Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Pope Francis: first responsibility PR, not children's rights

Empty-headed millennial icon Kim Kardashian has made her Twitter pronouncement: “The pope is dope.” Indeed, by every political optics measure, the United States public relations tour to rehab the reputation of the Catholic Church by Pope Francis was a resounding success. Undoubtedly, the main beneficiary will be the waning fortunes of the Church. In his final Mass in Philadelphia (from the Greek philos meaning “love” or “friendship” and adelphos for “brother”), the pope struck just the right tone of 'new beginnings' by meeting with survivors of clergy sexual abuse with the promise to hold accountable those responsible for church scandals.

I sincerely hope he fulfills that public pledge. Unlike a contemporary predecessor, Pope John Paul II, who ignored priest-child abuse, Pope Francis certainly is in position to “clean house” and should do so despite the institution's longstanding history of turning a blind eye to sexual immorality for profit. Even Kim would enthuse: it is W.J.W.D!

However, while in America pro-life Pope Francis neglected to be outspokenly critical of Democrat-supported Planned Parenthood. Likewise, the pontiff should have taken that golden opportunity both to defend the rights of the unborn, and taken top U.S. military brass to task for permitting children to be exploited as sex slaves by Afghan allies on U.S. military bases under all of their very noses. Doesn't the Vicar of Christ have a responsibility to combat this hot-button issue—both within and beyond the Church—wherever it is unfortunately found?

The larger question looms: with the world's eyes upon him, why didn't he?

On the ground, whistle-blowing soldiers with moral objections to arming Afghan pedophiles and making them commanders of local villages have been disciplined and/or faced career ruin for coming forward. As an example, two Green Berets beat up one child-abuser for keeping a boy chained to his bed. For this decent act of coming to the rescue of a defenseless child, one of the soldiers, Captain Dan Quinn, was relieved of his command and pulled out of Afghanistan. The past notwithstanding, doesn't today's disgrace warrant this pope's attention?

Pope Francis, like Obama pre-presidency, is a superficial symbol of 'hope and change.'  However, being at the helm of the world's most popular religion, he needs to do more than metaphorically placing a carnation in the barrel of a gun.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Justice Sotomayor: laws, not wages for the 'little people'

After almost 7 years of the often equally diabolical and hapless Obama Administration, it is easy to detect the overpowering scent of far-left hypocrisy emanating from progressives in Washington. First, a lawless, ultra-Constitutional president who consistently issues overreaching proclamations by executive fiat. Now, a rogue Supreme Court has likewise overstepped its bounds by imposing law from the bench.  In so doing, the high court has completely usurped Congress' constitutionally-defined role as legislator instead of confining itself to its proprietary domain of “interpreting” already written law.  Naturally, I coyly refer to the recently determined gay marriage debate between the thousands of years-old traditional Judeo-Christian view of marriage (based upon First Amendment guarantees of freedom of religious expression) versus the gerrymandered manipulation of the equal protection clause (intended only to prevent discrimination not proactively mandate “new” law).  Apparently, one of the justices in particular, Sonia Sotomayor—perhaps based upon Mr. Obama's longstanding nihilistic example—feels especially entitled to also “make up the rules” as she goes along.

Specifically, Ms. Sotomayor has parlayed her lofty position on the Supreme Court to attract a collection of serfs at her whim as maids, servants, cooks, butlers and chauffeurs in technical violation, this time, of long established U.S. minimum wage labor laws.  Based upon her actions, perhaps Ms. Sotomayor should be rightly viewed as the Leona Helmsey of the court.  Just insert the word “laws” for “taxes” and all of the rest of us 'little people' know exactly where we stand.  In this regard, one wonders if her judicial robes conceal not a gavel, but a queen's scepter.  Hopefully, the unpaid lady's maid who likely dresses Ms. Sotomayor will someday make some bucks with a tell-all book.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Friday, September 4, 2015

MLK's way, not Obama's or hatemongers

With the ever more violent and mutating 'Black Lives Matter' movement which began its faceless reign of terror by looting and burning American cities (Ferguson, MO; Baltimore, MD) to its latest permutation as an anarchist mob that incites targeting unprovoked police officers (NYC: Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos) because of their uniforms — and celebrates a cop's assassination (Houston, TX: Darren H. Goforth) there is no doubt that the person directly responsible for lighting the racial powder keg back in 2009 was our first black, Sal Alinsky community-organizing president who mischaracterized Boston cops as “acting stupidly” in arresting a black Harvard professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr. for the latter's belligerence.  Mr. Obama further stoked the flames of discontent in his knee-jerk sympathy (before all facts were known) with a violent perpetrator ('If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon') who reportedly uttered gay slurs at attack victim, neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman.  On the other hand, when the perpetrator is black (Roanoke, VA: Vester Lee Flanigan II) and/or illegal (SF: Francisco Sanchez) the victims white (Alison Parker/Adam Ward; SF: Kathryn Steinle, respectively), Mr. Obama atrocious public silence is deafening.  But when the "leader of the free world" declares public ignorance of events (and reportedly reads only half of  his presidential daily briefings) by laughably claiming he gets his information from the MSM, do you really expect a guy like that to be responsible for anything at all?

Zachary Wood is correct both in his support of the common sense sentiment that "all lives matter" and that every person must not blame his innocent neighbor for his troubles.  Indeed, his laser-like article, in most respects, shows a sensitivity and an instructive personal insight into the underlying problem in the black community from Mr. Obama on down: the widespread lack of the expression of MLK's definition of character that transcends superficial biological considerations. Put simply, that means accepting individual responsibility for one's behavior regardless of the feeble excuses of skin color, obliviousness of the law, common decency or youthful exuberance.  Where Mr. Wood unfortunately falls short is a critical reality he apparently is hesitant to fully disclose: the lion's share of deaths in the black community approximately 90% per  2013 FBI crime reports are the result of black-on-black homicide.  While vague (but technically true), stating only that "more" (rather than the factually supported term that fits: "almost all") men are killed by other black men than by white police offers ultimately undercuts his other valid assessments.  Similarly, Mr. Wood rightly credits Democratic presidential hopeful, former MD governor Martin O'Malley for his inclusive "all lives matter" statement, but ignores the fact that Mr.  O'Malley   almost immediately publicly recanted his truthful statement with a spineless apology to an outspoken proponent of the before-mentioned 'Black Lives Matter' crew who obviously only values "black" lives to the ridiculous exclusion of all others.  In any case, when out-of-their-depth presidential candidates like he and Bernie Sanders (who fled a public forum so as not to offend, once again, belligerent 'Black Lives Matter' militants), how are either one of these guys to be trusted to handle any "real" problems that any U.S. president must face?

Above all, MLK knew that worldly success for the black community depends on the steadiness of individual good character, racial understanding between whites and blacks, and peaceful coexistence.  That is the polar opposite of what Obama and the 'Black Lives Matter' folks are doing: misusing their visible positions in our society to divide, manipulate, punish or instill fear.  This is an unnecessary reopening of ancient wounds that re-traumatize the American psyche of today for mistakes made in the past by one people upon another, all now long gone.  All lives do matter and the only way forward in dark days is together.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Thursday, September 3, 2015

Hillary Clinton: prison cell not Oval Office

Delusional, morally bankrupt, self-obsessed Hillary Clinton—a metaphorical modern day power-obsessed Lady Macbeth (with the same self-destructive [political] behavior) is the poster child of the dictionary definition of treason: a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state and the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery. (Indeed, staffers should have known something was amiss when the Clinton's movers snatched everything not nailed down when the Clintons left the White House—the people's house—the first time.) Yes, people of Hillary's ilk live by a single axiom: numero uno first, last and always.

Clearly, Mrs. Clinton exists in the rarefied air of ruling class elitists: millionaires and billionaires, and former and future U.S. Presidents. Therefore, the rule of law (and not the fickle dictates of distant kings and emperors for which the American Revolution was fought) is not for her. It is something only to penalize the rest of us—the “little people” laboring in the hamster wheels of part-time jobs (sans health insurance due to Obamacare regulations)—to pay the 18 trillion dollar tab (and counting) of their largesse. We should be grateful for she who would stoop to rule us.

Under Congressional questioning, recall her petulant knee-jerk response to four murdered Americans (including one U.S. Ambassador) in Benghazi when she raged “what difference, at this point, does it make?” Therefore, her callous, blasé attitude (and her recent smarmy joke about using the Snapchat app and automatically deleting emails) is just par for the course. Mrs. Clinton sent and received top secret material (of the 20% currently sampled, 305 are classified) across a non-governmental, unsecured, private server (in clear violation of law) that has likely exposed the nation's vulnerabilities to our enemies. That obliviousness—and the intentional lies of cover-up—are treasonous.

Of this, Watergate reporter Bob Woodward said: “Follow the trail here. There are all these emails. Well, they were sent to someone or someone sent them to her. So, if things have been erased here, there's a way to go back to these emails or who received them from Hillary Clinton. So, you've got a massive amount of data in a way, reminds me of the Nixon tapes: Thousands of hours of secretly recorded conversations that Nixon thought were exclusively his.” Lesser politicians not abetted by a minimizing hard-left MSM would be doomed.

In any case, ignorance of the law is no defense. A far less dire example: former CIA director and retired general David H. Petraeus who shared classified material with his biographer mistress (who incidentally had a security clearance) got prosecuted for his lack of good judgment. As orange is the new black, Mrs. Clinton belongs in the big house not the White House in 2016.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog