Obama’s last tango in Buenos Aires

Originally posted at American Thinker

Remember when President Obama refused to lay down his golf clubs because he thought it would send a message of weakness to terrorists?

Well, in response to another terrorist attack, the president again showed “ISIL” who’s in charge – this time by refusing to sit out a tango.

Unfortunately, his Argentinian partner was no Ellen DeGeneres, which may be why the president was so stone-faced.

Either that, or dancing with a beautiful woman reminded Obama of the scary look Michelle shot him after he danced with Thalia on Fiesta Latina night at the White House in the first year of his presidency.


Meanwhile, in Brussels…

Michelle Obama Advocates for Poor Cubans — In a Designer Dress That Costs WHAT?

michelle-obama-9e072946-5bab-4949-be27-25ddf5fe8799Originally posted on CLASH Daily

For a president and first lady who constantly berate Americans about being thoughtless, it is quite shocking to see how thoughtless the ones doing the haranguing can to be. This time, their uncaring nature was on full display when their entourage arrived in Cuba for the annual Spring Fling taxpayer funded vacation.

But! Before discussing Obama obliviousness, we need to backtrack a bit.

For starters, let’s remember that the first lady never misses her President’s Day ski jaunt to the tony slopes of Aspen. This year’s getaway was so secretive no one knew it happened. Not to worry though, while Mr. Obama golfed on a well-watered course in drought-stricken Rancho Mirage, Michelle, and her daughters exercised the entitlement they’re accustomed to by shutting down an Aspen airport.

Then, after waxing those skis, just as she does every March, Michelle gathered together mom, aka Marion the Moocher, her two daughters, for the annual pre-Easter getaway. Last year Michelle flew to China. This year, the destination was Cuba.

Also this year, Dad, anxious to embrace a dictator, tagged along.

The sad thing is that the Obamas are being feted on an island whose people are trapped in inexorable poverty. Obama won’t address it, but Castro confiscates 92% of wages earned by Cuban laborers who work for foreign companies. Meanwhile, as Michelle fritters away the hard-earned money of American taxpayers on things like $9K a night Beijing hotel suites, the average Cuban struggles to subsist on less than a dollar a day.

enhanced-22335-1458688503-1That’s why, when the “spread the wealth around” Obamas were boarding Air Force One just prior to polluting their way to Cuba, those with a keen eye for hypocrisy were not surprised to see young Sasha mindlessly strutting around the tarmac sporting expensive gray suede footwear. Those babies were a far cry from the flip-flops Cubans wear and looked a lot like celebrity favorite Stuart Weitzman Lowland Thigh High boots that cost about $800 a pair.

Even if one uses common core math, $800 a pair works out to be about $400 per boot.

Did Sasha’s “My Brother’s Keeper” parents consider what $800 could do for an average impoverished Cuban? Heck, $800 is more than two years wages and in a socialist food production system would cover the cost of a truckload of powdered milk.

Don’t these people realize that permitting a 14-year-old girl to wear $800 boots to Cuba smacks of elitism and tactless inconsideration toward the plight of the poor? Especially if the girl wearing the boots is the daughter of a president who confronts poverty by posing questions like: “Do we have the political will, the communal will to do something about it?”

Thankfully, in flight, young Sasha peeled off her costly kicks and emerged from the plane in black sneakers and a matching Ivana knit frock by Shoshanna, the latter of which sells for $385.

Sorry, but wearing haute couture in Cuba is like royalty feasting on Wagyu beef in front of peasants gagging down gruel. Wearing designer clothes to Cuba waves an unnecessary level of ostentatiousness in the face of economically destitute people.

Then again, the Obama daughters did each wear a $20K designer ball gown to the Canadian State Dinner recently – so in comparison, to some, a measly pair of $800 boots and a paltry $385 dress is toning it down.

Not only that but look at the example Mom sets.

When the FLOTUS descended from Air Force One to greet a nation whose government strictly rations food, whose citizens live crammed together in decrepit hellholes without hot water, the first lady sent quite a message in a $2,190 Carolina Herrera dress.

Remember when Michelle showed up to ladle out soup in a DC soup kitchen wearing $565 Lanvin cap-toe sneakers? Her preference now is Carolina Herrera. In fact, she wore a similarly priced robin’s egg blue outfit to greet socialist Pope Francis who said that to “Not to share [the] wealth with poor is to steal.”

One can’t help but wonder what the guy who also believes in welcoming illegal immigrants, just not into the Vatican, thought of Mrs. Obama wearing a modest $2,300 ensemble?

We’ll never know, but what we do know is that in the beginning of her reign Michelle exhorted the downtrodden by telling us that, “…in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system…someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”

Just don’t ask Michelle to forfeit her pie! Besides, she’s in Cuba and Cubans already have universal health care and free education.

So, how about the dress? If Michelle, really thinks Americans should share “pie,” maybe she could set the example by selling her red, white and blue Carolina Herrera. The proceeds from just that one frock would cover six years worth of wages for one Cuban worker, or pay a day’s wages to 2000+.

How about it?

And if that’s too painful a thought for the FLOTUS, maybe she should throw out dollar bills to hordes of hungry Cubans, and do it while envisioning herself standing on the balcony of the White House during the upcoming Easter Egg Roll tossing hunks of cake to the huddled masses below.

So, the next time hurting Americans get a lecture about “leveling the playing field…sharing the wealth” or divvying up our pie, remember that Michelle wearing a $2,000 dress in Cuba proves the ones putting on the hurt are advocates for themselves, not the poor.

The devaluing of human life: Texas mom burns toddler in oven

12039220_1102090806489555_4876132172556440421_n-700x525Originally posted at Live Action News

Currently, America is a society that continues make the case for abortion by insisting that some lives have less value than others. The relentless effort to devalue life could explain why a 35-year-old single mother in Somervell County Texas thought she had the right to choose to place her little 2-year-old baby girl in the family oven.

No one knows for sure what Tasha Shontell Hatcher was thinking, or what her motivation was for burning her baby in the stove. Thankfully, as the child was being roasted alive, for some reason, Hatcher confessed to witnesses who quickly called the authorities.

As a result, shortly before midnight on St. Patrick’s Day, the Sheriff’s Department rescued the little girl who was immediately taken by air ambulance to Texas Health Harris Methodist Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas to be treated for second and third-degree burns. From there, the child was airlifted to a regional burn center at Parkland Hospital in Dallas where she remains sedated.

For burning a baby a stove, Miss Hatcher is being held in Somervell County Jail after being charged with inflicting “serious bodily harm to a child,” which is a first-degree felony. After being arraigned on Saturday, Hatcher is being held on a $300,000 bond.

Meanwhile, Somervell deputies, Texas Rangers, and Child Protective Services are investigating the case.  A spokeswoman from CPS said that when the severely burned child is discharged from the hospital she would be placed in foster care.

Burning children alive is nothing new. It started in Old Testament days with the sacrificing of infants to the fire-god Molech.

Today, there are mothers who chose to forgo the saline infusion abortion (which burns preborn children both inside and out) and then, somewhere along the line, apparently change their minds and decide it’s acceptable to cook children alive outside of the womb.

Last December, 34-year-old Ka Yang was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of her one-month-old daughter Mirabelle Thao-Lo. According to prosecutors, in 2011, Mirabelle was placed along with her pacifier into the microwave by her mother for the sin of being “irritable and fussy and holding [mom] back from work” at an architectural firm.

And so, if the thought of a mother committing the crime of burning her baby alive horrifies America, it’s probably because it’s happening right before our eyes.

Meanwhile, behind closed doors, all across America, society largely accepts 3,000 babies a day losing their lives during an equally horrifying act called abortion.

Behind the anti-Trump Disruptors, the Fine Hands of Alinsky and Obama

obama-teaches-alinskyOriginally posted at American Thinker

Recently, when disrupters showed up at a Trump rally in Chicago, the first thing that came to mind was that America’s most notorious community organizer could be the wizard behind the curtain orchestrating what was being sold as an organic occurrence.

In Saul Alinsky’s 1971 book Rules for Radicals, the late author could have been describing Obama’s last seven years in office when he wrote that an efficacious organizer should be “an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions.”

The father of community organizing taught that once people are “whipped up to a fighting pitch,” the agitated could be directed to participate in rowdy demonstrations. By employing those techniques on the international level, Alinsky’s star pupil, Barack Obama, has successfully managed to whip up global chaos.

Back in Chicago, in the early 1980’s, Greg Galluzzo taught student Barack Obama to avoid the spotlight because the fundamental goal of a grassroots activist is to lead “indigenous” communities to believe they were taking action independently.

As 2016 election protests continue to gather steam, it appears as if Galluzzo’s street-smart pupil is having trouble hiding his preoccupation with the Republican candidates.

Granted, thus far, Obama has not acknowledged Weather Underground bomber buddy Bill Ayers protesting Trump in Chicago.  In addition, the president has been low key about Black Lives Matter Chicago leader Aislinn Pulley visiting the White House for Black History month a few weeks before #BLM shut Trump down in Chicago.

Obama has even managed to remain mum about his associations with Soros-financed MoveOn.org, Chicago’s Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and the Communist Party USA, all of whom have also caused disruptions at recent Trump rallies.

In addition to some of the president’s dearest friends, the motley crew of community-organizing characters on the march also includes like-minded Bernie supporters who have promised that if Donald J. Trump wins the Republican nomination, mass civil disobedience is scheduled to take place that will make Chicago’s 1968 “Battle of Michigan Avenue” seem like a block party.

That’s why, despite a poor attempt at keeping a low profile, if Obama believes that Alinsky-style “direct action” possesses the power to keep a Republican billionaire populist or a “tea bagging” Constitutionalist out of the White House, it’s doubtful he will be able to sit back and let the skills he honed in Chicago go to waste.

After years of observing this president’s partisan bullying, one thing is certain, try as he might to hide it, over the last two terms, Barack Obama’s intrinsic dedication to Alinsky tactics has never wavered.

Remember when the New Black Panthers intimidated white voters with billy clubs at a Philadelphia polling place during the 2008 election?  Then, remember how the Tea Party was targeted and harassed by the IRS prior to the 2012 election?

In 2008, Saul Alinsky’s son L. David Alinsky wrote the following about his father’s most dedicated former student:

Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.

That’s why, if America is fundamentally transforming into an Alinsky playground, and if prior to a public demonstration Black Lives Matter Chicago just happens to suddenly drop in on the White House, Barack Obama is a suspect.

Think of it! Every time Obama disparages a Republican candidate, he’s merely exercising the Alinsky tactic of ridicule that served him well on the Southside of Chicago.

Recently, at a St. Patrick’s Day gathering Obama had this to say:

The longer that we allow the political rhetoric of late to continue, and the longer that we tacitly accept it, we create a permission structure that allows the animosity in one corner of our politics to infect our broader society. And animosity breeds animosity.

By choosing to forgo nibbling on Irish Soda bread and discussing his Moneygall roots,  Obama turned a luncheon into an opportunity to fuel street-level strife.  By doing what comes naturally, Alinsky’s charge purposely contributed to the “vicious atmosphere” he claims to reject.

And for those who tend to compartmentalize, those St. Patrick’s Day sentiments came from a verbally vindictive pol who, when not busy stirring up international turmoil, breeds domestic animosity by depicting white Americans as religious fanatic gunslingers looking to express “antipathy toward peoplewho aren’t like them.”

In keeping with that line of thinking, Barack Obama habitually panders to African Americans, Latinos, young voters, and women.  By doing so, this president confirms that the principal objective of everything he says and does is directly related to organizing communities to take action on behalf of the left’s interests.

Yet despite those and other not-so-well-hidden attempts to practice street activism, Obama does seem somewhat uneasy.

Recently, at a DNC event in Austin, Texas, Barack expressed apprehension when he pointed out that “Change doesn’t happen overnight…we never get 100 percent of change.”

Apart from the personal satisfaction this subversive enjoys from the extensive damage he’s already done to America, if ever there were a reason to drag into the middle of the Oval Office the infamous chalkboard young Barry used when marshaling the Chicago multitudes, fear that “Hope and Change” will be toppled by someone like Trump would be that reason.

Unconvinced? Let’s remember that prior to the failed Arab Spring it was Obama that helped to organize the Arab street.

So, as the “largest civil disobedience action of the century” looms on the American street, there is little doubt that deep in the bowels of the White House Barack Obama is organizing Democrats to usher in the Democracy Spring.

Are Liberals Liable for Americans Dying?

Glock-Constitution-998x666Originally posted at American Thinker

Recently, Bernie Sanders blamed Donald Trump for his #FeelTheBern/”Free College but no Free Speech” crew acting up at Trump rallies.  That sort of lack of accountability is par for the course, because liberals, who never take the time to evaluate themselves, usually expend tons of energy pointing the finger of accusation at those less guilty.

A perfect example of that practice involves a Democrat in Congress who wants to overturn the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a bill the 109th Congress passed in 2005 that was instituted to protect the gun industry from frivolous lawsuits.

In hopes of reversing gun industry protections, Congressman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) proposed H.R. 4399, the Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act.  To build support on Capitol Hill for the legislation, Schiffteamed up with Connecticut Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal, who proposed repealing the 2005 bill.

The bottom line is that, besides demonizing the gun industry, liberals want to make firearm manufacturers, sellers, and trade associations answerable to anyone and everyone considered a victim of gun-related violence.

Schiff, who supports immunity for illegals, argues that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is unfair because, when it was approved,  “Congress passed a unique form of immunity for only one industry – and that is the gun industry.”

Schiff rationalizes that line of thinking in the following way:

If you’re a carmaker and your airbags kill someone, you’re potentially liable. If you’re a pharmaceutical company and sell faulty drugs, you can be held liable. If you’re a liquor store and sell alcohol to minors, you can be held liable.

“Why should it be any different for gun manufacturers?” he asked.

Here’s why: if a madman purposely drives a car into a crowd and kills three people, should the car manufacturer be held liable?  If an individual accidently poisons himself or herself with a prescription drug cocktail, should the pharmaceutical company be held liable?  How about if a tanked-up drunk smacks a bottle of vodka over someone’s head in a bar brawl?  Should the liquor company be held liable?

Of course not!

But logic has little impact on liberals, who believe that both gun manufacturers and dealers should be prosecuted if a weapon they made or sold causes someone harm.  Why not hold liable the manufacturer of the belt Robin Williams used to hang himself?

According to Schiff, H.R. 4399 is needed because it targets gun dealers who sell firearms to “straw purchasers,” the middlemen who mediate between dealers and criminals.  Sharing his “who needs that many” liberal philosophy, Schiff explains, “There are straw purchasers who will buy dozens of the same gun. It’s quite clear they’re not buying those guns for personal use. Who needs that many of the same gun?”

“If [gun manufacturers and dealers] are no longer immune,” Schiff added, “they’ll be more careful who they sell to.”

Wow!  If  “straw purchases” are the concern, is Schiff also planning to pursue litigation against Eric Holder and Barack Obama, the kingpins of the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scheme?  Will the Obama administration finally answerfor the hundreds of deaths, including that of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and ICE agent Jaime Zapata, both killed with guns the president put into the hands of Mexican cartels?

This brings the discussion back around to liberals refusing to recognize how the reasoning they use to justify what they oppose is much more suitable if applied to things they support.

For example, to justify a weak argument, Schiff cited car manufacturers being liable for faulty airbags but didn’t mention the countless numbers of dead Americans who, besides being murdered, or infected with a third-world disease, have died in car crashes where illegal immigrants have been driving under the influence of alcohol or driving illegally.

In response to a congressional inquiry, Jessica M. Vaughan, the director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), recently submitted the following findings:

The criminal aliens released by ICE [since 2010] – who had already been convicted of thousands of crimes — are responsible for a significant crime spree in American communities, including 124 new homicides. Inexplicably, ICE is choosing to release some criminal aliens multiple times.

In their own defense, ICE claim that 75% of those illegal criminals were released because of a court order, or because their country of origin refused to accept them back.

So in other words, while the left was busy trying to rout the Second Amendment, illegal immigrant criminals, released from jail with the approval of the Obama administration, have been killing and injuring innocent people.

So here’s a question: why do denouncers of the gun industry mandate Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence but not Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Illegal Immigrants?

The same politicians who aim and shoot irresponsible policy right through the heart of America have largely ignored the topic of  the five times deportedillegal felon who killed 32-year-old Kate Steinle in the liberal-approved sanctuary city of San Francisco.

Politicians like Schiff; Blumenthal; and, first and foremost, Barack Obama like to do battle over gun rights, but then, when an undocumented loose cannon like Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez murders an American with a stolen gun in broad daylight, they barely notice.

If Democrats want to punish the gun industry for making or selling a gun that causes injury or death, those same lawmakers should also be willing to accept responsibility when an undocumented immigrant they wanted set free takes a life.

That’s why zero weight should be given to Adam Schiff’s hypocritical bill. In its place, as recompense for each and every life destroyed by an illegal immigrant, Americans should demand a law that holds lax open-border politicians personally accountable.

Barack Goes Ballistic

Originally posted at American Thinker

In whatever form it takes, authoritarianism is often identified by the unrelenting desire on the part of a leader to eliminate his or her adversaries.  And while Iran and Obama purport to have two very different worldviews, both are religious in fervor when dealing with those who deviate from the faith.

In Iran there are mullahs who safeguard Islam’s sacred law, in America there is a president who thinks he is a law unto himself.  Iran wants to nuke Israel and the U.S., and Obama is nuking the Constitution.

That’s why the news that Attorney General Loretta Lynch reviewed the possibility of pursuing civil action against climate change skeptics (“deniers”)  was as disturbing as the report that Iran recently tested two ballistic missiles.

Most would agree that it is easy to identify what motivates the theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran.

For starters, Iran is zealous in its hatred for America, the country led by a Muslim-sympathizing president that agreed to help the genocidal terrorist state acquire an atomic bomb.  The $150 billion check Obama dropped in the mail to Tehran ensures that, in the future, our mortal enemy will possess the means to repay our generosity by turning a third of the earth’s water into Wormwood.

In the meantime, because of the Islamic belief that, on the delicate wings of a mushroom cloud, chaos will usher in the 12th Imām, Mohamed al- Mahdī, Iranian leaders remain primarily fixated on how to annihilate their ancient enemy Israel.

Until that great and terrible day arrives, the Islamic theocracy continues to deal harshly with capital offenders who Iran’s leaders believe “spread corruption.”

The type of depravity that the Iranian government views as a threat to social and political wellbeing include criticism of the regime, offending the Prophet and defying Islamic standards with speech or printed material.

Funny, some of those violations sound similar to the American sin of critiquing prescient Obama, and exercising the right to free speech.

Sometimes, at first, Iranian government goon squads called “religious police” monitor suspected blasphemers. Other times, offenders immediately endure persecution and/or spend extended time in a jail cell.  But, more often than not, those who “spread corruption” are tortured and executed.

Put simply, if a citizen dares to disagree with the theocratic ruler of Iran, the punishment that follows is severe and unforgiving.

At any rate, although Washington D.C. is 6,300 miles away from Iran, after being led for eight years by a Supreme Leader whose favorite pastime is issuing infallible decrees, the seat of American government is beginning to resemble an Iranian theocracy.

For instance, when differing opinions arise that contradict the sacred text concerning gun control, abortion, and climate change, although the president doesn’t respond by beheading anyone in a public square, he does find a way to overtly impugn the credibility of those whom he feels spread corruption.

Now, judging from what Attorney General Loretta Lynch had to say at a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department operations, Obama’s future method of response may become more official.

Apparently, Obama’s Justice Department is in the process of deciding whether or not to take civil action against beliefs held by those Iran would call “gross offenders of the moral order.” Lynch had this to say about how climate “deniers” in the fossil fuel industry could possibly face lawsuits:

This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on.

Based on the Attorney General’s remarks, it’s hard to believe that what was once a Constitutional right to individual thought and belief, may now be one step closer to an Iranian-style regulation overseen by a hierarchy of American mullahs.

Then again, the president has already admonished those who contradict his beliefs concerning climate change by warning them if they don’t agree with him “[They]’ll be pretty lonely.” What Obama didn’t expound upon was whether or not a climate change skeptic ends up lonely inside or outside a courtroom.

Either way, the problem that remains for America is that our president truly does believe with a mullah-like fervor that the emission of greenhouse gas is more menacing an activity than massacring an unborn child.

Now, the man who commends those who make a living harvesting and selling dead babies for profit is leaning toward making the sale of fossil fuel grounds for litigation.

So, for the rest of us, the question that arises is whether an administration that doesn’t consider an undocumented felon a criminal will actually target a global warming skeptic who refuses to believe that a polar bear floating on a chunk of ice substantiates man-caused climate change?

Moreover, one can’t help put wonder whether Loretta and Barry may also be secretly plotting to “take action” against anyone who has a firearm, or who sides with the investigative journalists indicted for exposing that Planned Parenthood sells baby body parts for money to buy Lamborghinis?

In America today, it seems that the only way to prevent being monitored by a  western version of the Iranian “religious police” is to go green, relinquish the guns, and to stand, in unflinching unanimity, with the proprietors of the baby body parts chop shop.

And if that’s where America is headed, then Ballistic Barack testing his DOJ arsenal is just as harrowing in it’s potential to do harm as an Iranian missile.

Culturally Sensitive Germany Just Swore Off THIS Food Because of Muslims

Roast-Pork-And-Sauerkraut21Originally posted at CLASH Daily

After a nation surrenders its borders, it’s easier to cede culture and hand over people to the wiles and whims of invaders. That is exactly what is currently happening in Germany.

Since opening its borders to bands of marauding Muslim refugees, the German people and culture have been mugged. Yet rather than secure the nation and protect the citizens, Germany continues to capitulate to the reckless political correctness hell-bent on obliterating European culture.

For months, the world has witnessed how, with the approval of Angela Merkel, migrants have entered Germany. The problem is that some of them have gone on to rape innocent German women. And regrettably, instead of thwarting the migration, Germany’s response has been to continue to grant entry to some very dangerous people.

In fairness, though, officials have made an effort to stem the tide by posting comic book tutorials in public pools to explain to male migrants that in Germany sexually assaulting women and children is prohibited.

While the Germans were respectfully circulating public service information, someone really should have given one of those adorable picture books to the Serbian refugees who gang-raped a 14-year-old girl. Maybe a friendly reminder would have let the rapists know that in civilized nations men taking turns ravishing a woman is not an acceptable code of conduct.

On second thought, if one needs to explain basic human decency to the Muslim evacuees than why not just import komodo dragons to roam the streets of Germany? After all, aren’t lizard-like monitors a type of endangered refugee and don’t these little man-eaters also deserve a chance to survive?

With that in mind, by banning what offends the offenders, Germany is now attempting to find a way to sooth the savage humans currently devouring its people.

Islam has already made it known that when it finally accomplishes the goal of world domination it will forbid a laundry list of things among which are: alcohol, gambling, lending money with interest, homosexuality, movie theatres, men and women “free mixing,” the stock market, health insurance, and any speech that insults the prophet.

If Sharia is in place, participating in any one of those activities could result in being executed for non-compliance. The same holds true for promiscuity, which may be why, if a mob of non-promiscuous religious Muslim men rapes a 14-year-old girl, patriarchal Muslims then execute the victim for the crime of having more than one sex partner.

Nonetheless, in some Muslim circles, dogs and music are also a no-no, as is eating or touching pork products. The problem is that Germany is home to Bratwurst, potato salad with bacon, beef wrapped in bacon, pork hocks, grilled whole pig, and always a Frank favorite, Frankfurter Würstchen.

So, by emulating Barack Obama, who attempted to ban pork in U.S. federal prisons, Deutschland may have found a way to “not offend refugees” some of whom, when not condemning bacon, are otherwise occupied sexually molesting women.

According to a top Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) representative Daniel Günther, public cafes, child daycare centers and schools have stopped serving sausages, bacon, and ham. Günther argues that favoring and protecting minorities “including for religious reasons — must not mean that the majority is overruled in their free decision by ill-conceived consideration.”

Günther may not have thought of this, but banning pork is an “ill-conceived consideration,” especially because panties made of bacon may soon become the only Muslim-banned insurance policy German women have against being gang-raped by those whose “religious reason” eschews promiscuity. That and a Germany without pork sausage is like Bill Clinton without a cigar, or China without rice, a country that, by the way, bans Muslims.

Nonetheless, Mr. Günther did thoughtfully contend that tolerance also means “the appreciation and sufferance of other food cultures and lifestyles.”

Apparently, Mr. Günther is unaware that tolerance now means Western Civilization conceding its borders, language, and centuries-old cultural heritage to a band of barbarians.

It also means getting rid of dogs as pets, turning off Oomph’s music, and closing movie theaters and liquor shops. But above all, it means Europe allowing itself to be overrun by people who behave like feral animals, and compelling conquered Europeans to sheepishly submit to the demands of those who have no love or appreciation for the history or culture they’re in the process of plundering.

Günther maintains that those who don’t want to eat pork don’t have to, adding: “The consumption of pork belongs to our culture. No one should be obliged to do so. But we also don’t want the majority having to refrain from pork.”

Nice thought, Mr. Günther, but it’s not likely to happen.

Sorry to have to be the bearer of bad tidings, but someone needs inform the well-intentioned cultural crusader that, if Muslims continue to have their way in Germany, it’s only a matter of time before the celebrations like the iconic Munich, Oktoberfest, where pork sausage is served alongside frosty steins of beer, will become as much of an abomination as mentioning Germanic notables like King Charlemagne, Martin Luther, and Beethoven.

In the end, Germany will probably put Muslim sensibility ahead of love of knackwurst. As a result, that nation will continue to be ransacked, European culture suppressed, and then, after the pork fried Schweineschnitzel is verboten, conquering the German people will be all that’s left for the Muslims invaders to do.

Madonna, the diva of debauchery: Reaping what she’s sown

article-0-026CF86E00000578-443_468x676Originally posted at American Thinker

Anyone who does not believe in the Biblical principle of “sowing and reaping” – which is known as ‘karma’ in certain circles – should have a chat with aging 1980s pop icon Madonna.

It seems the Diva of Debauchery is reaping the harvest of heartache that she has so diligently sown for almost thirty years.  Ms. Ciccone has negatively etched vulgar lyrics and images into the impressionable minds of children; purposely tainted the innocent; and, like a parasite, burrowed into the psyche and spirit of an entire generation.

It was Madonna who spent the greater part of the 1980s, and most of the ’90s, expressing her sexuality at the expense of America’s children.  When not parading around naked in pornographic picture books, Madonna Louise Ciccone defiled young minds by blaspheming via Christian symbols and extolling the merits of losing one’s virginity.

As we all know, “what goes around comes around,” so it should be no surprise that the female exhibitionist who robbed millions of their innocence is currently being bitten by a very different, but equally painful, kind of karma.

A little background: In 1986, Madonna married actor Sean Penn, and then she divorced him in 1989.  Since then, every five years or so, Madonna assumes a new identity.

In the 1990s, Madonna went through a Hispanic spell.  That was when she morphed into Eva Perón, mated with a Cuban actor Carlos León, and gave birth to his now 19-year-old daughter Lourdes.

Soon after, Madonna abandoned her Evita image and became enamored with English accents.

In 2000, she married Guy Ritchie, an English filmmaker ten years her junior with whom she had a male child she named Rocco.  Madonna relocated to London, where she refurbished her persona from sleazy pop star to a lady of the English manor.  She became best friends with one-time Londoner, who also play-acts being British, Gwyneth Paltrow; feasted on haggis; wore riding chaps around the house; and wrote British-themed children’s books.

When Madonna’s marriage to Guy Ritchie fell apart in 2008, the “English Roses” author returned to New York City with her children, Lourdes, Rocco, and David Banda Mwale Ciccone Ritchie, the first of two children she adopted during her Malawi phase.

Before long, and instead of aging gracefully, the self-absorbed attention-seeker resumed begging for validation and, in the process, forgot that she’s a mother.

Here’s where the karma comes in.

Trying to shield her own children from what she subjected a generation to in the 1980s and ’90s, Madge banned from her home magazines, television, and picture books featuring nude women hitchhiking.

The problem for Madonna’s brood is that mom just can’t control her impulses – she is still Madonna.

For example, in 2015, she showed up at the Grammy Award Show with her exposed derrière covered in fishnet held up in a Givenchy couture butt bra.  Then, at the Brit Awards, while trying to assume the image of a Spanish matador, the former English lady tripped over her cape and took a tumble on stage.

Meanwhile, Ma-Donna repeatedly embarrassed her 15-year-old son with topless pictures of herself and humiliated her teenage daughter Lourdes by insisting on exposing her behind at red carpet events like the Vanity Fair Oscar party.   Moreover, the word is out that Menopausal Madge’s refusal to tone down the explicit actions and lyrics continually “horrifies” her teenage children.

Then, in a shameful example of an unquenchable pursuit of attention at a child’s expense, Ma-Donna mocked her son Rocco on Instagram.  First she posted a picture of the boy with his hair in pigtails, and then she called attention to the size of his penis.

In response, Rocco made a radical choice that millions of children mesmerized by Madonna’s three-decade long antics were deprived of.  In the middle of a tour she dragged her son around on, “Old Granny’s” “trophy” boy packed his bags and went to live in London with his father Guy.

Ironic, isn’t it?  Rocco does not want to be subjected to continued embarrassment or abuse, so the woman who brainwashed, and continues to try to brainwash, young people accuses Guy Ritchie of trying to brainwash the boy.

The upshot to this fiasco is that Madonna is now embroiled in a custody battle in London’s High Court.  The woman who debauched millions of children claims that son Rocco, now living a happy, “stable life” in England with Guy Ritchie and his wife Jacqui Ainsley, has been illegally retained by his father.

Madonna’s lawyer, Eleanor Alter, argues on her client’s behalf that Guy choosing not to return Rocco to the loving arms of his lascivious mother was a “reckless move in teaching him responsibility.”  After all, everyone knows that the epitome of teaching children responsibility is when a 56-year-old mother of four is so desperate for attention that she exposes her breasts and implies that her son has #nosausage.

So, in the end, what is the moral of Madonna’s “sowing and reaping” tale of woe?

Madonna will likely lose custody of a son who moved to another country to get as far away from her as possible and refuses to come home.  And so, as the woman who for 30-plus years has influenced millions of children to rebel and disregarded the wishes of their parents loses control of her own child, one can’t help but wonder if Madonna likes how it feels.

CHELSEA CLINTON: How She’s Carrying the ‘Right-Wing Conspiracy’ Torch for Mom

GettyImages-455973972-e1455153565692Originally posted at CLASH Daily

Lest we forget, Chelsea Clinton Mezvinsky is the daughter of a presidential candidate who, while cheering women toward the abortion clinic, simultaneously claims to also be a devout Christian. Unlike her life-long Methodist mother, Chelsea, who is pregnant with her second child, claims she left the Baptist Church at the tender age of six because of the church’s anti-abortion stance.

If you believe that one, how about two free tickets to a Matrimonial Faithfulness seminar featuring Bill Clinton as the keynote speaker?

Either way, based on the six-year-old abortion activist story and some of the other tall tales Chelsea has come out with lately, it’s undeniably clear that the Clinton daughter has inherited her parent’s lying gene.

Now, on behalf of Sir Edmund Hillary’s namesake, Chelsea is exercising that genetic propensity by picking up the “right-wing conspiracy” torch her mother lit when dad got caught using cigar tubes for something other then storing cigars.

While Donald Trump was somewhere in America speaking to a crowd of thousands, and after netting $600,000 (equal pay for equal work) as an entry-level salary at NBC, the Hillary campaign asked Mrs. Mezvinsky to speak to a rousing crowd of 75 toadies.

On the campaign trail mom, Hillary, denounces Republicans by mentioning things like immigrants being dragged from their homes in the dead of night and deported. The woman in the “Orange is the New Black” pantsuit also implies the opposition party does nothing about minority children being shot because of the color of their skin. All that, and much more, happens when the woman who points to non-existent people in the audience isn’t emphatically stating that the GOP is responsible for LGBT couples being fired from their jobs “because of who they are and who they love.”

None of which, by the way, is true.

Now, before throwing red meat to the ravenous mini-crowd of mostly senior citizen women, Chelsea, following in Mommy’s footsteps, reminded Hillary fans at the pre-caucus gathering in Minnesota that this election is the most important one of her lifetime – which is what Chelsea also said in 2008.

From there, the former first daughter downshifted into the type of “vast right-wing conspiracy” rhetoric that would make her hyper-partisan mother proud. After claiming at another campaign stop that she was an abortion activist at the age of six, Chelsea had zero trouble accusing Republicans of bigotry, homophobia, and chauvinism.

On behalf of mom, Chelsea said this:

While it’s important to have a president who knows when to stand her ground and give no purchase to the racist, homophobic, sexist rhetoric and policy ideas that are coming out of the Republican side, it’s also important to have a president who knows how to find common ground.

With that in mind, here are three questions for Chelsea:

First of all, we already know mom can’t, but can you provide examples of Republican “racist, homophobic, [and/or] sexist rhetoric”?

As for “common ground”, is that what you sought at the age of six when your Sunday School teacher pointed out to you that slaughtering unborn babies in the womb contradicts the Bible?

And, finally, what kind of far fetched story will you and your mother come up with when America “gives no purchase” to Hillary’s unrelenting pursuit to become America’s first female president?

‘Handsy’ Joe Biden on non-consensual sexual contact

196164_5_Originally posted at American Thinker

Unfortunately, at this year’s 88th Academy Awards show, Bill Clinton was unavailable to make a public service appearance on behalf of problems associated with non-consensual sex.

Instead, Vice President Joe Biden took time off from groping women and smooching little girls so that he, Lady Gaga, and a horde of millennials with Magic Marker scribbled on their forearms could raise awareness concerning the problem of campus rape.

Joe and wife Jill followed Best Actor/green campaigner Leonardo DiCaprio’s lead and burned up tons of jet fuel flying to California.  Upon arrival, the vice president spent hours listening to liberals accuse Americans of everything from discrimination in Girl Scouts cookie sales to anti-LGBT bias to police brutality.

Near the start of the festivities, a guy with a really weird hairdo named The Weekend performed the salacious tune “Earned It,” from Fifty Shades of Grey, a movie that glorified sadomasochism and sexual control.

Two hours later, prior to Gaga angrily growling out “Til It Happens to You,” the tune nominated for the best original song from the campus rape documentary The Hunting Ground, Joe Biden informed the adoring audience that “too many women and men … are still victims of sexual abuse.”

And who better to speak on the subject than a touchy-feely kind of guy with hands-on knowledge?

Let’s face it: Joe Biden has never been known to squander an opportunity to grope, fondle, squeeze, and lovingly caress women who, when he does it, seem uncomfortable with receiving his unsolicited affection.

And while kneading various women’s necks is not considered “rape,” Joe infamously participates in a type the type of sleazy conduct that, if he weren’t vice president of the United States, most women would never tolerate.

Nonetheless, “Handsy” Joe still encouraged the audience to “[t]ake the pledge – a pledge that says, ‘I will intervene in situations where consent cannot or has not been given.’”  What the man with the wandering hands forgot to mention was that on more than one occasion, he’s touched women when “consent … had not been given.”

Despite his personal shortcomings, Joe Biden asked America to pledge to stop individuals like himself from sniffing the hair, and blowing hot breath into the ears of individuals who, while Joe is getting his jollies, appear to be visibly anxious and desirous to be released from his grip.

Take for instance Joe nuzzling Ashton Carter’s wife Stephanie at the secretary of defense’s swearing in.  During that episode, the woman didn’t utter one word, but, for a few seconds there, Mrs. Carter eyes were pleading with the new defense secretary to liberate her from Joe’s clasp.

Notwithstanding Mr. Biden’s powerlessness to keep his hands to himself, the vice president must have felt he was qualified to exhort 34 million people to change the culture so that abuse survivors never have to ask themselves the question: “What did I do?’”

Does Joe mean “survivors” like The Hill’s Senior White House correspondent Amie Parnes, the woman whom Joe, at a 2013 Christmas party, playfully hugged from behind while placing his arms in close proximity to her breasts?

Either way, Joe Biden can now congratulate himself for taking time out of his schedule to reassure the women who’ve been on the receiving end of his manhandling that they need not worry, because they “did nothing wrong” to deserve his inappropriate treatment.

And so, on a show honoring those who pretend for a living, it was apropos for Biden to get a standing ovation, because, knowing Joe, it’s likely he still managed to cop a feel at an after-party.