Friday, February 26, 2016

2016: “nice” losers, nasty winners

The presidential candidate of Midwestern nostalgia, Ohio governor John Kasich, is a nice man. Unfortunately, the 2016 election cycle is a meat-grinder: equal parts unpredictability and contentiousness, not decency. Therefore, “nice guy” candidates like the highly likable and eminent Dr. Ben Carson, in the same Kasich mold, trail badly in the polls. In any case, the electorate is disillusioned by the establishments of both political parties, as well as the propagandist, one-sided MSM that carries the Democrat's swill of half-truths, misleading statements by omission, and outright cover for lies (like Joe Biden's 1992 "misunderstood" objection to an end-term Republican president making a Supreme Court nomination.) All under Mr.Obama's golf-playing watch: 10 trillion in additional debt; almost 8 more years of economic downturn93 million able-bodied Americans unable to find employment; Democrat's pandering to Radical Islamillegal aliens and Black Lives Matter; Europe awash in 60 million migrants and the Middle East on fire with terrorism. And lest I forget our pro-Islamic president's crowning legacy: the high probability proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East under the control of Iranian ayatollahs.

To any clear thinking person, is it any surprise that everything is “throw the bums out?” (This means you too, House Speaker Paul Ryan, with your “fresh start” 2 trillion dollar budgetary capitulation to Democrats.) In 2016, it takes no genius to realize that voters are fed up to their eyeballs. Consequently, Kasich's fond Americana of homemade apple pies or “I Love Lucy” reruns is out-of-step with the timbre of the country. The long-suffering silent majority is awake, and the political landscape rightfully trembles: a mobilized army is at the Republican ballot box. This unique phenomenon (with obvious causes and contrarily unforeseeable results) is the real life manifestation of “Network” fictional newscaster-prophet Howard Beale's justified rage at the system. Simply put, like him, we're 'mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore.'

Make no mistake: this is a year of unprecedented, hardscrabble political blood-sport. Therefore, genteel non-brawlers for the presidency like Mitt Romney (who had his chance 4 years ago) not only need not apply, they should keep silent by invoking Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment of not speaking ill of fellow Republicans, even primary-leading Donald Trump. After all, we don't need 3 million uninspired conservatives staying home as they did for the “elder statesman of 2012” who gifted Mr. Obama his disastrous second term.

Beyond that, it is a mistake to assume the “mad as hell” ire is just a “guy” thing. Historically anti-suffrage Democrats' bray today about unfairness to women such as the gender pay-gap, but in Hillary Clinton's State Department (that mysteriously “lost” 6 billion) as in Mr. Obama's White House, the hypocrisy of paying women less for the same work is still firmly entrenched. Yet, outrageously, it is not Democrat's being demonized for their real life records of actual economic discrimination. It's the aforementioned nice guy, John Kasich, whose innocuous statement (“of many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me,”) relates to his memory of first running for political office in 1978.

His words are not descriptive of his current view of the role of women in 2016. This rabid MSM distortion is exactly what I mean by the press's “misleading statements.” Rather than faithful and objective reporting decades long gone, the fourth estate intentionally omits context—and actively misconstrues what is said—to mean something never intended. It is also no coincidence that all of these yellow journalistic “dirty tricks” benefit Democrats. How else could a scandal-ladenhabitual liar (under as many as three federal investigations for corruption and influence-peddling) be a lock for her party's presidential nomination?

In psychological terms this disgraceful political dynamic is classic projection. Blaming “others,” specifically Republicans, for the precise mind-set, behavior and policies that they themselves are guilty of. In any case, if it is acceptable to take Kasich to task for his off-the-cuff statement regarding a woman's political role in 1978, it is fair game to also mention a highly relevant front-running Democrat's example. Of course, I coyly refer to 1998's “Zipper-gate” scandal: Hillary's spouse Bill and his paramour, the then blue dress-wearing 22-year-old intern, Monica Lewinsky. My point: seduced by a powerful older man (a U.S. president no less) was that impressionable young woman championed by Hillary—today's “women's rights icon”—or mercilessly criticized by her as a “narcissistic loony toon?”

The subsequent DNA evidence of Bill's extra-marital dalliance proved Hillary's assessment untrue (as with her future, similar misstatements on Benghazi, Server-gate and “Clinton Cash”). Yet, propped up by the media (same as Obama), her false narrative as the “wronged wife” persists to this day. Indeed, Hillary's history of withering attacks on the cadre of women of Bill's '90s “bimbo eruption” demonstrate the pair are no respecters of anything related to women. Further, politicians with the Clinton surname are much more deserving of a prison stint rather than a “rosy” reward of taxpayer-funded habitation in the White House.

All of the above demonstrates that American politics is a dirty, ego-driven business. Unfortunately, the kind and well intentioned get crushed underfoot. The unfair treatment of Kasich (and Carson) is a case and point. There is no room in the current political climate for these men of authenticity. However, as a voice of reason, the role of vice president remains a real possibility to temper the Machiavellian passions of the next U.S. president.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Unearthing first president's slavery bones

In Courtland Milloy's “Washington's birthday got spotlight right: On his slaves” he fails to practice the ancient wisdom in the Latin phrase De mortuis nihil nisi bonum: “of the dead (say) nothing but good.” Last Monday—on what would have been George Washington's 284th birthday—our intrepid race-scribbler visited our first president's home, Mount Vernon. And unlike the rest of us who embrace the everyday tolerances of the 21st century such as generations of accepted interracial marriage—and newly established gay nuptials—only Mr. Milloy is surprised that the slaves' contributions are honored with a special wreath-laying ceremony. For starters, he should have had a clue as the event occurred at the Slave Memorial Circle: a place whose name, and very existence, denotes honor to the mistreated ancestors of our black American brothers.

Beyond those purely ceremonial elements, the slave quarters have been restored, a model of a slave cabin was also built, and an archaeological dig was underway at a burial site. For his part, Mr. Milloy is certainly doing his part to “dig up the cadaver”of America's shameful participation in the 18th century U.S.-African slave trade. Indeed, even students who slept through their history classes know Mount Vernon was a working farm with slave labor. It's no secret. To the contrary, it's not only fact, it's common knowledge. Prominent in every American age, George Washington remains a person of his time, a slave owner (as countless others). Therefore, its specific emphasis in Mr. Milloy's aforementioned title is highly suspect of a 21st century political agenda.

For the record, at 6'2, George Washington literally and metaphorically towered above other great contemporaries: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin to name but a few. Further, as a rarely equaled historical figure—likely more beloved today then during his own lifetime—he remains our 2nd most admired president after union-preserving Abraham Lincoln. That does not negate the fact that he was imperfect like the rest of us, and make mistakes like anyone. So, why Mr. Milloy's specific myopic fixation regarding George Washington's ownership of slaves?

Mr. Milloy neglects to mention any of these mitigating factors including the reality that slavery was an unfortunate, but then necessary economic system to the 18th century mind. Recall, the Industrial Revolution, and mechanization, had not yet happened. In any case, in 21st century hindsight no civilized person would approve of such inhumane practices to one's fellow human beings. Therefore, what is its newsworthy relevance to today's Washington Post?

The answer is Black Lives Matter. The tortured, gerrymandered argument goes as follows: historical slavery (over since 1865) is “proof” that America has been a racist society since its inception—just look at Founding Father George—a slave owner! See: (despite the election of Barack Obama to the presidency twice) black lives sure didn't matter then—and almost 300 years later—they don't matter now. Utter nonsense to any clear thinking person with a pulse. Only a Washington Post “reporter” could twist a story that actually demonstrates open acknowledgment of past grievances into one claiming intolerance, its polar opposite.

As newspaper placement is everything, that's on the cover page of the Metro section, left, below the fold. Meanwhile, as an after-thought, buried in the back, bottom right corner is the bare bones mention of the February 12th mugging and beating of a targeted soldier, Marine veteran Christopher A. Marquez, at a McDonald's by three Black Lives Matter youths. Despite being on video, the powers-that-be in D.C. investigating the incident are unwilling to readily accept the bronze star-decorated victim's explanation for the crime's motive without corroboration. Yet, its meaning is obvious: “black” lives matter, non-black ones not so much. So it is with The Washington Post. While it's laudable that their pages honor the memory of slaves long-dead, where they struggle mightily is in their defense of a majority of the living.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

President as celebrity-in-chief

TV's “The Apprentice” P.T. Barnum-style pitchman Donald Trump is riding the high tide of politician as celebrity. It may lead to an exclusive Pennsylvania Avenue address, but if so, he's not the first to get there. Politics as pop culture entertainment was first harnessed by blue dress intern-chasing “Slick Willie” himself, Bill Clinton. In 1993, a youthfully rakish, shade-wearing future president played the saxophone on the Arsenio Hall Show. He also brazenly told the MTV generation whether he wore boxers or briefs (so Monica Lewinsky need not be consulted on the matter).

Likewise in 2007, Joe Biden's storybook 'first mainstream African-American who is articulate, bright, clean and nice-looking' had the same shiny newness as Bill—and a cool aloofness that appealed to superficial millennials, twice. In all three cases, Clinton, Obama and potentially Trump, all appeal to the lowest common denominator of the American electorate. Bill ran as a baby-boomer, regular guy centrist and won. Likewise, Obama successfully hid his ultra-liberal mind-set, ran on the nebulous slogan “hope and change,” and also won. Now we have Mr. Trump following suit, except his is a red-hot firebrand style of making dubious, wild promises (Mexican-paid border wall-building; expelling 11 million illegal squatters) absent specific plans.

To a man, theirs is the power of image and personality. Indeed, none of the above should be taken seriously or have the opportunity to hold the most important office in the world.

America does not need another unpredictable, “celebrity” egotist as president in 2017. 

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Saturday, February 20, 2016

Pope Francis: more politician than pontiff

In traditional Catholic parlance, the Latin monogram IHS means Iesus Hominum Salvator or “Jesus Savior of Mankind.” But in the 21 century pop culture world—where empty-headed Kim Kardashian is inexplicably famous (“The pope is dope”) and an aloof, talk show-junkie U.S. president is “too cool” to respect Constitutional limits—to this oddball triumvirate we add pope-turned-politician Francis. As with Mr. Obama's ever-intrusive interference, likewise for Francis, apparently focus on religion and spiritual matters are not enough. For him, IHS translates into: 'I'm Hypocritical, Seriously.' Indeed, has any pope in modern times been so agenda-driven or inserted himself so readily into the election of a future American president?

Hours after praying for Mexican migrants who died trying to reach the United States illegally, the pope took the opportunity to bring attention to his pro-illegal alien stance in violation of U.S. secular law by answering a question related to Donald Trump's promised U.S. border wall (paid for by Mexico). His response:

“A person who thinks only about building walls — wherever they may be — and not building bridges, is not Christian.” Francis added, “I’d just say that this man is not Christian if he said it this way.”

That's quite an interesting position. So anybody who wants to build border walls “is not Christian,” is that it? How about someone already living safely ensconced behind them? Naturally, I refer to the 39-foot walled city, the Vatican. Granted the fortifications were there well before March 13, 2013 when this 266 pope of the Roman Catholic Church came to power. However, if he's serious on this subject why hasn't he already done a Reaganesque “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”?

Living in Europe, surely this “intercessor for God” is well aware of the 60 million displaced migrants literally flooding into Europe from the war-torn Middle East. Of course, I jest about the need to remove walls (or prevent them like “bridge-building” Pope Francis). Yet, as he is the Holy Father, what's to stop him from dismissing the Swiss guard and throwing open the gates to the downtrodden? (Imagine how many thousands the thick, protective walls of the Vatican could accommodate!)

My point: he's not serious, beyond the lip service of saying and doing the things that cast the Catholic Church in a positive light. Living in a palatial fortress that is literally its own country, he's a limousine liberal chauffeured instead in a Fiat 500L. A superficial demonstration of his “regular guy” status. Importantly, recognize the equivalent Obama-like hypocrisy, Francis's version of “teachable moment” political optics: publicly scolding another with migrant advice he is loath to personally practice. Specifically, Pope Francis's outspoken MSM-reported condemnation of the l'enfant terrible political phenomenon that is Donald Trump is intended (as everything he does) to constantly burnish the Church's historically dubious reputation in the wider court of public opinion. To reference Scripture, Mark 12:17: “And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” Simply put, too much politician's gamesmanship—not enough pope.

Up until this latest dust-up, crossing swords with Republican front-runner Donald Trump, Pope Francis had been coasting with Obama 2008-like popularity and “newness.” To relate his position to Obama's in today's America, the honeymoon is officially over. All thanks to the uncensored buzz saw who may very well be the next president of the United States.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Friday, February 19, 2016

For the future: a 2017 anti-amnesty Conservative; A whimsical essay on politics—and time-travel

There's a funny line in the original “Back to the Future” (1985) movie where teenager Marty McFly uses an altered DeLorean to time-travel back to 1955 to the creator of the time machine, Emmett Brown. The inventor inquires who is president in Marty's future. When told, Brown's incredulous reaction: “Ronald Reagan? The actor? Then who's the vice-president? Jerry Lewis?”

That was always the unfair knock of Democrats on Reagan: he was really just an actor “playing at” being commander-in-chief. But the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Cold War and the economic collapse of the Soviet Union, then, proved Reagan very much the genuine article. Reagan symbolized the unbreakable American spirit of positive expectation, self-determination and self-reliance. He knew: America can accomplish anything—even the inconceivable—which he achieved in large measure.

What is required is simply the will to do a thing, steered by Christian morality and informed ultimately by kindness and charity. Indeed, his very American political philosophy of “peace through strength” put the Soviets, among others, rightfully on their backsides. Unlike today, his word was backed up by the big stick of unparalleled American military might as well as the carrot of authentic friendship. History bears out the truth: when Reagan spoke, enemies and naysayers alike listened—and in most cases—capitulated. To him, America was a “shining city on a hill;” a light that has dimmed considerably in recent years due to less clear thinking—and less capable leadership.

Contrast that to the anti-Reagan we have in office now: a chronically responsibility-phobic, “lead from behind,” weak-kneed, politically tone-deaf apologist of Western values; a rabble-rousing wholesale disregarder of law, precedent and the Constitution itself; a golf-obsessed Jerry Lewis fop on the world stage emboldening America's enemies and geopolitical foes while simultaneously alienating traditional allies like Israel. Indeed, 7 years of Mr. Obama's tirelessly schoolmarmish “teachable moment” finger-pointing—and equally feckless “red line” pronouncements—are completely ignored by bad actors like Vladimir Putin and ISIS who have flourished in the vacuum where American dominance used to be.

What we have, unfortunately, is an inflexible ideologue of scant ability whose every decision hobbles American strength at home and abroad. To draw a parallel to Chicago—the community Mr. Obama “organized” whose homicide rate (like Baltimore's) is skyrocketing—other “Chicagos” are popping up all over the globe: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and North Africa. The specter of ISIS has metastasized, destabilizing the Middle East causing the record-breaking torrent of 60 million migrants disrupting Europe to a greater degree than the terrorism that killed 129 innocents in Paris.

Paris proves that it only takes a handful of radicalized, armed militants. Yet, Mr. Obama can't wait to throw open the doors to a potential small army of 10,000 migrants from Syria; interestingly 96% Islamic versus only 3% Christian. However, given the logic that the terrorist acts are directly tied to religious fervor—and since there is no government to vouch for this group or other practical way to vet them—a litmus test (at minimum) makes sense to someone like Ted Cruz who actually cares about the future safety of the American people.

As commander-in-chief, Mr. Obama has the implicit responsibility to protect us from all enemies foreign and domestic. As with porous borders, Mr. Obama has the welcome mat already laid out. To him, any other policy is “... not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.” I, for one, would very much like to know when Mr. Obama's compassion for home-grown Americans is going to start.

This same brand of “compassion” has contributed mightily to the accumulation of 11 million non-Americans within our country or is it 12? Nobody knows the exact number of faceless de facto squatters, hence the logistical problem. Yet, each and every one of them shares a universal label: flagrant flouter of our laws (á la Mr. Obama). Like the president, the current House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) is wrong about the practicality and success of forced relocations. The powers-that-be in government don't like it—frankly neither do I—but mass deportations are called for.

There is precedent: the 1950s “Operation Wetback” expelled 1.5 million Mexicans. No doubt, the process will be ugly. Yet, none of the displaced is a victim as illegal aliens (not squishy, nonsensical politically correct terms like “undocumented immigrants”) chose to come here by their own means rather than honoring our in-place immigration system. In any case, a society is only “fair” when all abide equally to democratically-created laws. Under Democrats—for all the reasons articulated above—is it any wonder why our society is so polarized, fragmented and dysfunctional?

Since we can't time travel to 1980 or 1860, it will take a leader both with Reagan's fortitude and Lincoln's vision (in ending slavery for future, unborn generations) to do that which is difficult and necessary—rather than the 'go-along-get-along' political expediency that has gotten us into these colossal messes in the first place. That's not the Democrats who manipulate America into “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” so long as they can use the influx of new voters to hold political power in perpetuity. Similarly, of the contenders across the aisle, that's also not establishment Republicans (Bush), those soft on immigration (Rubio) or inclined to further compromise (Carson; Trump).

That's my litmus test for president in 2017 and the list is maddeningly short: Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina (withdrawn). Like Marty McFly, I dearly wish I had that time-traveling DeLorean idling in the driveway, ready to bring the perfect candidate “Back to the Future” for Inauguration Day in 2017.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Rare political football fumbles

Generally, I swear by the learned views of Washington Times columnists rather than at them.  But these political “bedfellows” must have collectively got off the wrong side of the mattress Tuesday morning. 

Regarding R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.'s “Hillary the Inevitable:” he completely neglects to mention the all-important super-delegates—30% of the total dictated by Democrat party “insiders” like madam's husband Bill (no nepotism there) —which gives Hillary a 394 to 44 lead over socialist Sanders heading into Clinton-friendly South Carolina's upcoming Saturday primary.  Further, this Soviet-style control (tellingly non-existent in the GOP) ensures no repeat upstart candidate á la Barack Obama in 2008.  Lastly, as Socialist/Democrat talking heads have no discernible differences of opinion on any issue, one needs no “lucky” Iowa coin flips to understand the pack mentality.  Even no-go gaff-prone Joe knows: the fix is in for Clinton 2.0 in 2016.

Regarding Charles Hurt's “[K]amikazi stunt by Ted Cruz”: I, for one, am glad someone with a history of filibustering Obamacare is on record to put the kibosh on whatever animal, vegetable or mineral Mr. Obama nominates to the Supreme Court to replace recently deceased conservative icon Antonin Scalia.  As a Harvard-trained lawyer, Mr. Cruz is better equipped to understand the proper meaning of “advise and consent” rather than Mr. Hurt.  Ted's right: Republican's control the legislative agenda (read: voting).  To inform this lame-duck president his goose is cooked in this matter is “advising.”  Such an action is well within the Senate's purview not to give “consent.” 

Mr. Cruz both honors the Constitution and stands up for principle, something scandal-prone Hillary is completely devoid of.  That's called backbone: a thing sorely lacking in jellied beltway politicians.  Incidentally, its absence also explains Donald Trump's meteoric rise in the polls.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Monday, February 15, 2016

Missing toilet paper and asinine Democrats

In America, toilet paper is so plentiful, it's like it grows on trees or something. It's literally available everywhere. From big-box stores with industrial-sized multi-packs to conventional local retailers to neighborhood convenience stores. It's even available in dollar stores for the frugal. Likewise, it is found in unexpected places such as technology specialists like Staples. (Why does one need to buy toilet paper with one's new internet-ready laptop? Let's not speculate.) Yet, regardless of the quality of the business, all of these vendors have the same thing in common: all are for-profit, Capitalist enterprises. In fact, despite the obviously rabid competition, the U.S. toilet paper marketplace is so robust novelty stores like Spencer's carry Obama toilet paper (or Hillary, if that is your preference for a no doubt chafing bum-wipe). Compare this circumstance with that of the Socialist government of Venezuela infamous for their toilet paper shortages—among other basic staples like soap, coffee, milk or sugar. Indeed, if the unlikely Socialist Bernie Sanders comes to power, how will his empty-headed millennial supporters enjoy their Sharia law-compliant Starbucks when the aforementioned ingredients are unavailable? No doubt there will be a collective gnashing of teeth as these minions stand in Socialist-inspired unemployment lines snaking around the block without their pacifying $6.00 European-style cups of Joe.

Could average Americans imagine staying at a luxury hotel—or a Budget Inn for that matter—where one must bring their own toilet paper along with other toiletries like bars of soap? That was true in Russia in the 1990s and it's true of Venezuela today. In 16 years of Chavista rule, the brown stuff has hit the fan—and there's isn't enough Charmin in the whole country to clean it up. Capitalism is an economic high tide that raises all boats. Contrarily, Democrats' divisive speeches about “inequality” are intended to place everyone—except naturally themselves, the ruling elite—in the same boat of lowered prospects of government dependence. This is the Democrat's political plantation and Bernie and Hillary are the odd couple mismanaging the funny farm.

To this end, Sanders' brays about class warfare, economic differences of the one-percenters he demonizes for not paying enough—even though they're almost 50% of the tax base. Not to be undone, pot-stirring kitchen wench Hillary promotes gender and racial discord. Despite subtly different tacks, both appeal to the basest human instincts: hatred, envy and intolerance. Like wicked pied pipers, they feed their followers a noxious societal stew that transforms America á la Obama by ripping it apart by its seams. Their political wedges serve as personal stepping stones to higher office. While the masses eke out low-rent existences in dilapidated, government-run housing projects, they live in palatial estates. Think Imelda Marcus' cavernous closet of designer shoes or Saddam Hussein's palace of golden toilets. Let me be clear: Democrats/Socialists care not one whit for the public's well-being, only wielding political power. Their scandal-prone liar of a front-runner Hillary Clinton's only pressing concern is not her likely criminality, it is her electability.

Less tenacious politicians might worry about federal indictment related to Server-gate or “Clinton Cash” influence-bartering, but not Hillary. She knows Mr. Obama's Justice Department is compromised and will not prosecute for a simple political reality: she's the only game in town. Likewise, she will never worry about “wiping” things with a cloth (or something else with paper products) beyond the 30,000 emails from her private computer server. Indeed, she exists in the protective bubble of the Secret Service she ironically despises—among the trappings of vast wealth: mansions, limousines and private jets. She of the 6-figure speaking fee is so out-of-touch with her fellow citizens, she hasn't driven a car in decades (1996) let alone worry about paying the rent or where her next meal is coming from. With 7 years of economic downturn under Obama, no rational person would publicly praise the worst president in modern memory unless to publicly convey that she will benefit him personally by continuing his “legacy.” Indeed, to sabotage her presidential ambitions would likely result in the election of a repealing-Republican president; an absolutely abhorrent alternative to the current occupant of the Oval Office.

With an ever-rising 19 trillion debt and a host of dire problems at home and abroad, the electorate will be whistling past the graveyard that is American Capitalist prosperity under the yolk of 4 more years of a Socialist/Democrat. With 93 million able-bodied Americans out of the workforce, the present administration already lies about the absurdity of a 4.9% unemployment rate. Should the future feature the new-normal of mass shortages, bread lines, black markets and blatant theft by unassailable government officials á la Russia?

These universal calling cards of Socialism are heralded surprisingly by an absence of toilet paper. Loss of such a bathroom necessity concretely demonstrates that the Democratic/Socialism on offer by Hillary/Bernie fails miserably everywhere it is tried. Including, historically, here, when it was tried by the Pilgrims in 1620. The Pilgrim's lesson: without the incentive of profit for hard work, why be productive at all? It's common sense, basic human nature Bernie and Hillary are completely oblivious to. Today's version of the “workers' paradise” these rascals promote is a pipe dream, another dystopian hope-and-change nightmare. Those unfortunates metaphorically flushing their votes for Burnie or Hillary should start hoarding the TP now.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Friday, February 12, 2016

Democrat primaries: Soviet style

Your name is Hillary Clinton. You run for president. 6 different dead-locked precincts tossing tie-breaking coins all fall your way. Per Las Vegas oddsmakers, six consecutive appearances of heads-or-tails is a statistical probability of 1.5%. That's 64-to-1 against, an exceedingly lucky outcome. For Democrats, there is no hand–wringing, no equivalent “hanging chads” controversy. Unlike Bush/Gore in 2000 in Florida there are no multiple re-counts demanded, no cadre of lawyers dispatched to Iowa, no lawsuits filed. Mrs. Clinton claims victory before all the results were tallied, ultimately managing a microscopic victory of 4 delegates. That's people not percentage points. (Does she know something the rest of us don't?)

In New Hampshire Bernie Sanders—an avowed Socialist who took his blushing bride to Russia for their honeymoon—gave madame real shellacking by 22 percent. A Donald Trump-like primary performance. That translates into 15 delegates for him to her 9. However, despite the Iowa virtual tie and the clear New Hampshire win, it turns out today that Bernie's been burnt. That's because in the all-important delegate count—the convention electors who ultimately select the Democrat's presidential nominee—she leads him going into Clinton-friendly South Carolina 394 to 44.

Non-existent in the Republican Party for the very good reason that they can easily thwart the voters' intentions, the discrepancy lies in little-understood Democrat superdelegates. These are the “important” people, party insiders like Bill Clinton (no nepotism there). Instituted in 1982—no doubt in large part to Ronald Reagan's landslide 1980 victory over unpopular incumbent Jimmy Carter—superdelegates are designed to prevent brokered conventions and their result: weak or insurgent candidates. They make up 712, a whopping 30% of the 2,382 delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination.

Importantly, unlike Republicans, the Democrat's modern election “process” is ironically autocratic not democratic. Superdelegates may ensure a unified decision-making process, but it is top-down and based upon the party's stamp of approval rather than a generalized expression of whom the voters want. In this way, a top-down process is antithetical to the traditional bottom-up process the Founding Fathers intended: common people choosing informed electors who in turn chose the nominee.

But it's worse than that. Superdelegates beholden to no one—save the party itself—make this nominating process inherently corrupt, based upon back-room dealing completely removed from the American people's influence. Case and point is New Hampshire. With 2 uncommitted, 6 of the 8 superdelegates support Hillary. That evens the scale in the contest to a tie of 15 apiece. Indeed, months before a single vote was cast, Hillarystarted the race with 15% of the total she needs.

Simply put, Hillary wins even though she loses. Superdelegates prove the fix is in, the creeping Clinton coronation is actually in full swing. Likewise, the MSM-moderated debates are a complete sham, extended political commercials peppered with softball questions. In the final analysis, how is this any different then Russia when Vladimir Putin is the only name on the ballot?

Apparently untroubled, debate handshaking Bernie comfortably plays his role in this “Democratic” farce that guarantees Hillary the nomination.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

The corrupt ivory tower of Socialism

If elected leaders were fundamentally altruistic—unselfishly devoted to the empowerment of their fellow man—the theory of collectivism might have promise. The widespread sentiment would have to be consistently along the philosophical lines of JFK's “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” But it's not. The present generation of “Democrats” promote the polar opposite perspective. It is the use of often faceless, bureaucratic government to promote cradle-to-grave economic dependence with themselves, naturally, the elected head of the food chain. That's the maddeningly indifferent DMV experience of running healthcare via Obamacare, except for everything. In other words, this is tyranny of big government á la George Orwell's dystopian “1984.” Make no mistake, Big Brother's name in 2016 is Bernie “90% tax rate” Sanders. And not to leave madame out of the equation, Big Sister is scandal-prone, chronic liar Hillary Clinton.

Speaking of spewing a torrent of lies, during the infamous Benghazi hearings when Hillary Clinton said “What difference, at this point, does it make?” was she clandestinely referring to the phony choice that is the Democrat/Socialist alternative? That is why she and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz can't explain a difference because—newsflash—there isn't one. If you have two candidates promoting versions of the same statist agenda, the snookered and befuddled voters will choose the genuine article not the one under potential, future federal indictment (read:Server-gate). Despite Mrs. Clinton's often-cited novelty of her own sex as a presidential candidate, that's why Mr. Sanders leads in the polls and will win in New Hampshire. Madeleine Albright says women will go to hell for not voting for Hillary, I assure you the country will if women (or men) do.

It is not that Bernie Sanders is so “hip” to millenials, it is that he a better used car salesman of the complete fallacy of “free stuff.” It's Bernie Sanders as a red-suited pseudo-Santa Claus promising, for example, “free” college tuition, a yearly 70 billion tab to the taxpayer in a country with a 19 trillion dollar debt—and growing by the nanosecond. Unfortunately, this generation is so accustomed to helicopter mommies and daddies paying their bills, it is not a stretch for them to believe Uncle Sam can be gerrymandered into a surrogate fiscal “father.” Politically, this is standard class warfare, the demonized 1 percent “haves” versus the 99 percent “have-nots.” It keeps the masses stirred up, angry and blaming somebody else for their personal woes—and not incidentally electing candy-promising Democrats. Specifically, it's buying votes with other people's money á la Obama's financial redistributionist schemes like the aforementioned Obamacare. But it is even more insidious than that. It is the grievance culture manipulated by the Democratic ruling class to keep themselves perpetually in power that destroys American society like a cancer from within. Witness the last 7 years of the “fundamental transformation of America:” progressives are more than content to rule in a socialistic hell of their own design.

This divisive political wedge is straight out of the Democrat's political playbook. The fact that it is used even more effectively by Mr. Sanders than by Mrs. Clinton, once again, concretely demonstrates that there is no daylight in their politics. Despite publicly cursing capitalists, with a wink-and-a-nod both take Wall Street money. The back-and-forth finger-pointing between the two is just a sham given their famous debate handshake. Let me be clear: the choice boils down to anti-American socialism under the appropriated Democrat brand or conservative, can-do American exceptionalism. Pick a name out of a hat, any of the diverse bench of Republicans will be a vast improvement.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Thursday, February 4, 2016

Obama's faith: hidden in plain sight

As a so-called Christian Mr. Obama should easily recognize Romans 2:6 in which it is written: “God will repay each person according to what they have done.” Applying colloquial language to Scripture it means 'evaluate every person by their behavior not their words'. With this sensible standard as a guide, Mr. Obama is so stalwart in his Christian faith that when giving a 2012 speech at Catholic-founded Georgetown University all religious signs and symbols were covered up including the small letters IHS, signifying the name of Jesus Christ. And while religious views are ultimately private, between an individual and his or her form of deity, they do seep into public acts that make those personal intentions knowable.

In the selfsame spirit of Hans Christian Andersen's fable “The Emperor's New Clothes,” the selfish, fictional ruler tricked by his tailor prances around in his underwear falsely believing that he is instead wearing an invisible robe of incalculable worth and beauty. A real life parallel of this dynamic is Mr. Obama's “invisible” religious views. His tiny American flag lapel pin notwithstanding, Mr. Obama also dons an invisible robe, a metaphysical Burka, Muslim women's grab of silent submission to Islam. This is clearly demonstrated by his well established pro-Islamic/anti-Christian bias. It is further borne out by his veiled reference to the Islamic call to prayer is “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.” Recall his formative years: an Indonesian childhood indoctrinated by the study of the Islamic holy book the Koran. (Not exactly a typical upbringing for a U.S. president of a Judeo-Christian country.)

Further substantiation of this truth can be gleaned by Mr. Obama's first domestic visit, Wednesday, to a mosque in Baltimore. Despite thismosque's terrorist ties with the Obama-supported Muslim Brotherhood (in Egypt, after a July 2013 military coup that deposed former leader Mohamed Morsi), the president's comfort level in this foreign religious environment was obvious. Indeed he spoke among clearly displayed and proudly uncovered symbols of the Islamic faith. Most telling was the video image of his head haloed by a word wall in which “Allah” is etched 99 times in large Arabic symbols. Alas that the symbols of Christ do not receive equal veneration and respect by this “Christian” who has previously gone by the name Barry Soetoro.

Why show his true religious proclivities now? Given his lame-duck status in the finally year of his disastrous presidency apparently he feels he has nothing else to lose. So he says 'Thank you' to American Muslims for their phantom contributions to American society. The rest of his speech was standard, polarizing fare, anti-Republican rhetoric and finger-waving condemnation of supposed Islamic bigotry such as “We have to reject a politics that seeks to manipulate prejudice or bias and targets people because of religion.” One wonders whether Mr. Obama is speechifying about others or simply himself.

As with his policy failures, his religious views are completely out-of-whack with average Americans. Indeed, homeland mosques remain unmolested. They quietly stand, silent brick and mortar witnesses to widespread American religious tolerance Mr. Obama is loath to recognize. Contrast that to Christian churches which are often targets of violence and murder. Mr. Obama only pays lip-service to travesties committed against Christians. In obtuse, gerrymandered rationalizations, he separates the Islamic religious element from the radicalized terrorist (whom by the perpetrator's own admission acknowledges that barbarous acts are due to religious fervor).

For 20 years, Mr. Obama supposedly sat in a pew of the Christian church of anti-American ranting Jeremiah “America's chickens are coming home to roost” Wright who proclaimed from the pulpit “God damn America.” Not exactly mainstream views, Christian or otherwise. Couple that confusion with a September 2008 pre-election first term interview with George Stephanopoulous in which Mr. Obama said:

“You’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith and you’re absolutely right that that has not …”
Stephanopoulous (interrupting): “Your Christian faith.”
Obama: “My Christian faith. Well, what I’m saying …”

This was not a misstatement as portrayed by the MSM, but a rare and truthful slip of the then-candidate's forked tongue. Based upon context—the ongoing 7 year pattern of concrete deeds—one can only surmise an active and “secret” Muslim faith. No other reasonable conclusion can be drawn.

In any case, America is a great, forgiving and tolerant enough country because it did elect this enigma to the presidency not once, but twice. This is even more amazing given Mr. Obama's longstanding, public demonstrations of anti-American, anti-Christian stances fueled by rumors and innuendo that will rightfully dog his person—and his legacy—as likely the worst U.S. president to ever hold the office.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

D.C. government's dysfunctional lemonade stand

The D.C. license plate slogan “Taxation without Representation,” just scratches the surface of the Orwellian farce that is the local D.C. government. Local politicians have been griping about statehood for the District for decades. Apparently to them, a mayor, a 13-member city council and a non-voting member in Congress, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), doesn't rise to the level of “representation” they seek. For instance, in the case of living-large Ms. Holmes Norton, she's entitled to a cushy annual salary of $174,000. Yet, she doesn't doesn't do much for it, her bellwether accomplishment is advocating the public’s right to sled on Capitol Hill.

Last Monday, the colorful characters that populate the city council gave preliminary approval to the Neighborhood Engagement Achieves Results Amendment Act (NEAR). Beyond a catchy acronym, this legislation would pay at-risk youths assumed to be predisposed to criminality a $9,000 stipend to stay out of trouble at least within the confines of the District. (Adjoining Maryland and Virginia, you are on your own.) Ward 5 Democrat Councilman Kenyan McDuffie, proponent of this bright idea said, “The goal will be to identify our teenagers and young adults at the highest risk for committing or being a victim of violent crimes, for participation in a stipend-based program involving life planning, trauma informed therapy and mentorship.” No doubt Mr. McDuffie's crystal ball will be at the ready—and it will have to be as all participants, naturally, will be anonymous.  This Obama-like transparency ensures no accountability to the proposed program whatsoever.

If fully passed, this bill would initially pay 200 D.C. residents “not to become criminals” at an “untenable” annual cost, per District chief financial officer Jeffrey DeWitt, of $3.9 million or $25.6 million over four years. It's a devious taxpayer-funded scheme worthy of the Corleone Family in “The Godfather.” Except it's not a shakedown enacted by fictional mobsters, but real life choices of elected officials who mismanage local D.C. affairs. Recall, these selfsame people hungrily lick their chops at the elevated influence D.C. statehood would give them.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog