Tag Archives: Rahm Emanuel

Dems doing what they accuse Republicans of

7b373ae1f0cc2ea4b05fb48758fb165dOriginally posted at American Thinker

Psychological projection is the tendency to project one’s own negative qualities onto someone else. That is exactly the element at work within a political party that has forged a reputation for accusing its political adversaries of what they’re guilty of doing themselves.

Last year, Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) took a lot of heat from the left when he made the comment that free school lunches offer children a “full stomach and an empty soul.” Ryan’s point was that a meal provided by a loving mom is more gratifying and dignified than being spoon-fed from cradle to grave by a cold, bureaucratic Nanny State.

The indignant left trumpeted Ryan’s message as follows: Republicans want to starve poor children to death!

Now, just a year later, a school lunch program overseen by Mrs. Okra, I mean Obama, implements exactly what liberals accused Ryan of endorsing.

From the looks of things, the left was jockeying to orchestrate bureaucratic food deprivation, because based on what’s showing up on lunch trays lately, it appears that Democrats didn’t want to be outdone by Republicans in the starvation department. Currently, under the guise of healthy eating, the School Nutrition Association, together with Mama Obama, metes out food portions so meager and paltry that Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids are fast becoming ravenous and emaciated.

Besides, if that young upstart Paul Ryan had managed to convince Americans that hearty bagged lunches were the way to go, how, pray tell, could Calorie Control Central continue to serve a 6’5” high school football players a cup of fruit, a cup of vegetables, two ounces of grain, two ounces of meat, and a cup of milk and pass it off as lunch?

Back in 2012, when speaking with Al Sharpton of MSNBC’s Politics Nation, left-wing congressman Barney Frank (D- MA) accused Ryan of wanting kids to starve. Frank told Sharpton:

These are right-wingers who have this philosophy, going back to Ayn Rand that says we should not come together to do things for the common good. That individualism is the answer, and that everybody should be on his or her own. So feeding poor children, cleaning up the atmosphere, putting out fires in older cities: those are things for which they would deny funding.

Based on the “accuse others of what I’m guilty of” premise, Barney’s statement certainly explains why the proponents of “cleaning up the atmosphere” have the largest carbon footprints, and why those who are so concerned about “putting out fires in older cities” are the ones starting unquenchable fires everywhere from the Middle East to Ferguson, Missouri. Moreover, it also clarifies why the left considers it part of the “common good,” by way of the school lunch program, to deliberately deprive growing children of adequate nutrition.

After all, when government does such a bang-up job of breaking what doesn’t need fixing and worsening what needed only minor repairs, Barney Frank is right – far be it from me to believe the baloney that “individualism [in the form of a PB&J sandwich] is the answer, and that everybody should be on his or her own.”

It was during the heated FY2012 budget debate that Paul Ryan’s economic “path to prosperity” dared to suggest repealing Obamacare and (heaven forbid) privatizing Medicare.

The left was apoplectic, and even came out with an ad that featured a Ryan lookalike pushing an elderly “grandmother” off a cliff. Erica Payne of the Agenda Project, the progressive group sponsoring the ad, said America’s elderly would be put in a “bad spot” if Ryan’s “immoral” budget deficit plan passed.

In response, Fox News host Neil Cavuto accused Ms. Payne of “fear-mongering,” saying, “You are saying that an attempt to rein in the growth of an entitlement program that … [is] going to be running out of money five years earlier than we thought is akin to pushing Grandma over a cliff?”

Yes, Neil, that is exactly what Erica was saying. Because just as with the deplorable school lunch program, liberals were accusing the right of making the immoral choices liberals themselves had plans to enact. The difference is that their idea involves literally seizing control over life and death. In fact, the brother of Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, admitted it.

As one of the architects of Obamacare, the good doctor does not recommend euthanasia per se, but he does believe that medical care should be denied after the age of – ready for this? – 75, which would make way for what oncologist James Salwitz calls the “75 Plan.”

Much as Michelle Obama feels qualified to determine what Americans should and shouldn’t eat, apparently Zeke has decided he’s qualified to dictate when Americans should or shouldn’t die. Emanuel argues, “Society and families – and you – will be better off if nature takes its course swiftly and promptly.”

Dr. Emanuel said that at age 65, he intends to stop diagnostic tests, and at 75, unless he’s going for palliative care, he will no longer visit the doctor. That kind of talk coming from an Obamacare architect/advisor forebodes a future where Medicare funding is stopped at a predetermined age. In other words, health care is about to be school-lunch-sized.

There you have it. Liberals accuse Paul Ryan of starving children and wanting to throw Granny off a cliff.

Then, the first chance they get, via a government-funded school lunch program, Ryan’s accusers withhold food from the very children they claim need to be fed. And, for so-called cost efficiency, they would save old ladies from Paul Ryan just so they can dump both Granny and her wheelchair over the Obamacare cliff.

Chicago Children Inform Barack Obama ‘We Want to Live!’

9168567_448x252-300x238Originally posted at The Blacksphere

It was the South Side of Chicago — city of meat slicing machine mishaps, 9½-fingered mayors like Rahm Emanuel and childhood home to Michelle “Hadiya Pendleton was me and I was her” Obama.

The Chicago children were given a lesson plan that is sure to add even more drama to Barack Obama’s ongoing effort to wrest legal firearms out of the hands of law-abiding American citizens.

At Freedom Schools National Day of Social Action hosted by Trinity United Church of Christ, the church that Obama’s former minister Jeremiah “America’s Chickens are Coming Home to Roost” Wright once headed, Chicago children spent the day telling personal gut-wrenching death and destruction stories.

In a city where gun laws are strict and gun-related deaths are at unprecedented levels, dead cousins and aunts were mourned and heartbreaking tales of woe told.

The program coordinator, Minister Jasmine Taylor, maintained that dragging out vulnerable children whose lives were touched by gun violence to assist liberal politicians in furthering progressive policies, in the end, helps children heal.

Minister Jasmine shared:

“I think they’re able to connect better when they’re in a group of their peers, learning and talking about the things they’ve had go on in their families and their experiences.”

And if at some point these stories can be woven into an anti-Second Amendment speech delivered by a quivering-lipped Barack or Michelle Obama, all the better.

The day of social action was chock full of anti-gun-related activities.  The children were read poetry, and then were given a drum demonstration, which was an odd choice.  Wouldn’t a piccolo concert have been better than subjecting already-spooked children to a rat-a-tat-tat that sounds a lot like the pop of a gun?

Then, although purely as a cathartic experience, in the style of the children who wrote to the president about gun violence and then attended the signing of 23 executive actions establishing stricter gun control, these children also gave Obama additional fodder for… er, I mean, explained to the Protector of [only] Wanted Children their desire to live.

As an aside, it’s too bad unborn babies can’t write similar letters to Obama expressing their desire to live.

Nonetheless, looking to President Obama to ensure that they do get to live, the children expressed future hopes and dreams, if, and only if, Barack Obama does allow them to live.

Some of those dreams include becoming a doctor (shackled like a slave to the Obamacare system), a police officer (castrated by the DOJ), the President (if, that is, by the time they grow up Obama has lifted Martial Law and finally left office), a princess (like Michelle Obama), and a man of God (like Liberation Theologist/anti-Semite/America-hating racist, the ex-reverend Jeremiah Wright).

So America now has something to look forward to.

In the future, sure to be woven into the next anti-gun speech, will be excerpts from letters written by Chicago children to the President of the United States demanding that elected officials “protect children” (who could have been, but miraculously were not aborted), “not guns,” nor the Second Amendment.

Michelle Obama Supports Gun Control that Doesn’t Work

041013-national-michelle-obama-chicago-gun-violence-300x168First Lady Michelle Obama recently headed home to the Southside of Chicago where she dipped her perfectly exercised toe into the gun violence debate.

Mrs. O arrived in the city that has enacted the most stringent gun-control laws in America to address local business leaders on the problem of gun violence.  Oddly, Michelle forgot to consider the possibility that  gun legislation is the reason for the high percentage of gun-related deaths in Chicago.

Richard A. Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, believes that “The gun laws in Chicago only restrict the law-abiding citizens and they’ve essentially made the citizens prey.”

Yet the anti-gun Left keeps on keeping on in the push to make it even more dangerous for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.  The Left’s argument is that stricter gun laws outside of Chicago would ensure that fewer illegal guns make it into Chicago.  It’s sort of like the liberal argument that freezing weather is proof of global warming.

David Spielfogel, senior adviser to Hizzoner Rahm Emanuel, agrees and argues that “Chicago is not an island.  We’re only as strong as the weakest gun law in surrounding states.”  So in other words, if nothing else works to convince Americans to willingly relinquish their Second Amendment rights, what might do the trick is having Michelle Obama stress that dead children in Chicago are only dead because of relaxed gun laws in other states.

That sort of rationale coincides with the bizarre legalistic belief that if you remove junk food from school cafeterias and vending machines, when the chubby kids leave school grounds, rather than mainlining Fluffernutter, raw string beans will become their after-school snack of choice.

And so it seems that the anti-gun lobby is firmly convinced that the cure for gun violence is to nationalize what has failed so miserably in Chicago. Which raises the question: What is it about the Obamas that if something isn’t working, they work on it even harder?

Even more stunning is that supporters of an administration that purposely funneled guns into Mexico are now blaming Chicago’s crime rate on guns making their way into the Windy City from outside the city limits.

That must be why Michelle gave up her fantasy of being Beyoncé for the day, and rather than equate herself with Brian Terry and Jamie Zapata and hundreds of dead Mexicans shot with Eric Holder-provided high-power weapons, said this: “Hadiya Pendleton was me, and I was her.”

Speaking to concerned business leaders, Mama Obama compared herself to “a walking angel” who, soon after attending Obama’s Second Inauguration, was tragically cut down while talking with friends in Vivian Gordon Harsh Park.

After Hadiya’s murder, Michelle rushed to Chicago to attend the teen’s funeral and invited her parents Nate and Cleo to sit beside her in the State of the Union sky box.  Excelling at the liberal practice of exploiting death for political purposes, Mrs. Obama reminded her audience that in Chicago burying a child is not unusual and that young people are killed after “wandering onto the wrong street… [or]… standing on their own porch.”

About Hadiya’s funeral, Michelle said:

Let me tell you, it is hard to know what to say to a room full of teenagers who are about to bury their best friend…I told them that there is a reason that we’re here on this earth, that each of us has a mission in this world, and I urged them to use their lives to give meaning to Hadiya’s life.

Clearly, Mrs. Obama believes she has a “mission in this world,” and that that self-appointed mission involves assisting her husband in mitigating the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans.  So to accomplish that goal, posing as an anti-gun raconteur Michelle relayed the heart-wrenching story of Hadiya’s untimely death.

According to Shelley O, “Hadiya’s family did everything right, but she still didn’t have a chance.” And so, because Cleo and Nate couldn’t keep their child safe, liberals like Michelle Obama who hold the collective view that our children are their children plan to step in to implement legislation they mistakenly believe saves lives.

Hey somebody, please tell Michelle Obama that while she was in Chicago speaking to business leaders about eliminating gun violence, an unarmed lunatic in Texas stabbed 14 people with a knife.

In Chicago, the first lady’s work was to get business leaders to agree that in the long run the survival of a future little Michelle Obama far outweighs the preservation of the tenets and freedoms that have abided for two centuries in the US Constitution.

The first lady’s purpose in going to Chicago was not to discuss reality, nor was it to reveal intriguing autobiographical insights about how she and Hadiya Pendleton are a lot alike. Instead, the true purpose of the trip was to prod America further along the road toward a society whose power-hungry government claims it’s attempting to eradicate gun violence by disarming its people.

Obama’s ‘Shared Prosperity’

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

At one of four fundraisers in Illinois yesterday, the President of the United States said, “Chicago is an example of what makes this country great.” This in the city where a former ballet dancer-turned mayor called in Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam to police the mean streets and turned away Chick-fil-A for taking a stand for traditional marriage.

But that wasn’t the worst of it.  At one fundraiser held at Bridgeport Art Center, the always upbeat and encouraging Obama, speaking on behalf of “many folks” and leaving his failed policies out of the equation, said “Too many folks still don’t have a sense that tomorrow will be better than today. And so, the question in this election is which way do we go?”

Immediately after asking that question the President answered it himself.  Seems Obama doesn’t like the old America, and the direction he wants to head is “forward” to “a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared,” not earned.

Common ownership of personal property is a bold platform to campaign on for a second term, especially for a man who was warned by his wife to stay away from the fried Twinkies at the state fair.

Nonetheless, in Obama’s new America, the government controls profits in much the same way Michelle controls what and how much Barry eats.  Quite simply, the Obama plan is to have the federal government seize property from the prosperous and distribute it as he sees fit, and then after redistributing other people’s wealth, justifying the confiscation of personal property as being necessary to establish fairness and maintain the common good.

According to Obama, anything short of “sharing the wealth” would be moving backward.  Obama said,

“I believe we have to go forward. I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try.”

What American doesn’t believe that “you can make it here if you try?”  Those are certainly old American values. Unless Barack Obama’s idea of “trying” means that any amount of effort suffices, and if you at least try a little but fail to prosper, then a person who’s worked harder and has prospered more will be compelled under government edict to help you “make it.”

Sharing prosperity can only mean that those who have prospered will be forced to relinquish an even greater portion of their good fortune. That is how, in Obama’s “new America,” a better; more equal tomorrow will be furthered for everyone – except hardworking people whose earnings will be forcibly purloined.

But despite his plans to take yet another step closer to “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” from something old into something new, there is still a playful side to President Obama.  At the Iowa state fair, a few days after introducing his “new America” spiel and in lieu of forbidden fried Twinkies, Barack Obama used the occasion to exhibit allegiance to fair-mindedness and equality by mentioning both the “butter cow” and the “chocolate moose.”

Then, after referring to the moo and the moose, a disappointed Obama said he was forbidden by the Secret Service to use the bumper cars, which would have provided the President the perfect vehicle for an Iowa state fair object lesson to illustrate the direction he plans to take in his “new America,” where prosperity — and everything else that happens — is shared.

Michelle Obama: Critical Advocate

Originally posted at American Thinker

Michelle Obama is not one who can easily hide her feelings; usually her emotional state is visible on her face.  Think civil rights leader Dorothy Height’s funeral, or Michelle staring down French first lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozi.

So it wasn’t a shock to find out that some of the less-than-thrilled expressions Americans have witnessed over the last three years may be rooted in how Mrs. Obama thinks her husband and his team should be handling the affairs of the nation.

One has to admit, if Jodi Kantor’s New York Times article, “Michelle Obama and the Evolution of a First Lady” and forthcoming book “The Obamas” is an accurate portrayal, Michelle Obama going toe-to-middle-finger with Rahm Emanuel indicates she’s one tough cookie.

Kantor’s book points out that despite Mrs. Obama’s initial hesitation to involve herself in her husband’s administration, she has been an “unrecognized force …[and]… her story has been one first of struggle, then turnaround and greater fulfillment.”

The book says that Mrs. Obama was a “supportive but often anxious spouse, suspicious of conventional political thinking, a groundbreaking figure who has acutely felt the pressures and possibilities of being the first African-American in her position and a first lady who has worked to make her role more meaningful.”

According to Kantor, Mrs. Obama was often “caught in an internal debate about how the Obamas should look and live, travel and entertain.”

Her feelings for a country she only recently became proud of are evident in her ongoing disregard for the opinion of its people by blatantly indulging her affinity for opulent vacations, epicurean Xanadus, and closets full of couture.

The forthcoming book exposes Michelle projecting her own racism onto a colorblind America. Even after a white majority put her husband into the White House, Michelle felt that “As the first African-American first lady, [she] wanted everything to be flawless and sophisticated; [because] she felt ‘everyone was waiting for a black woman to make a mistake.’”

Supposedly fiercely defensive on her husband’s behalf and seeing him as a “transformational figure,” her allegedly hostile clashes with the likes of ex- Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel indicate Michelle is someone other than who she projects herself to be while hula-hooping and gardening with Big Bird on Sesame Street.

According to longtime Obama strategist David Axelrod, behind the scenes, if Mrs. Obama “thinks things have been mishandled or when things are off the track she’ll raise it, because she’s hugely invested in [her husband] and has a sense of how hard he’s working, and wants to make sure everybody is doing their work properly.”

Discussing with aides the first lady’s displeasure about the direction the administration was taking on issues like healthcare reform, President Obama once confided that “She feels as if our rudder isn’t set right.”  Does “our rudder” include his rudder?

So apparently if everybody isn’t “doing” what Michelle thinks they should be doing, or someone criticizes what she is doing, the “rudder” adjuster believes “things have been mishandled [and] are off the track.

The book says that Robert Gibbs tried to protect the White House from being seen for what it is: “oblivious to public anger about joblessness, banker bailouts and bonuses.”  Apparently, Gibbs had the wherewithal to try to tamp down the “vacations, décor, entertainment [and] even matters as small as whether to announce the hiring of a new florist.”

According to Kantor’s account, Michelle was as thrilled with being told what to do by her husband’s team as she was being prohibited from walking her dog, or “monitored by her husband’s aides for everything from how she decorated the family’s private quarters to whether she took makeup artists on overseas trips.

So to show advisors who was in charge, Mrs. Obama flew the dog she couldn’t walk to vacation spots all around the world, called in a high-end Hollywood decorator to gussy up the living quarters, and hired a makeup artist that charges $15K per day.

Kantor’s book maintains that Mrs. Obama has no problem expressing her opinion behind the scenes about issues such as: how health care reform should’ve played out, the direction the 2012 reelection effort should take, and who should call the shots.

However, the book does say that publicly, the first lady has been reluctant to step into the limelight, except on signature issues like “Let’s Move” and assisting military families.  That was until recently when, in between vacation junkets, dutiful wife Michelle has taken to appearing on behalf of her husband in an attempt to exploit her popularity to “buoy [Obama] personally and politically.”

And while politics and policy intricacies are telling, more telling by far was the way Mrs. Obama handled the President’s 50th birthday, which said a lot about her domineering nature and how convinced she is that we, as well as he, need her to show us, and him, how it should be done.

According to Kantor’s book, in preparation for the coming election, Michelle exercised a practice run on birthday party guests, warning them not to leave early – under penalty – of what?  Then, she commenced with delivering a “stem-winder of a toast in praise of her husband,” who sat there like a schlemiel.

Minus the soaring orchestration and slide show, Mrs. Obama subjected those supposedly already her husband’s friends to her deluded version of Barack Obama: the “tireless, upright leader who rose above Washington games, killed the world’s most wanted terrorist and still managed to coach his daughter Sasha’s basketball team.”

A more apt description would have been: a president who, between vacations, ‘tirelessly’ works from 9:30 am – 6:30 pm and has played more golf standing ‘upright’ than any other president in American history; a president who “rose above Washington games” so well that, against Congress’ wishes during a “recess” that was still in session, he appointed a five-time Jeopardy champion to the position of director of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The man who shamelessly takes credit for killing Osama bin Laden – an end that would never have been achieved without GW Bush’s committed determination, and a father who, when not out golfing, will use any excuse, including spending time with the kids, to pop a few shots through a basketball hoop.

However, besides the ‘everyone was waiting for a black woman to make a mistake’ -portion of Jodi Kantor’s “critic and advocate” book, the most revealing moment of all was what allegedly happened during that laudatory 50th birthday party soliloquy.

Kantor recounts that in front of 150 guests, Michelle admitted to being hard on an embarrassed Obama, who attempted to cut her off only to be firmly told “to sit and listen,” which he submissively did, summing up in three words Mrs. Obama’s ever-evolving attitude toward the President of the United States and all of us as well.

Rahmbo: Shape Up or Fork Out

Originally posted at Taki’s Mag

An Israeli ballerina-turned-Mayor of Chicago is now demanding that Windy City workers participate—willingly or not—in a wellness plan. If those on the city payroll refuse to register, they’ll pay $50 a month as a penalty for not choosing what Rahm Emanuel, a big believer in the right to choose, has chosen for them.

Initially, city workers will be lined up for screening like soldiers taking a military conscription exam. If you have asthma, heart disease, or diabetes, you’ll get “wellness training to achieve long-term health goals” whether you want it or not.

How about an implanted oral sensor that detects Newport Lights, traces of Crisco, Oreo DoubleStufs, and Heineken, and then triggers a shock collar that comes in a variety of colors from which the mayor will allow city workers to choose?

In addition to incentives, the mayor’s proposal employs “advisers” who will oversee the “program.” This group of scrutinizers will “monitor progress on a bimonthly basis,” which means, on average, you get 60 days between examinations to relax and keep your PayDay candy bar on your desk rather than in a locked box in a safe hidden under the spare tire (no pun intended) in your car trunk.

“In the runup to Obamacare, what better venue than Chicago to launch another unofficial pilot program?” Hiring “advisers” proves Rahm Emanuel is a job-creation genius! Bet he’ll even have the wherewithal to hire uniformed officers to do “Paunch Patrol” and “Adipose Analysis.”

Those who successfully stop smoking, “Party Off the Pounds,” and are found sipping wheatgrass juice from their Barack “MADE in the USA” 2012 coffee mug during impromptu visits by advisers “could”—I repeat, “could”—be rewarded by “seeing their healthcare premiums reduced.”

Ever the dedicated Boy Scout, Rahm Emanuel pledges that, like it or not, “We will help you be a good steward for your health.” Such “help” could include mandatory weigh-ins and grocery-bag inspections.

Rahm warned that “if you choose not to [participate], you’ll pay that price and that is the price you’ll have to pay.” Sorry, but that is a teensy-weensy bit scary, even for a person who doesn’t live in Chicago.

Nonetheless, good intentions are likely at the core of Rahm’s “Keep Corpulent Chicago City Workers Well” initiative. Chances are that the city’s pirouetting mayor is only trying to help out. Either that or he enjoys presenting city workers an “offer [they definitely] can’t refuse.”

Let’s hope workout gear is provided gratis, because Lou Phillips, business manager of Laborers Union Local 1001, is just itching to get physical. Phillips supports the mayor’s effort and maintains that “There’s no penalty for getting sick. But if you choose not to participate, you’re gonna pay $50 more a month and $50 for your wife.” A diabetic, Phillips promised, “It’ll get us in shape. You’re actually making yourself better. In the end, it’s gonna save millions and millions of dollars. If people are healthy, they won’t be going to doctors to get toes or feet amputated.”

Not to worry, though—accidental amputations, such as losing half a finger in a meat-slicing machine, are definitely covered, as are assault-related injuries such as broken kneecaps and loose teeth.

In the future if Americans should go blind or need treatment for kidney failure, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and a team of cost-control analysts will step in to decide whether a city worker in Chicago, and ultimately Obamacare recipients nationwide, will receive lifesaving dialysis or short-term, cost-efficient, end-of-life care.

In the runup to Obamacare, what better venue than Chicago to launch another unofficial pilot program? The government will probably be interested to see if improving Chicagoans’ health against their will or collecting penalty fees—also against their will—can “help cut the annual $500 million bill for healthcare for city employees.” If it does, it can then be translated into a nationwide “Ditch the Cookies and the Camels or Suffer the Financial Consequences” effort.

Hizzoner maintains the program is a “necessary step to getting healthcare costs under control.” If you work for the City of Chicago in the CDOT’s alleys division and happen to need an abortion, it’s likely the mayor will enthusiastically agree to foot the bill; but if you’d rather not spend 45 minutes a day on a stair climber, pay up!

Instead of eating deep-dish pizza, Mayor Rahmbo’s Dumpster Task Force and Office of Underground Coordination workers will soon either be shaping up or forking out.

It’s probable that Chicagoans are slowly coming to realize that in Mayor Emanuel’s version of “pro-choice” America, the guy with the foul mouth sporting the occasional leotard gets to do the choosing.

Emanuel Exposed

Not since Paula Jones suggested Bill Clinton proudly possessed a “distinguishing feature” have things in Washington DC gotten tawdrier.  Why?  Because when the curtains were removed from the Congressional showers more was exposed than Rahm Emanuel’s bare butt?

Imagine your first eight weeks in Congress, in order to familiarize yourself with the territory you decide to work out in the collegial Congressional gym.  After working up a sweat you go to the locker room to find the curtains curiously removed from the shower stalls.  Looking past groups of naked men milling around in various stages of undress, you make your way toward an empty stall affording the greatest measure of privacy.

Midway through your shower you realize that standing behind you is a nude man.  Slowly you turn to see who it is.  The hot misty steam reveals the outline of Rahm Emanuel’s ballet trained frame.  Stunned, you utter the polite words, “If you would like this stall, I was just leaving.” Grabbing your soap and wrapping a towel around your waist you attempt to push past Rahm who proceeds to ram his way into the cubicle trapping you inside.  Pushing you against the tile, Emanuel screams spittle laden obscenities chiding you for daring to vote against Obama’s budget.

Sound impossible, well Eric Massa (D-NY) describes such a confrontation with Emanuel: “I am showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me.”

Apparently, if scalding hot water, soap in the eyes and pounding half a middle finger on a nude man’s chest doesn’t do the trick, Rahm Emanuel appears willing to revisit Oliver Reed and Alan Bates wrestling naked in Women in Love to get an agenda passed.

Massa, a Democrat, claims Emanuel is the type of political animal so ferocious he “would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive.” So, for Emanuel, it’s no big deal to spend afternoon’s perusing congressional locker rooms, in the buff, intimidating politicians to see things Rahm’s way.

Eric Massa charges he is being forced out of office before the health care vote because Emanuel and Obama know the Democrat, from New York’s conservative 29th district, will vote against it – whether true or not–remains to be seen.  Supposedly unbowed by the initial freshman encounter with Emanuel over the budget, Massa believes that because his is the deciding vote on Obama care, “this administration and this House leadership…will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill.” Thus an ethics investigation into allegations Massa sexually harassed one of his aides recently emerged spearheaded by individuals who climb into shower stalls with sudsy, naked men supposedly to discuss policy.

Evidently, the man at the top “with a mop,” Scarface Barry deploys underling Rahm, aka Frankie Rio to do the dirty work and to clean up loose votes vulnerable to bullying if ambushed in congressional showers.  A nude Rahm Emanuel may think he intimidates members of Congress uncomfortable with being forced to shower in curtainless stalls.  But Emanuel’s unseemly behavior exposes more than what Rahm looks like sans ballet tights– it exposes the Chicago thuggery presently at work in Washington politics.

%d bloggers like this: