TAKE THAT! Are Leftists Endorsing Reparations by Proxy?

reparationsOriginally posted at Clash Daily

Could someone, anyone please explain what’s going on in America right now? Chaos is ensuing while criminals are being given carte blanche to exact some sort of imagined revenge on a segment of society that has done nothing to deserve their wrath.

In America today there is an undercurrent of prerogative that is being fomented by an administration that is quietly standing by, allowing those who wrongly deem themselves oppressed to demand restitution from those they wrongly identify as oppressors.

It’s happening on the border. As payback for some twisted idea of expansionism, Barack Obama is waving through, from parts unknown, millions of those he feels have been wrongly expanded upon and who, as a result, he believes have suffered pain and ruined lives inflicted by the U.S. Judging from Obama’s open-borders immigration policy, it appears the president, in every venue, is purposely exposing Americans to as much pain as he can.

For instance, despite Third-World diseases like MDR-TB and dengue fever infiltrating the safety barrier that used to be our border and the deadly Ebola virus straining to relocate in the west, the Obama administration continues to demand that Americans subdue their desire to resist the relentless invasion by accusing those who recognize what’s being forced upon us of being heartless racists.

Meanwhile, pathogens are making their way into our midst that will surely bring with them misery and death.

The president might as well just grant dispensation to rapists and then instruct Americans to lie still and endure it because, just like women often get subtly blamed for being raped, according to Obama, if America is suffering the same abuse, it’s America’s fault.

As part of the president’s desire to “level the playing field” worldwide, Americans are being asked to stand down, submit and accept thousands of poor, sick, government-dependent illegals and to ignore the fact that the law is being broken and our borders and Constitution ignored.

Then there is the imminent threat of a terrorist group more deadly and more powerful than al Qaeda vowing to “drown all of [us] in blood” – yet the border remains wide open.

The same philosophy is what is driving the fervor in Ferguson, Missouri. In Ferguson, there is an unspoken acceptance that a thug high on marijuana can rob a convenience store, and then disobey and charge at a police officer. Then, after the officer shoots and kills the linebacker-sized hooligan, said hooligan is lionized and the police officer vilified.

What’s the message here?

Well, it seems that although Democrat John Conyers Jr. of Michigan proposed H.R. 40, which is a Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans, since no reparations have been officially granted, in a roundabout way robbing and ransacking are reparations by proxy.

The giving in Ferguson is similar to the giving that’s taking place on our border. Exemption is being granted to lawbreakers, criminals are being portrayed as victims, anarchy is being excused, and silent sanction is being granted to chaotic disruptions that threaten the common good, the public peace and the racial stability America has worked decades to establish.

Illegal aliens are barging into our classrooms, hospitals, health clinics, and neighborhoods, bringing with them, in addition to various diseases and viruses, an entitlement mentality that demands to be given something that really isn’t owed. And to boot, Americans who oppose illegal immigration are the ones footing the bill.

As for the louts of Ferguson pillaging and running roughshod through the town, they are using the excuse that past injustices give them license to do what everyone, be they black, white, or purple with pink polka dots, knows is criminal.

And silently on the sidelines stand a president and party who, by their lack of condemnation on all counts, tacitly suggest that both looting and an illegal invasion are just rewards for those whose oppression, in many cases, is self-inflicted.

Share
Tags: , , , , , ,

Barack Obama’s Funeral Favoritism

49-1dErhH.AuSt.55Originally posted at American Thinker

Despite occasional outbursts of “overwhelming grief,” what America has learned over the last six years is that Barack Obama is neither an indiscriminate tear-shedder nor is he an equal-opportunity funeral-attender.

President Obama admitted that he wept while watching his “girl” Oprah star in the film “The Butler,” and also openly sobbed while bidding adieu to campaign staffers after the 2012 election.

As for funerals, the ones he does choose to attend seem to be public statements about what he supports versus what he denounces.  Remember when just a few inches away from Michelle’s disapproving eye, Obama wiped warm salty ones away at civil rights leader Dorothy Height’s funeral?

Obama also blubbered his way through the funeral of liberal Hawaiian senator Daniel Inouye. Instead of choosing to hit the links that day, the president attended the senator’s memorial service and graced Inouye’s family with both his tears and presence.

The president did fly home to Hawaii the month after he was first elected to scatter grandmother Madelyn Dunham’s ashes in Oahu.

However, Obama’s Aunt Zeituni, the illegal immigrant who lived in a South Boston housing project, apparently wasn’t as highly esteemed in her nephew’s eyes as Granny Dunham. In lieu of making a personal appearance, the president helped pay Zeituni Onyango’s funeral expenses, sent condolences, and memorialized his Auntie while out golfing.

The president also chose golf over attending the wake of conservative anti-communism Polish president Lech Aleksander Kaczyński, who died in a plane crash in western Russia, along with his wife Maria and an entourage of Polish dignitaries.

Granted, at the time, Iceland’s Eyjafjallajökull volcano was spewing volcanic ash, but based on his track record, one would guess that if Obama were invited to attend a Polish celebrity golf tournament he wouldn’t let Eyjafjallajökull stand in the way.

Poland’s Lech Kaczyński wasn’t the only world leader’s funeral Obama neglected to attend. The president also rejected an invite to the funeral of Ronald Reagan’s beloved friend Lady Margaret Thatcher.

Wait! Obama could send Winston Churchill’s bust back to Britain, but he couldn’t send a high-ranking envoy from his administration to Thatcher’s send-off?

Why didn’t the president just dispatch funeral-favorite first lady Michelle as his personal representative?

After all, Michelle did manage to make an appearance at the funeral of a 15-year-old victim of Chicago gun violence, Hadiya Pendleton.  Prior to extending an invitation to the State of the Union address, Obama sent a handwritten note to Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, which they pinned inside their daughter’s casket.  That note was more of a touching extension of sympathy than the parents of four Americans killed in Benghazi ever received.

Barack also sent Michelle as an emissary to Maya Angelou’s funeral, where she got to share that “a young white woman from Kansas … named her daughter after Maya, and raised her son to be the first black President of the United States.”

Unlike how he treated conservatives Lech Kaczyński and “Iron Lady” Thatcher, Obama did send a prominent delegation to anti-American socialist Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez’s funeral when he passed away about a month prior to Thatcher.

When it comes to Barack Obama insulting the dead, the funerals of Americans are no exception.

The president chose to fly 16 hours and allowed the State Department to spend $11.5 million for Nelson Mandela’s funeral where, including the time spent taking selfies, he and the first lady spent less than 13 hours on the ground.  But for the funerals of Brian Terry, the Border Patrol agent shot dead with a “Fast and Furious” gun, and ICE agent Jaime Zapata, who was allegedly executed with a gun also provided to his killers by the Obama administration, the president was a no-show.

Most recently, a second round of golf in three days waylaid Obama on the same day that 55-year-old murdered Major General Harold J. Green, the highest-ranking military officer killed in combat in a half-century, was laid to rest.

NBC News reported:

U.S. Army Major General Harold Greene was buried today at Arlington National Cemetery with full military honors, including a caisson, two escort platoons, casket team, firing party, colors team, and a caparisoned horse. The U.S. Army band, “Pershing’s Own,” played softly as the funeral procession made its way down the long hill past the rows of simple white gravestones to bring General Greene to his final resting place.

Meanwhile, somewhere in Martha’s Vineyard, the duffer-in-chief was putt-putting around on another green.

In fairness, in a speech he gave before signing into law a bill on veterans’ healthcare, Obama did send brief condolences to Green’s family and all Gold Star families who’ve lost loved ones.  The White House’s justification for the president downplaying the general’s death was that because he was a high-ranking military official the president didn’t want to appear to be valuing one person’s life over the lives of every other American, even though he does so all the time.

But talk is cheap.  Based on which funeral he attends and which he sits out, it’s clear Obama does assign significance to the passing of some and not to others. When it comes to shedding tears and attending funerals, black civil rights leaders, left-leaning Hawaiian senators, and victims of gun violence — whose deaths further his anti-Second Amendment agenda — do have more worth when weighed against whether or not he should forego a round of golf or pay his final respects.

What’s obvious is that the president who preaches fairness is actually guilty of favoritism, especially when it comes to attending funerals.

Obama’s partiality is evident whenever a previously-scheduled golf game makes it all but impossible for him to break away, or if the deceased person is a patriot who died in the line of duty, embraces conflicting partisan views, or is a dead foreign leader whose political philosophy President Barack Obama rejects.

Share
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

EPIC FAIL: A “Sketchy” Dose of Reality for Liberals With New “SketchFactor” App

sketch-300x180Originally posted at The Clash Daily

Nothing is more exhilarating, at least for me, than when liberals are victimized by their own foolhardiness.  That’s what happened when a news crew from local station WUSA9 went to Petworth in Northwest Washington DC to do a story on a new app that warns people in the nation’s capital of “sketchy” neighborhoods.

The app is called SketchFactor.  The idea behind SketchFactor is “to pinpoint the relative sketchiness of an area via first-hand reports from … users and publicly available data.”  In other words, the application cautions people to steer clear of less-than-safe neighborhoods based on reports and data citing muggings, harassment, and racial profiling.

The app even advises users as to how poorly, or well-lit, an area might be.

Predictably, the application’s co-founder and CEO, Allison McQuire, and her partner, Daniel Herrington, are now the subjects of harsh criticism because in liberal circles, just like suggesting that a black kid robbing a convenience store is in fact robbing a convenience store, even suggesting that a “sketchy” neighborhood is “sketchy” is considered racist.

In the app’s defense, the founders are marketing SketchFactor as a “community tool.”

New York City-based blog Gawker doesn’t agree.  In an article entitled Smiling Young White People Make an App for Avoiding Black Neighborhoods written by tech watchdog Sam Biddle, posted on Gawker-affiliated website ValleyWag and filed under racism, sarcastically had this to say about the new app:

“SketchFactor [is] a racist app made for avoiding ‘sketchy’ neighborhoods, which is the term young white people use to describe places where they don’t feel safe because they watched all five seasons of The Wire.”

The “city-centric” news blog Gothamist agrees, saying, “Might the residents of a so-called ‘sketchy’ neighborhood find this useful new technology offensive? Sure! Are the crowdsourced interpretations of ‘sketchy’ going to get racist as f**k? Yes, with haste.”

Amid the racist clamor, the story has taken an interestingly ironic turn.

Washington, DC’s WUSA9 News crew, headed up by reporter Mola Lenghi, decided to venture into one of those “sketchy areas” (wink, wink) to conduct interviews with some of those “sketchy” people that the “smiling young white people” who invented SketchFactor deem “sketchy.”

After choosing a neighborhood that the application identified as “sketchy,” the crew parked the van on the street. God knows why, but they then locked the vehicle.  When the threesome returned with the goods to take down the bigoted SketchFactor, they found that lock on the van had been jimmied from the door and all of the crew’s personal belongings and expensive gear was gone.

Photojournalist James Hash lost 15 years’ worth of camera and electronic equipment and Lenghi lost his backpack full of electronics and a laptop.  Intern Taylor Bisciotti lost her purse and her iPhone with the cracked face, which thankfully was equipped with the non-racist app, “Find my iPhone.”

After filing a police report about their “sketchy” experience in ‘perfectly-safe Petworth’, the trio tracked the cracked iPhone to a dumpster in another “sketchy” neighborhood where, according to Mola, “stolen goods are dumped.”

Clearly, the news crew’s intent was to prove that “sketchy” neighborhoods are safe and secure, because after being robbed of “many, many, many thousands of dollars worth of stuff,” Mola Lenghi still was tentative about calling the area where he was robbed “sketchy.”

The moral of the story is this:  Liberals don’t get it until they become the victims of the weird fantasy world in which they live and relentlessly insist on imposing on everyone else.

What happened to Mola, James, and Taylor is just a taste of the harsh wakeup call liberals are going to get when they realize that they are not exempt from the ugliness that really does exist in this world.  Liberals may not believe it, but terrorists are just as willing to lop off the head of a clueless peacenik extending an olive branch as they are the head of an Iraqi Christian clutching a cross.

In due time, the naive among us will find themselves packed into hot, dirty clinics along with people coughing and spewing Third-World diseases into the air, as well as sitting beside the ones who tried in vain to warn idealistic Obamacare supporters about the dangers of government involvement in healthcare.

As for the open-borders advocates, maybe when their own children are infected by a deadly contagion like Ebola or someone they love is murdered, raped, or run over by a criminal illegal immigrant, those on the left will come to understand the error of their ways.

When ISIS, who may have already infiltrated the homeland, descends on an elementary school in an un-sketchy neighborhood, maybe then left-wing ideologues will finally comprehend the magnitude of the deception.

As for the pro-choice crowd, only when the day comes – and it is coming – when government, after determining that inconvenience and dependency translate into useless and disposable, justifies exercising the right to choose on those outside of the womb will they realize the gravity of the pro-choice delusion they’ve embraced.

On that day, liberals will be about as shocked as the news crew robbed in an unsafe neighborhood while trying desperately to portray truth-tellers as racists by portraying a “sketchy” neighborhood as not sketchy.

As for the reporters who got a shock while out trying to prove a fantasy, their night ended with rummaging around with the rats and raccoons in a dumpster searching for most of their belongings, which were never found.  But with any luck, what the news crew hoping to expose a racist app did find in that dumpster was some common sense and a dose of reality.

H/T Donald Joy

Share
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Barack Obama’s Chilly Water Dilemma

introductory-titlesOriginally posted at American Thinker

 

America’s anti-atrocity president is on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard again. This year he is a little disappointed that the water of the Atlantic, unlike Hawaii, “is still a little cold.” Regrettably, for most people in the world, the icy beach water of Martha’s Vineyard is not the most pressing problem. Why? Because while the president takes time to decry the unfriendly surf and spend “time with… seals on the beach,” in Iraq a genocide similar to the one Obama identified as evil while visiting the Holocaust Museum two years ago is currently playing out on the world stage.

Speaking of seals — the trained, clapping kind, that is — are amongst those Obama usually feels most comfortable with. That aside, while Barack Obama is participating in Summer Fun Fest 2014, children are being beheaded, young boys crucified, women raped, and Christian men hung or shot at point-blank range after witnessing all of the above.

Come to think of it, if Barack Obama responded as quickly to the ongoing genocide in Iraq as he did to Malia asking him if he “plugged the hole” in the Deep Water Horizon oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico or to the so-called atrocity of terrorists being waterboarded or to Robin Williams’ suicide, maybe thousands of Iraq’s indigenous Assyrian Christians wouldn’t be buried alive in mass graves.

Granted, it is a pity that when Obama arrived on Martha’s Vineyard the water temperature wasn’t to his liking. Add to that all the precious vacation time he’s wasted thinking about the obstinate nature of Congressional Republicans.

Yet if the president thinks he is suffering, maybe he should try imagining the misery he would feel while being forced to helplessly watch a terrorist decapitate one of his children. If the temperature-sensitive Obama wants to talk about how unbearable cold water is, how about having to witness a five-year-old little boy being sliced in half as punishment for the sin of being born to Christian parents?

Icy water is a problem for Mr. Obama? If given the choice between shivering with goose bumps or suffocating while buried alive or, God forbid, watching his wife and daughters gang-raped, which of those three would Obama be likely to choose?

Or how about, as the father of two young daughters, wrapping his head around young women having their genitals sawed away by angry Muslim terrorists wielding used razor blades in the name of Allah?

Man, that’s a vacation buzz-kill. After all, every president has a right to get away for a little down time. And to be fair, this is the man who once challenged a post-Holocaust planet with the “bitter truth” that “too often, the world has failed to prevent the killing of innocents on a massive scale.” Barack ‘Blame Bush’ Obama even admitted that “we are haunted by the atrocities that we did not stop and the lives we did not save.”

That was back in April of 2012 when Nobel Peace Prize winner, Auschwitz survivor, and author of Night, Elie Wiesel, was in attendance when America’s legendary Nobel Peace Prize winner paid a visit to the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC. The remarks made by President Obama also included denouncing the horror of human-rights atrocities and suggesting that memorializing what happened in Nazi Germany could help to ensure that similar crimes against civilization would be avoided in the future.

Obama, who has made a habit of speaking while standing silent, said that day that we — which, by definition, includes him — must “tell our children about how this evil was allowed to happen — because so many people succumbed to their darkest instincts…because so many others stood silent.”

The president even drove home the point that, “In short, we need to be doing everything we can to prevent and respond to these kinds of atrocities — because national sovereignty is never a license to slaughter your people.”

Unfortunately, while Barack Obama is on summer break, the evil he spoke of is unaware that it should take a break too. So, maybe party-boy Obama could just sit one dance number out and spend the time he would have used doing the Electric Slide explaining the whole “never a license to slaughter” concept to those currently butchering their way through northern Syria and Iraq.

In the book Night, Elie Wiesel wrote about his chilling experiences in a death camp. Describing one horror perpetrated on a child by Nazi soldiers that he witnessed, Wiesel wrote “To hang a young boy in front of thousands of spectators was no light matter.”

On the other hand, if the one who could save blindfolded young Iraqi men from being crucified in the noonday sun chooses to spend time searching for a nice fluffy beach towel to warm himself after frolicking in chilly sea water, maybe when compared to Obama’s plight hanging boys is a “light matter.”

Sorry to be the one to have to say it but despite his recent victory lap, Obama complaining the other day about water temperatures in Martha’s Vineyard while the Yazidi starved on Mount Sinjar and innocent people were being brutally slaughtered could be likened to Franklin Delano Roosevelt publicly lamenting a missing cherry on his ice cream sundae while the Nazis were gassing the Jews.

On a smaller scale than the Holocaust, but a holocaust all the same, Barack Obama possesses the power to end the carnage. Yet thus far his effort to save lives and stop the brutality is tepid at best. Instead, as days turn into weeks and ISIS becomes a formidable threat to our homeland, Barack Obama is focused like a laser on busting dance moves at birthday parties, the threat of Republican obstructionism, photo ops, and mourning the disappointing swimming conditions on Martha’s Vineyard.

Share
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Obama’s One-sided “No victor/No vanquished” Maximalist Philosophy

UnknownOriginally posted at American Thinker

The definition of a maximalist is a “person who holds extreme views and is not prepared to compromise.” Although he accuses others of being maximalist saboteurs, there is no one who holds more “extreme views,” or is less “prepared to compromise” than Barack Obama.

In an interview with a supporter and defender of progressive-style overreaching government Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, in a piece entitled “Obama on the World,” self-proclaimed moderate Barack Obama talked of Iraq, Putin, and Israel.

The president used the unrest in the Middle East to describe the state of American politics in the following way:

We have so many things going for us right now as a country — from new energy resources to innovation to a growing economy — but we will never realize our full potential unless our two parties adopt the same outlook that we’re asking of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds or Israelis and Palestinians: No victor, no vanquished and work together.

Obama did not elaborate on whom, in America’s political system, he likens to ISIS, al Qaeda, Hezbollah or Hamas, so one can only guess.

According to Barack Obama, “societies don’t work if political factions take maximalist positions.” The president said, “At the end of the day… the biggest threat to America — the only force that can really weaken us — is us.” Naturally, that “us” does not include the one issuing the warning.

So, while attempting to explain how American politics are dysfunctional, our doggedly un-self-aware president used Middle Eastern upheaval as a parallel to accuse conservatives of being the very thing that he is — a partisan maximalist.

In essence, Obama was accusing others of doing what he does, which is a classic psychological defense mechanism called projection, where a person assigns to someone else the very same thinking and motivations he himself demonstrates.

Excusing himself from his own failures and assuming zero responsibility for the barrier to political cooperation his own extreme liberal views pose, the underlying message of the interview was that extreme conservative opinions that demand “maximalist” ends are a danger to the country.

Then, after a dysfunctional president described American politics as dysfunctional, he inserted the tried and true ‘diversity’ buzzword into the conversation by contending that “the more diverse the country is, the less it can afford to take maximalist positions.”

While Barry pretends to be chastising ISIS in Iraq by dropping on them what equates to a couple of brightly-colored water balloons, here at home, in the name of diversity he allows gangs of tattooed Mexican hoodlums dressed in army fatigues to roam America’s streets and threaten American lives.

That sort of philosophy works on Obama’s behalf. By imposing a wide variety of illegal interlopers on a resistant public, the president can then accuse those who differ from his extreme views on immigration of xenophobic obstructionism.

Since he was elected, Barack Obama has adhered to the “I won” mentality. Now after six years of shocking ineptitude that has left everything from the economy to the healthcare system to the future of America hanging precariously in the balance the person responsible for the mess has the bald-faced audacity to label those attempting to stop that downward spiral extremists?

On the list of politically dysfunctional maximalists, both in and out of Congress, would be nation-wreckers include extremists like the diminutive governor of Arizona Jan Brewer, whose state the Obama administration sued for trying to uphold immigration law.

How dare Brewer attempt to defend Arizona citizens from a blitzkrieg of sickly, criminal, big government-dependent illegals all of whom contribute to the diversity Obama claims is incompatible with the opinions of conservatives?

Then there’s Governor Rick Perry who, as governor of a state under siege, had to call out the Texas National Guard to protect his people from the tide the president refuses to stem of diseased, lawless humans entering Texas from south of the border.

Other ideological maximalists are Congressmen Darrell Issa (R-CA), and Trey ‘the pit bull’ Gowdy (R-SC). Both these so-called extremists regularly nip at the heels of the IRS scandal, and, every chance he gets, Gowdy handily eviscerates perpetrators with the skilled precision of Edward Scissorhands.

Then there’s maximalist obstructionist extraordinaire Ted Cruz (R-TX) whose The Legal Limit Report No. 4: The Obama Administration’s Abuse of Power, lists 76 of the president’s “lawless” actions. It’s likely that Obama sees the outspoken Mr. Cruz as a major contributor to America’s political dysfunction and a huge part of the problem of why our nation is presently, as the president put it, a nonfunctioning society.

Alluding to Iraq and Israel, Obama reassured Friedman that in the Middle East he is only going to involve the U.S. if “different communities there agree to an inclusive politics of no victor/no vanquished.”

That “no victor/no vanquished” philosophy must be the driving force behind his plans to “provide a unilateral amnesty to several million illegal immigrants, and award them work permits.” Never mind that those sorts of “inclusive politics” fly in the face of an American public that opposes executive action on amnesty and a Congressional community desperately trying to curtail the president’s repeated autocratic maneuverings.

Speaking specifically about the conservative wing of the Republican Party, the president pointed out to Freidman that “Increasingly politicians are rewarded for taking the most extreme maximalist positions… and sooner or later, that catches up with you.”

That sort of catch-up is precisely what Obama is about to experience himself. Because despite his delusional rhetoric, and based on his own all-time low approval ratings in the polls, this November his maximalist positions will catch up with him and the equally maximalist wing of the party he leads.

Share
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Female Israeli Soldiers and American Feminists

F201210121021158515469927Originally posted at American Thinker

Almost daily, Americans are subjected to the rantings of the likes of Democrat darling Sandra Fluke, Democrat politician Wendy Davis, and crazier-than-a-hoot-owl Nancy Pelosi.  Shamelessly, Sandra Fluke insists that the government finance her $3,000-a-year birth control habit.  In Texas, Wendy Davis made a name for herself by standing for 11 hours on the crushed corpses of aborted babies filibustering Senate Bill 5’s abortion regulations.

And then there’s Mrs. Nancy “I’m Significant and You’re Not” Pelosi, who rationalizes promoting a crisis on the border with references to Baby Jesus and Moses, and who then, when challenged with the truth about her party’s culpability in that border crisis, manifests like Regan MacNeil in The Exorcist, insulting colleagues by calling them “insignificant.”

Wait!  Didn’t Arizona Governor Jan Brewer justifiably scold Barack Obama on the tarmac of Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport for undermining Arizona’s right to defend its own border?  And didn’t appalled liberals call Brewer’s finger-wagging disrespectful and demeaning?

Yet Nana Nancy can storm across the floor of the House of Representatives, blatantly disregarding House protocol, to wag her finger at Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Tom Marino, and the ones who squawked over Brewer admonishing little Barry didn’t bat an eye at Pelosi’s inappropriate outburst.

Nonetheless, those are some of the faces (Nancy included) of American feminism – faces that also include Gloria “I had an abortion” Steinem and emotionally battered wife Hillary “so what if my husband is a lying, cheating adulterer” Clinton. 

Then there’s lesbian pundit Rachael Maddow and tampon-earring-wearing “Sister Citizen” Melissa Harris-Perry, as well as rock stars like Madonna, feminist icon/writer/actress/director/producer Lena Dunham, and comedians like Sarah Silverman and Kathy Griffith, all of whom have gotten rich mocking God and exploiting vulgarity to garner attention.

The list of some of the things that liberal women apparently feel best articulate American feminism includes begging for free contraceptives and, if those contraceptives fail, killing the living result of government-funded promiscuousness; shirking responsibility; exhibiting an in-your-face sense of entitlement; shunning femininity; tolerating adultery; and above all, thinking that womankind is somehow benefited by supporting a president whose many crimes against women include paying his female staff a salary significantly less than his male staff.

Meanwhile, over in Israel, handsome, intelligent, patriotic young women serve in the Israel Defense Force (IDF) fighting Islamic terrorism alongside male soldiers, struggling to defend the land given them by God and to ensure the safety of the Jewish people.

Unlike Nancy Pelosi, who encourages MS-13 gang members and potential terrorists to invade America, IDF intelligence commander Shelly Marhevkaidentifies and impedes terrorist invasions on Israel’s southern border.

While Sandra Fluke snivels to the president over the telephone because a radio talk show host called her a name and exhorts women’s rights by burning through $3,000 worth of contraceptives, in Israel, female explosives experts, platoon commanders, combat soldiers, and operators in the Iron Dome missile defense system risk their lives in a war zone.

In the United States, feminism has successfully reduced the fairer sex to hapless victims of a nonexistent “war on women.”  Liberal women who demand equality with men don’t recognize the dichotomy they create by pleading with Big Brother for assistance.  Where is the logic in demanding the right to destroy an unborn child and then soliciting a basically patriarchal government for the funding to do so?

On the other hand, female Israeli conscripts literally fight – not for free contraception, but for the survival of the Jewish state.  In Israel, women are focused on the genocidal jihad that wants all Jews, be they man, woman, or child, eradicated from the face of the earth. 

There isn’t time for women like IDF spokesperson Libby Weiss to screech about needing free birth control pills, especially when she’s locating andexcavating tunnels Hamas uses to enter and terrorize residential Jewish neighborhoods.

While American women fight for the right to destroy the unborn, the women of Israel band together in the fight to destroy Islamic radicalism.  While Nancy Pelosi bemoans “women dying on the floor” for lack of abortion funding, in Israel, women battle to defeat suicide bombers and missile launchers massacring innocent children on school buses.

The women of the IDF are focused on preserving the Holy Land, not advancing gender equity – the latter of which, by the way, is automatically accomplished when women act powerful and fearless instead of persecuted and ungrateful.

It’s equality earned versus equality exacted.

When it comes to feminism, which is defined as “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes,” petulant and whiny American women could learn a thing or two from feminine yet fierce Israeli soldiers. 

Share
Tags: , , , , ,

Out of the Abundance of Michelle’s Heart

UnknownOriginally posted at American Thinker blog

On the last day of the US-Africa Leaders Summit, Michelle Obama, together with Cokie Roberts and former first lady Laura Bush, attended a White House event to promote empowering women. It was during the conversation about girls and education that the first lady switched from the seriousness of racism to the levity of sexist jokes.

Discussing with Mrs. Bush that countries that typically oppress women oftentimes struggle economically, Michelle shared that she felt that when it comes to speaking up for girls, first ladies “can’t waste [the] spotlight.”  On behalf of both herself and Laura, Michelle pointed out that being first lady “is temporary… life is short, and change is needed.”

Then, apropos of nothing, she added that “women are smarter than men.” Suddenly, it was like a NOW meeting, where women diminish men to feel empowered.

As for Michelle, somehow, after discussing the importance of the spotlight, pointing out the temporary status of a first lady, acknowledging the brevity of life, and promoting change, she segued into “women are smarter than men” which, on the linear trajectory of related topics, didn’t exactly flow.

Although likely a poor attempt at humor, Michelle’s “smarter than” comment, which, together with the concurrent eye-roll and furrowed brow, explains how she views her husband Barack who, as far as we know, is a still a man.

Evidently, Michelle feels she has the right to freely express the type of sexist opinion that a man, out of fear of harsh rebuke, wouldn’t dare say about a woman, even in jest.

Nonetheless, the audience chuckled and then, to cover her derriere with another joke, Mrs. Obama warned that “men can’t complain because you’re outnumbered today.” What was Shelley going to do, wrap the complainers in a “women are stronger than men” half-Nelson?

Confusing the matter more, at one point Michelle shared that “I tease my kids… I tell them I want them to use Instagram to take a picture of something really important rather than their food… I mean, no one really cares what you had for lunch.”

“Women are smarter than men” and “no one really cares what you had for lunch?”

This from a woman who has been so obsessed with food choices that she’s banished traditional bake sales from school premises, replaced snack foods in school vending machines with dehydrated organic kale, and continues to hunt down macaroni and cheese on school lunch menus with the dogged determination of Sherlock Holmes.

Suddenly lunch doesn’t matter?

Remember when, in response to her incessant haranguing, public schools actually gave consideration to recording defiant children tossing veggies in the trash in school cafeterias with “trash-cams?” Now Mrs. Obama empowers her daughters by nixing the pictures of food because she feels there’s more import things to photograph than what they’re eating for lunch?

Michelle Obama is saying these things because she is the embodiment of what Jesus referred to when He said in Luke 6:45 that “out of the abundance of the heart [the] mouth speaks.”

In her heart Michelle Obama probably does think she’s smarter than men and that her brilliance surpasses that of a certain man some say has a brilliant feminine side himself. Moreover, when it comes to policing millions of snapshots of kids’ school lunches, as far as Mama Obama is concerned, Sasha and Malia are the only ones excused.

Share
Tags: , , , , ,

TIRED RACIST CHARGE: Ebola and Unbiased ‘Serum Equity’

ebola-300x180Originally posted at Clash Daily

Dr. Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol are impressive people. After all, they obeyed God’s call to minister to the “least of these” as missionaries to Liberia. Dr. Brantly grew in stature when, after contracting the deadly Ebola virus, he decided to forfeit an experimental serum so that 60-year-old Writebol could have the first available dose.

Then, that night while the second sub-zero serum thawed, Brantly suddenly took a turn for the worse and was quickly administered the initial dose he had originally turned down. This is a man willing to go last and as a result, as promised, ended up going first.

Certain he was dying, he called his wife to say good-bye. But about an hour later Brantly received the IV serum, and within 20 minutes could breathe easier and his Ebola rash started to clear up. The next morning the doctor took a shower, was flown home on a Gulfstream air ambulance, and upon arrival at Georgia’s Emory University Hospital donned in a Hazmat suit, stepped out of the ambulance, and walked unassisted into the hospital.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Mapp Biopharmaceutical Inc. of San Diego, California manufactured the drug Brantly received. The trial serum named Zmapp “is a cocktail of three ‘humanized’ monoclonal antibodies that are manufactured in a group of fragrant plants or bushes known by the genus name Nicotiana.”

So, thanks to the grace of God, both missionaries received the experimental drug. Dr. Kent Brantly of Samaritan’s Purse is on the mend and Service in Mission worker Nancy Writebol, who arrived at Emory on a stretcher, is improving at a slower pace.

What is amazing about the story is that after offering themselves as servants of God to “wash feet” on the mean streets of Ebola-stricken Liberia, both of these devout Christians then freely offered their lives a second time by agreeing to be the first human specimens to test the tobacco-derived experimental serum, which for all intents and purposes. could have cost them their lives.

So far, the serum hasn’t killed Brantly and Writebol; instead it delivered a “miraculous” outcome and may have saved their lives.

So now that the outlook has improved and it appears that these two individuals will have a testimony to share, the political posturing has begun, and predictably the bluster involves accusations of racism. Why did the white people get the medicine while all those black people were dying?

Forget the survival story, or the fact that two white caregivers risked their lives to serve poor black people in West Africa. The question that is now being raised by some is why thousands of black Africans died, while two white Americans quickly received a lifesaving serum.

Erin Burnett of CNN’s OutFront got out-front when she broached that exact subject. Ms. Burnett presented Dr. Sanjay Gupta with the following question about why Brantly and Writebol received the extraordinary remedy:

I know it’s miraculous. I know it was untested, that it was very risky, but what about everyone else?  I mean (stammering), nearly a thousand have died, all of them Africans! Suddenly two white Americans, um, get the disease, and — and suddenly all the stops get pulled out?

For clarification, “everyone else” is everyone other than the two white Christians who received the brand-new serum. Ms. Burnett sounded as though she actually thought that Ebola might have killed a thousand people merely because they lived in Africa and are black.

It’s apparent that Ms. Burnett was unaware that Patrick Sawyer, the first American citizen to contract the Ebola virus, was black. Unfortunately, Sawyer died before anyone could offer the ZMapp serum, and his race had nothing to do with it.

As for all the stops getting pulled out – does it count that Brantly and Writebol offered themselves as lab rats to test a serum that has never been tested on any human?  Or that, since the epidemic is concentrated in Africa, thanks to the bravery of two white missionaries, mostly black lives will be saved?

Based on her uncalled-for suggestion, if the serum had been tested on a black Ebola victim first, instead of taking a stand for unbiased “serum equity”, Erin Burnett would have probably accused the CDC of “experimental racism” for using black Africans as guinea pigs.

Dr. Gupta replied to Burnett that she should “Keep in mind, this had never been done before,” and that “[Brantly] was the first human” to try the serum.  If Burnett were an actual journalist and not a agitator, the fact that Brantly was the first human volunteer to receive the risky drug would have been the emphasis of her comments, not that he was a white American.

Despite the racist accusations that are likely to surface in the coming days, thankfully two dedicated servants selflessly bringing the Gospel to West Africa were infected with Ebola but faced down death and used the opportunity to take a step of faith. That courageous decision on their part has provided hope in the midst of a deadly epidemic for all people, regardless of their color.

Share
Tags: , , , , , , ,