Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Bushes Polarize Like Progressives

Given the unanticipated election of Donald Trump, it's difficult to determine which establishment faction is more perturbed, liberals or old guard Republicans. Despite clear and unambiguous Clintonian corruption, neither “side” seems capable of respecting the democratic process when one of their own is not in the winner's circle. Thus, to them, the people's will—and, by extension, the fate of the nation be damned!

The childish cattiness that has resulted is expected of Democrats. They're myopically focused on reelection, but little else. What political party wouldn't be furious over losing over 1,000 officeholders during the Obama era—including, stingingly, the presidency? Yet, what's unseemly is for GOP stalwarts to publicly chastise their party's current standard bearer. For example, George W. Bush said, “This guy [Trump] doesn't know what it means to be president.” How's that not calling the kettle black? What happened to the generations-long tradition of remaining silent regarding one's presidential successors? Likewise, what of Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment never to speak ill of another Republican? So much for honoring “the rules” of political discourse.

In truth, if Mr. Bush was going to “go there” he's waited eight years too long—and picked the wrong target. Recall, as a go-to excuse for Barack Obama's own multitude of failures, he conveniently “blamed Bush”. Specifically, Mr. Obama called his predecessor's deficit spending “unpatriotic” and “irresponsible”. For that demonization, the younger Bush has reason to be incensed. Not at Trump, but at the Democrat's hypocrisy for running through almost twice as much as he: 4.9 versus 9.3 trillion. If that's not egregious enough, what of Mr. Obama's cash payment of 1.7 billion to the pro-terrorist Iranian regime? Why was “W” as silent as a church mouse when actual presidential mismanagement—and malfeasance—transpired? (Is his anti-Trump fervor sour grapes for thwarting his brother Jeb's presidential prospects?)

As was widely reported, shockingly 41 voted for Hillary Clinton, and 43 voted for “none of the above.” How out of sync can two former Republican presidents be? In a recent speech “W” obtusely said, “At times, it can seem like the forces pulling us apart are stronger than the forces binding us together.” With their polarizing rhetoric on full display, isn't the Bush clan doing precisely that? Furthermore, doesn't their brand of divisiveness have the same negative impact as that of any progressive?

Naturally, the Bushes are free to squawk, and uselessly wring their hands. So, too, is the rest of the unsettled GOP establishment. However, piling on is a fool's errand that only makes matters worse. After all, thanks to the hard left MSM, untruths and distortions about Trump already run rampant. And unlike either Bush, at least President Trump has the courage to fight back against these false narratives rather than “dignifyingly” taking them. (Defeated Mitt Romney epitomized that failed philosophy.)

That both former presidents surnamed Bush would now speak out against a sitting president shows disdain for established decorum, and the voice of the electorate. With the nation coming apart at the seams during the disastrous Obama years, they collectively made not a peep. Apparently, for these beltway blue bloods, unjustly trashing Trump is a favorite pastime. That the Bushes partake shows their loyalties truly lie with the insulated political class (regardless of party affiliation) rather than with the voters. Moreover, as their sentiments are indistinguishable from that of Democrats, party labels are rendered meaningless. Herein, to any clear-thinking person is proof of the necessity of electing Donald Trump. The political pendulum has indeed swung far away from dynastic families—and, in 2016, an entitled insider. That maddening reality—as much as the brash billionaire himself—is deliciously driving the D.C. ruling elite daffy.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Virtuous Hands with a Gun

What actually stops an evil psychopath is what we saw on Sunday—a good guy with a gun.” – Jordan Stein, spokesman, Gun Owners of America

Would the massacre have happened if the congregation of the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas had clung as tightly to guns as their Bibles? On Sunday, in a bizarre echo of Sayfullo Saipov's Halloween rampage in New York, suspect Devin Patrick Kelley, 26, brought death into a house of worship. Like some villain straight out of the slasher flick “Scream,” he was outfitted in black body armor and a skull mask. Within this sacred space, this Grim Reaper killed 26 innocents and wounded 20. Thirty miles east of San Antonio, in the worst mass shooting in Texas history: about 4% of the town's population (reported as 683) were slain.

Since time immemorial, that's what civilized people call acts of evil. Ultimately, Mr. Kelley's true problem was his homicidal impulses—expressed as externalized rage. Therefore, holding responsible the inanimate object, that was his tool of choice, is a simplistic response. So too is blaming the law that criminals habitually disregard as somehow “insufficient”. In that vein is the imperfect background check that inadvertently allowed Mr. Kelley access to the firearm he utilized (read: The Air Force failed to provide the FBI with the shooter's criminal history). And despite this unfortunate bureaucratic blunder, where does individual accountability factor into this latest bloodbath?

In reality, almost anything physically imposing can be used as a weapon. For example, just last week in New York a zealot screaming “Allahu akbar” misappropriated a rental truck killing 8 and injuring 12. Likewise, at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, South Carolina on August 12, a third unhinged miscreant, James Alex Fields Jr., killed local protester Heather Heyer, 32, and injured 19 others with his Dodge Challenger. If guns are truly the systemic “problem” here—as gun control advocates repeatedly parrot—why does Chicago persist as an annual killing field despite the strictest gun laws in the nation? And why aren't these same critics ignoring the unfettered freedom to buy cars, and rent trucks? After all, don't all of the above potentially serve an evildoer's murderous design?

As the 18th century philosophical father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke famously remarked, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” To that end, a good Samaritan interceded on Sunday in Sutherland Springs. That small town hero gaining national attention is Stephen Willeford, 55. Synchonistically, he's a former National Rifle Association instructor who confronted the attacker, wounding him twice (in his Velcro covered side despite protective plating). As light dispels darkness, Mr. Willeford repealed villainy despite his fear, and the inherent danger. As he told local affiliate 40/29 News in Fort Smith-Fayetteville:

“I think my God, my Lord protected me and gave me the skills to do what needed to be done, and I just wish I could have gotten there faster.”

In this regard, mere mortals beg to differ. This faithful defender got to the scene so quickly he arrived barefoot. Alerted by his daughter of the sounds of a firearm discharging, Mr. Willeford removed his own rifle from its safe, loaded a magazine, and ran across the street to the church. Standing behind a pickup truck for cover, he exchanged gunfire with the escaping interloper. He even shot through the open driver's side window of Mr. Kelley's fleeing Ford Expedition SUV. At a stop sign, Mr. Willeford then flagged down a 27-year-old motorist, Johnnie Langendorff, and a high-speed highway chase ensued. En route the younger man called 911. Eventually, their pickup caught up to the gunman's SUV. Apparently, the assailant started driving erratically. He pulled over to the side, seeming to slow down, then accelerated again until he hit a road sign, lost control and flipped his truck which landed in a ditch. Mr. Langendorff pulled over, and ducked down. Meanwhile, his heroic companion exited the vehicle, planting his rifle on top of the pickup's hood. Keeping a look out, Mr. Willeford yelled for his adversary to get out of his truck, but all remained still. When law enforcement arrived on the scene, they confirmed that Devin Kelley had committed suicide by shooting himself in the head.

Separated by time, specific circumstances and geography is the fact that guns in legal and responsible hands actually preserve life. This is also true of another hero, New York police officer Ryan Nash, who subdued Islamic terrorist Sayfullo Saipov; and Charlottesville police who subsequently apprehended suspect James Fields. Indeed, the loss of life is a terrible tragedy—particularly in situations initiated by the radicalized. For resolution, what demands society's focus is the discounted evildoer himself, not the distraction of his method. Philosophically to blame a criminal's firearm is equivalent to condemning the car or the truck rather than its driver. It's a false premise that misses the crux of the issue. Such intentional naivety actually endangers the public. These days, in diverse gathering places like First Baptist Church or Sandy Hook Elementary School, what's become more unsafe than a gun-free zone?

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Thursday, November 2, 2017

America's “Terrorist” Lottery

On Halloween, Manhattanites were “treated” to actual horror. Only blocks beyond ground zero and the shadow of the World Trade Center, the worst terrorist attack since 9/11 occurred. Weaponizing a Home Depot rental truck, a Muslim immigrant, suspect Sayfullo Saipov, 29, killed eight innocents and badly injured a dozen more. Also at the nexus of the accompanying political firestorm is Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). He was instrumental in crafting the diversity visa program that enabled Mr. Saipov to arrive stateside legally in 2010. Furthermore, perhaps foreshadowing the future carnage, this native of Uzbekistan's first name has a close association with the meaning: “sword of Allah”.

In retrospect, is it any surprise that a bad U.S. immigration policy was grossly exploited by an adherent to radical Islam? Defining Sen. Schumer's involvement is Neil Munro of Breitbart:

“The diversity visa program was created in 1990 by then-Rep. Schumer in response to Irish lobbies in his New York district. Twenty-seven years later, it annually awards 50,000 visas by annual lottery to entrants from around the world, ensuring a cascade of subsequent chain-migrants.”

Like a philosophy straight out of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” this is a randomly awarded golden ticket to a foreigner regardless of that person's background. It gifts the holder a green card, and permanent residency in the United States. Plus, lucky's nuclear family—and distant relatives can emigrate too! After all, such good fortune should not divide families. (Incidentally, this is the same narrative echoed by illegal migrants with U.S. anchor babies.) Ah, the destructive domino effect of lax previous administrations on full display!

In the 21st century, think of the Immigration Act of 1990—signed into law by George H.W. Bush—as America's version of Russian roulette. For, in practice, that's what this law has metastasized into. To his credit, even Mr. Schumer recognized this truth back in 2013. Then, he among a bipartisan Gang of Eight passed an immigration overhaul that would have ended the Diversity Immigrant Visa. Unfortunately, the move failed to advance in the House. Yet, even if the measure had reached President Obama's desk it seems a reasonable certainty that it would not have been signed. Given all of these facts, one is mystified why President Trump has antagonized Mr. Schumer in this instance. After all, wouldn't this latest attack on NYC further incline the minority leader to align himself with Trump's desire for a merit-based replacement?

At present, that's not a question that can be sufficiently answered. However, what can be addressed is how ill-conceived this random green card lottery system is. Per Pew Center, 19 million applicants from around the world have taken a spin on America's wheel of fortune for fiscal year 2017. (Moreover, in the last decade, an astonishing 156 million have similarly rolled the dice.) What's available yearly is 100,000 chances for the U.S. to extend the welcome mat to perfect strangers with no loyalty to, or cultural appreciation of, American values. Of the 50,000 selected, the vetting process is apparently as vigorous as getting hired to work at McDonald's. To qualify, the individual must have a high school diploma, and two years of work experience in an occupation that requires at least two additional years of training or experience. Fill out form I-485, the Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status; a brief interview; an official rubber stamp—and you're in like Flynn! For all the sense this makes, the government should have nicknamed this highly valuable commodity the slacker's visa. In that regard, the loved ones of the NYC victims undoubtedly have more colorful descriptors for this now detestable policy.

In any case, as the October 31st tragedy has clearly demonstrated, radicalized Islamic proponents are hidden among those admitted into the U.S. Since they are invisible, we must consider past experience as a guide. Therefore, a trend articulated by Alex Nowrasteh, of the Cato Institute, comes to bear. In “Terrorism and Immigration: A Risk Analysis,” he wrote:

“Foreign-born terrorists who entered the country, either as immigrants or tourists, were responsible for 88 percent (or 3,024) of the 3,432 murders caused by terrorists on U.S. soil from 1975 through the end of 2015.”

Likewise, one must consider the larger, visible group that contains them. Recall that Muslims comprise 1% of the total U.S. population (per the Pew Center's 2015 figures). Based upon a total population then of 322 million people, that's still 3.2 million people. Also consider that 1 million people have gained residency in the U.S. annually since 1990 via chain migration of extended relatives (see: So, what's likely to happen to the homeland's Muslim population in the future? This is Pew's prediction:

“Indeed, even before 2040, Muslims are projected to become the second-largest religious group in the U.S., after Christians. By 2050, the American Muslim population is projected to reach 8.1 million people, or 2.1% of the total population.”

Naturally, one does not intend to impugn an entire community for a few bad apples. Yet, a legitimate concern remains: a small number of the radicalized have caused mass-casualty truck attacks in London; Berlin; Barcelona, Spain, and Nice, France. Clearly, a first step is to finally abolish, and replace, the deeply flawed 1990 immigration law forthwith. The unacknowledged monkey wrench in this debacle is the wrongheaded application of “high-admission regions” and “low-admission regions”. If the invited do not provide, for example, a needed skill set what's the point of further diversification of legal migrants? Just for the heck of it? By definition, a large immigration population inherently diversifies an established culture. In fact, by a wide margin, America already accepts more immigrants than any nation on earth. Thus, diversity has already been automatically achieved without all of the unnecessary—and risky—human geo-political gerrymandering!

A vital second step is to linguistically distinguish diversity from multiculturalism. Liberals intentionally use the words interchangeably to muddy their meanings. In truth, they actually represent opposing concepts. Specifically, diversity means the general acceptance of differences—whether they be physical, psychological or behavioral. That's the warm embrace of America's vulcanizing “melting pot”. Hence, the U.S. motto of unity: e pluribus unum, Latin for “out of many, one.” Contrarily, multiculturalism is the rejection of Americanism. Like identity politics, it promotes the idea that assimilation to our constitutional ideals—freedoms enjoyed by all—is somehow repressive. Furthermore, it's the nonsensical idea that society at large should shift itself to pacify even one objector. Witness its (justified) effect on the shadowy and corrupt industry that is Hollywood. A volcanic grievance culture is currently shaking the dream factory's power structures apart. Hasn't America's dysfunctional immigration system, and radical Islamic terrorism done even greater damage? The confluence of both instantly invokes Shirley Jackson's short story “The Lottery.” In it, lots are drawn and the unfortunate winner is stoned to death. Those encountering the “sword of Allah” in NYC on Halloween met an equivalent malevolence.  

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Church to Purge George Washington

Why has the Christ Church in Alexandria, Virginia embraced political correctness rather than Christian forgiveness and acceptance? Historically, haven't churches traditionally been sanctuaries from political persecution? Hence, how shameful to attack the memory of an original member—and most famous attendee: the George Washington! Undoubtedly, his family's pew, No. 5, still stands in mute protest of the leadership's plan to remove two memorial plaques framing the altar of his church. Regarding their wrongheaded decision, Scripture says, “They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who [metaphorically] kills you will think they are offering a service to God” (John 16:2). Ironically, this organization publicly proclaims: “All are welcome—no exceptions”. Thus, in the name of “inclusiveness,” a Founding Father—and America's first president—will shortly be excluded.

A statement released to the congregation last week from church officials explains this highly controversial decision:

“The plaques [of Washington, and Lee] in our sanctuary make some in our presence feel unsafe or unwelcome. Some visitors and guests who worship with us choose not to return because they receive an unintended message from the prominent presence of the plaques.”

As the cherry tree myth tells us that George Washington could not tell a lie, one wonders if this narrative would meet that standard. Apparently, the witch hunt of symbols of the Confederacy has mutated to now generally include long-dead slaveholders. Speaking of truth-telling presidents, Donald Trump predicted this outcome back on August 15, 2017:

“But, many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. So this week, it is Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”

That is the essential question. Another is how can a George Washington plaque reasonably give offense? It can't. Unfortunately, zealotry has migrated from tearing down statues in parks to the interior spaces of church walls. For example, liberal “do-gooders” have doggedly pursued Robert E. Lee wherever he's referenced. As a fellow parishioner of Christ Church, Gen. Lee's plaque will also be rooted out in a similar manner as the National Cathedral's stain glass window that featured him. Ah, these poor beleaguered generals! They survived brutal American wars, but are proving no match for the revisionist fervor fouling today's air.

It's unfair to punitively apply 21st century sensibilities to great men from long gone eras. Like the rest of the human race, they're not perfect. They also don't have the benefit of hindsight. Flaws and all, their lives shaped our collective cultural heritage. Thus, their “mistakes” remain valuable because they're instructive. Indeed, the wise study, learn from, and remember history. That's precisely why it should be preserved: warts and all.

How is it not a barbaric act to destroy history, whatever the excuse? As food for thought, across the world there is another, more strident group doing a lot more than simply defacing ancient places of worship for jaded political purposes. With similar self-righteousness, they rationalize dynamiting churches, and wielding sledgehammers against priceless religious iconography. Undoubtedly, the decision-makers at Christ Church, like the rest of us, would see this as wrong. But the difference between the actions of both parties is ultimately only a matter of degree, isn't it?

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Kaepernick's Culture Warrior “Curse”

A week shy of the midway point of the football season, the two winless NFL teams are no surprise. They are the Cleveland Browns and Colin Kaepernick's former team, the once storied San Francisco 49ers. As the Browns have never even made it to the big game, this is frankly to be expected. But what of the Bay City's franchise, winners of five Super Bowl championships: the second most in the league? Making matters worse is a now disgruntled NFL fan base—and the domino effect causing professional athletes not to perform at their best.

In the sports movie “A League of Their Own,” Jimmy Dugan (played by two-time Oscar winner Tom Hanks) famously exclaimed, “There's no crying in baseball!” As an inverse parallel, neither should there be mute obstructionists in football. Let's be clear on a couple of important details. First, the field is the football player's workspace. In no industry does any employee have the right to engage in political demonstrations—whether they're physically disruptive or not. Thus, the setting for such “social justice” stunts is inappropriate. Moreover, such blatant disrespect of country should not have been condoned by the NFL. Second, while Colin Kaepernick's antics have clearly not endeared him to the NFL, his lack of gridiron success tells the tale according to Doug Farrar of

“He started 11 games last season, completing 196 of his 331 passes for 2,241 yards, 16 touchdowns and four interceptions, and he added 69 runs for 468 yards and two touchdowns. He did so on a 49ers team that finished the season 2-14 ….”

Given the pitiful result of only two victories, what coach would hire him as a starting quarterback for a different team? Kaepernick's MSM supporters spuriously suggest racial discrimination as an alternative explanation, but that's preposterous: 70 percent of the players in the National Football League are black! In truth, his lack of success and his overvaluation of self are the main reasons he finds himself unemployed. In retrospect, was it wise for Mr. Kaepernick to choose to walk away from his lucrative contract with the 49ers?

Successful football teams—same as flourishing nation-states—are based upon harmony and cohesion. Who wants to take a multi-million dollar chance on a rabble-rouser who has repeatedly demonstrated he can't win football games? Adding to his troubles is his own rampaging political Frankenstein monster. Mr. Kaepernick's very presence now detracts from any team's purpose: to gain fans and win Super Bowls. Such is the self-imposed fate of this lightning rod for un-Americanism.

Another absurdity is that an entitled millionaire 20-something claims to represent the oppressed! Only an egotist—wanting to distract from the reality of his poor track record—would “elevate” himself by initiating a counterculture insurgency. What better way to draw media attention to himself than to flout the enduring tradition of standing during the National Anthem?

Kneeling-as-protest remains a silent criticism of this foundational symbol of American unity. Speaking of social inequality, why should less well-heeled spectators spend their hard earned money watching spoiled athletes grandstand? As the cratering TV ratings indicate, Sundays are days off for former football aficionados to seek out less polarizing forms of entertainment.

For those who remain, booing fans and partially filled stadiums aren't helping team morale across the league. Synchronistically, this dynamic is epitomized by San Francisco's record as tied-for-worst. On a psychological level, is it possible that Kaepernick's former team shares in the stain of his dishonorable behavior? Simply put, have they so internalized his self-defeating victimization narrative—and been distracted by its fallout—that they believe they are losers, and act accordingly?

For context, recall that football games are mock battles. Thus, NFL players experience similar stressors to mind and body as any soldier in a war zone. Ultimately, it matters not that they are world-class athletes if their heads are not collectively in the game. Negative mindsets and debilitating mood swings lead inexorably to risk of injury, lost play opportunities, and subpar game day performance. This remains true whether or not individual players have chosen to protest; clearly whole teams have been adversely affected. So, too, has the ringleader. Ironically, perhaps he most of all. By decisions he clearly regrets today, Colin Kaepernick finds himself outside the NFL. Thus, for all concerned, important life lessons can be gleaned. At their root is that politics in sport is poisonous.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Thursday, October 19, 2017

Alexander-Murray Bill Dooms GOP

Besides the certainty of death and taxes, it seems, Democratic-passed entitlements never really end. For context, the President has rightfully proclaimed Obamacare “a disgrace to our nation.” Furthermore, after cutting off the Obama administration's illegal subsidies to the insurance companies (known as Cost-Sharing Reduction (CSR) payments), Trump added, “It's virtually dead,” but is it?

Well, it would be if the Republican establishment would finally honor 7 years of broken promises to repeal and replace Obamacare. Yet, just days after these latest developments what's Congress's response? Enter the touted bipartisan Alexander-Murray bill. A “deal” to legally fund Obamacare—the governmental behemoth that appropriated 1/6 of the U.S. economy—for another two years! A grand trick on the American people: Obamacare is undead for Halloween!

That's rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, folks. For progressives, that's vitally past the midterm elections, giving the GOP nothing of substance to run on. That, in turn, will likely give Democrats control of the Senate. In other words, the same anti-Trump obstructionists—whose party created this health-care mess in the first place—will be back in charge. The horror gets worse. This Republican “stop-gap” measure wastes time; adds another 14 billion to the nation's escalating 20 trillion dollar debt; and can be hung around Donald Trump's neck in 2020.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Monday, October 16, 2017

Obamacare's Embezzlement Scheme

Shockingly, at the rotting core of Barack Obama's signature heath-care law is a crime. When his administration initiated Cost-Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies to health insurance companies under Obamacare, it actually misappropriated public funds. Per 18 U.S.C. § 644:

“Whoever, not being an authorized depositary of public moneys, knowingly receives from any disbursing officer, or collector of internal revenue, or other agent of the United States, any public money on deposit, or by way of loan or accommodation, with or without interest, or otherwise than in payment of a debt against the United States, or uses, transfers, converts, appropriates, or applies any portion of the public money for any purpose not prescribed by law is guilty of embezzlement....”

Why do Democrats perpetually get away scot-free with such outrageous wrongdoing?

Recall that the Appropriations Clause is the cornerstone of Congress's “power of the purse”. In other words, only the legislature has the authority to disburse federal funds, not the former president's executive branch. Specifically, that responsibility is defined by the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, cl. 1: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.” Hence, President Trump's action to immediately terminate said illegal payments.

Naturally, the anti-Trump MSM opposes his rightful action. For example, Washington Post contributor Ilya Somin writes, “Now, President Trump is making the situation worse by trying to use these illegal payments as leverage to force the legislature to do his bidding.” For the record, didn't the Democratically-controlled Congress do Obama's bidding when they passed the ironically named Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010? For context, that's the same bill—without one Republican vote—that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said had to be passed, “...[S]o that you can find out what is in it—away from the fog of the controversy.” That controversy, as this column details, is unceasing.

What liberals don't scramble, it seems, they tend to mix up. For starters, only Obama overstepped here, not Trump. Yet, Mr. Somin continues:

“What is ultimately at stake here is not only the future of the health care law, but of the constitutional separation of powers and the limits of executive branch authority. Trump’s ham-fisted attempt at dealmaking is eroding those limits....”

In truth, Trump's new executive order actually affirms Congress's autonomy. After all, House Republicans filed a lawsuit contending that the CSR payments were illegal. In May 2016, federal district Judge Rosemary Collyer agreed, though she stayed her judgment pending a possible appeal. The basis of her decision was Article I, section 9, cl. 7 of the U.S. Constitution which states, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Misconstruing the facts makes Mr. Somin, a professor of law at George Mason University, look foolish. Such intellectual dishonesty is the unfortunate result of obvious political blinders.

As does blaming Mr. Trump for the current dysfunctional state of U.S. health-care policy. After all, The Donald entered presidential politics on June 16, 2015. For five years previously, the GOP establishment repeatedly made promises—subsequently broken—to repeal and replace Obamacare. Irrespective of the president's “bidding,” don't the American people have the right to expect elected representatives to honor their own pledges? Therefore, it takes real chutzpah to criticize the new guy for trying to remedy an escalating problem that proceeded him. Truth-teller Trump tweeted Friday, “ObamaCare is a broken mess. Piece by piece we will now begin the process of giving America the great HealthCare it deserves!” What's wrong with moving the ball forward by taking legal steps that set things right?

In any case, the CSR payouts, made by the Department of Health and Human Services, were a considerable boon to health insurers’ bottom line: about $7 billion annually. How crooked to circumvent Congress—and misuse the Treasury as a slush fund for such ultra-Constitutional plotting! Likewise, how two-faced to publicly malign the very businesses the Obama administration was subsidizing via the back door. Clearly, chicanery rivaling Shakespeare's tangled web!

Importantly, this issue illuminates the interchangeability between progressivism and fascism. After all, didn't Democrats create a health-care behemoth designed to cede private industry (read: 1/6 of the U.S. economy) to jackbooted governmental control? The underlying criminality “greasing the wheels”—same as Obama's empty promises of keeping your doctor, and lowering premiums by $2,500—is apparent for all to see. If, in eight years, anyone had bothered to scrutinize the artifices of political Pinocchio's “hope and change,” that is. In retrospect, partisans voted blindly for a dystopian dream; without the foggiest notion of who—or what—they were really getting.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog