision to do so may have been Iran’s way of saying thanks to an American president who seems unwavering in his desire to befriend a brutal regime guilty of horrendous human rights offenses. After all, it’s our vacationing president who told NPR that if the nation bound and determined to wipe Israel off the map agrees to give up portions of its nuclear weapons program, it has the potential to be a “very successful regional power.”

Barack Obama must know something the rest of the world doesn’t know.

That must be it, because logical people might surmise that when strictly Shi’ite Islamic terrorist rulers agree to relinquish something they’re hell bent on achieving, like ushering in the return of the 12th Imam through death and chaos, chances are that regardless of what they agree to with Barack Obama, their word isn’t something the world should hang its hat on (no pun intended).

The larger question here is: In what alternative universe does Obama dwell, anyway?

Doesn’t he know that Iran is notorious for lies, murder, terrorism, and human rights transgressions? Not to mention the fact that American pastor Saeed Abedini has been imprisoned for two years where, merely for being Christian, he’s been chained to a bed, endured intense beatings, suffered internal bleeding, and has lost consciousness on more than one occasion.

Yet rather than negotiate for Saeed’s release the way he did with probable Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl, Obama has left the husband and father of two languishing in an Iranian prison while making absurd statements about Iran having a “chance to get right with the world.”

And here’s how Iran gets it right: According to Iranian opposition group the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), in the days leading up to Christmas Iran “secretly hanged” 10 prisoners who were being held in one of the regime’s most infamous and brutal prisons.

Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the Iranian Resistance, said that Iran – the same country Obama is hoping will get it right – is the most ruthless enemy of Christ and Mohammad:

In the name of religion they splash acid on the eyes of women, hang the youth, imprison the newly Christian converts, and violate their most rudimentary rights. They are henchmen that execute and torture people for their religious beliefs, especially for following the true message of Mohammad and Christ, and impose the worst discriminations and atrocities. They have set up a bloodthirsty religious tyranny that is the epicenter of fundamentalism and terrorism under the banner of Islam and the Godfather of all villains in the Middle East that today kill the innocent captives and hostages and force Christians and believers of other faiths to migrate and become homeless.

This is Iran, the nation Barack Obama anticipates will one day agree to curtail its evil machinations, participate in an international group hug, and become a “successful” member of the worldwide community?

And so, while the president was putzing around on the golf course on his annual 17-day, $4 million holiday vacation and Americans were celebrating the birth of Jesus by opening piles of useless merchandise, to affirm Obama’s faith in good vibes triumphing over evil actions, on Christmas morning seven prisoners were hung by their necks until dead by Hassan Rouhani’s regime.

Barack Obama: Mortal Flesh Like the Rest of Us

throatOriginally posted at American Thinker

Thanks to the president’s compassion toward anyone who’s not an American, nowadays the simple act of grabbing a grocery cart is akin to licking a tainted Petri dish.

Because of Obama coaxing an invasion by beckoning into our midst millions of illegal aliens, every American is now vulnerable to bacteria and viruses that we lack the immunity to fight. That’s why it’s fair to say that the president is purposely subjecting the nation’s citizens to unnecessary sickness, disease and death.

Let’s admit it: we the little people are essentially helpless.

What’s frustrating for those stranded as a tsunami of doom approaches is the realization that the man responsible for our impending demise is well protected from the maladies we mere mortals are being purposely exposed to.

No one thinks for one moment that Barack Obama will get the respiratory infection Enterovirus D-68, the polio-like germ imported from Latin America that has claimed the lives of about a dozen people, most of whom were small children and infants.

The president can mosey on down to the CDC and there’s never a fear that he’ll come down with hemorrhagic fever, or contract MDR- TB or Chagas, or any other exotic import he’s determined to expose the rest of America to.

As Barack Obama looks the other way and ignores the mayhem, Border Patrol agents warn that M-13 and violent Chinese gangs are among those busting the border. Nor does the president need to worry that one of his so called “Dreamers” will take a shot at him during a high-speed chase like Alexander Gallardo did in Raleigh, North Carolina when he attempted to kill a police officer.

Thanks to Obama’s foolish immigration policy, Americans have things like that, and plenty more, to worry about.

Meanwhile the man fomenting the atmosphere of dread has nothing to fear, because when Islamic barbarians, otherwise known as ISIS, whom some say have already infiltrated our border, eventually make a gory statement in an elementary school or a crowded mall, thank God, at least we know for sure that Obama’s daughters will be spared.

Nonetheless, exempt from the restrictions he’s inflicted on the rest of us via ObamaCare and free from the wait sick and dying veterans were forced to endure, recently the president was in need of emergency medical care.

For those of us gripped with Obama-imposed anxiety, it takes the president being popped in the lip and requiring twelve stitches, or being admitted to the hospital for a two-week old sore throat to remind us that all life is delicate, including Obama’s.

The 49th Psalm says that “man in his pomp will not endure; He is like the beasts that perish.” To the little guy, it may not feel like it, but experience has proven that no man endures, including pompous men with singed esophagi.

As we strain against Obama’s tightening grip around the nation’s throat, quite unexpectedly America finds out that the one who seemed impervious is not shielded after all, because he, like the rest of us, is frail and one day will perish too.

The president falling ill reminds us that position and power do not make one immune to sickness and death.

In other words, Obama may appear to be physically protected from the unwarranted peril and disease he’s exposing the rest of us to, but the truth is that Barack the Inflictor is also subject to the fragility and brevity of life.

In James 4:14 Jesus’s brother writes that like it or not, “no one knows what his or her life will be like tomorrow.” Take for instance our seemingly immortal president fundraising one day and the next day suffering through a fiber-optic endoscopy and CT scan.

It may not seem like it, but all of us, including dead ambassadors, innocents murdered by illegal aliens, those who have needlessly died of Third World diseases, Americans beheaded by ISIS, as well as the ostensibly impervious Obama, are all “just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away.”

Could it be that there’s a lesson here for both the oppressed and the oppressor?

Perhaps so, because for the record, acid reflux is when the stomach contents push back up into the esophagus, which causes symptoms such as heartburn and a sore throat.

Is it a coincidence that Barack Obama forces down America’s craw a philosophy and ideology the majority of us cannot stomach and he’s the one who ends up with reflux? After garroting the nation and causing our heart to burn and turning our voices hoarse from crying out in pain, is it somehow fitting that Obama is the one who ends up with a swollen esophagus and burning gullet?

So, rather than thinking up new ways to inflict misery upon the American people, while he heals, it might do the president good to meditate upon the fact that regardless of our station in life, whether president or peon, we are all but flesh, a momentary “wind that passes and does not return.”

As for those of us who feel powerless because our fleeting lives are daily impacted by a man with a raging case of acid reflux, it’s good to be reminded that in the end, the one who holds the power over life and death is God, not Barack Obama.

Time for Congress to Declare War on Obama

obama-2Originally posted at American Thinker

Article I, Section 8, Clause II of the U.S. Constitution states the following: “The Congress shall have Power to …declare war.” Currently, America is at war — not only with the ISIS types, but also with a president whose flagrant actions against our nation’s interests indicate that he is, in essence, at war with us.

Historically, when it comes to declaring war, presidents tend to defer to Congress. A declaration of war affects legalities and duties related to acts of aggression against America. Regrettably, right now we have a president who defers to absolutely no one and he’s the one guilty of committing those aggressive acts.

America’s Styrofoam-cup-saluting leader is supposed to be “repelling sudden attacks,” not coordinating them. That’s why, however unconventional it may sound, Congress should consider this illegal raid against our sovereign nation, regardless of who the alien army’s leader is, an act of war.

During the Constitutional Convention, framer James Madison wrote that Congress should be given the power not to “make war” but to “declare war.” If promoters of congressional power are correct, doesn’t Congress — whether they like it or not — then have a moral responsibility to “declare war” on any force that initiates hostilities against the United States?

In 1863, the Supreme Court argued the Prize Cases. At the time, the court determined that the president “has no power to initiate or declare a war,” and yet 150-plus years later it’s President Obama who has initiated and declared war. Unfortunately the war he’s declared is against America.

That’s right — the U.S. is grappling with a leader whose greatest achievement thus far is ruining the world’s finest healthcare system. Next on his agenda of destruction is to outdo himself by completely rejecting the clear midterm election message conveyed to him by the American people concerning immigration.

America has a Commander in Chief who’s gutting our armed forces, and although one aspect of the president’s stated powers is to repel invasions, this president is aiding and abetting an all-out invasion against our homeland. As a matter of fact, as each minute passes Barack Obama is adding numbers and manpower to an apostate force.

Barack Obama, “who is [Constitutionally] bound to resist by force” an invasion by land, sea, and air, has plans to ignore the will of the people and instead favors the desires of trespassers who continue to disrespect the laws of the land they’re in the process of illegally claiming as their own.

In other words, the very person with the “executive power” and the express commission to protect this nation from outside incursion is helping to incite what he was elected to prevent.

Maybe someone should remind the Enemy Within the Oval Office that the 2014 election resoundingly declared that the direction in which America is being pushed is not the path the people of this Constitutional republic want to take.

Meanwhile, a new Congress has been voted in whose unspoken charge is to thwart an army of invaders being guided by a renegade president planning to unilaterally grant amnesty to untold millions of illegal aliens, a formidable number of whom Americans know harbor ill will and/or carry with them infectious diseases.

Constitutionally, to prevent unbridled actions that veer dangerously close to treason, there are orthodox means for Congress to deal with loose-cannon presidents who refuse to submit to the balance of powers instituted by our Forefathers.

But in this case, the self-appointed Commander of Illegal Immigrant Forces has made it quite clear that as far as he’s concerned, for his purposes, America’s founding document has a “fundamental flaw” and is irrelevant. Therefore, although Congress declaring war on a president is not possible, based on Obama’s disregard for the fidelity of the Constitution, doing so seems like an acceptable option, however far-fetched.

Why? Because never in the history of the republic have we witnessed a leader who has commenced hostilities against his own nation with such vigor, determination, and pigheadedness. Moreover, right under our noses the person responsible for repelling invasions is exploiting one to create eclectic armies of individuals, some of whom have threatened to one day subjugate our nation’s citizens physically, economically, spiritually, and culturally.

By declaring war on a president who is clearly an adversary of America, the Congress can then exercise the legal power to round up, detain, and deport ISIS terrorists, MS-13 gang members, illegal alien criminals of every stripe, as well as the thousands of human time bombs harboring deadly diseases that have already sickened and killed scores of our people.

Based on his subversive actions, by definition Barack Obama is indeed making war against America, and it’s high time Congress responded by declaring their own war on a man who became a domestic enemy the day he violated his oath by refusing to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Under different circumstances, Barack Obama’s contempt for the very document that protects him would make him subject to a separate set of rules. As tempting a fantasy as it might be, we do know that Congress cannot literally declare war on a sitting president. But then again, Obama’s uncompromising refusal to defer to the U.S. Constitution does warrant a historic rebuke.

Either way, it is incumbent upon the new U.S. Congress to rise to the occasion and save this Republic. That’s why congressional consent is now needed for an entirely new purpose: to stop the one exercising the use of force against America from within. Congress must do whatever is necessary to deprive Barack Obama of the power to continue his ongoing attack against the nation he was elected to protect.

Nancy Pelosi Should Quit and Follow Her Passions

imagesOriginally posted at American Thinker

Minority Leader Nancy “Nip/Tuck” Pelosi, the woman who strutted around Washington, D.C. with a king-sized gavel when Obamacare was passed into law, is 74 years old.  Now, in the aftermath of the trouncing the Democrats took during the midterm election, an obvious question has arisen as to whether the granny with the gavel should hang up her dream of another go-round as House minority leader.

So, at a Capitol News conference, in response to a question about the suggestion that the millionaire politician should either take her hefty pension and head home to the City by the Bay or at least pass the House minority leader position to someone younger, Nancy played the trusty sexism card and threw in a smidgeon of ageism accusations for good measure.

Dressed in a tailored soldier blue suit with an uncooperative collar lined in canary yellow, at one point, Nancy became so angry with reporters while trying to say, “As a woman, is there a message here?” that her top lip kept getting stuck on her caps.  In fact, judging by Pelosi’s bulging eyes and garbled speech, it was hard to tell whether her $20,000 necklace was strangling her, she had been hitting the Johnny Walker Red, or she was just majorly ticked off.

The very irate Mrs. Pelosi challenged the press, asking, “When was the day that any of you said to Mitch McConnell, when they lost the Senate three times in a row … ‘aren’t you getting a little old, Mitch?  Shouldn’t you step aside?’

“Have any of you ever asked him that question?

“So, I don’t understand why that question should even come up,” Pelosi said.

Maybe the question hasn’t come up because although soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is not the most vivacious person in Washington, D.C., at least when you put the man in front of a mic he doesn’t say ridiculous things like “Every week we don’t pass a stimulus package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs,” or “Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program.”

Regardless of McConnell’s age or lack of charisma, he would be hard-pressed to outdo Pelosi’s pièce de résistance: “We have to pass the [health care] bill so you can find out what is in it.”

And that’s just scratching the surface.  Nancy has also provided fodder for jokes by saying that Republicans want to see “women dying on the floor,” that immigration laws are “un-American,” and that she believes natural gas is a cheap alternative to fossil fuel – which is natural gas.

All these things, plus the septuagenarian’s growing inability to express a point without twitching, flapping her hands, and/or stammering, indicate that regardless of whether or not she believes that the Democratic caucus still put their faith in her or that she still (God help us all) has a mission to accomplish, the truth is that Nancy Pelosi should absolutely step down.

Instead, as with all liberal women, Nancy’s response is to play “the war on women card.”  Then, after accusing those who thought she should think about retiring of being sexists, a flustered Nancy stressed that “[her] life and who [she is] is not dependent on being here” or on the cover of TIME magazine.

If that’s true, then why is the minority leader refusing to pass the baton?

Nancy also said, “I have the liberty…if you want me to be here, I’m happy to be here.  If you don’t, I’m proud of what we’ve done together.”

Huh?

Anyway, what Granny Pelosi said is true.  Thanks to a health care policy that has stripped millions of their insurance plans and their jobs, unlike the rest of us, pro-choice Nancy does have the liberty to make a choice most Americans are being denied.

Which raises the question: why is Mrs. Pelosi being a defensive “Negative Nancy”?  Especially since, when union leader James Hoffa, Jr. accused Obamacare of standing to “destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week,” it was an optimistic Nancy Pelosi who told CNN’s “State of the Union” host Candy Crowley that joblessness ushers in “liberation.”

Doesn’t Nancy remember saying that losing a 40-hour work week frees up Americans to “pursue … happiness … [and] … follow passion?”

Why does Nancy view the suggestion that she should step down or scale back her working as sexism and ageism?  Wasn’t it Ms. Nancy who said that being unemployed is “about wellness … prevention … a healthy America?”

That’s why Leader Pelosi should apply her jobless theory to herself and embrace unemployment with the eager anticipation of someone on the cusp of finding newfound independence and contentment!

With her time freed up, think of all Nancy could do!  The former speaker/minority leader could spend afternoons stomping grapes in one of her Napa Valley vineyards, or she could string imitation Tahitian pearls, or maybe she could follow her true passion by volunteering to answer phones at her favorite plastic surgeon’s Botox clinic.

Nancy Pelosi ought to submit to her own counsel and willingly retire her minority leadership, take down her congressional shingle, and head back to Rice-a-Roniville.  Then maybe she’ll be able to identify with the 100 million Americans who, thanks to the stunning accomplishments of the party Nancy represents, are also now free to follow their passions.

%d bloggers like this: