Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Conjuring Civil War’s ghost in post-racial America

Why is The Washington Post’s resident Don Quixote tilting at the windmills of history in Obama’s post-racial America?   While the adage that “those that don’t know history are bound to repeat it,” the opposite extreme is Courtland Milloy whose myopic focus on Civil War struggles—fortunately and mercifully exactly 150 years now long over—ignore the passage of time and the clear evolution of America into a more accepting society.  Indeed, what greater proof of this new reality (inconceivable to people in Lincoln’s time) could there be: a black man is currently cooling his heels in the White House for a second term.  Mr. Milloy’s two beefs are a waste of valuable newspaper column space: he laments the supposed ignorance of the millennial generation claiming they don’t even realize that the Civil War was fought over the forced enslavement of black people; and he sees subtle racism in the fact that the general public sees more value in monuments depicting “battles and generals” rather than “freedom and slavery” at a military park in Fredericksburg, VA.  Undoubtedly, for many, slavery was a bummer pre-1865 and it sure is an irrelevant downer to Jane Q. Public and her brood now. 

Further, does the insipidly scribbling columnist Milloy really subscribe to the idea that the millennial generation—hooked into technological everything—does not know, for example, of the Oscar winning Steven Spielberg film “Lincoln” (2012)?  The truth is the racist culture embodied by the Old South is literally “Gone with the Wind” in America of 2015.  The “point” Mr. Milloy wishes to peddle in his ‘slavery’ column is White Guilt for things that happened to people no longer alive by people no longer living: six generations ago. 

Somehow this august generation should feel guilty for not erecting enough monuments to the vaguely eluded to “contributions of slaves” although Mr. Milloy—in his righteous fervor—never bothers to specifically articulate what those contributions were.  That is likely because he does not know—because the rest of the world has already moved on from this unfortunate chapter of American history—a point he clearly “misses” as he berates his readership for missing “his point.”

The greater “point” that Mr. Milloy doesn’t deal with in his column are the massive present-day problems that affect the black community happening in this time: 50 percent of Afro-American children aborted in the womb; out-of-wedlock births for blacks are over 72 percent; 90 percent of blacks in America are killed by members of their own race per 2012 crime statistics—to name just a few.  No doubt there is still work to be done.  However, the present is called the “present” for good reason: the “now” is the only place constructive societal change can be undertaken.

However, today is not as bleak as Mr. Milloy’s ‘slavery’ column would have the uninformed reader incorrectly infer about America of 2015.  To a great extent, we are actually living in a post-racial and inclusive society. There are Afro-Americans at every level of government, the private sector, the arts and sports.  Interracial marriages are commonplace and their children are vibrant, fully embraced members of our society.  Moreover, Eminem notwithstanding, rap music—a principally black form of artistic expression—is mainstream American music.  Likewise, black athletes and entertainers (recent Oscar winners include: Denzel Washington, Halle Barry, Morgan Freeman, Whoopie Goldberg and Jennifer Hudson) are lionized with an almost God-like status universally by white and black young people.  Indeed, blacks have taken over popular culture: movies "Be like Mike" (2002) and its sequel "Be Like Mike 2" (2006) are flattering references to NBA superstar Michael Jordan (whose $200.00 Air Jordan sneakers are highly sought after).  In this same vein, the white youth of today have eagerly integrated the rather questionable language and fashion sense of their black idols from Mr. T-style necklaces and jewelry to baggy jeans that hang down exposing the backside of the wearer. 

In every way possible, the dominant white culture has repeatedly extended the hand of friendship (through equal employment statutes, civil rights and social welfare programs) to our black American brothers.  It is their persistent resistance to accept our integrative overtures due to 150 year old historical grievances—never-ending and reiterated by Mr. Obama last week and echoed in Mr. Milloy’s July 1st salt-in-the-wound “historical” column—that have nothing whatsoever to do with the current generation that populates America. 

To demonstrate how far we have come, there used to be a "one-drop rule" for a person of mixed race to determine that individual's non-white identity.  Being white, as close to white as possible—or even better "passing for white"—was a necessary mechanism of economic survival when racism ran rampant in America of the past.  Today, we have Rachel Dolezal, disgraced former president of the NAACP chapter in Spokane, Washington: a white woman who lied about her racial identity and passed herself off as black (a position that definitely would have landed her in the mad house in Lincoln’s time).

Since Mr. Milloy likes to wade in the annals of history he should follow the sage advice of the Ancient Greeks who said: “Only speak well of the dead” (related to both sides of the Civil War).  I would therefore encourage Mr. Milloy (and Mr. Obama) to join the rest of us in the 21st century.  Their enslaved ancestors, if they had any, would have found the waters better than fine—a comparable paradise of tolerance—more than worthy of commemoration at that military park in Fredericksburg, VA that the public of today would flock to, with pride.


re. Courtland Milloy's 'Is America ready to deal with slavery, or just continue to miss the point?' (Washington Post, June 30, 2015)

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

To the Supreme Court: ‘Mother, May I’? (re: gay marriage/equal rights debate)

Equal protection under the law does not equate to equal results in American society.  Liberal progressives have co-opted and perverted the intentions of the Founding Fathers in order to promote their divisive anti-American agenda: pitting one group against another; in the case of the marriage issue, the gay community against conservative Christians. 
The concept of marriage between one woman and one man has informed societies throughout history for thousands of years.  Despite its religious connotations and inherently stabilizing influence on society, its primary purpose has been to legitimize and protect the economic interests of otherwise vulnerable children, something gay unions do not biologically produce.  As America is a Judeo-Christian country, it falls easily in line with this sensible tradition.  Furthermore, as the vast majority of people are heterosexual, it follows that the traditional definition of marriage remain the prevailing one—up and until there is a groundswell of local support by the majority from the state level that this standard be changed.  This is still America—power to shape society and freedom to “pursue Happiness”—are supposed to reside with “we the people” to determine her course, not a centralized, overstepping, facelessly bureaucratic, progressive federal government.  Indeed, a belligerently vocal minority that uses the law and the levers of big government as a weapon to impose its specialized agenda upon the larger group is as repressive as any overbearing majority.  That, unfortunately, is what is happening here. 
This is the work both of progressive Democrats (a lá the economically “converted” Obama) and the politically militant ‘gay gestapo’ aided at every turn by an abetting MSM who exploits and magnifies any minor fracas into a major scandal for high viewership and equivalent advertising dollars.  Who cares that one mom-and-pop Indiana bakery owned by Christians should on legitimate religious grounds decline to make a cake for a same-sex couple?  Is it right that 111 Cakery should be driven out of business due to the stress of hate filled protests by homosexual activists clueless of the First Amendment (no law shall “imped[e] the free exercise of religion”) and the rights of others when they conflict with their own?   
Under a tortured, gerrymandered interpretation of the “equal protection clause” (intended only defensively to curtail mistreatment), homosexual activists actually want “special” treatment: a one-size-fits-all solution mandated on high by the powers-that-be in Washington.  We need no more “Mother, May I?” government pronouncements of this sort.  As with the federal government, this decision should not ultimately reside with the Supreme Court either, but with the states, 37  of which (and the District of Columbia) currently allow gay marriage based upon community standards.  At any rate, from a legal perspective the unambiguous dictates of the First Amendment trumps everything.  The government and the Court should stay out of our bedrooms, our churches and especially our bakeries.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Dolezal’s version of black like me

From the tip of her dyed, permed mop-topped head to her claim of sun darkened skin (more likely make-up enhanced skin— disparaging white person wearing ‘black face’ references notwithstanding) to her high heels, Rachel Dolezal is an imposter.  Dolezal, not exactly ethnic sounds given surname, is at least more exotic than her given family surname: Moore; whose etymology comes from the term “Moors” used historically by Europeans as a derogatory reference to dark-skinned Muslims.  (No irony there.)   
Rachel Dolezal, 37, spawn of biologically white parents, is the latest freak show in the Democrat's pantheon of polarizing identity politics.  She is indeed a "special" case, the sort that mental institutions are chock full off.  From a medical standpoint, Ms. Dolezal likely suffers from Racial Identity Disorders (orRIDs) concern a patient's belief that (s)he is a member of a different race than (s)he really is.  In the United States since 2014, Obamacare requires all insurance policies to cover counseling for cases of RID on the basis of "parity" with Gender Identity Disorder. (All such counselors will be paid by the taxpayer so Ms. Dolezal is in luck.) 
To this end, claiming to be the first “transracial woman” while doing civil rights work in northern Idaho (no doubt a hotbed of black-white politics), Ms. Dolezal is attempting to foist an entirely new lexicon upon the rest of us due to her evidentially unique human experience, embraced by the MSM as the newest of the “new” normal.
Ms. Dolezal, the Democrat’s newest rising political star, is neither a trailblazer or is she a heroic figure. She is a fraudster who has brought disrepute to the NAACP and has a history of lying about her racial identity as a short cut for self-promotion.  Specifically, as The Smoking Gun has reported, she who has masqueraded as black once sued Howard University, a historically black college, in 2002 for racial discrimination for denying her teaching posts and a scholarship due to her white ethnicity.
 According to a Court of Appeals, Ms. Dolezal claimed that the university’s decision to remove some of her artworks from a February 2001 student exhibition was “motivated by a discriminatory purpose to favor African-American students over” her.  Her lawsuit further contended that Howard was “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult.”  Eighteen months later in February 2004, Judge Zoe Bush dismissed Ms. Dolezal’s complaint on the basis of no evidence; a ruling the D.C. Court of Appeals has subsequently affirmed.  Ms. Dolezal was ordered to reimburse Howard for a “bill of costs” totaling $2728.50 plus what amounts to a judicial reprimand of nearly $1000 in damages to the university for a frivolous court filing, claiming “medical and emotional distress damages” yet delayed an examination by an independent doctor.  (Ms. Dolezal shouldn’t worry the white coats will be lining up at her door after this latest stunt of running a NAACP chapter, a job typically (and understandably) reserved for an actual person of color.)
Ms. Dolezal is no metaphorical Dr. David Livingstone traveling darkest Africa.  Closer to home, she is no John Howard Griffin, a white Dallas, TX journalist who published the 1961 nonfictional account of his six-week experience traveling on Greyhound buses through the then racially segregated Deep South as a black man called Black Like Me and then wrote a tell-all of the experience.
As this is America, Ms. Dolezal is free to change her name, her physical appearance and to think of herself in any way that she chooses.  However, as she charts her life’s direction, the rest of us don’t approve of her using lies to get there.


Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Democrat’s Micky-D’s politics (An analysis of anti-American Progressivism)

There once was an innocent time when children actually clamored for McDonald’s food before the multinational juggernaut of a fast food chain had to advertise the superficial slogan “I’m lovin’ it” to obscure the fact that the food is not of a particularly healthful quality.  That is a precise analogy for today's Democrats and the deleterious effect their anti-Capitalistic policies have on America. 

The very small clown car of four “same well” politicians includes (interchangeably): one shrew, one socialist, one buffoon and one empty suit.  Indeed, all the so-called contenders for the Democratic nomination sing from the same hymnal of “good sounding” vote-pandering appeals designed to woo the unemployed (and part-timers via Obamacare), the stupefied (the low-information voter via MSM) and the socially alienated masses (the Occupy movement and more recently Ferguson, MO and Baltimore, MD violently rioting “no justice, no peace; hands up, don't shoot” city-burning anarchists) for that Pavlovian lever pull.  (Full disclosure: that 'D' in the voting booth now stands not for Democrat, but for “dupe.”)  For example, which one of the quartet recently said: “Powerful, wealthy special interests here at home have used our government to create, in our own country, an economy that is leaving a majority of our people behind.”  (The answer: failed Maryland governor and former mayor of the racial powder keg city Baltimore, MD.)  Certainly, the ever spunky Mr. O'Malley—a former outspoken advocate of madam's first unsuccessful presidential bid in 2008—could not possibly be referring to his dear friend Hillary Clinton (the former “dead broke and in debt” resident of the White House) who via the Charity-gate corruption scandal has parleyed her high level governmental influence as Obama’s first Secretary of State into the rarified air of the uber-rich: the 100 million dollar club of the huge carbon footprint private jets and gas-guzzling limousines.  She, the “queen of money-grubbing green” (and per the Secret Service, a potty-mouthed “queen of mean”), can afford a blasé, a modern day Marie-Antoinette ‘let-them-eat-cake’ persona, because she’s not one of the 93 million able-bodied, but idle citizens—desperate for gainful, full time employment with or without health insurance—who would scarcely dream of her Grey Poupon lifestyle, let alone pay the rent. 

Even taking a family of four to McDonald’s would be a luxury for the rest us.  What difference, at this point, does it make?  A great deal actually if any one of these progressive keystone cops are put in charge of “the land of the free” going forward.  Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and the other stagehands—place-holders to promote the fiction that the Democratic nomination is a contest rather than a fait accompli—are cut from the same rabble-rousing (“There is only the fight...”) Sal Alinsky mold.  Their ilk foment and prey upon the despair of the masses in order to get elected (as in Hillary’s case in 2016) or reelected (in Obama’s in 2012).  Given the last six years, I have serious doubts that any of them—collectively—could successfully run a child’s lemonade stand.  Besides taxing and regulating the hell out of it, of course.

By contrast, the Republicans are drawing a diverse field of non-professional politician contenders like Fiorina [the private sector]; Carson and Paul [former medical doctors] and one minister (and former TV personality) [Huckabee] as well as a cadre of truly substantive and up-and-coming political leaders [Ted Cruz; Marco Rubio] and the yet undeclared, but accomplished Scott Walker and family dynasty scion, Jeb Bush.  Throw a dart: any one of them would be a vastly superior choice to Hillary.

Progressivism belies a more critical and deeper-seeded issue that warrants a needed cultural discussion.  To my mind that political philosophy is an anti-American pathology infusing the ranks and the leadership of the Democratic party.  As President Ronald Reagan said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party.  It left me.”  Democrats have come so far off the boil that one of their most popular and beloved standard-bearers JFK, who at the time of his 1960s presidency advocated pro-business tax cuts (“By removing tax roadblocks to new jobs and new growth”), a strong military and anti-Communism (there would be no throwing of his metaphorical arms around the dictator Fidel Castro in a loving Obama embrace) would be considered, at minimum, a moderate Republican and fiscal conservative.  Specifically, Kennedy expressed his cherished Catholicism in faith-based speeches.  He was staunchly pro-Capitalist: free trade, strong dollar, low taxes and low deficits.  And, to illustrate the cavernous divide between Mr. Kennedy and today’s mainstream Democrats most tellingly, the 35th U.S. president was pro-individual responsibility.  The Party would show Mr. Kennedy the door on the basis of that final position alone.

In an alternative universe can anyone with a straight face imagine Mr. Obama as a Kennedy-Democrat uttering his famously patriotic and selfless words: “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for you country?”  Not hardly.  As the last six years clearly demonstrates, Obama’s temperament (“the fundamental transformation of America”) shows absolutely no reverence for the American ideal Kennedy valued.  JFK was a unifier and a stark defender of the United States; Obama is a weak kneed apologist who publicly condemns his own country to the glee, no doubt, of America’s geo-political foes. 

One of my favorite, personal colloquialisms is “just because there’s a MacDonald’s on every corner doesn’t mean it’s [a] good [thing].”  The MSM, everywhere too, continues to slickly promote the very people and policies antithetic to a healthily functioning America.  It is time for rank-and-file Americans to reject the Left’s ‘whack-a-mole’ game of divisive victimhood-politics.  In the mold of a youthful, federal government-slashing version of Reagan, we should elect an outspoken pro-American and fiscal conservative.  Perhaps a strict Constitutionalist like Ted Cruz paired with a hands-on practical reformer like Scott Walker is a team worth clamoring for. 

I’m lovin’ it.


Monday, June 8, 2015

Feeding at Democrat’s poverty plantation

Controlling a citizen’s belly is an insidious mechanism by which to subtly coerce—and consistently predict—that person’s vote.  That’s why Democrats use it (and why Mitt Romney failed in his 2012 White House bid despite correctly enumerating the objective facts related to Mr. Obama’s multitude of well-known domestic and international failures).  For the 6 plus years of the Obama presidency, his job-killing, anti-Capitalist—tax, spend, redistribute; repeat—fiscal policies have keep key voting demographics—people of color, the poor, the young and the generally alienated (the Occupy movement)—on the Democrat’s economic plantation.  Specifically, under Obama, 93 million willing and able Americans cannot find full time work.  Similarly, 18.2 million more people are currently on food stamps since January 2008.  Moreover, per 2013 official poverty statistics, 45.3 million people are consistently living at or below the poverty line or 14.5 percent (compared to 36.5 million people or 19 percent in 1964 which began Democrat President Johnson’s Great Society and costly—and largely failed—welfare programs and “War on Poverty.”)  That’s 1 trillion (1,000 billion and counting) spent resulting in 46.2 million in poverty per 2011 figures: as a percentage of the populations, 18.8 and 14.7 respectively, the rate of overall improvement of 4.1 percent isn’t exactly huge progress given the enormous expenditure.

Despite all factual evidence to the contrary, Obama’s big government, progressive economic policies have repeatedly double-downed on historical failures most tellingly with his own failed 840 billion stimulus: money funneled to pro-Democrat unions that, for example, took over GM; bankrupt companies like Solyndra run by political cronies or wasted on seemingly imaginary, “non-shovel-ready” jobs.  Examples all of Democrat’s Orwellian policies that articulate a noble intention, but achieve its “real world” opposite.  At these all too frequent moments, Democrats shrug their shoulders, make a clever quip (“Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive”) and quickly change the subject from continuing deficit spending and an ever-mounting 19 trillion dollar debt.

50 years on, Johnson’s ironically named Great Society policies (like Obama’s  Affordable Care Act—which is anything but—and has pulled the financial guts out of America’s healthcare system) have destroyed the basis of the nation—the family unit—especially in minority communities. This package of initially well-intentioned government programs designed as a temporary stop-gap measure has instead subsidized and raised whole generations of illegitimate children in broken or single-parent homes with little or no male influence.  In point of fact, a father in the home virtually disqualifies a woman from collecting her government assistance.  In this way, a federal program designed to “help” actually poisons society’s lifeblood—the heterosexual, two parent household—by encouraging men to abandon their children.  Since the onset of these Democratic policies in the mid-1960s, illegitimacy nationwide stood at 7.7 percent; for Afro-Americans 25%.  Today, for comparison, out-of-wedlock births for blacks are over 72 percent; Hispanics over 50 percent and whites (from 3 percent in 1960) to 36 percent at present.  From such unstructured homes comes a similarly chaotic culture.

In the same vein—for better or worse—there is no longer a social stigma related to teenage pregnancy or illegitimate births.  More importantly, there are no dire economic consequences for the unwise decision to have a child without the advantages of a stable and prosperous home.  This path tends to lead to poverty and similarly poor life choices reflective of the mother’s example.  In a very real way, these inherent life limitations cause the school system to become a pipeline to criminality and jail.  For instance, 72 percent of adolescent murders indicate they grew up in fatherless homes.  This clear sociological trend, out of Democratic political correctness, is ignored by policymakers who favor superficial non-fixes like dumping more money into already failing public school systems.  Unfortunately, no amount of money can impart a healthy value system, responsible decision-making or a work ethic.  That duty, for good reason, should always be the purview of mature parents rather than ill-suited nanny state institutions.

On a related issue, despite feminists’ unrealistic super-woman pretenses, an unstable or nonexistent relationship with a father or father-figure deeply wounds a boy’s psyche.  When women rule the roost in the absence of a man, boys find destructive male role models in gangs of their lawless, also fatherless peers.  This dynamic further explains 2013 FBI crime statistics which indicate that black-on-black murder accounts for 90% of deaths in the Afro-American community.  Therefore, Democratic leaders, like Mr. Obama, race-bait and foster chaos when promoting the wrongheaded delusion that white people in general—and white police in specific—act “stupidly” and are the guilty party.  So, wrongly demonized law enforcement personnel who have a difficult job under typical circumstances, have the added threat of becoming the target for generalized rage.  Under this political microscope—coupled with greater risk to life and limb—is it not understandable that they would be reticent and thereby less effective?  Consequently, violent protests like those in Ferguson, MO and Baltimore, MD become more and more likely.  Indeed, economically depressed, violence-ridden, Democrat-controlled urban cities like Chicago, Cleveland and Detroit are now societal powder kegs: one interracial incident away from the abyss.  The thin blue line is fraying.

Abetted by the water-carrying mainstream media, these societal truths have been successfully diminished, twisted or obscured by the propaganda of divisive Democratic politics: mostly blaming the “haves,” whitey or “the other guy” (historically “rich” Republicans—and the most recent fiction—“racist” cops.)

The nefarious political end game: Obama’s perpetual campaign of lies, lip-service to real cultural problems and vague, pretty-word speechifying supported by little action (or the wrong action). Its underlying purpose: to keep the rest of us stirred up and distracted by trivialities, enabling them—an incompetent Democrat elitist in-crowd (beholden only to the Party and their allies)—to stay in power.  This is achieved by keeping the country in a constant state of distress; by constant fear-mongering and intentionally dividing the country along its societal fault lines of class, race, gender and sexual orientation.

Despite their liberal friends in mass media and their strangely rosy accounts of the state of the union (and politically correct spin which stems the flow of independent thought and dissention), Democrats are fundamentally vote-panderers: not truly advocating for the “common man,” only for themselves.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Democrats' Orwellian Kabuki Theater

In George Orwell's fictional dystopian classic "1984" political leaders (symbolized by "Big Brother") habitually lie, speak out of both sides of their mouths and intend the polar opposite of what they do say.  For example, in Orwell's totalitarian depiction, the Ministry of Peace actually promotes perpetual war.  Its political purpose clandestinely advocates hardship in order to distract the citizenry from learning the nefarious truth about its ruling elite.  Sound familiar? 

In Obama's America of anti-American ruling progressives its real life equivalent is Democrat identity politicsthe promotion of superficial differences of race, the economics of class ("You didn't build that, somebody else made that happen") or genderas wedge issues to keep the populace stirred up, at each other's throats--and thereby distracted.  It is political cover smoke that masks incompetent ideologues whose job-killing, income redistribution, tax-and-deficit spend policies ignite real fires indiscriminately in small towns like Ferguson, MO and (not incidentally) in Democratically-controlled urban centers like Baltimore, MD, Chicago and Detroit.  Remember, locals who have gainful employment and/or otherwise positively contribute to their communities don't burn their own neighborhoods to the ground. 

Sal Alinsky ("There is only the fight...") progressives like Obama and Hillary Clinton incite the mob mentality.  Ferguson and Baltimore are societal fissures manipulated by Democrats along racial lines, but this pattern holds equally true for the Occupy Wall Street movement which enflamed class warfare.  To this end, laughably, the divisive politics of bold faced lies continues by she who would be our next president.  Mrs. Clinton said: “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.”  Another divisive, whopper of a distortion by a politician who seeks to lead us in 2016.  Indeed, it is insanity to elect a politician of any stripe who actively deceives the people who elect him or her.    

Democratic leaders facilitate crises and exploit such unfortunate situations like the above to further their anti-American "fundamental transformation of America."  This Orwellian political philosophy specifically benefits them individually via the Party.  That is the point of all of this: for liberals it is better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven.  Specifically, a cogent example: with 93 million able-bodied Americans marginalized, ignored by labor statistics and unable to find full time employment, progressive policies are a cancer that wrecks the joint at home and abroad (read: The Middle East).  As the world literally burns Mr. Obama golfs, wholly disaffected, partying with and living like the millionaire and billionaire "fat cat" bankers he publicly demonizes.  It is all Kabuki Theater.  And it is long overdue for the American public to wake up from their mainstream media-induced stupor.  

Remember a fundamental political axiom: an unhappy populace votes Democrat (versus Reagan's inspiring vision of the United States as a "shining city on a hill.")  At the time, America's primary adversary, the Soviets, respected Reaganism ("Peace through strength") because "the Gipper" actually meant what he said and said what he meant.  By contrast, Mr. Obama is the anti-Reagan: a paper tiger known seemingly by everyone else but himself.  This declawed kitten draws illusionary red lines in the sand and then initiates a "for show," impotent military strategy.  At present, only 1 in 4 missions actually make an airstrike against a target at a rate per The New York Times,' of only 15 airstrikes a day against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.  The U.S. Air Force under Mr. Obama's predecessor George W. Bush launched 800 sorties a day, everyday.  Mr. Obama's latest not-so-excellent adventure in the Middle East is all about his own political optics: appearing to be "tough" and doing "something" so he can absurdly claim that under his leadership: "The United States is the most respected country on earth."  Such a sentiment is the very epitome of the Orwellian.

Ronald Reagan—the real deal as "The Great Communicator"could school the fork-tongued Mr. Obama on what it is to be a proud American rather than a world-class moral relativist and Western apologist.  Conservatives know that pretty words in teleprompter-read speeches mean nothing without the backup of principle, actions and deeds.  Citizens loyal to American ideal of liberty must see the truth and elect a stalwart champion of the U.S. Constitution despite a heavily biased and sycophantic press that conspires to obscure and ignore continuing Democratic falsehoods.  Double-speak purveyors of "Big Brother" statismwhich includes every Democratic presidential candidatemust not be allowed to retain the reins of power in 2016.


Monday, June 1, 2015

Clinton coronation: Sanders unelectable, advocates gang rape

With the exception of the last 48 hours and Martin O'Malley's entrance into the race which technically makes 3, there have only been two people vying for the Democratic nomination.  Therefore, it is more than tongue-and-cheek, but journalistically disingenuous of Mr. Cillizza to peddle the fantasy that there is actually a contest rather than a Clinton coronation.  The fact that an outspoken, unelectable Socialist could attract any mainstream Democrat support at all is astonishing especially in light of the emergence of Mr. Sanders' 1972 essay about how women enjoy the fantasy of a 3-man gang rape into every orifice; a fact unmentioned in Mr. Cillizza's superficial analysis of Sanders. 

Make no mistake: this laughingstock of a candidate is both personally misogynistic and politically anti-American.  I don't know why Democratic leaders have gone so far off their philosophical rails (á la Obama; Warren; Sanders; O'Malley) from Jeffersonian Classic Liberalism (the right of the individual over the state) to its radical, polar opposite: Statism.  But the Democratic party resides there now, that much is clear.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog