Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Obama's “Trump” wall, outsourced jobs

With 25 million Mr. Obama's de facto Middle Eastern 'jobs for jihadis' program is funding a 125 mile Donald Trump style wall in Tunisia. Is Tunisia—which borders Algeria and ISIS-infested Libya—one of the extra “57 states” then-candidate Obama referred to back on the campaign trail in Beaverton, Oregon in May of 2008?

For the president who famously said, “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” turns out Mr. Obama is pro-jobs, just not domestically or for fellow Americans. Specifically, I refer to the 93 million unemployed, able-bodied citizens out of work due to high corporate taxes (read: the widespread phenomenon of corporate inversion) and, in large measure, to restrictive employer mandates in the bureaucratic behemoth that is Obamacare.

The impediment of a wall was a great historical deterrent to China's invading Mongols and the Vatican's Muslim raiders. Likewise in today's world, how is a U.S.-paid one appropriate for Tunisia, but not for America's southern border? Related to Trump's proposed wall to be paid by Mexico, he who is responsible for absolutely nothing had the audacity to say:

“People expect the President of the United States and the elected officials in this country to treat these problems seriously, to put forward policies that have been examined, analyzed, are effective, where unintended consequences are taken into account,” Obama said at his daily press briefing. “They don't expect half-baked notions coming out of the White House. We can't afford that.'”

Speaking of things the American people can't afford is Mr. Obama's virtual doubling of the national debt, by adding almost 9 trillion (19 trillion and counting). How is that his version of “examined and effective” governance? Further, giving this devil his due, how is the following not unintended consequences: his wasteful stimulus spending (to corrupt political cronies like now bankrupt Solyndra), his race-baiting encouragement of Black Lives Matter (advocating cop-killing chaos), announcing the withdrawal date of U.S. forces from Iraq (convenient for terrorists to re-establish an Islamic caliphate), and the ruinous nuclear deal with Iran (which will guarantee the Imams the leverage and/or use of the bomb within a few short years.) Not only has this fascist ideologue not taken the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or the duties of the nation's highest office seriously, he has wrecked the joint with his disastrous “fundamental transformation of America.” Indeed, he who is the laughingstock of supposed allies and geo-political foes alike really shouldn't throw stones in the crumbling glass house that is his failed presidency.

Despite the farce of a 5% unemployment rate, Mr. Obama has gutted the economy (and the military). Try the experiment of making a technical support call these days. The accent on the other end of the phone is invariably exotic—and likely half a world away—from far flung places like India or the Philippines. Those are formerly American jobs exported to where the labor is cheaper, and the regulations and taxes are less. Capitalist producers, the One Percenters, wrongly demonized by Clinton/Sanders-Democrat/Socialist is standard Sal Alinsky style class warfare: alienate and divide the electorate to ensure their ilk's election. To this end, that is why Clinton fundraising bagman Terry McAuliffe (moonlighting as Virginia governor) did an end around a two days out of session legislature to restore the vote of 200,000 convicted criminals.

As nature abhors a vacuum, any country without borders isn't really a nation. For example, open borders in Western societies invite all manners of gang violence, specifically Europe's rape epidemic. Further, every form of criminality is ignorantly condoned as the rule of law is disregarded from Mr. Obama's White House to local border patrol agents directed to sit on their hands, and collect a government paycheck. The result has facilitated a golden age of drug trafficking, most notably seen in the heroin epidemic in Ohio's heartland. As previously mentioned, globalization of the workforce has outsourced jobs, crippled an already anemic U.S. economy. Democrats' big government intrusion, tax and spend policies, and the bogeyman scare tactic (which hamstrings U.S. businesses with the promise of a “greener” environment) of climate change has left America sinking like the Titanic into a leftist quagmire.

Make no mistake, this has been accomplished by progressives with no loyalty to America—the place or the ideal. Lapel pins and lip service notwithstanding, when was the last time Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton said or acted like they actually love America? With all the prurience of a Caligula, Mr. Obama prattles on about banality, North Carolina bathroom laws with British Prime Minister David Cameron. (With Europe, the Middle East and America in anarchy, do these “world leaders” have nothing more pressing to discuss?)

While the left endlessly debates the wisdom of co-ed, transgender shower rooms, gay wedding cakes baked by cowed Christians, and gender non-specific toilets, how are these people any different from metaphorical fiddling 21st century Neros as Rome (read: America and the West) self-destructs? To this end, the Middle East literally burns from current conflicts thanks to Mr. Obama's “apology tour” and subsequent “leadership from behind.” There are hordes at nonexistent gates—and rot from within our wall-less society—as the heedless and careless elites of both political parties leave America's prospects to fate by laying out the welcome mat.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Friday, April 22, 2016

Progressives' Tubman conundrum

It's great political sport to watch progressives' befuddled heads spin when faced with the puzzle of publicly supporting a black Republican. For a psychological analogy, imagine the climatic Jack Nicholson-Faye Dunaway scene in “Chinatown” (1974) as discordant elements of their addled minds:

Evelyn Mulwray: She's my daughter.
[Gittes slaps Evelyn]
Jake Gittes: I said I want the truth!
Evelyn Mulwray: She's my sister...
Evelyn Mulwray: She's my daughter...
Evelyn Mulwray: My sister, my daughter.
[More slaps]
Jake Gittes: I said I want the truth!
Evelyn Mulwray: She's my sister AND my daughter!

As female, black and gun-toting (obviously pro-Second Amendment), it's a wonder Mr. Obama's Treasury department (or Democrats' humpbacked, propagandist creature, the biased MSM) would honor such a deserved person; an American icon, this diminutive lady, known then through the grapevine as “Moses.” (Even a broken clock is accidentally right twice a day. In any case, this most unusual and laudatory action is worth a calendar mark.) For context, recall that our first black president skipped the 150th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's seminal Gettysburg Address. Indeed, as a bastion of the hard left Mr. Obama almost never gets anything right.

Yet, in a glorious exception to his longstanding pattern of seeing the world through the divisive prism of party, race, class, or gender, the little "R" next to Lincoln's name was apparently not an impediment to the historically unyielding Harriet Tubman. However, this president who slow-rolls every issue, is still keeping her in the “back of the bus” until 2030 when the new $20 bill will make its long overdue debut. (Why on earth does it take our federal government 14 years to change the appearance of one paper denomination?)

Make no mistake that Democrats see Harriet Tubman as the heroic individual she is. They don't appreciate her brave character or her unique contributions to society (her eight years as a “conductor” of the Underground Railroad facilitated liberty, saved scores of innocents, and put herself at great personal risk to bounty hunters). However, their focus is literally skin-deep. To them, she's nothing more than a symbol of affirmative action. They automatically applaud supplanting a U.S. president, Andrew Jackson (rightly or wrongly)—because they see him as a symbol of patriarchy and white privilege—for a minority is catnip these jaded people can't resist. Society, for them, is nothing more than a giant, bureaucratic quota system—for everything. Even when they promote the right thing, it's done for the wrong reasons.

In this same vein is today's blind advocacy of front-runner Hillary Clinton. The fact that she's a crooked presidential candidate with nonexistent accomplishments doesn't matter. The support she receives is solely on the superficial basis of another checked box on a diversity questionnaire.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Covering eyes to radicals

Petula Dvorak's political commentary is as illuminating three blind men holding parts of a metaphorical elephant, each claiming the rump, leg or trunk is the whole animal. In this post-911 world, she objects to the sensible Department of Homeland Security motto: “If you see something [suspicious], say something [to law enforcement].” As our free society is geographically vast—and no one would want to live in a “1984” style police state—it makes sense that everyday citizens' eyeballs be enlisted. This is no different from the inherent value of any neighborhood watch.

Hers is a philosophical objection, tortured reasoning that assumes the worst of profiling. As any beat cop will explain such observations are a highly effective method to deter wrongdoing. Indeed, logically, who is likely to commit crime or terrorism? Should the focus be on aged, gray haired grandfathers? How about young mothers and their broods? Or is a better bet the flood of law-violating migrant gangbangers from the U.S.-Mexico border with no prospects and no allegiance to our country? Just because such judgments are stereotypes doesn't mean there aren't kernels of truth worth consideration especially when innocent lives hang in the balance.

Ms. Dvorak's knee-jerk reaction is a political third rail: assumed Islamophobia by police and/or the public regarding swarthy-looking individuals who speak in unrecognized, foreign tongues. Her example is a University of California, Berkeley student Khairuldeen Makhzoomi, 26, who made an innocent last minute phone call in Arabic. It was a personal call to an uncle before takeoff, but a fellow passenger sitting nearby became afraid. As a result, Mr. Makhzoomi was booted off a recent Southwest Airlines flight and questioned by authorities. It was a mistake—and no doubt a hassle—but the needs of the many in this situation must outweigh the needs of the one. Naturally, Ms. Dvorak is intentionally oblivious to 21st century realities that radical Islam confers. She assumes the worst of authorities, a groundless 1960s style discrimination, brown skin rather than black. However, in today's world issues are more complicated than the civil rights time warp between her ears. It's more than simple cultural misunderstandings or skin-deep prejudices she misconstrues in her divisive column.

In her superficiality, Ms. Dvorak could not resist the temptation to revisit the subject of teen hoaxer Ahmed Mohammad (better known by his internet nickname “clock boy”), now a resident of totalitarian Qatar. Then 14, in Irving, Texas, the middle school student took it “upon himself” to bring a dissembled, wires-exposed clock to school. Closer to the truth one suspects his media-seeking Imam Sudanese father likely put him up to this little stunt of virtual terror. As evidence, well beyond his tender years (and as skillfully as any progressive politician), Ahmed shifted blame from his wrongdoing. He used his 15 minutes of fame to also claim victimization and Islamophobia.

Using the Dvorak crystal ball, this half-wit nonsensically wants something said only when something is “sure,” but by definition, nothing in the real world is ever certain before it is investigated.

Consider the alternative if nothing had been reported or investigated by those wrongly cowed by political correctness. Imagine the public outrage if Ahmed's clock had been a bomb that caused another Sandy Hook? What of the potential grieving families if the plane crashed and Mr. Makhzoomi had been a terrorist collaborator? Unfortunately, scenarios of this type are not purely hypothetical. On November 5, 2009, in central Texas at Fort Hood, a homegrown U.S. Army officer Major Nidal Hasan went on a shooting rampage. He murdered 13 and wounding more than 30 others—most of them unarmed fellow soldiers. Also shocking, he's a medical doctor (specifically a psychiatrist), duty bound by profession to preserve life not take it. Instead, at a processing center armed with a semi-automatic pistol, he shouted “Allahu Akbar” (Arabic for “God is great”) and opened fire. The massacre lasted 10 minutes before he was subdued by civilian police. This is precisely what happens when people close their eyes to latent trouble.

Per a Congressional review, Major Hasan's superiors were concerned about his pattern of erratic behavior. Further, they suspected he had become radicalized. However, these legitimate suspicions did not prevent him from being transferred and promoted. His bosses feared being labeled Islamophobes. They saw many “somethings.” If they did say anything, it was not forceful enough. Their lack of vigilance cost lives in historically the worst mass murder at a U.S. military installation. As patriot Ben Franklin said: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” (The scribbler Dvorak should heed such sage advice.) In any case, related to Mr. Makhzoomi and “clock boy,” both observers and law enforcement made the right call: public safety must always trump individual inconvenience that zealousness causes.

While the occasional nutcase is a Christian zealot like Dylann Roof, the lion's share of worldwide mass murders are Islamic from the falling of the twin towers to more recently Paris and Brussels. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said, “We find ourselves in a new phase in the global terrorist threat, which requires a new . . . type of response,” in the Detroit Free Press. In practical terms, that logically translates into greater attention paid to certain segments of our society rather than others. Therefore, Muslims (same as non-Muslims targeted by radical Islam) should understand the necessity for additional scrutiny. It's not personal, it's simply “the way of the world.” Yet, tellingly, where are the marches protesting the violence committed in the name of their “peaceful” religion? Where are the leaders of Islam publicly disavowing radicalization?

The reality is that the American people need to use their peepers because we don't hear a “peep” out of peace-loving Muslims. Just because they turn a collective blind eye to the butchery committed by their fellows doesn't mean Westerners should make the same choice. In this regard, progressives who criticize those who act in good faith to curtail potential terrorist acts should be disregarded as the psychological cowards and immoral dupes they are.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Sunday, April 17, 2016

Democrats' true-life lemonade failure

In February, when “D.C. government's dysfunctional lemonade stand,” was published in “Canada Free Press,” it was intended as something written in metaphor. Today, it turns out not to be that, but a concept both factual and prescient.

As a political stunt, D.C. politicians decided to set up a lemonade stand to highlight Equal Pay Day, the annual reminder of the gender pay-gap in which women, on average, are paid less than men. Yet, this was not done to rightfully protest, as examples, Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton's track records on the subject. Specifically, unchanged over almost two full Obama presidential terms, pay for female staffers is 13 percent less than their male counterparts. Meanwhile, “feminist icon” Hillary is no better: only 72 cents was paid to women in her Senate office. As with everything these two do—beyond law (read: Obama's executive orders), precedent (read: Hillary's Server-gate) or even Constitutional prohibitions (read: Obama's pen and phone), both, as usual, get a complete pass.

Speaking of a pass, D.C. politicians didn't even bother to get one when they illegally set up shop at the Capitol Hill South Metro Station for their one-day lemonade venture. Like these folks incompetently run the country, there were a host of problems right out of the gate. As likely capitalism-phobic, the Democrats were completely unaware that a charity, Amateur Athletic Union, was already lawfully selling (heavenly) Kripsy Kreme donuts on the very same spot. (Game over!) Even the weather they habitually publicly renounce conspired against them: who wants lemonade on a cool, April showers rush-hour morning commute? To make matters worse, due to the lack of authorization, the station manager called transit police.

Ah, if only that contentious conversation between lawmakers and law enforcement had taken place! Given D.C.'s generally lackadaisical response time for emergency personnel, the ten women from the DNC had already abandoned post for the standard-priced fare of the more hospitable Peet's Coffee. While there, did they demand a discount based upon their gender? No, but that would have made their intended political statement. Yet, as the police apparently never caught up these female scalawags, I assume they gratefully paid the whole tab for their warming beverages.

The point of their badly-run lemonade stand was to highlight a gender-based economic discrepancy. These politicians intended on charging a woman 79 cents (reflecting the average women's wage) versus charging a man a dollar (his average wage). Displaying a juvenile hand-colored sign: “Lemonade. Boys $1.00, Girs (scandalously misspelled with no “l”) 79 cents. Another glaring flaw, their business plan: no permit means no right to sell. That means only accepting a “suggested donation.” Of course, this actuality defeats the entire purpose of the exercise in the first place. As a parallel to their similarly incompetent governance, both leave a bad taste in the mouth (read: the failed Obama Administration) and an empty wallet (read: the escalating 19 trillion debt).

Regardless of their stated “agenda,” what does this stunt really say about the character of those who set it up (read: the government's bureaucratic take over of one-sixth of the economy known as Obamacare)? For starters, earning a hefty salary of $174,000, don't these supposed adults have more productive ways to spend time representing the interests of their constituents? Second, either these lawmakers were too disorganized—or worse, completely blasé—regarding the requirement to get a permit. (Apparently, for them, permits—like rules—are only for the rest of us, the “little people.”) Third, as this situation conclusively demonstrates, Democrats are not concerned with solving concrete problems, they are interested in political polarization. In this case, “serving” bogus 'war on women' propaganda.

Same as Mr. Obama, his lemon-pushing compatriots “lead from behind”—assuming they lead at all. Their focus is wrongly on these non-issues rather than legitimate ones like 93 million able-bodied Americans out of the workforce. They “hawk lemonade” politically too in the form of self-serving pandering under the guise of relief (read: government dependence, multi-generational social welfare programs). Yet, this subsistence living is precisely like the sour drink they peddle on Equal Pay Day: it does not refresh (as upward mobility capitalism does), it just keeps the masses alienated and angry at their fellow citizens—and not incidentally—voting Democrat. Therefore, these elitists stay perpetually in power despite abject failures—and same as Mr. Obama—live high on the hog while doing so.

In the same vein as Equal Pay Day is the good-sounding push for a $15 dollar minimum wage. As with these politician's failed lemonade stand, it promises superficial “sweets” in the form of a wage increase. However, McDonald's can only charge so much for a hamburger (the amount a typical customer will spend) and that figure directly determines how much any given employee can be paid. Therefore, for any company to remain viable, economics—not artificial government mandates—must determine wages. In other words, the “bottom line,” or costs, must be respected as well as the interests of investors. Therefore, the government purveyors who push this “lemonade” are completely obvious—and/or just don't care—that the policy they advocate will actually have the opposite effect and price existing (and future) employees out of the marketplace.

Why should this matter to them? The establishments of both parties habitually run the federal government “red” on money borrowed from countries like China, at interest. When this gargantuan, nation-crushing bill finally comes due to future American generations, they all know they will likely be long gone. (Do-nothing Republicans versus wrongdoing Democrats: some choice!) Yet, let me be clear: as no respecters of America, Democrats are far worse. As an apt analogy to their intentionally divisive style of politics (that keep these responsibility-phobic, finger-pointing progressives in office), the “problem” is never with them, it is always to be found “elsewhere.”

In the final analysis, how is this obtuse disconnect from reality different from these progressives' Chicken Little mindset to the hypothetical “danger” of changing weather patterns versus the real-life life and limb threat of radical Islamic terrorism (recently seen in Belgium and Paris)? What is obvious is these educated and highly-paid people can't even run a child's lemonade stand properly or efficiently. Is it any wonder that these insulated powerbrokers have run the country into the ground? By any mathematical measure, the Obama Administration—aided greatly by a capitulating Paul Ryan-John Boehner Congress—has wrecked the joint like a monster traffic pile-up. Further, so out of touch are they from the American Way, Democrats are contemplating nominating an outspoken Socialist, Bernie Sanders, for U.S. president. Indeed, when a Maoist ornament winds up on the White House Christmas tree, these people don't know what country they are actually living in. Beyond that, they can't even doing the small things correctly.

Not even a single day of successfully turning lemons into lemonade. No doubt a natural consequence of years of Democrats mindlessly drinking the Obama Kool-Aid.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

MSM Toilet “Thought” Police

The Washington Post's resident “Miz Manners,” Steven Petrow, is personally offended to be called mister because it is a masculine noun. In his latest “Civilities” column, he lectures the rest of us on 21st century etiquette which his own actions historically disregard.

Specifically, harboring a festering grievance since New York of 2005, our intrepid scribbler was offended by a bathroom attendant who opened a door for him. Since time immemorial, in virtually every Western culture, opening any door for anyone—a man, woman or child; a struggling or aged stranger; a romantic partner—is a universal sign of kindness and respect. With anti-American progressives too long at the helm, suddenly this most traditional act of social grace has morphed crazily into a reason to find offense.

What was this fancy restaurant employee's mistake worthy of the mighty Post's attention a decade later? He opened the door to men's room (rather than the women's), presumably because Steven looked male. Well, this “eccentric” customer wasn't tolerating such a blatantly sexist act to his person!

Steven Petrow's thankless response? “How polite? Hardly. Instead of thanking him, I explained how presumptuous he had been in deciding my bathroom preference for me. I tried in vain to explain how “gender identity” (the way individuals perceive themselves) is different from “biological sex” (generally indicated by a person’s genitalia, or sex assigned at birth). So, despite hundreds, if not thousands of years of opening doors for people in which customary politeness dictates an expression of appreciation, our hypocritical “manners expert” knows better.

Imagine this befuddled attendant's wide-eyed reaction. He works in a hallway dead-ending in bathrooms frequented by affluent guests. He's just trying to do his job, provide a service, make a likely modest living. To add to his troubles, this poor soul crosses paths with an unhinged buffoon who starts lecturing him on the differences between a customer's “gender identity” versus a biological one. Remember, this solicitous stranger did nothing wrong. He opening a door—and received an ungrateful diatribe.

To add insult to the attendant's injury, Mr. Petrow embarrassed his undoubtedly long-suffering door holder and further humiliated him to his boss, the restaurant manager. I'm not sure what either of these put-upon workers were thinking before their “Twilight Zone” experience with this self-proclaimed know-it-all, but I have a pretty good idea what colorful language was privately exchanged out of earshot. Unfortunately, the appropriate profanity isn't polite or fit to print. A pretty penny for their thoughts though, regarding a rather persnickety customer—whom they likely believed was space cadet from Uranus.

Why did Steven Petrow intentionally make a classless scene not fit for a patron of McDonald's? He wrote: “It wasn’t that my gender identity was ambiguous, but several of my dinner companions would have probably presented a challenge. At my table that evening were individuals who are transgender or gender-nonconforming.” So, bizarrely, this individual pretended he was transgender even though he clearly wasn't. This was done by osmosis to “stick up” for his absent, uninvolved fellow diners. After all, he rationalized, they (not he) might hypothetically be mistreated by “intolerant” restaurant employees ignorant of the finer points of identity politics. To any clear-minded person, it is this whacked out liberal who superficially judges, not those he wrongly accuses. To quote Matthew 7:5: “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.” Indeed, the attendant's actions don't even rise to the level of that minutia.

Is this still freedom-loving America of 2016 or Big Brother's dystopian “1984?” More to the point, is Mr. Petrow a newspaper employee or a loyalist member of some secret sect of George Orwell's Thought Police?

Back to more mundane and “earthy” issues, choosing between gender-specific bathrooms is actually a high class “difficulty” for any society. Recall that 40 percent of the world’s population or 2.5 billion people practice open defecation or lack adequate sanitation facilities. Even in more developed regions, where household and public facilities are more prevalent, over 2 billion people use toilets connected to septic tanks that are not safely emptied or use other systems that discharge raw sewage into open drains or surface waters. That's a real problem worthy of focus and discussion, not Mr. Petrow's obsession with body parts and gender identity, bathrooms and excretion.

Speaking of full-on bathroom hissy fits—for necessary behavioral context on “Miz Manners”—one is distinctly reminded of a similarly bewildered young girl (“The bathroom “monitor” thought I was crazy, as did the manager”) scrubbing Comet cleaning powder into wide circles into the floor of a blue tiled bathroom. Towering over the cowering, mortified child (on her knees in complete supplication), Faye Dunaway (as Joan Crawford) in “Mommie Dearest” shrieks: “Scrub. Scrub, Christina. It's not. This floor is not clean! Look at it! Jesus Christ! This floor is not clean! None of it... Nothing is clean. This whole place is a mess!” Draw the obvious conclusions as to which parties—in two eerily mirroring psychological scenarios—have actually been wronged.

For his part, this “politeness guru” needs to publicly conduct himself sensibility, and quietly do his business in the culturally appropriate stall. Indeed, his mindset is so twisted, he's bent around his own axle. His views are impractical, verging on the incomprehensible. If a well-meaning hand had opened the wrong door for one of his transgender colleagues, a simple smile and courteous acknowledgment of the faux pas would have been sufficient. In the final analysis, the interaction of one person's personal preferences versus another's corresponding actions commonly results in such all too human misunderstandings. The glaring trouble here is Steven Petrow's inability to practice the very sensitivity he so readily preaches—in print, and in a bathroom adjoining corridor. 

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Obama's “Hillary” Offensive

President Obama's political slow-roll related to Hillary Clinton's unsecured, private server has officially begun. Unfortunately, conservatives don't watch Mr. Obama's usual sycophantic haunts like the low-rated MSNBC (where, for example, another liar—similarly disgraced former NBC anchor Brian Williams—was put out to pasture, apparently never to be heard from again). Recall, “Fox News” and their motto “fair and balanced” (conservative-leaning). For that very reason, Mr. Obama has generally avoided this most watched cable network like the plague. For context, Mr. Obama has not been interviewed by that outfit since the beginning of 2014 by “Fox News” prime time host Bill O'Reilly. Even that was done begrudgingly: by tradition, the network broadcasting the Super Bowl always gets the game day presidential interview. So, why this anomalous pivot? Why did he condescend to a rare interview with “Fox News Sunday?”

To get his message across stentorian: the fix is officially in for the Democratic front-runner. At least as far as Mr. Obama is concerned, that is.

Today, he's apologizing for Hillary: “She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy, he said adding, “What I also know is that there’s classified and then there’s classified. That doublespeak sounds eerily like that of a former blue dress intern-chasing president—Hillary's lothario hubby—who said related to his own inappropriate dalliance with Monica Lewinsky: “It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.” As Mr. Obama's longstanding “magic” pen and phone pattern, law is reduced to silly putty in this president's grip: “There’s stuff that is really top secret top secret, and then there’s stuff that is being presented to the president, the secretary of state, you may not want going out over the wire.” What masterful equivocation, what utter gobbledygook! That sounds precisely like another disgraced, scandal embroiled U.S. president. Naturally, I refer to Richard “Watergate” Nixon who said in a 1977 interview with David Frost: “Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.” How nice for him and Mr. Obama.

So, in the final analysis, we have not the trailblazing MLK healer of a nation (everyone “hoped” in vain for), we have our own 21st century Democratic version of Richard Nixon. Except he uses his ethnicity as a skillfully as magician's sleight of hand to successfully avoid impeachment for his own ultra-Constitutional activities. Ah, the perpetual motion political maneuvering of Mr. Obama. Unbound by the Constitution, truth, the American way—and apparently all points in between. So, for he, our twice elected de facto “emperor,” the point isn't the unambiguous violation of man-made laws (above no one save God Himself), it's the colossal rationalization that Hillary didn't mean to do it. Boy, using that expensive Harvard law degree to catch the bird droppings in his befuddled brain is a real waste. But, who needs it for he who acts as crookedly as Nixon who also “was above the law?”

A republic is based on the respect for law or, as we have witnessed, it quickly disintegrates into chaos (read: Black Lives Matter), tyranny and big-government fascism. Hence, the true and lasting legacy of the Obama years despite his snake oil gamesmanship. Thus, Mr. Obama's nebulous catchphrase the “fundamental transformation of America” is finally laid bare. And dispassionate history will not be so kind and forgiving as today's generation to Mr. Obama. As a case and point, in his 1819 letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “The a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” Mr. Jefferson was wary of a rogue judiciary, it would understandably never dawn on him that any duly elected U.S. president (whose primary role in government is to “enforce” the laws as written by Congress) could summary—and perpetually—act unchecked beyond their strictures. Indeed, Mr. Obama's newest “American apology tour for one,” in actuality, only benefits two people. Her 2016 presidential prospects (she's a lock for the nomination) dovetail with his need for a legacy-preserving successor.

So what are a few, covering lies between to “would be” presidents, one completely bereft of the American spirit, and one halfway there who is simply morally bankrupt? Mr. Obama's “second apology tour” will fail as readily as his bended knee first one did with America's geo-political foes in the war torn, terrorist-infested Middle East. Despite Mr. Trump's obvious flaws, America wants a pro-American outsider like Ted Cruz; not Hillary, an ultimate Washington insider with an allergic reaction to truth-telling. And perhaps even “inadvertent” espionage.

Speaking of those newly charged with espionage, there is Lieutenant Commander Edward Lin, a Navy officer (naturalized in 2008, but born in Taiwan) charged with passing U.S. intelligence to his birth country, and perhaps also China. His presumably intentional disregard for law—and the security interests of the American people—is being met with a rather different standard of justice than Mrs. Clinton. Yet, as any lawyer knows, ignorance of law is no defense against it. To make an apt analogy to Leona Helmsley and paying taxes, law for “the president, the [former] secretary of state” is for the rest of us—the “little people”—not those who stoop from their gilded perches to “lead” us.

Despite “Bonnie and Clyde's” gum flapping word parsing, 2,000 of Hillary's server emails are classified, of those 22 contain “top secret” information and therefore cannot be released to the Congressional committee investigating her actions. And given the strong likelihood that nefarious hackers (working within or beyond the purview of hostile, foreign governments) breached Mrs. Clinton non-governmental system, given his and hers matching track records of stonewalling and bold faced lies, how can these careless people be trusted? Per their Constitutional responsibility, Republicans (who formerly impeached Bill Clinton for his lies) should have found the backbone to at least attempt to remove lawless Mr. Obama from office long ago. In any case, today is a new day. In this regard, make no mistake: Mrs. Clinton deserves an “orange is the new black” taxpayer-funded cell rather than her greatly desired return to “queenly” prominence, the White House in 2017.

The result of the November 4th presidential election is a pivotal heartbeat in our country's continued viability as a free and law-based society. As a nation, our selection of the next commander-in-chief will demonstrate definitively whether the American people still value Western standards or a continuation of the ruinous Obama true-life “nanny” state. Put another way, true independence or more empty leftist's lip service to American ideals. With liar Hillary, we will get top-down totalitarianism from Big Sister. On the other hand, it is not too late to opt for a true, Reaganesque conservative like Ted Cruz who will lead us back to the Founding Father's intention of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Friday, April 8, 2016

MSM's Scorn for GOP First Ladies

Does the press have unfair criticism of Republicans in their DNA? I refer not to U.S. presidents—who as leaders of the Free Word remain fair game—but the MSM's habitual “mean girl” treatment of their Republican spouses. Contrast that to the often blind, fawning praise lavished on their generally inferior Democratic counterparts.

The most blatant example of “journalistic” bias is the widespread nay-saying of recently departed Nancy Reagan. The fact remains that she was the central figure to a great president's personal happiness—and by any objective standard—she conducted herself with the commensurate grace of her husband as a positive symbol of American optimism to the world. What in death is trumpeted from the liberal media? The petty criticism of perhaps a cool interpersonal persona uniformly condemned by the powers-that-be with the same coded watchword: “frosty.” (Google it: this precise accusation reverberates stentorian in liberal publications across the globe like a 21st century “telephone game.”) Whether this subjective interpretation holds some semblance of truth is ultimately not the point. Greatness is negated by a minuscule, all too human flaw by less fine examples of humanity: progressive ideologues attacking the historical reputation with the politically-motivated venom of the yellowest journalism.

Meanwhile, let us move across the aisle. Former first lady (and current Democratic presidential front-runner) Hillary Clinton, with the well known fact-based reputation as a “liar” is downplayed in the media or ignored as a phantom “right wing conspiracy.” For example, this kind of nonsense regularly comes from liberal columnists like The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus who wrote, “This may sound strange coming from someone who doesn't expect Hillary Clinton to be indicted [on influence-peddling and corruption] and doesn't think she should be...”. Ms. Marcus's knee-jerk fealty to the Democratic Party is more than “strange.” It's completely wrong, same as her “coverage” of Hillary. (In actuality, that's really “for” not “of.” ) Indeed, she's nothing more than a political true believer with a press pass. To any “real” journalist, the first duty is always to the public good—to demand accountability and justice before any other consideration.

Ms. Marcus is so conditioned by the moral equivalency of the tumultuous Obama years, she has become hysterically blind to the purpose and equalizing value of law. To her, even indisputable evidence of wrongdoing—perhaps even treasonous activity—is negated by Hillary's elitist powerbroker status. Irrationally, Ms. Marcus adds, “there has to be a way to provide more information, in a timely [before election day] way, from a credible source.” That's code for “not Republicans.” So, like her third estate compatriots, she wants Mr. Obama to spin yet another slow-roll tall tale to protect Mrs. Clinton presidential prospects, at least until after November 4th anyway. As that's his go-to modus operandi for the numerous and monumental failures of his presidency, why would he do anything different now?

Speaking of the Obamas, let us shift to his “better half” first lady. Ah. pampered, coddled Michelle. She disregards the perks of travel on Air Force One and bulletproof limousines, the prime D.C. address and 24-hour Secret Service protection, the executive chef and small army of personal assistants. As a ceremonial model of American taxpayer largesse, she wore two floral designer frocks by designer Carolina Herrera valued at $6,680 or 23 times the average yearly salary of Cuba's working class or $288. But this little lady of excess and entitlement isn't satisfied. She wants to be paid for her time as first lady. And why shouldn't she gripe at not getting her government welfare check?

To the ho-hum MSM all of this is such a bore and a non-story. Why shouldn't Michelle complain if she wants? At least she look absolutely fabulous while doing so! Specifically, The New York Times praised Michelle Obama's fashion choices in Cuba: “When the important questions of the day—human rights, the future of the American trade embargo, Cuba’s future—were raised (if not settled), a frothier one came to the fore: Cuba was giving a party. What would Michelle Obama wear?” Compare this laudatory rather breezy (and blasé) tone to that same publication who hammered Nancy Reagan for sporting fashionable duds in 1981: “The gold crown is studded with costly jewels. The dress is of finest brocade. The cape is snowy ermine. But the majestic woman on what may be Washington's best-selling post card is not, on second glance, Queen Elizabeth II of Britain. It's Nancy Reagan.” Fashion is subjective, the media's complete lack of even-handedness is not. (What ever happened to journalism's core principle of objectivity?)

Pegging politics to fashion's shifting hemlines is nothing new. As the axiom goes: when skirts get longer Democrats lose. I, for one, hope fervently for a new and sudden Amish fashion craze. Joking aside, there is an underlying historical context to all of this that, once again, lays bare the discriminatory behavior of the media toward only the Republican first ladies. I coyly refer to '60s fresh faced fashion icon Jacqueline Kennedy versus outgoing first lady Mamie Eisenhower. Given that Jackie was young and gorgeous (same as her “Camelot” presidential husband), at 64 the outgoing Mamie Eisenhower never had a chance. I mean then in November 1960 or today 56 years later.

I refer to the tale spun by author Kate Andersen Brower: “Mamie’s husband was being replaced by a Democrat, and her own role was being assumed by a woman she sneeringly referred to as “the college girl.” Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy’s beauty, her modern touch, and her youthful, cutting-edge style would soon eclipse Mrs. Eisenhower’s frumpy shirtwaist dresses, pearl chokers and short bangs.” Notice the language choices. Mamie, the Republican, is cast in the worst light as “sneering” and “frumpy” while Democrat Jackie is inversely afforded the same pattern of maximal praise with terms like “modern” and “cutting-edge.”

Truthfully, only these two women—like Nancy, now silenced forever by death—knew how they really felt about each other or could authentically speak to the dynamics of their relationship. In tacit acknowledgment of this fact, in the print version (superimposed in the article's corresponding photograph): What were they thinking (intended to be provocative) floats beneath their feet. Therefore, in the final analysis, one tends to discount this Washington Post guest columnist with a book to hawk—more than half a century after these events transpired.

To be fair—something the liberal media clearly isn't, at least when it comes to the Republicans—I think Ms. Brower's description of JFK's wife is true to life. Yet, even if all of the positive qualities assigned to Jackie are accurate, the skin deep, always glowing narrative instantly afforded all Democrats isn't really the point, is it? When it comes to Republican first ladies, the propagandist MSM has a real political axe to grind. To misappropriate a fashion term, they have hate-tinged “darts” to throw.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

Trump's convention inferno

Megafires are a phenomenon in nature when debris like branches, dead leaves and dry pine needles are allowed to collect year upon year, sometimes decade upon decade. Add to that hotter and drier climates, and Man's understandable intention to suppress fire. These conditions result in uncontrollable, earth-scorching super-fires such as the one in Yarnell, Arizona in 2013 that killed 19 brave souls; the entirety of the hotshot crew sent in to extinguish it. In 2016, the political landscape has an analogous experience: front-runner Donald Trump. Will he destroy the GOP (as the “Paul Ryan” establishment fears) or will his bile produce a healthier more determined conservative response to intrusive big-government, our woe-filled country, and terrorist-infested world left in shambles by eight years of Barack Obama?

The answer is unknowable 'til election day, but the political tea leaves can be read. Trump is a complete wild card: a sword that cuts both ways. The positive is his true genius is in marketing himself as an “outsider” (who truthfully cannot be “bought” because he is already a billionaire.) While he is not a professional politician (a good thing), anyone who has the “for sale” Clintons to his wedding isn't exactly a babe in the woods when it comes to politics. Essentially, Mr. Trump is running a insurgent third party-style campaign within the umbrella of the Republican Party and it has the elites shaking in their loafers (also a good thing). However, his straight-talk is so unfiltered, his answers so unconsidered they are flippant (read: women “punished” for having legal abortions. Seriously?). One wonders if he is actually a Republican or the progressives caricature of the misogynistic Frankenstein monster they wrongly think a Republican is.

Indeed, Trump's populist rage against insulated do-nothing Republicans and lawless, spendthrift Democrats are the layers of brush, political dead wood Mr. Trump's “firebrand” candidacy is blazing a trail rapidly through. Yet, same as any fire can warm, it can just as readily singe. Is Mr. Trump the former, the latter or both? That is the fundamental question that frames his surprisingly successful candidacy.

On the other hand, there is Ted Cruz, the safer, happy medium between maverick and Washington insider. He has won Wisconsin primary by a robust 13 percent. Will he have the electoral juice to secure the Republican nomination (and defeat Hillary Clinton) or the class to put the people's will first given the current likelihood of a Trump presidency? That means waiting 'til 2020 or beyond (At 70, Trump will best “oldest” Ronald Reagan's 69 years). Complicating all of these moving parts is the economic tipping point for a country given its ever-mounting 19 trillion dollar debt. With a University of Pennsylvania degree in economics, perhaps a businessman like Mr. Trump is better suited to make the hard choices of the near future to rescue America from insolvency? In any case, at only 45, Mr. Cruz has plenty of time. But for what precisely? With the Supreme Court vacancy needing a strict constitutionalist, I wonder if the country would not benefit more in the long-term from 30 years on the court than eventually (perhaps) the executive branch.

Add to this already tangled mess, the self-preserving interests of Republican party leaders, elected officials and deep-pocketed special interests (read: the aforementioned “forest decay” fueling Donald Trump's “megafire” candidacy). These power players are so invested in maintaining the status quo they are ironically willing to facilitate the convention chaos that will likely result in at the high cost of handing the presidency (and the philosophical balance of the Supreme Court) by default to the corrupt Democrat. Even now, these elitists unhappy with Trump (uncontrollable) and Cruz (unlikable) scheme for a brokered convention to insert a hand-picked third option ( Paul Ryan?) who will lose in the general election. (Indeed, how is this top-down exercise any different from Democrats' superdelegates where the fix has been in for Hillary Clinton since day one?) This is the nuclear option that shatters the GOP: new and loyal general election voters will be disenfranchised, Trump might renege on a third party run (and who would blame him), and the rank and file will further suffer under Hillary's version of Obama's legacy-preserving third term. Meanwhile, the GOP elites will “lose” gracefully over Manhattans, and the smoke not emitted by the glow of their self-satisfied cigarettes will be the American Way on fire.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog