Thursday, March 31, 2016

Washington via myopic homestead

With the panorama of the nation's capital, like a “happening” banquet of low-hanging fruit, Washington Post columnist John Kelly can't seem to get beyond the confines of his driveway or his latest involving the contents of his mailbox.

Last August, he detailed the slight public interest curiosity of mating leopard slugs nesting on his property's border wall. This week he moves the short distance to his mailbox, and to a new low: a column concerning a high-class credit card mailer. Yet, his appropriately snarky reaction to the glossy flyer only amounts to a free Post advertisement for MasterCard. Is that the best this scribe of all-things-Washington can find to focus on? A topic so inane it lacks even a smidgen of the creativity of his now famous squatters, those frisky leopard slugs?

Seriously? That someone can make a very good living at such a racket—apparently enough to afford that gold-plated Luxury Card —proves that America is still the land of opportunity. After all, where else could someone get away with filling such pricey space in a major newspaper with such utter nonsense? I shutter to think what triviality is next for John Kelly's Washington.

From exposing presidential wrongdoing like Nixon's Watergate scandal to this?  It's both a real come down and a real head scratcher. 

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog 

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Michelle's Chastising, Honest Mirror

If ever there are two peas in a political pod they are Barack and Michelle Obama. Even before Mr. Obama's first election Michelle Obama said of her fascist hubby, “Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.” That sounds like something that would come easily out of the mouth of a Castro spouse rather than a supposedly liberty-loving first lady. Indeed, Obama and wife are chock-full of these nebulous statements which when seen correctly lay plain their anti-Americanism (that the similarly biased MSM ignores.) Family vacationing from Cuba or passively watching her mindless husband tango in Buenos Aires, who besides brain-washed millennials (who waste their votes on Socialist Bernie Sanders) believe in the Obamas' fidelity to America?

While Courtland Milloy's biological age technically precludes him from the millennial generation, his role as The Washington Post's resident racial-scribbler—and his latest Michelle Obama puff piece—has the same probative value as millennial ideas about future political leadership. Of this lady, Mr. Milloy sycophantically sings the blues: “Michelle Obama, still standing tall, chin up, despite nearly eight years of enduring... racial contempt for the Obamas [and] an unprecedented barrage of ugliness toward her.” Fundamentally, this statement is patently false, and irrational. Precisely how can a voting citizenry who freely, proudly and publicly elevate the first Afro-American couple to the White House—not once, but twice—be secretly guilty of “racial contempt?”

In retrospect, although well-intentioned, a hope-filled American people foolishly gave the Obamas an eight-year key to the kingdom: stewardship of the greatest country in the world. In return, the Obamas—like the petulant low-rent tenants they are—have entirely squandered a golden opportunity to unify the nation as MLK dreamed. Worse, they have been MLK's antithesis, having wrecked the joint abroad (read: the Middle East) and at home. Domestically, they have constantly exploited “history-based racial grievances” (read: Democrats' victimization playbook) whenever a gracefully long-suffering public (not Michelle as Mr. Milloy wrongly claims) legitimately complains about her husband's job-killingwealth redistribution policies. For example, almost 10 trillion added to the debt is just one of the Obama booby prizes left to yet unborn future American generations to pay for. Exactly who is being ugly here? Is it the Obamas who act with the carelessness of Roman emperors or the American people who have generously entrusted them with such never-ending faith?

It's a wonder to me that a beneficiary of more than seven years of tax-payer funded 24-hour Secret Service protection would ever have “ a lot of sleepless nights... fearing how my girls world feel if they found out what some people were saying about their mom.” So, 'Madam Political Correctness'—like all proponents of anti-First Amendment word-burning—worries about what other people say about her. That's a pretty high class problem to any Chicago mother whose child is gunned down by the ongoing, almost daily black-on-black homicide ignored by the Obamas since their 2008 departure. Mr. Milloy equates the act of one unhinged gunman that broke a White House window in September 2014 or the generations-removed vandalized Georgia monument (dedicated to her slavery-born great-great-great grandmother) as spurious evidence of how she has greatly suffered ugliness to rule us. Meanwhile, ensconced in perpetual 5-star accommodations (that would make pampered Marie Antoinette green with envy) with Air Force One at the ready and a cadre of personal assistants in tow, the Obamas' attitude of arrogant entitlement has disgraced MLK's memory in the same manner as their lack of care has betrayed the black community.

Under the guise of the yellowest journalism, Courtland Milloy repeatedly promotes the general fiction of hidden “American racism.” To reiterate today's “proof”: a toppled marker and a broken window. To any clearly thinking person, how do two isolated, indirect acts of criminality demonstrate anything of greater importance? Simple answer: they don't. Leftist ideologue Milloy has manipulated these unremarkable, unconnected occurrences to conjure a bogeyman out of whole cloth designed to silence warranted criticism of Ms. Pouty-Face 'hashtag bring home our girls.' (Incidentally, since her 2014 selfie, it seems the hundreds of kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls by the Islamic Extremist group Boko Haram have fallen completely off the Obama radar—same as America's current prospects as the Obamas globe trot to tropical locales: Cuba, Buenos Aires and beyond.)

Mr. Milloy's fortuitous column artificially burnishes Michelle Obama's flagging reputation, much like that of her politically lame-duck husband. It's all rubbish, of course. A distraction from all of the above; a change of subject from the real 300-pound gorilla shrieking a reality that no one in the MSM will address. That truth: criticism of the Obamas has nothing whatsoever to do with skin color. It never has. In the 21st century, the American people have graduated to the consistent use of MLK's content of character as a means of evaluation. (Proof of this is seen everywhere in the greater acceptance of gay rights and gay marriage.)

In the case of the Obamas, they have failed to honor American economic and geo-political interests or dearly-held cultural values. All the while, they are rightly blamed for living-large while the rank and file have suffered mightily under the inept, tone-deaf ministrations of Mr. Obama—and his no better, coddled wife.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Sunday, March 27, 2016

Obama: a 21st century Nero?

Myth has it that Roman Emperor Nero (15 December 37 AD – 9 June 68 AD), fiddled while Rome burned. Historians tell us this story isn't 100 percent true. Violins didn't technically exist in 64 AD, but Nero—and the six-day Great Fire of Rome that destroyed approximately three-quarters of the city—were real enough. At the time, Nero blamed Christian scapegoats (then an obscure sect) for all the trouble. Sounds a lot like our current Islam-inclined U.S. president, and a political landscape where history is repeating itself.

Another telling parallel, like every opportunistic fascist, Nero happily used the crisis to clear land for his planned palatial complex—the Golden House—the Domus Aurea. You read that correctly: the buildings and ornamental gardens were already planned. This disruptive circumstance—which made half of Rome's residents homeless—makes for nice symbolism for Mr. Obama's own corrosive philosophy, the “fundamental transformation of America.” That too is burn, baby burn, metaphorically-speaking, of course.

In Nero's time, his understandably skeptical citizenry suspected he caused the calamity to promote his personal agenda, but nothing was ever proven. Mr. Obama is no different in this regard. For example, his longstanding, well publicized attitude of 'stupidly-acting cops' and 'if I had a son he'd look like Trayvon' similarly exploit misfortune to advance his own anti-law and order mind-set. In this same vein, using televised speeches to figuratively 'crack a few police noggins together' foments crises that force the vague “change” of Mr. Obama's 2008 campaign slogan.

As a result of the last more than seven chaotic years of his Constitution-violating overreach, the political needle has swung violently hard left. He has accomplished this with an imperialist's disregard for established law. Moreover, he has also ignored custom by jerry-rigging the reassuring presidential podium into a rabble-rousing bully pulpit. His aforementioned publicly uttered racial pronouncements have encouraged the vigilantism of the Black Lives Matter mob. However, the Obama clan has no skin in the game. Unlike the rest of us, they enjoy armed 24-hour Secret Service protection.

This past week, to add further injury to the Western psyche, his anti-American ideology is in full flower from nearby Cuba; a totalitarian slave-state, and communist bur in America's side since JFK's 1960s. His extended selfie photo op, a three-day Obama family vacation, will do nothing to promote human rights or the American ideals of freedom or liberty. This “unconventional” choice contrarily highlights Mr. Obama's paper tiger legacy while simultaneously further obscuring his still-undisclosed true intentions (amid an already murky personal background.)

Unfortunately, a checkered reputation is not new phenomenon in politicians. Today, as Nero, our national leaders are similarly skilled at keeping their own fingerprints off of suspected wrongdoing. Think of Hillary Clinton's habitual lies, stream of subject-dodging double-speak, and her many scandals: BenghaziServer-gate and Charity-gate (also known as “Clinton Cash” influence-bartering). All of this brown haze, its corrupt stink dogs Democrats like a nebulous, intangible political smog.  It doesn't matter too much with a supportive propagandist MSM in tow.

Obama mindlessly fritters away his last year while the never-say-die Clinton political machine sputters to a predetermined inevitability. (A so-called “Democratic” presidential nomination that in reality is ironically autocratic.) Nero, too, was known to “fix things” to his liking. How is that different from the ongoing absence of Justice Department indictments against she who promises a legacy-preserving Obamaesque third term? Beyond that, same as long-dead Roman emperors, Mr. Obama shares pleasure-seeking for personal gratification (read: once again, that meaningless Cuba “ego” trip.) History's echo warns that all men of their ilk practice big-government, top-down pandering to the public (when it serves their personal interests.) No sweet Shakespearean rose is this, but an ancient weed known in today's age as progressivism.

Also analogous to Nero's insensitive “playing” is Mr. Obama's enjoyment of baseball in Havana with Bolsheviks. His very presence there bolstering the world standing of brutal leftist dictators. Meanwhile, the smoldering terrorist-bombed Brussells tragedies that killed many (including four Americans, two young marrieds Justin and Stephanie Shults among them) is bereft of his attention and his set-in-stone schedule (read: attending a Las Vegas fundraiser after the aforementioned Benghazi attack or golfing directly after presidential remarks regarding the terrorist beheading of American journalist James Foley). How is any of this behavior fundamentally different from Nero's reported “fiddling” response to Rome's catastrophe?

Yet, in the final analysis, Mr. Obama might be more cold. Even Nero was sensible enough not to get caught the next day dancing a celebratory jig or Mr. Obama's equivalent, an oblivious tango in Buenos Aires. For our president's sheer insensitivity, perhaps a closer personality model is another, Roman Emperor Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (nicknamed “Caligula.”) Known to be similarly self-consumed, power-loving and unfeeling to human suffering, both men specifically share a public contempt for his government's respective Senate. Although the circumstance is unsubstantiated, to the Roman version of this deliberative body “Caligula” appointed a horse as senator. For his part, Mr. Obama simply employs an ultra-Constitutional middle finger to Congress. As a result, societal chaos is a hallmark under both men's regimes. Incidentally, “Caligula,” means “little boots,” making his example also a perfect fit for Mr. Obama's dancing feet. Cha-cha-cha.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Thursday, March 24, 2016

“The Simpsons” predicts presidency?

As life imitates art, why shouldn't the indecent brawl that is the 2016 presidential contest mimic the comedic classic “The Simpsons?” As the longest ongoing sitcom in television history, this generation-long laugh factory has lampooned every element of the American “nuclear” family. As an example of thematic depth, the buffoonishly lovable Dad, Homer, works as an incompetent donut-munching safety inspector for a decrepit nuclear power plant.  Turns out, this just-wholesome-enough comedic institution has moved into the unusual arena of political prescience.

Although Simpsons creators intended many Springfields, as art is a shared experience, the viewing audience fortuitously assumes the show's setting to be the heart-shaped Ohio (politically: so goes this state so goes the nation). Therefore, one marvels at the synchronicity that an obscure reference to a “future” Trump presidency—in a 2000 “Simpsons” episode—would reflect the most clownish and unconventional political landscape in modern times.

Has “The Simpsons” inadvertently forecast the course of America's political future? Interestingly, in that same episode, daughter Lisa, now grown, is a female U.S. president. Which ever way fate turns, the show will have mirrored an unlikely reality; and some segment of the population will be exclaiming stentorian Homer's famous frustrated catchphrase: D'oh! That much is certain.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Obama's Chicken Little Fascism

Truth be told, chickens really do roost together. Specifically, I refer to Donald Trump's “no respect” stooge, Mr. Obama and the communist duo of ruling dictators, the brutal Castro Brothers. For 55 years, since stridently anti-communist Democrat JFK and the 1960s Cuban Missile Crisis when Russian Soviets tried to posit US-striking nuclear missiles on the island (disbanded after a successful U.S. naval blockade), America's relations have been in a Cold War deep-freeze.

This week as another part of his paper tiger legacy (like his failed Hillary Clinton Russian “reset” or his Middle East destabilizing-ISIS flourishing U.S. troop withdraw from Iraq), Mr. Obama is the first U.S. president to visit this present-day slave state since Calvin Coolidge in 1928. Located ninety miles south of Key West, Florida, Coolidge's journey took three days via battleship. By contrast, Mr. Obama “winged it” in three hour luxury on Air Force One, the alms of normalized U.S. relations gifted like candy from his coattails. As usual, the oft vacationing Mr. Obama will enjoy himself with his extended Cuban-background “selfie” celebration for one, but the human rights abuses continue unchanged. (This reality is further echoed by presidential candidate Ted Cruz who detailed that nine refugees drowned over the weekend in a futile attempt to escape the same hellhole the obliviously smug Mr. Obama so blithely tours.)

As with the Iranian nuclear deal where the Ayatollahs gained everything and Mr. Obama nothing (but the empty political bragging rights of a slow-roll “deal” that guarantees those religious radicals offensive nuclear weapons after he is out of office in 2017), it seems our president has never met a totalitarian thug he kowtow to. But, why wouldn't he like such men—strong-arm bullies mirroring his own proclivities—who act beyond law (or human decency) with all the same impunity of an imperial “pen and phone?”

Such are the fascist impulses (a concept historically and factually left-wing, but mis-defined in popular culture as right-wing) clear in the acts of anti-American Barack Obama—and the like-minded leaders he supports. Like the Castros (where opposition is jailed or otherwise literally “silenced”), Mr. Obama's subtler “smiley face” version involves the modern-day corrosive of stifling political correctness, the propagandist MSM, and the “bully” pulpit inherent in the U.S. presidency to steer the political conversation (read: drown out contrary voices.) Indeed, if Cuba is an example of a “political” carrot (read: Obama's hope and change progressive agenda), what then is the stick?

For “change,” a fascist uses any crisis (even an artificial scientifically-squishy one) to relentlessly push a hard leftist ideology over the goal line. In the Obama era, this well-established dynamic is known as alarmist “global warming” (now downgraded to the more innocuously-sounding “climate change.”) Despite First Amendment free speech protections, Mr. Obama's attorney general, Loretta Lynch, is considering the manipulation of racketeering laws to prosecute skeptics. In the final analysis, how is that heavy-handed repression of dissent any different than the Castro regime's state-run media warning its citizens to not protest during Barack & Michelle's Excellent Adventure?

Ignored by the Obamas, America used to be Ronald Reagan's “shining city on a hill”: a beacon for freedom, liberty's clarion call (not to mention a capitalist standard of living worth striving for). Now, America's political leadership turns a blind eye to widespread cruelty to play patty-cake photo op—on bended knee—with other leftist tyrants.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Obama's true-life “nanny” state

As past is prologue, flashback to February of 2008.  Way back then—even before Mr. Obama's first term election—Michelle Obama said of her hubby, “Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”  Rest assured, like the Oracle at Delphi, that's a woman to read the Obama tea leaves by.

In retrospect of a more than 7 transpired years of a largely dictatorial and ultra-Constitutional (“I have a pen, I have a phone”) presidency, this nebulous and foreboding nugget is now as clear as glass.  Mr. Obama's totalitarian promise of interference in the lives of average, private citizens extends to truly remarkable and unprecedented lengths.

Apparently, the White House has waded effortlessly into big-government, “do-gooder” fascism.  While the year is technically 2016, the uneasy chill feels like Orwell's “1984” in Mr. Obama's sly Big Brother attempt to usurp parental control of child-rearing.  I coyly refer to the intimate activity of protecting babies' bums from diaper rash with their “well-meaning” initiative of low-cost diapers.  From on high, it is Mr. Obama's literal manifestation of cradle-to-grave government dependence.

After all, despite thousands of years of human societies, how else are people old enough to sire children expected to raise them if not for this Bernie Sanders-style “free” government largesse?

Think those diapers are expensive now?  Wait 'til “junior poopy pants” grows up, can't find work (due to the lasting domino effect of Obama’s present day job-killing economic policies) and that 20 trillion Chinese bill for government funds borrowed at interest (read: the debt) comes due.  By then, this whole next generation of Americans will really be knee-deep in the brown stuff.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Speaking ill of a departed Reagan

It's ironic.  While The Washington Post sterilizes the exploits of current Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton—a former first lady—they simultaneously besmirch the stellar reputation of recently deceased Nancy Reagan, 94. Indeed, who is criticized by them, the woman with the well known reputation as a “liar” (under potentially 3 federal indictments for influence-peddling and corruption) or the person instrumental both to the personal happiness of beloved conservative icon Ronald Reagan, and a pivotal, but indirect reason for the success of his presidency?

In a typical classless move of smearing the voiceless dead for the political expediency of criticizing Republicans, the Post disregards the ancient wisdom in the Latin phrase De mortuis nihil nisi bonum: “of the dead [say] nothing but good.” Given perfect 20/20 hindsight, hatchet man “reporter” Dan Zak infers a fictitious deficiency of character in Mrs. Reagan while his employing newspaper summarily ignores the shrieking 300 pound gorilla throwing Samsonite luggage: the mountainous political baggage of Hillary Clinton's real life scandals.

What was Mrs. Reagan's “wrongdoing?” Per scribbler Zak, she was not an “outspoken advocate” for AIDS and HIV prevention in the 1980s. (This also-ran criticism was similarly used against her highly popular husband for divisive political reasons.) Despite the fact that this was a tumultuous time (when little was medically understood regarding this disease or its transmission), AIDS research funding exploded in the '80s. In 1983, Margaret Heckler, Mr. Reagan's secretary of Health and Human Services, had the foresight to declare AIDS her department's “number one priority.” Meanwhile, as the MSM hit the panic button (and not incidentally blamed the president for his and Nancy's “silence”) committed resources virtually doubled each year from 44 million in 1983 to $1.6 billion in 1988. Unfortunately, an effective preventative treatment was decades in the future, but all of these substantial, seedling efforts are irrelevant to Mr. Zak's unfair and misleading characterization of Mrs. Reagan, who is like her husband—by all legitimate accounts—a great American.

As first ladies are traditionally wont to do, her use of the visibility of the Reagan name was a straight forward “Just Say No” prevention campaign against illicit drug usage. Perfectly sensible advice, easy for the young and impetuous to understand: if one doesn't use drugs one avoids the inherent risks of addiction, unstable mood swings, serious health problems and financial hardship. A legitimate issue, once again, paradoxically more relevant today than the medical scourge that is now treatable HIV. (Compare that good fortune to today's travesty, America's penal system. It is chock-full of Joe Biden's legislative 3rd strike drug offenders. Per the Federal Bureau of Prisons, almost half or 48.7 percent are in prison for life for drug offenses versus 2.9 percent for homicide, aggravated assault and kidnapping; and 7 percent for sex offenses.)

This actuality makes Mrs. Reagan a bit of a visionary rather than Mr. Zak's manicured, elitist caricature of 'glistening hazel eyes, hair a perfectly feathery helmet, ears pinned with gold.' Couple that with his clinical description of her so-called “frosty” personality: 'And Nancy — what of Nancy? She was steel. She was cashmere. She was cold. She was class. And after a couple years of bad press, she was in need of a cause.' All of this rubbish implies a ruthless perfectionism, a person removed from the woes of average citizens, someone his spurious piece further claims “did not do enough.” As usual, the Post's “coverage” has everything simultaneously upside down, backwards and inside out.

For objective context, let us revisit 1982, something that is apparently beyond self-depreciating Dan Zak's journalistic powers. Historically, HIV had been misidentified as a “gay cancer”—thought to be a plague—and labeled with a different acronym GRID (“Gay Related Immune Deficiency”). Specifically, when infected actor Rock Hudson kissed “Dynasty's” Linda Evans, it caused a public uproar—and a wrongheaded fear that the actress might have been exposed. (Thankfully, HIV is not transmitted via saliva exchange, but that fact, like many others, was far from a medical certainty then.) To make matters worse, this issue was further veiled by private sexual behavior. Therefore, realistically given these fact-based dynamics—and the innate lack of clarity—what precisely does this leftist sycophant think the Reagans should have said or done differently? My point: his heavily biased retrospective is a completely subjective “what if” judgment. Therefore, any rear view 21st century condemnation is unworthy fodder when equating Mrs. Reagan's legacy. A pox on Dan Zak's reputation for defaming a defenseless great lady.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Blended politics and befuddled ideas

In this day and age of tenuous labeling of human behavior, fluid gender identity—and bathroom usage based on the whims of personality—now a self-described Socialist (the badly electorally-challenged presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)) isn't really what he says he is? 

That's what political scribblers like the Stefani Olszewskis of the world laughably claim. Specifically, how is Sanders's outspoken advocacy of a 90% income tax not her idea of hindering economic freedom? Further, Ms. Olszewski specifies Sanders isn't a traditional socialist because he doesn't want the government to “own the means of production.” That trivial statement is ultimately academic. Bernie “free-millennial-everything” Sanders wants to tax private industry into submission, if not oblivion. Why should government do the heavy-lifting of inefficiently controlling production when they can simply take? That's the basis of Democrat's tax-and-spend policies—and the Obama wrinkle—wealth redistribution

Fact: Under Mr. Obama almost 10 trillion has been added to the national debt. Per the WSJ, Mr. Sanders's policies, if enacted, will add an additional 18 trillion to that. That's a national tab of almost 40 trillion. It's economic suicide. 

Indeed, Mr. Sanders wants to continue self-described “Democrat” Barack Obama's almost 8 years of economy-destroying policies. However, in practical terms, there is no difference in the nebulous 2016 “Democrat/Socialist alternative.” At least those supposedly in the know like DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and front-runner Hillary Clinton can't explain a difference. Translation: that means there isn't one!

Democrat's obscuring alphabet soup of different labels is meaningless. Whether proffering themselves as “liberals, progressives, Democrats or socialists,” all re-brand the same anti-American principle: big-government, cradle-to-grave dependence with themselves, the elitists, perpetually at the top of food chain. In political parlance, this is the Democrat's poverty plantation (that interestingly keeps 90% of the black population loyal to the party that historically was pro-slavery, anti-women's suffrage and anti-civil rights.) 

The duty of all conservative media outlets is to convey these realities (and their underlying facts, as above) not drink the same propagandist Kool-Aid as their fellows in the MSM.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog