Can We Solve the Muslim Terrorist Problem with Jewelry Design Jobs for ISIS?

isis-string-bombsOriginally posted at CLASH Daily

America is well aware that ISIS, if not in our midst already, is on the way. When the Islamic radicals arrive, the group plans to infiltrate our malls, schools, and houses of worship.

Yet the president doesn’t seem worried. As the refugee crisis heats up Obama is busy attending state dinners, flashing the peace sign at nuclear conferences, hanging out with Beyoncé and Jay-Z at White House Easter egg rolls, criticizing Trump and Cruz, and punishing cable companies for cornering the market on black set-up boxes.

In other words, Barack Obama is blasé about ISIS’s promise to gain entry into the U.S. by mingling in with the Syrian refugees the president plans to resettle in America.

It was back in 2015 when U.S State. Department SPOX Marie Harf told MSNBC’s “Hardball” host Chris Mathews that if the Islamic JV team were part of a jobs program they would feel useful, keep occupied, and pose less of a threat.

With jobs in mind, maybe the president is unperturbed because when his special guests step off the military cargo planes he sent to pick them up, he has plans to provide them with jobs.

A career for ISIS is not an unusual concept because the insurgents will “do jobs Americans won’t do”, and have proven very proficient with sharp objects.

So, after ISIS unpacks and settles in, Obama can start with giving them job applications to work in either butcher or barber shops. For those adept with scalpels, and lugging biohazard bags to the incinerator, there are wages to be made at abortion clinics.

If a guy is a bearded burly sojourner with experience in multipurposing trees, the logging industry is always hiring lumberjacks.

As luck would have it, there’s a coroner shortage.

ISIS enjoys gore, they have sawn-off and handled thousands of body parts, and have dug many a “shovel ready” grave. That’s why when it comes to tasks that involve blood, guts, and rotting flesh these folks are the perfect choice for transporting cadavers to the morgue.

Let’s not forget that the soldiers of the Islamic State are comfortable wearing facemasks. Facemasks scream: “Ski instructor.” Does anyone know how to say, “Vail, Telluride, and Aspen” in Arabic?

ISIS also loves working with women. So maybe Obama will ask undocumented Asian immigrants to train the men to be mani/pedi technicians, massage therapists, swimsuit photographers, and fashion designers?

ISIS even has a knack for constructing man size steel cages, so how about a job as a zookeeper?

Speaking of zoos, summer is coming, which means openings for lifeguards. And who better to make sure no one gets sucked away in the undertow than a group of guys with a ton of experience maneuvering the sun and surf?

Not only that; but think of what this group has accomplished schooling the Cubs of the Caliphate.

Let’s face it, it’s not easy to get unruly youth to march, sit up straight, and obey on command. Come the fall, Obama could mandate that nursery schools and/or public elementary schools hire the Middle Eastern militants as monitors and cafeteria personnel.

And if that doesn’t work, suicides vests can always be defused and double as uniforms for school crossing guards.

In addition to directing traffic, these fellas are simply unafraid of heights. Throwing large objects off of roofs might make ISIS appealing to skyscraper constructors, trapeze coaches, and shingle and roofing companies.

Demolition is a known ISIS forte. That’s why swinging a wrecking ball and driving a bulldozer has job potential.

ISIS has first-hand knowledge of antiquity and relics. That’s good news for museums that are constantly on the lookout for reputable security help, as well as curatorial apprentices.

Let’s not forget immolation skills.

After Obama resettles ISIS in our neighborhoods the fire starters can tackle the hot griddle at IHOP, fan the coals at local BBQ joints, and work firing up the brick ovens and monitoring mozzarella melt times in pizza joints.

After all of that, no one could argue that ISIS has an eclectic and diverse repertoire! Now we find out there’s yet another proficiency to add to the Islamic State’s extraordinary resume. In addition to drowning people in cages, crucifying Catholic priests, and burning Jordanian fighter pilots alive, ISIS designs jewelry.

ISIS’s affinity for necklace design became public when the group released a video showing an alleged Iraqi spy kneeling on the floor wearing a shiny exploding bauble. Not to worry, with gainful employment, proper guidance, directed mentoring, and one on one counseling, in time, ISIS’s desire to design ornamental bombs will go away.

Meanwhile, the man in the video was dressed in an anti-Gitmo orange outfit similar to the designer pantsuit Hillary Clinton frequently wears. But, rather than accessorizing with oversized pearls, and quite unlike a Pandora charm, the man was sporting a choker featuring a metal wire and a bomb.

After getting past seeing the device on the video detonated, and watching as the victim’s brains were blown to smithereens, one can’t help but be struck by the creative nature and unique skillset ISIS’s jewelry-making talents exhibit.

That’s why if Obama puts ISIS to work creating necklets he can place them in jobs working with artisans who specialize in hammered silver pendants.

Quite frankly, all things considered, it’s no wonder Obama is relaxed about ISIS’s impending arrival. The advent of ISIS in America will not only provide our nation with another culturally diverse group of newcomers, it will also offer an opportunity for Barack Obama to teach xenophobes and Islamaphobes to never give up on good people.

Barry the Cable Guy

imagesOriginally posted at American Thinker

Barack Obama exhibits a pattern of behavior Americans should recognize by now. Whenever this president starts talking about “loosening the grip” of corporations, increasing competition, and opening markets to ensure lower prices it’s a sure sign that the noose of government is about to become tighter around America’s neck.

For nearly eight years, under the guise of shielding the American people from harm, Obama has methodically shifted power away from the private sector toward the most powerful and corrupt conglomerate on the face of the planet –- the U.S. federal government.

Let’s not beat around the bush; the prospect of thwarting corporate America gets the president all excited.

Obama began his reign of terror by “loosening the grip” of health insurance companies. The problem is that in order for his administration to rush in and patch things up, he first needed to break what wasn’t broken.

When the Affordable Care Act was being foisted on America, the president spent a full year attempting to convince the wary that insurance companies needed to be accountable. Americans were incessantly lectured to about how competition would lower prices, improve care, and expand access.

At the time, the president argued that:

In the end, this isn’t about politics. This is about people’s lives and livelihoods. This is about people’s businesses. This is about America’s future, and whether we will be able to look back and say that this was the moment when we made the changes we needed and gave our children a better life. I believe we can, and I believe we will.

ObamaCare has done none of that. Rather than be rescued by “changes we needed,” ever since healthcare reform was enacted Americans have been suffering the ramifications of ‘changes no one needed.’

Now, with an eye toward a government bailout, health insurance companies are citing unsustainable losses. Meanwhile, consumers are overburdened with high premiums, rising copayments, increasingly second-rate care, and exorbitant deductibles.

In response, drooling statists are anticipating the right moment to step forward and absorb a mess that was specifically created with a government fix in mind.

And so, contrary to popular opinion, ObamaCare is not nose-diving.

The whole process, from implementation to failure, was a government coup designed to bring America closer to having no other choice but to accept a single-payer system.

Moving right along, the elderly will next be denied medical care, but not before Obama persuades baby boomers that government absorption of 401Ks ensures a secure retirement.

In the interim, Barack is biding time golfing and undermining big business.

That’s why, as ISIS increases in power and North Korea ignites the fuse on the end of a nuke pointed toward California, instead of devoting energy to critical matters, the president is working hard to ‘fundamentally transform’ the future of cable boxes.

As the number of illegal immigrant children tunneling across our border rises 1,200% and peculiar bacteria kills 18+ and shootings in the gun-control capital of Chicago are up 200%, Obama’s FCC appointee, Chairman Tom Wheeler, and America’s Chief Executive have agreed that the pay television industry must be open the market to competition.

How nice of Barack Obama, who supports making the Internet into a public utility, to volunteer to support the F.C.C.’s effort to break up cable cartels that wrongly monopolize the sale of service.

Seems that Barry the Cable Guy would rather Americans buy their boxes from third parties who have the cutting-edge technology to gather, via smart TV,information currently unavailable on electronic health records.

Either way, to convince cable companies to “loosen their grip” on the black set-top boxes that deliver pay TV, the federal government plans to push a broad federal effort intended to increase the type of competition government intervention notoriously obstructs.

Speaking of competition, the president, who gained experience dabbling in the free cell phone business, had this to say about how the economic system he despises will benefit the cable industry:

One of America’s greatest strengths is our free market. A thriving private sector is the lifeblood of our economy — it’s how we create jobs, expand opportunities, and give everybody a shot at success. It’s what has made America the strongest country on Earth.

That kind of disingenuous rhetoric issuing forth from the mouth of a man with such antipathy towards private enterprise is a sign that another industry is about to become entangled in Barack Obama’s tentacles.

The only thing missing from that hogwash is the pledge that ‘if you like your cable box you can keep your cable box.’

The reasoning behind muscling into the cable business is that lonely little converters symbolize corporate dominance over the same folks Obama shamelessly exploits in his pursuit of power.  So, to justify throwing the full weight of his office behind the FCC, Obama will probably emphasize the plight of poor people paying too much for cable, which is true.

However, what the Fundraiser-in-Chief forgot to mention when he announced his support for Unlock the Box was that, just like the insurance donors that profited handsomely from Obamacare, the “competition” effort he currently supports benefits a tiny group of top Democrat techie donors like Apple, Amazon, and Google.

By bailing out banks, the auto industry, and destroying health care, this president has contributed mightily to the expansion of the federal behemoth. That’s why; peering into every citizen’s home makes pay TV setups the obvious next step.

So, as always, the goal of Obama-fairness has zilch to do with competition, consumer protection, or the broader economy.  Instead, Obama’s support of smashing up cable companies has everything to do with rewarding political friends and expanding an insidious regulatory organism that already controls too much and puts too much money in the pockets of the CEOs running the Washington DC monopoly.

In the end, government control of cable will likely result in the further loss of personal security protections.  Moreover, it will bring America one-step closer to the type of statism Barack ‘You Didn’t Build That’ Obama is in the business of building all by himself.

Here’s WHY John Adams Would Butt Heads With GODLESS LIBERALS

johnadamsOriginally posted at CLASH Daily

In a diary entry dated February 22, 1756, Founding Father and Second U.S. President, John Adams, wrote the following:

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love and reverence toward Almighty God…What a Utopia, what a Paradise would this region be.

It is now 260 years later, and liberals, in a quest to usher in another kind of utopian paradise, reject the Bible and prefer instead to depend on a counterfeit, government-mandated definition of Adams’s “justice, kindness, and charity.”

Rather than looking to God as the source, the “charity towards fellow man” John Adams describes is what the irreligious left believes can be legislated and imposed.

Secular government-types dismiss the God Adams promoted as Almighty because in America today Biblical moral code infringes on the type of godless nirvana liberals have been trying in vain to establish since time immemorial.

The Word of the Christian deity that Adams said calls us to “be obliged in conscience”, represents dictums that are diametrically opposed to national pastimes such as abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, and the gross sexualisation of small children. Unlike the culture that the left advances, nowhere in the book Adams values are heroes made of the sexually-perplexed, prevaricators, or those who take innocent life.

In essence, life, liberty, and individual freedom violate the sort of communal control that drives those that dismiss God. Yet in many circles liberals have been so successful at distorting arguments and furthering a counterfeit dogma that those without God accept the fake as virtuous.

In liberal utopia, minorities dictate to the majority a brand of altruism that embraces frightened girls sharing restrooms with transgender males, illegal immigrants invading and bilking American taxpayers, and women being esteemed by slaughtering the unborn and then peddling baby livers for the philanthropic advancement of science.

Thanks to the efforts of hedonists, secularists, and liberal humanists, at public libraries and schools across the nation, the Bible John Adams revered so highly is now on a list of objectionable books.

In an effort to not offend the ungodly, God’s word is currently in jeopardy of being stifled because in America today obstructing the First Amendment, and repressing truth, is how freedom is interpreted and the common good preserved.

The possibility that the Bible may end up censored is not surprising because leftist benevolence, if given ample time, always results in tyranny.

Liberals who profess to be unprejudiced don’t care that the Bible has guided our nation’s founding and is comprised of literature, history, prose, music, law, culture, and antiquity — let alone being inspired by God.

Scripture presents God’s view. That’s why a nation that has strayed far from the divine falsely believes the book John Adams imagined should guide America’s legal system violates a law that originally was established to keep the state out of religion – not the other way around.

James LaRue, who directs the Office for Intellectual Freedom for the American Library Association, which released the 2016 “State of Libraries Report,” said that, of late, “You have people who feel that if a school library buys a copy of the Bible, it’s a violation of church and state.”

If Americans are complaining that the book that helped establish their freedom threatens that freedom – liberal indoctrination is really kicking in.

LaRue explained that objections are sometimes a “retaliatory action, where a religious group has objected to a book and a parent might respond by objecting to the Bible.”

In other words, one parent complains about Heather Has Two Mommies being in the children’s book room, so Heather’s two mommies register a complaint about the Bible being in the theology section.

That’s why; in the name of tolerance, the diversity police need to make sure that none of the books the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) endorse is on the “challenged” list.

In the meantime, LaRue clarified that although the library association is not against having Bibles in public schools, guidelines for the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom stressed that “as long as the library does not endorse or promote the views included in the Bible,” the Bible does not violate the separation of church and state.

Good thing! After all, institutions supported by American taxpayers can’t be fostering biblical views that could be interpreted as backing a utopian paradise with God’s tenets at the head rather than government decrees.

Either way, the travesty is that those that support the right to watch porn on public library-owned computers are the same folks responsible for placing the Bible on the top 10 “challenged” books list of 2016.

Simply put, quite unlike the nation that John Adams so passionately described more than two centuries ago, America is on a crash course to become a “region” where conduct and belief are regulated by something other than God and Biblical precepts.

And, worse yet, the archaic idea of the freedom that “reverence toward Almighty God” rewarded us with when our nation was founded, is about to be relegated to a book on a shelf in a public library that no one will be permitted to read.

Michelle Teaches Argentinian Girls about Catcalls and Chauvinism

michelle.jpg_1718483346Originally posted at American Thinker

Although no one has stopped American girls from learning, the U.S. government banner Michelle Obama travels the world carrying reads: “Let Girls Learn.”

In fact, observant American girls like myself have studied how the FLOTUS cleverly exploits gender-specific initiatives to bilk the American public into covering exorbitant travel expenses.

If a girl uses her brain, it’s easy to figure out that every year, after her ski weekend in Aspen, while Sasha and Malia are on Easter break the FLOTUS feigns false concern for educating girls as an excuse to impose her entourage on world leaders. Annually, in the name of education, Michelle loads up a couple of Air Force Ones, jets all over the globe, dresses up in expensive clothes, sight sees and mooches a free meal off of whoever is dumb enough to buy into the ruse.

The FLOTUS spends $222K for two nights in China, and in between dancing the tango and eating fried fat cakes in Botswana, Michelle manages to wangle passing those expenses along to the American taxpayer and does it by preaching to girls, worldwide, on the subject of racism, victimization, and sexism.

Recently, after touring a Third World country dressed in haute couture, while in Argentina, a nation famous for cultural machismo, Mrs. Obama promoted “Let Girls Learn” by sharing how a girl with a modest background became the victim of catcalls.

Michelle chose to lift up America’s greatness by telling women in a country where machismo is rampant that American men treated her as if she were a hunk of that $100 per pound Wagyu beef she regularly enjoys.

Michelle flew all the way to South America to visit a school in the Barracas section of Buenos Aires to edify Argentinian girls with lessons that included stories about how American “men would whistle at [her] as if  [her] body [was] their property,” which is how both she and her husband now view America.

Either way, Michelle should already know that talking about machismo in Argentina is like talking about pacca sul sedere in Italy.  What’s the problem, doesn’t the FLOTUS appreciate the diverse rainbow of difference that makes up the multicultural world her husband so highly esteems?

How about, instead of wasting her breath in South America, the FLOTUS come home and give that catcall speech to the illegal Mexican male immigrants currently flooding this country who think machismo is an acceptable way to behave toward American women?

According to the FLOTUS, in addition to being frequently hooted at, teachers in the public school system also wronged her by asking brother Craig what he wanted to be when he grew up and talking down to her by asking who she intended to marry?

Despite the perception that the road to her success was thwarted on every front, Michelle went on to prove her mettle by surpassing her failed basketball coach/ESPN commentator brother and marrying a failed president.

As for street harassment, Michelle, who spearheaded her healthy eating initiative by discussing Sasha and Malia’s body fat, just couldn’t get off the topic.

The FLOTUS filled rapt ears with stories of men noticing her body “…as if I were an object to be commented on instead of a full human being with thoughts and feelings of my own.”

The funny thing was all that meat market talk took place right around the time a picture of a sexy woman in fishnet stockings, wearing a short sequined dress with a slit up the side, wrapping her left leg around the president’s thigh during a tango, received worldwide circulation.

Nonetheless, with no way to verify the veracity of Michelle’s “strong… powerful… outspoken” tales of woe, the FLOTUS continued to school Argentinian girls about American teachers who “would call on the boys instead of the girls, even though the girls had better grades.”

Seriously? Mrs. Obama wants girls to believe that her teachers only called on boys, and that the girls in Michelle’s school had better grades than all the boys? The only thing missing from that cock-and-bull story are embellishments about white male teachers at Michelle LaVaughn Robinson’s school calling on the white boys with worse grades, while relegating much smarter black girls, like herself, to emptying the trash cans.

Sorry, if this how Michelle thinks ‘girls learn,’ then girls should skip “Let Girls Learn” and just sign up for ‘Girls Will Believe Anything.”

In the end, Mrs. Obama shared how she found a way to work through the trial of being sexually harassed by men, and scorned and disqualified by her teachers.

Similar to her husband’s philosophy that defeats Islamic terrorism by partying while victims of extremist attacks are being stacked in freezers, Michelle told the girls that in response to being acknowledged for her outstanding female form and disdained for her mediocre mind, she “…decided not to listen to the voices of those who doubted or dismissed [her].”

Instead, Michelle said, “I decided to listen to my own voice!” And, judging from her questionable decision to do things like show up in $1-a-day Cuba wearing $4K outfits, maybe Michelle Obama should find another voice to listen to.

Either way, what Mrs. Obama didn’t expound upon was that despite having unexceptional grades, thanks to quotas, and a brother who grew up to be a Princeton basketball coach, she was able to attend an Ivy League school where, according to her difficult to read thesis, because of white faculty, she also felt  uncomfortable.

From Princeton, Michelle graduated Harvard Law, was underappreciated as a lawyer at Chicago’s Sidney Austin, met Barack Obama, converted to community organizing, and was taught from the best how to swindle the American public for everything she felt, and still feels, she is owed

And so, what did this girl glean from Michelle’s Argentinian “Let Girls Learn” trip? I learned that the FLOTUS’s “Let Girls Learn” initiative is a convenient pretext Michelle Obama can use to get the nation she detests to foot-the-bill for all the high-priced vacations she’s convinced she deserves.

he wanted to be when he grew up and talking down to her by asking who she intended to marry?

Despite the perception that the road to her success was thwarted on every front, Michelle went on to prove her mettle by surpassing her failed basketball coach/ESPN commentator brother and marrying a failed president.

As for street harassment, Michelle, who spearheaded her healthy eating initiative by discussing Sasha and Malia’s body fat, just couldn’t get off the topic.

The FLOTUS filled rapt ears with stories of men noticing her body “…as if I were an object to be commented on instead of a full human being with thoughts and feelings of my own.”

The funny thing was all that meat market talk took place right around the time a picture of a sexy woman in fishnet stockings, wearing a short sequined dress with a slit up the side, wrapping her left leg around the president’s thigh during a tango, received worldwide circulation.

Nonetheless, with no way to verify the veracity of Michelle’s “strong… powerful… outspoken” tales of woe, the FLOTUS continued to school Argentinian girls about American teachers who “would call on the boys instead of the girls, even though the girls had better grades.”

Seriously? Mrs. Obama wants girls to believe that her teachers only called on boys, and that the girls in Michelle’s school had better grades than all the boys? The only thing missing from that cock-and-bull story are embellishments about white male teachers at Michelle LaVaughn Robinson’s school calling on the white boys with worse grades, while relegating much smarter black girls, like herself, to emptying the trash cans.

Sorry, if this how Michelle thinks ‘girls learn,’ then girls should skip “Let Girls Learn” and just sign up for ‘Girls Will Believe Anything.”

In the end, Mrs. Obama shared how she found a way to work through the trial of being sexually harassed by men, and scorned and disqualified by her teachers.

Similar to her husband’s philosophy that defeats Islamic terrorism by partying while victims of extremist attacks are being stacked in freezers, Michelle told the girls that in response to being acknowledged for her outstanding female form and disdained for her mediocre mind, she “…decided not to listen to the voices of those who doubted or dismissed [her].”

Instead, Michelle said, “I decided to listen to my own voice!” And, judging from her questionable decision to do things like show up in $1-a-day Cuba wearing $4K outfits, maybe Michelle Obama should find another voice to listen to.

Either way, what Mrs. Obama didn’t expound upon was that despite having unexceptional grades, thanks to quotas, and a brother who grew up to be a Princeton basketball coach, she was able to attend an Ivy League school where, according to her difficult to read thesis, because of white faculty, she also felt  uncomfortable.

From Princeton, Michelle graduated Harvard Law, was underappreciated as a lawyer at Chicago’s Sidney Austin, met Barack Obama, converted to community organizing, and was taught from the best how to swindle the American public for everything she felt, and still feels, she is owed

And so, what did this girl glean from Michelle’s Argentinian “Let Girls Learn” trip? I learned that the FLOTUS’s “Let Girls Learn” initiative is a convenient pretext Michelle Obama can use to get the nation she detests to foot-the-bill for all the high-priced vacations she’s convinced she deserves.

Michelle’s $4K casual Cuban cocktail dress

Originally posted at American Thinker

I’m the type of person that tries to make people feel comfortable.  In order to accomplish that goal, I consider the company I keep and adjust accordingly.  For instance, if I’m with overweight people, I don’t discuss my diet and treadmill mileage.  If I’m visiting with the elderly, I avoid the subject of wrinkles, nursing homes, and funerals.  And, unlike Michelle Obama, if I volunteer at a soup kitchen, I don’t wear my $565 Lanvin sneakers.

But hey, that’s just me.

On the other hand, even if it makes people feel bad, the first lady seems to revel in showcasing her affluence.  This week, in front of destitute Cubans who, on average, earn about $1 a day, Michelle Obama did just that.

The first lady’s imprudence began when the Obama entourage that included Sasha, Malia, Charlie Rangel, Grandma Marion, and Nancy Pelosi arrived in Cuba.  After landing, Michelle descended to the tarmac from Air Force One decked out in a $2,100 Carolina Herrera “springtime floral” frock.

Cuba is an island where even government workers don’t earn a living wage, and doctors who work in the Cuban health care system earn $67 a month.  The food in Cuba is in such short supply that it’s rationed, and in some cases, it’s purchased illegally on the black market.

Yet despite the magnitude of Cuba’s abject poverty, America’s sartorial preener arrived in Havana wearing an ensemble whose cash value could support a Cuban family for six years.

What next?  When not trumpeting her good fortune in front of poor Cubans, Michelle will offer to entertain paraplegics by boogying to “Uptown Funk“?

And the thoughtlessness got worse.

As poor Cubans lined the streets of Havana straining to catch a glimpse of American royalty, Michelle, guest of dictator/president Raúl Castro, made her way, dressed in yet another designer dress, to the Palace of the Revolution (of all places) for a state dinner.

While Cubans ate peasant food like moros y cristianos, Michelle was dining on a sumptuous menu of “[s]hrimp mousse … with cream of mojito; golden cream soup flavored with Caney rum accompanied by slivers of ham; traditional pork garnished with baby tamales … and a trio of Grandmother’s sweets.”

As Cubans roamed Old Havana in worn out flip-flops and secondhand clothes, Michelle impressed her hosts in a dress made of “Kashmiri fabric embroidered with an Indian floral motif.”  This was a “casual cocktail” knee-length black floral dress by Naeem Khan that, according to the New York-based designer’s collection, came with a $4,490 price tag.

Rounding that bottom line up, that little number’s cash value could provide an average Cuban worker a salary for 12-plus years.

It’s probably unfair for me to project my standard for how to treat people onto the first lady.  Just because Michelle dresses like nobility in the company of the lowly doesn’t mean she has little regard for the predicament of the poor.  After all, the woman who sports overpriced clothes does have a husband who, when not paying for her haute couture, stresses the value of “sharing our wealth.”

Progressives Muscle into the Restroom

UnknownOriginally posted at American Thinker

There’s no denying that the left is on a political mission to tap into the grievances of a small percentage of the population where, by levying pain on mainstream America, liberals can cultivate a lopsided form of equity.

Case in point, remember back in 2010 when Barack Obama destroyed a healthcare system that 86.6% of the insured were more than satisfied with? That was done on behalf of the 13.4% without coverage.

Now, everywhere one turns; similar sorts of lopsided equity are being increasingly implemented.

Take for instance Obama leveling the inclusive playing field with a porous border. That attempt at social engineering has subjected a once sovereign nation to an all out life-threatening invasion.

As a result, sanctuary cities teem with dangerous illegal felons, Americans have died unnecessarily, and public school classrooms have been flooded with “unaccompanied minors,” some of whom have infected our children with deadly foreign pathogens.

Much to the delight of liberals, every day, jobs are lost to illegals and property owners dictated to as neighborhoods are being resettled with ISIS-infiltratedSyrian refugees brought to America via Obama’s “surge operation.”

In the name of thoughtfulness toward minorities, fear of offending some overly sensitive protected class has bestowed upon cultural diversity a power that has usurped the constitutional right to free expression.

And that’s not the worst of it.

Religious freedom is eroding as Islam is given deference over the nation’s foundational Judeo-Christian tenets. The reality of that forfeiture intensifies when taxpayers, who are largely pro-life, are forced to fund abortion on demand, and Christian bakers and photographers pay penalties for refusing to provide wedding services to same-sex couples.

Let’s not forget that these are the same progressives who manipulate thought and opinion by elevating illegals to immigrant status, and doing so while referring to living human beings, growing within the womb as clumps of cells. These misleading actions, words, and ideas are how the marginal have managed to gain despotic dominance over the majority.

A prime example of how the minority dominates the majority happens when liberals foster the idea that gender fluidity determines which public restroom members of the LGBTQQIAP2S community should have permission to use.

In other words, if liberals have their way, a new level of tolerance will be realized by sharing a public bathroom with every manner of sexually confused individual.

Despite a handful of open-minded heterosexuals, who wouldn’t mind sharing a urinal cake with Chaz Bono, or tinkling while Caitlyn Jenner eavesdrops, the goal to establish gender-neutral bathrooms will likely have to be accomplished under public duress.

Put another way, most women would rather not have an Arnold Schwarzenegger look-alike in the adjoining stall and most men would probably feel more comfortable if Ellen DeGeneres weren’t milling around the latrine.

Nonetheless, the topic is so volatile that rock star Bruce Springsteen canceled a concert in North Carolina. Seems the Boss believes that those who “Walk Like a Man,” if they so desire, should also be allowed to pee like woman — which is exactly what happens in the in the newly-installed White House gender-neutral restroom.

The state law that the Boss opposes is the one that bars people from choosing a bathroom on criteria other than having XY or XX chromosomes. Until further notice, North Carolina law maintains that current apparatus determines where one urinates, not the equipment one hopes to someday acquire.

Nonetheless, in response to what the left interprets as toilet discrimination, and in keeping with their desire to impose bizarre edicts on the majority, in a number of U.S. states restroom legislation is being considered to address what liberals view as a form of prejudice against those whose sexual proclivity results in bathroom bias.

So, once again 0.3% of the U.S. population, this time, those that identify as transgenders, have managed to initiate a controversy that has the potential to eventually impact 99.7% of the American citizenry, most of whom probably prefer using gender precise restrooms.

Similar to ObamaCare, same-sex marriage, abortion on demand, and refugee resettlement, who uses what bathroom is just another in a long list of unpleasant impositions the tyrannical minority plans to use to browbeat the majority into submission.

This is no joke because what’s at stake here is whether having a penis or a vagina still determines which bathroom an individual uses, and whether, as theAmerican College of Pediatrics maintain, “Facts — not ideology — determine reality.”

That’s why, whether Americans are comfortable with the direction we’re heading in or not, at the expense of the majority, power hungry liberals continue to enable the entitlement attitude of those who perceive themselves as sexual minorities.

As a result of those efforts, it is possible that while a Rachel Maddow-type dominates the boy’s room sink, next door, in the ladies’ room, a mortified girl may soon be witnessing a man powdering his Adam’s apple and adjusting his pantyhose.

This is where we’re at, folks.

With an eye firmly fixed on our Second Amendment rights, leftism has not so subtly seeped into every area of our lives.

The American majority is subjugated, conquered, and oppressed. The immoral minority rules and tells America how to think, what to say, how much money we can keep, and even dictates which lightbulbs and what doctor we have permission to use.

The inviolability of our property rights has been subverted, our borders shattered, and our senses legally dulled. Enemy soldiers are being imported to overthrow us, millions of acres of our lands have been seized, the First Amendment suppressed, and, above all, the sanctity and sanity of American life greatly diminished.

Face it; every day this nation is nudged ever closer to the precipice progressives have been industriously molding for decades. And as part of that progression, tolerant children will soon be sharing restrooms with transgenders, pansexuals, and amorous biromantics.

Straphanger Hillary sinks to new lows

2016-04-07T173815Z_1_LYNXNPEC361DC_RTROPTP_4_USA-ELECTION-CLINTON-e1460131711552Originally posted at American Thinker

Hillary Clinton is the woman who, in her quest for planetary supremacy, once dredged up an old Yankee baseball cap, stuffed it into a carpetbag, and moved to New York.  Now, in an effort to exploit that blue state once again, Hillary took sucking up to a whole new level when she boarded a subway outside Yankee Stadium.

It was on the 4 train that Mrs. Clinton found herself sandwiched among the unwashed masses.  What did she do?  Hold her breath, close her eyes, picture the White House, and use that iconic image to help her endure a trip through a dark tunnel to an uptown Bronx diner?

After living in Illinois, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, making a name for herself in Arkansas, and spending a lot of time knocking around Washington, D.C., Hillary must have thought strap-hanging was an ingenious way to re-establish her standing as a real New Yorker.

That’s why, with the April 19 New York primary looming, rather than spend the morning cuddling with her 1-year-old granddaughter, Charlotte Mezvinsky, the candidate from Chappaqua frivolously wasted precious time politicking with Bronx borough president Ruben Diaz, Jr.

Hillary and Ruben made an appearance outside Yankee Stadium, where the former first lady/senator/secretary of state told people who plan to vote for her anyway that she was “so proud to have represented this state.”

The brown-nosing politician also praised “New York values [and] the people of New York.”

Hillary told those gathered before her that “there is no place like [New York] in the world, and [that she’s] going to take [her New York] experiences … to the White House.”

Then Hillary climbed aboard a subway train, an idea that took root when Hillary’s Brooklyn-born opponent, Bernie Sanders, mentioned that all one needs to ride the subway is a token.  In response, Mrs. Clinton did not want to squander an opportunity to prove that she, not Bernie, is the consummate New Yorker.

Moving forward in her relentless five-decade schlep toward the White House, shadowed closely by the press, the Secret Service, and a bewildered person carrying a Hillary sign, Mrs. Clinton valiantly set her sights on the subterranean Petri dish.

After numerous failed swipes with a Metro card, Hillary shimmied through the turnstile and then miraculously materialized on the No. 4 platform.  From there, the woman in the $1,500 pantsuit boarded the train and pretended to enjoy riding it from 161st Street, Yankee Stadium, all the way uptown to 170th Street, where she disembarked and headed to the Bronx diner Munch Time.

Munch Time was a perfect spot for down and dirty Hillary to drink tea and be interviewed after her subway ride, because the diner is renowned for a famous girl fight that took place there a few years back.

Nonetheless, it’s likely that Hillary, who admitted that she’s been chauffeured around since 1996, headed to the Bronx after spending the night in Chelsea’s $10-million Madison Avenue apartment.  That’s why this New Yorker can only hope that while mingling in with the commoners, the former senator was treated to the full flavor of the subway, where pizza rats scurry about, shoes stick to chewed up bubble gum, and the odor of urine indelibly soaks the concrete.

Either way, it’s quite clear that Hillary Clinton endured the slimy underground experience because in Clinton’s economy, every vote counts.

Let’s face it: Hillary is a vote vampire.  The former first lady stays up nights thinking up ways to suck votes out of poor people, minorities, felons, illegal immigrants, the LGBT community, union employees, and pro-choice women.

So why not attempt to add Bronx commuters to that mix?

Knowing Hillary, she counted the cost and figured she could attract new followers by volunteering to immerse herself in a sweaty pool of culturally diverse body odor.  Why not share a seat with a couple of man-spreaders and pretend to enjoy hugging a bacteria-coated subway pole?

Based on Hillary Clinton’s history of calculated political moves, what’s more likely is that the presidential hopeful figured that if she sacrificed her dignity for a station or two and just let herself be groped between 161st and 170th Streets, she could pull way ahead of Bernie on primary day.

Hillary Clinton’s Abortion Quagmire

196334_5_Originally posted at American Thinker

It’s hard to believe but ‘for the first time in her adult life,’ when Hillary Clinton referred to a preborn human being as an “unborn person” or “child,” the woman who’s made prevarication a lifestyle choice actually spoke the truth.  The problem for Sir Edmund Hillary’s purported namesake is that truth telling is something she usually dodges like sniper bullets in Bosnia because of the potential that facts have to get her in trouble.

And trouble is exactly what followed when Hillary attempted to counter Donald Trump by trying to portray herself as the champion of abortion rights.

While being interviewed on NBC’s Meet the Press, Hillary responded to Chuck Todd’s question about the constitutional rights of the unborn by saying that “the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”  The problem with the former first lady’s answer was that while trying to deny unborn personhood she inadvertently assigned personhood to an entity the pro-choice movement views as a nonviable clump of cells.

And so, it seems that while straddling the abortion fence, Mrs. Clinton got her designer pants leg stuck on a big old rusty nail.  Of all people, Hillary should know by now that in pro-choice circles admitting preborn humanity portrays the slaughter of 3,000 babies a day in a distasteful light.

Then, Mrs. Clinton, who, when not getting $600 haircuts spends time rustling up votes by rubbing her pregnant daughter Chelsea’s belly like it was Aladdin’s lamp, went on to talk about the constitutional rights of “unborn persons” whose mothers opt not to abort:

Now that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support.

So, after saying that an “unborn person” has no right to life or protection under the Constitution, Hillary awkwardly attempted to reassure women who choose to allow offspring to breathe outside the womb that the “unborn person” she just said had no protection will be protected under the law.

Talk about a quagmire.

Nonetheless, Hillary wants America to know that if she ends up in charge, and if a mother chooses not to exercise the right to legally murder her offspring, the law that Hillary claims doesn’t protect an “unborn person’s” life, will be enforced to protect the “unborn person’s” life.

Then, with Chelsea’s swollen third-trimester belly as her muse, Hillary burrowed herself in deeper when she said, “there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions” in the third trimester of pregnancy.

What? The woman who heartily supports partial birth abortion blurted out, clearly without thinking, that, on occasion, it might be better to not insert scissors into the base of the skull of a living baby who is halfway out of the womb?

Huma really should have reminded Secretary Clinton beforehand that in baby extermination circles, even implying the word “restriction,” undermines the cause for abortion rights. That’s why, Diana Arellano, manager of community engagement for Planned Parenthood Illinois Action, quickly responded to Mrs. Clinton’s comments.

Diana probably didn’t like it either when the Planned Parenthood baby body part chop shop was called a baby body part chop shop, because Hillary labeling “unborn persons” as  “unborn persons” really got under the manager of community engagement’s skin.

Arellano tweeted this about Hillary Clinton: “she calls a fetus an ‘unborn child’ & calls for later term restrictions,” which, according to the Illinois Baby Chop Shop representative, “further stigmatizes #abortion.”

According to Arellano, butchering and then selling preborn infant liver doesn’t stigmatize abortion. In Diana’s opinion, what stigmatizes abortion is Hillary losing lip control and calling a child a child and then suggesting that murdering viable human beings should be restricted.

Now either unborn babies are non-persons and thus have no constitutional rights, or pre-birth existence does not negate personhood.  If the latter is true, that means Hillary Clinton and the whole pro-choice movement have put all our lives in danger by eroding a constitutional right that was established to protect all life.

In the meantime, Mrs. Clinton has really got to figure out how to talk her way out of the abortion chaos she’s gotten herself into. Maybe Mrs. Clinton should follow Donald Trump’s example and just make it up as she goes along.

Hillary can start by clarifying what choice is all about and explain that what she really meant to say was that women who decide to terminate a pregnancy have the right to choose whether the “unborn persons” they’re planning to destroy are “persons” or not.

In fact, this may be a real opportunity for Hillary to turn a faux pas into an excuse to break new ground on behalf of the right to choose crowd.  Mrs. Clinton can explain that if a woman chooses an abortion, only then is an “unborn person” considered a non-person.  But, if a woman chooses to carry to term and give birth, an otherwise non-person is then mysteriously granted “unborn person” status and is, hence, constitutionally protected.

Either way, this is the kind of misunderstanding that results when Hillary Clinton loses her bearings and the truth manages to slip out.  That’s why if the presidential hopeful wants to retain her faithful constituency, it might be best for her to continue to do what she does best, which is to keep lying.

Hillary’s Haircut Inequity

dem_2016_clinton1Originally posted at American Thinker

The Clintons claim that in 2001 when they left the White House in a moving van stuffed to the rafters with $190K worth of stolen items, they were poverty stricken. Then, between 2001 and 2012, on speaking fees alone, the destitute couple managed to stockpile approximately $160 million dollars.

With that kind of haul, who needs commemorative china and cutlery?

Anyway, now it’s 2016 and, thus far, Hillary watchers haven’t seen the former penniless first lady/current prosperous presidential hopeful wear the same outfittwice. In fact, every time Hillary Clinton’s bulging eyes approach the podium, if you listen closely, besides the signature squawking and screeching, you’ll hear a cash register ring up $1,400 for each and every Nina McLemore power pantsuit she shows up in.

To go with those pricey getups, recently, while trawling in New York State for votes, Hillary proved she is the champion of the middle class when, early in the morning, she snuck into the side door Bergdorf Goodman’s John Barrett Salon. Once inside, and before getting a common man haircut and blowout for which she gladly shelled out $600 big ones, Hillary rode solo in an elevator like a movie star.

Let’s not forget, it was Hillary who once said, “If I want to knock a story off the front page, I just change my hairstyle.” And by spending $600 on something that looks like it cost 20 bucks – Hillary did just that.

Not to worry, there is an upside to the story.

Later that morning, Clinton’s hair and outfit delighted her audience at the Apollo Theatre where she shrieked and pounded the lectern like a butcher flattening chicken cutlets.

Hillary’s new hairdo even went perfectly with the navy blue leather pantsuit she wore while “talking trash” and riding shotgun in a five-car motorcade that ran a red light.

But, the place that the feathered cut and the self-proclaimed “fashion icon’s” leather jacket really made an impression was at the LGBT Fundraiser in SoHo’s Capitale where both she and Rosie O’Donnell mocked Donald Trump and his hair.

Granted, it wouldn’t hurt if billionaire Trump dropped in on John Barrett for a slight makeover. However, it’s not Donald who talks up the middle class while spending $600 on a haircut – it’s Hillary!

Yes, Hillary Clinton is part of the 1% she is always criticizing. It’s Hillary who is the antithesis of her Democrat opponent Bernie Sanders who never combs his hair, let alone spends $600 in a haircut.

As the Washington Free Beacon pointed out, Hillary’s new coif cost nearly 14 times what the average woman pays to have her hair done. And, if Hillary decided to ask John to also cover those telltale greys, a process she admits she has had done for years, her morning outing to the 5th Avenue hair salon had to have cost her another $600.

Six hundred dollars for color and $600 for a cut would bring Mrs. Clinton’s restyling tab to – Cha-ching –$1,200, which is $100 more than the average American, Hillary claims she’s fighting for, earns a week.

Yet even though Mrs. Clinton amassed $9+ million in 2013 for speaking engagements alone, and although her daughter Chelsea earned $600K for an entry-level job at NBC, the former first lady remains dedicated to the cause of pay equity.

However, based on how much she plunked down for her new coif, in addition to dead Americans in Libya, and a cache of lost confidential emails, middle-class haircut equity is not a cause that keeps Hillary Clinton up nights.

Did You See Beyoncé and Michelle Obama Inciting Sexism on Easter Sunday?

blue-ivy-beyonce-white-house-easter-egg-roll-ftrOriginally posted at CLASH Daily

This year, in honor of Easter, Obama and Michelle hosted the 138th Annual Easter Egg Roll on the South Lawn of the Whitehouse. The 35,000-person “Let’s Celebrate!” event had nothing to do with Easter, nor did it have anything to do “egg rolls”.

Nevertheless, the annual festivities, which are secular in nature, feature varied activities and including things like commemorative eggs with Obama’s name inscribed on them, and a story time where the president traditionally reads from Maurice Sendak’s book Where the Wild Things Are.

This year, about a week after ISIS killed 35 people at a Brussels International Airport, Obama, who seemed somewhat complacent after the bombing when it happened, sent a belated scary message to ISIS by acting out Sendak’s book complete with growls and creepy faces.

And although Broadway star Idina Menzel, singer Daya and Echosmith were on hand to entertain the children, the highlight of the day occurred when superstar Beyoncé, her billionaire husband Jay-Z, and their curly-top tot, 4-year-old Blue Ivy, surprised good friends Michelle and Barry by dropping in at the egg roll unannounced.

This winter, during a controversial Super Bowl half-time show live performance, Beyoncé dressed up in Black Panther leather, exalted Black Lives Matter, racial militancy, and Malcolm X formations.

But now it’s springtime, the bunnies are hopping and Barack and Michelle have just returned from their South America Spring Break trip. So, instead of skimpy black leather, Beyoncé showed up at the White House, dressed in a $3,510 Marco de Vincenzo white lace, see-through skirt, and a cream and pink top that accentuated her ample bosom.

Let’s just say Beyoncé’s White House Egg Roll get-up wasn’t exactly an Easter outfit in the traditional sense of the term.

What happened? Didn’t Mrs. Carter hear Michelle’s speech to schoolgirls in Argentina where she talked about being whistled at by sexist men who make women feel as if their bodies have more value than their minds?

Or could it be that Beyoncé likes being half naked because she enjoys being whistled at by men and agrees that her body is more valuable than her mind?

If Beyoncé had been in the audience during Michelle’s Buenos Aires speech would the pop star have even understood what the first lady was talking about when she said:

As I got older, I found that men would whistle at me as I walked down the street, as if my body were their property, as if I were an object to be commented on instead of a full human being with thoughts and feelings of my own. I began to realize that the hopes I had for myself were in conflict with the messages I was receiving from people around me.

Hate to throw a wrench into the Mrs. Obama’s “Let Girls Learn” sexism spiel, but, by flaunting her voluptuous curves for attention, Beyoncé, whom Michelle considers a very good friend, makes a living rejecting all of the FLOTUS’s advice.

Michelle Obama told the Argentinian girls that, as a woman, she wants to be recognized for her intellect. Yet at home, Mrs. Obama idolizes Beyoncé who, onstage and off, shows up everywhere, including an Easter Egg Roll, in see-through, skin-tight clothes.

When not busy rolling hardboiled eggs on the White House lawn or doing the Whip/Nae Nae, has Michelle ever broached the topic of modesty with the woman who shocked the world when she showed up at last year’s MET Costume Institute Benefit wearing a transparent body stocking?

Probably not!

That’s why, based on what Beyoncé doesn’t wear, the pop diva has made it clear that Michelle Obama may talk a good talk when morally chastising men, but in her private life the first lady befriends a woman recognized for something other than her intellect.

© 2009-2016 jeannie-ology All Rights Reserved

%d bloggers like this: