Friday, July 29, 2016

Poverty, a Mental Illness?

You have people who are... whose poverty is such that it creates a mental illness and it's just not being addressed” (in Washington, D.C.) – Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy on WMAL's Mornings on the Mall (June 27, 2016)

Progressives masquerading as journalists these days have go-to narratives to explain away criminality. First, they irrationally (and relentlessly) blame the inanimate object—the gun—not its user. Of this, Courtland Milloy's “To black kids living amid violence, it matters little who fires a gun” (July 13, 2016) is typical. Actually, he's completely wrong. There is a world of difference between appropriately armed white hat elements (the police, legal gun owners, the military) of our society versus chaos-causing wrongdoers.

As an example, last June four ski mask-wearing young men robbed eight retirees at the Hillcrest Recreational Center tennis courts of money, credit cards and jewelry. It was broad daylight, multiple guns were used, and three of the four were teens of similar ages as the victims' grandchildren. Hypothetically, if the elders had been legally armed this assault might have been prevented (or evened the odds.) After all, criminals (as Democratic politicians) sensibly fear an armed population. Realistically, as police can't be everywhere, this dynamic actively discourages crime and protects innocents (no matter their skin color).

Mr. Milloy aptly observes, “That's [the robbery] not just surreal. It's appalling.” Indeed, where are the fathers of these lost boys to teach them safe and proper conduct? (Put simply, right from wrong.) Recall that Democratic welfare programs have provided (for more than half a century) an economic incentive to single mother households. Hence, generations of fatherless boys running wild in minority communities. (Who else but they engage in all too common D.C. neighborhood shootouts? Does Mr. Milloy believe this dangerous activity is being perpetrated by law-abiding citizens or thrill-seeking cops?) Make no mistake, LBJ's progressive policies have destroyed the black nuclear family unit—and with it virtually any chance of upward (capitalistic) economic mobility.

Now, spinning himself silly, this Washington Post scribbler comes full circle with his laughable claim that poverty causes mental illness. (A whole new category for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)!) Interestingly, mental defect is the exact excuse this fop used to rationalize the barbaric actions of Omar Mateen (the ISIS-inspired Orlando mass murder of 49). What if some in the crowd at Pulse had legal guns strapped to their hips? Innocent lives would have very likely been spared. Guns in responsible hands—for the preservation of life—is the reason for the Second Amendment. That's not something dishonest men of Mr. Milloy's ilk will ever address. It's easier to make a cushy living promoting fictions in weekly columns populated by bogeymen: American “intolerance,” and gun-totting racists and sickos.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

“Dopey” Summer Olympics

The decision regarding Russian participation and the confusing mess left in its wake is a significant blow to the rights of clean athletes.” — Travis Tygart, the CEO of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency

Between the threat of the Zika virus—and the Olympic-sized mistake of allowing state-sponsored, doped Russian athletes to participate in Summer Games in Rio—the purpose of national pride (and universal sportsmanship) has been utterly undermined. Last Sunday, less than two weeks before opening ceremonies commence, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has let the USSR off the hook. An interesting call given both clear forensic evidence of the substitution of steroid-laced urine at a Russian-controlled lab in Sochi in 2014, and the recent discovery of systematic doping of the Russian track and field team. Despite this pattern of corruption, the IOC will permit Russia's 28 sports federations (governing each individual discipline) to decide who participates? Well, that sounds above board, doesn't it?

For similar wrongdoing, Russian tennis star (and five-time major champion) Maria Sharapova has been suspended from the WTA for two years. Naturally, she's appealing the determination (and consequently will not appear in the Games). Yet, given her deep pockets as founder of high-end candy brand Sugarpova, perhaps she can use the same sweetener that has magically reinstated her fellow countrymen? Apparently, green changing hands really is worth gold at the Summer Olympics.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Sunday, July 24, 2016

Washington Post: Hillary Fundraiser

It's said if one wants the truth in politics (as in crime) one should follow the money. Reported on the site “Conservative Treehouse”—per a WikiLeak's document dump—The Washington Post and the DNC held a September 2015 joint fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. Such an event is illegal, of course, but so what? Nothing will be done.

Once again, this circumstance conclusively demonstrates to us “little people” that the Clintons are above the law. At the highest levels of government—from FBI Director James Comey to AG Loretta Lynch and ultimately to President Obama—all have gifted Mrs. Clinton a complete pass for clear criminality (read: violation of federal law 18 U.S.C. 793). Recall Hillary's treasonous Server-gate: state secrets in her possession were stored on private servers likely hacked by bad actors and/or foreign governments. Ho-hum, the Democrats have another national election to win.

With this fundraiser, the Democrats—politicians and the sycophantic press—have pulled yet another fast one. Is it any wonder why the MSM has Hillary Clinton blinders on? This incestuous association of elitist devils proves a once notable newspaper, The Washington Post, has completely disintegrated into a propagandist rag.

Donald Trump is exactly right. The system is rigged. The federal government under progressives is a banana republic: utterly lawless. Leaders act like emperors who lie with abandon. They are wholly secure in the knowledge of favorable Fourth Estate spin. One's morning paper is nothing beyond the White House's false talking points. Insiders cannot be trusted. Hence, a primary reason to elect an outsider, Donald Trump in November.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Saturday, July 23, 2016

“Character” Cruz: Political Pariah

“The true test of a man’s character is what he does when no one is watching.” – John Wooden, UCLA's 10-time national champion basketball coach

The inverse axiom of this statement—when everyone is watching—is equally valid. Given the global importance of First World America, national political leadership is supposed to be led by adults willing to make the tough, country-preserving calls. Why then, do today's leaders (on both sides of the aisle) act as petulant, ego-driven children?

In this case, I refer to coy Ted Cruz's Trump non-endorsement convention speech. What columnist Charles Krauthammer succinctly likened to “the longest [political] suicide note in U.S. History.” If Mr. Cruz could not wholeheartedly support the people's choice, he had no business being on that RNC stage. Specifically, even sore losers like Ohio governor John Kasich and the dynastic Bush Family (read: JEB), had the good sense to stay away. Yet, not this mighty orator of conservative values, this Texas senator who exposed himself to all the world as a two-faced Judas. As his personal 2020 presidential ambitions now favor a Hillary Clinton victory, Mr. Cruz used the petty excuse of a personal grievance with Trump to put self-interest before the fate of a nation.

Ted Cruz nebulously advised the electorate to “vote your conscience” in November. His feeble attempt to hamstring Mr. Trump has, in actuality, slit his own throat. In the likelihood Mr. Trump wins, Mr. Cruz will be correctly marginalized as untrustworthy. On the other hand, if the Republican nominee loses, Mr. Cruz will rightfully be blamed. Either way, the record-setting number of Trump voters will look elsewhere in the future.

Given his established non-team player reputation in the Senate, Mr. Cruz is already viewed askance by fellow Republicans. After this latest self-serving stunt, he will never be embraced by them. Further, he will never be trusted by the Democrats either. Politically, he is a man alone; an island unto himself. Although Ted Cruz stated publicly that he did not want the post, he could have been a Supreme Court justice. He might even have eventually become commander-in-chief by following Ronald Reagan's path (ultimately supporting incumbent Gerald Ford despite losing a contentious primary contest to him in 1976.) Due to his fatal flaw—hubris—none of that can happen now. He has consigned himself as a footnote to history. Undone over a couple of terrible and untrue insults regarding his father and his wife. Welcome to politics 101, Teddy: put your big boy pants on and deal with it. Despite the outlier of corrupt Hillary Clinton's meteoric rise, those with authentic character put country first, period.

To contrast, Abraham Lincoln's fortitude makes him first in the pantheon of many great U.S. presidents. Recall Spielberg's “Lincoln” (2012) played sublimely by the 3-time Oscar-winning actor Daniel Day-Lewis. Against the heart wrenching backdrop of immense personal tragedy—the death of Lincoln's beloved 11-year old son Willie (in 1962) and his grief-stricken, inconsolable wife, Mary—the President successfully won the Civil War (the bloodiest American conflict threatening to tear the country in half). To add to his Herculean labors, the 16th U.S. president finagled passage of the 13th Amendment over strong Democrat Party resistance which ended the scourge of slavery in America for all time.

Monuments honoring such men of character like Lincoln and Reagan—those willing to sacrifice and/or make hard choices to the greater benefit of the country—will never be built to the likes of Ted Cruz. His misbehavior at the convention conclusively demonstrates that his lofty rhetoric is meaningless because it is not backed up by corresponding action.

In the final analysis, for graciously permitting Ted Cruz a prime time speaking slot, Donald Trump is the magnanimous one. That bigger person is likely White House bound. By not being similarly conciliatory, the truth about the Texas senator is laid bare. He is a small person who threw away the possibility of lasting greatness (ironically for himself and the country) because it required honoring his public pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee. A cautionary tale about not keeping one's word, and the exorbitant cost of being thin-skinned (unlike Lincoln). For him, all is lost over a grievance stuck in Cruz's craw during a now forgotten primary season.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Friday, July 22, 2016

One Huckster Hawks Another

“I don't think there's ever been someone so qualified to hold this office.” — President Obama on Hillary Clinton

“His brain has not only been washed, as they say ... It has been dry-cleaned.” — Khigh Dhiegh, as Dr. Yen Lo from the 1962 classic film “The Manchurian Candidate”

If there ever have been two corrupt, amoral birds of a feather (not including hubby Bill), they are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. BHO's self-serving effort to sell her damaged goods (read: Benghazi, “Clinton Cash” influence peddling etc.) to the voters is a quid pro quo arrangement to preserve his disastrous legacy (which Donald Trump will undoubtedly undo). That is the primary reason Mr. Obama is endorsing unindicted liar Hillary. He, like she, cares not one whit about fate of America, only with retaining the presidency as a prize. They are two polarizing anti-American Sal Alinsky radicals playing a scripted political patty-cake. For them, it's all about incompetent (and/or corrupt) rule via acidic cultural destruction (read: social division by race, class, gender, orientation etc.). Make no mistake, the last 7 ½ years has been a progressive hellhole of their collective fascist design. They maintain political power indirectly by distracting the public (read: trivial bathroom issues), and directly by exploiting ancient white guilt and continuing black “victimhood.”

Mr. Obama is likely the worst president ever—up until 2017. A rudderless Western apologist and a hard leftist ideologue. At least America's first black president began as an unknown. An empty emblem that the American people foolishly pinned their idealistic hopes to. Yet, Hillary Clinton is a known quantity—and none of it is good. Indeed, 40 years of scandals and lawbreaking (read: unambiguous Server-gate criminality) rightfully dog—and define—her. Outrageously, Mrs. Clinton still has a real opportunity to take America to even more ruinous, unimaginable depths. It's a binary 50/50 proposition between her and Mr. Trump. No contest in modern times could be more clearly defined. An American cultural heartbeat as significant as JFK's Assassination or Reagan's Revolution. A fork in the road between outsider Trump's Reaganesque optimism versus insider Hillary's Clintonian cynicism.

The current empty suit that resides in the Oval Office pushes an empty skirt with only failure as their shared accomplishment. Likewise, he ran on the superficiality of his race, she on the triviality of her gender. At best, she's been a placeholder as secretary of state, junior senator from New York and 8 years as first lady. Perhaps no American politician has been more bought and paid for (by foreign and domestic interests). She views the presidency as her own personal garage sale—of American influence—to the highest bidder.

Washington Times columnist R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. has aptly pointed out in “The Certifiable Candidate” that Hillary Clinton is a complete phony. He wrote:

“The blue of her eyes is, as with practically everything else about her, a studied fake. She wears blue contact lenses. Her blue eyes look a muddy brown without her cosmetic lenses. As for her “dyed blonde hair,” for all I know she is bald. When [Great Britain's foreign minister] Boris [Johnson] speaks of her putting him in mind of a “sadistic nurse in a mental institution....”

Is Hillary Clinton a real-life political version of Annie Wilkes (a psychotic nurse played to Oscar glory by actress Kathy Bates) in “Misery” (1990)? Well, the misery part of the Obama Administration (of which Hillary was a central part) is certainly true. To continue the analogy, do citizens comprising the languishing body politic really want someone who will double down on Obama's failed policies? Even worse, given her complete absence of character, would any sane person want her immoral, American-hating ministrations bedside for the next 4 or 8 years? Homicidal Annie Wilkes put it simply to her ailing captive, writer Paul Sheldon: “Because if I die, you die.”

The future of America hangs in the balance. So, too, does the freedom-loving Western world. Therefore, the price of electing another empty symbol of hypothetical “progress” is too high.

Donald Trump is the right person to be the next commander-in-chief. With a focused and practical workingman's vigor, he will restore domestic tranquility while rebuilding America's prosperity at home. Indeed, when one is the genuine article, respect is automatically and instinctively given. Thus, as projected light is to shadow, progressives like Hillary and Obama are exposed as the morally bankrupt fakers they are. Inert and useless fluff of unrealized dreams—and true-life nightmares.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Millennials: Pokemon 'Dopeyman'

The soft bigotry of low expectations now plagues America's political landscape. Disconnected millennials—likely rabid former socialist Bernie Sanders supporters, now tepid Hillary ones—play the latest video game fad, the Pokemon Go app. To the uninitiated, the players walk outdoors in the real world hunting virtual creatures such as Golems, Porygons and Dragonites. (These characters appear on the screens of their smartphones.) So utterly distracted are they, one can literally walk into walls or oncoming traffic. So, actual risk to life and limb is worth playing a nostalgic video game?

What a perfect analogy to their abject cluelessness. As an example, politically speaking, they have no concept of the danger of electing yet another Clinton president. Why else would they support the ruling class of liberal fascists masquerading as lying Democrats? Unfortunately, they have been weaned in a coddled culture that awards everyone a school trophy for simply “showing up.” That's high school; however, college is no better. No matter the subject matter or type of degree, every parchment now issued is a BS in liberal indoctrination (many with pricey 6-figure prize tags). Therefore, when millennials get into a pressurized scenario, like a job (assuming they can find one at all with 93 million unemployed) they are utterly unprepared to cope.

Speaking of another petulant person completely out of his depth is Barack Obama. Straight out of a bright and shiny millennial fantasy, he just “showed up” (on the political scene) and was foolishly handed the U.S. presidency, not once but twice. What of note had BHO accomplished as junior senator from Illinois? Nothing. The same was true less then a year in office when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Indeed, Mr. Obama's ongoing, bowing and scraping apology tour to leftist dictators the world over hardly equates to the Nobel's “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy between peoples.” The reality remains that during his failed tenure radical Islamic terrorism has spread like pernicious brush fires all over the globe. America has been a non-entity overseas due to Mr. Obama's “leadership from behind.” As a pro-Islamic ideologue with a murky upbringing, his administration's feckless, surrendering “negotiation” will likely lead directly to a soon-to-be nuclear Iran. And as this greatest state sponsor of terrorism inevitably grows in influence so too will an ever-flourishing ISIS. Like fist in glove, the two go together.

What greatly assisted Mr. Obama's reelection was the artificial muzzle of political correctness. People were afraid (even to themselves) of being labeled “racist” for not voting for America's first black president, so they did. Yet, in retrospect, Barack Obama's hope has been non-existent; his nebulous change has been radically un-American. Specifically, for 7 ½ years he has demonized police as “stupid” and/or “racist.” Hence, Black Lives Matter anarchy. They cause and/or inspire the burning cities of Baltimore, MD and Ferguson, MO. And the latest tragic domino effect: commonplace assassinations of police in New York, and most recently in Dallas.

Who else but he has so politically polarized our society (with the water-carrying MSM distracting from his multitude of failures)? Like a noxious witches' brew, his media minions have dutifully stirred the simmering pot of racial tensions repeatedly to boil. Now, Obama suddenly pivots at a memorial service in Dallas, suddenly expressing “pride” in murdered police? (This flip-flopping hypocrisy mirrors his “evolution” on gay marriage. That, too, was a naked political calculation: designed not to promote equal rights, only to shore up a lost campaign funding source.) His Johnny-come-lately pro-cop pronouncement is no different. Why else would he say “how inadequate my own words have been” and “we're not as divided as we seem”? This is the same self-serving lip service that has defined his presidency. A feeble, last minute legacy-preserving attempt to change the tone of his last 6 months in office. One can easily imagine the colorful language MLK would have for this charlatan.

In the final analysis, Barack Obama is as happily oblivious as millennials' playing Pokemon Go. As history has already demonstrated, he is completely out of touch with the world as it is—and heedless to its dangers. Yet, the President and his family have nothing to worry about. Via one of Mr. Obama's executive orders, lifelong Secret Service protection has already been arranged. On the other hand, game-playing millennials—tracked and cornered like sheep by criminals—won't be so safe. Pokemon's apt and ironic catchphrase: “Gotta catch 'em all!”

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Monday, July 18, 2016

Nail-biting Binary Politics

One way or another, Neo [an anagram meaning “the one”], this war is going to end. Tonight, the future of both worlds will be in your hands... or in his. – The Oracle from “The Matrix.”

Due almost entirely to anti-American progressives (read: lawless Obama and his lying would-be successor Hillary Clinton), national politics are so polarized, they are binary. That's exactly like on/off computer code. In the almost 8 years under the corrupt ministrations of Barack Obama (much like his O-shaped symbol) America has been a zero (0). In practical terms, that means off an economic cliff (with an escalating 19.3 trillion debt) and an impotent void (0) overseas. In truth, our republic's vitality and viability hangs by a thread. A 50/50 rescue/ruin paradigm to be determined by November's presidential election. Will America continue to be a zero (0), helmed incompetently by yet another lying Democrat? This one arrogantly exclaimed:

“For goodness sake, that is not gonna happen [a campaign-ending federal indictment]. I’m not even answering that question.” — Hillary Clinton

Or will it be revitalized to a First World one (1) by Donald Trump? The stakes could not be higher, the outcome more uncertain.

Make no mistake: neither Hill nor Bill care not one whit (0) for our country. Mrs. Clinton's potential election is a victory solely for them (2 = 0). The Oval Office is the ultimate economic trough for this tag team of amoral sows to stick their collective snouts back in. It's retaining political power for even greater shakedowns: power brokering for stratospheric self-enrichment. See the well-established pattern: how else does one go from Hillary's “dead broke” to worth over 100 million in 15 short years? So they can do better, become billionaires in 4 (or 8) short years from further ripping off America to the highest bidder?

That's a zero-sum (0) game for everyone else. One wonders if divine intervention is necessary for average Americans to finally wake up to the insidious truth. It is insanity to elect another America-hating, Constitution-disregarding Democrat to high office. Progressives Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are anti-Reagan and anti-Lincoln. They are twin scourges of Founding Fathers' nightmares. What their built-in checks and balances have failed to rein in (read: the Congressional do-nothing Republican establishment and “Notorious RBG” on the Supreme Court).

Let me be clear, a plague has flourished on the U.S. political landscape: hard left big government control fascists, equal parts lawlessness, lies and corruption. To ignorantly choose such creatures to “lead” America in the future is yet another self-inflicted wound with domestic, global and historical consequences. Liberty has been greatly dimmed at home—and virtually extinguished abroad (read: the Middle East takeover by ISIS, the Iran nuclear “deal” etc.). In the extreme, one no longer wonders how monstrous figures rise to absolute power like in Germany in 1933:

“He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.” – Adolf Hitler

This is why progressives (fascists), abetted by a propagandist MSM, make empty promises to the next generation of “free” stuff. This blatant trolling for votes is a resounding warning (school bell) to the wise.

Related specifically to Mrs. Clinton, the fix has been since the beginning. Specifically, way back in February during the Iowa Caucuses, how else does one explain 6 different dead-locked precincts tossing tie-breaking coins all fall Ms. Clinton's 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 outcome that luck has nothing to do with. Likewise, during the sham contest between she and now vanquished socialist Bernie Sanders, he kept winning state elections, but losing in the all-important delegate count. Moreover, fast forward to the political theater of last week. On the same day, the first day Clinton and Obama appear together on the campaign stump, FBI's Director James Comey announces his boundary-overstepping recommendation that criminal charges not be filed against Hillary for Server-gate?

So it's no rules or consequences for the elites like Hillary ‘scot-free’ Clinton, is that what our dilapidated democracy's come to? A coin flip that may place the fate of the nation (and perhaps the world) in immoral hands such as hers? In a poll released last Monday, despite clear evidence of law breaking—and treasonous espionage—only 56% disapprove of the decision not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton? That's little more than another coin toss. (How about completely failed Mr. Obama's approval ratings that also inexplicably hover at 50%?) Despite unambiguous criminality, why do half of those surveyed not seem to care?

This tragic political phenomenon is not exclusive to America of late. A case and point was the successful Brexit vote to leave the ‘bananas’ European Union. That was 52% for and 48% against, another virtual 50/50 split. In every one of these situations the political establishment (via the media) throws its nefarious weight in an autocratic direction beneficial to itself. That direction always maintains the status quo. This is the reason for moral equivalency, and the infestation of political correctness in today’s national politics. Since Obama, world-shaping decisions are either left in wicked hands, or to the whims of fate. A highly risky numbers game favoring the powerful (and enmeshed) establishments of both political parties (2 = 0). Therefore, for the voters to unite (1) behind the outsider—the unconventional candidacy of Donald Trump—remains the average citizen’s best bet to return America to her deserved First World (1) glory. It's a 50/50 proposition so choose wisely. One (1) or zero (0)?

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Thursday, July 14, 2016

Blathering “badder” Ginsburg

“I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be—I don’t even want to contemplate that. Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”

“He is a faker; he has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He [as she] really has an ego.”

— “Objective” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

It's no surprise an egotistical crone supports a lying witch. (Still, as every American citizen, jurist Ginsburg is entitled to her personal opinions, warped as they obviously are.) As she was appointed to the high court by Hill's philandering hubby Bill, it would be somewhat understandable if her stated reason for support of the coronated Democrat was misguided nepotism. But it's not. This veteran of the Supreme Court is just another partisan; an unapologetic ideologue wearing a black justice's robe. How can a person charged with faithfully interpreting the Constitution—an ultimate arbiter of our laws—support a plainly immoral, lawless creature for U.S. president?

The mind frankly boggles at Ms. Ginsburg's shameless audacity. In what alternative universe does one as she publicly excuse the candidate constantly under threat of multiple federal indictments, but criticize the populist outsider who isn't? This “great legal mind” is so pickled she can't imagine a Donald Trump presidency? Obviously insulated by her lofty perch, she is so far removed from reality she feels threatened by the pro-Constitution Republican (pledged to make America great again)? Does this Big Sister timeshare in “The Twilight Zone” or just perpetually reside in George Orwell's “1984”?

Barack Obama's fascist “fundamental transformation of America” has completely mangled Ronald Reagan's First World beacon of liberty. Now, America is an unrecognizable ultra-constitutional husk, no better than a Third World banana republic. Indeed, the wrongdoing of Obama's imperial “leadership from behind” has seeped like sludge into every major aspects of the executive branch: the White House, the weaponized IRS, the incompetent EPA, the blind Justice Department—and the hobbled FBI. Even the politically cowed do-nothing Republican Congress is not immune. Further, with the tragic passing of conservative icon Antonin Scalia, even the Supreme Court hangs in the most precarious balance: philosophically stalemated 4 to 4. This razor's edge is borne out by Ms. Ginsburg's fellow travelers on the bench. Specifically, I refer to the high court's “Leona Helmsley,” the coddled Sonia Sotomayer. One more rotten apple such as these (the next president may chose as many as three replacements) will doom the country to unimaginable leftist ruin for decades to come.

It's no laughing matter. Even given millennials' misbelief that TV's “Judge Judy” (Sheindlin) is a member of Ruth Ginsburg's elitist country club. (Much as one wishes she is, she's not. Yet, Ms. Sheindlin's no-nonsense adherence to law makes the future New Zealand bound Ms. Ginsburg the real faker here). A simple truth: a vote for Donald Trump is a vote for Judge Judy's America.

As a cautionary tale, see the untold collateral damage of electing Democrats/progressives. That specifically means all politicians surnamed Clinton—and their bad judicial appointees like the appropriately nicknamed “Notorious RBG.”

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

“Witchy” Clinton “spells” Cohen

“Over the years I have detected wee imperfections in Clinton... [b]ut she is a colossus of integrity and wisdom compared with Trump. He [rightfully] calls her “Crooked Hillary,” [and] she has been ... found, if not completely innocent, then not guilty. The GOP ought to give it a rest.” — From “Clinton survives another Salem trial” by The Washington Post's Richard Cohen

Hillary Clinton Kool-Aid drinker Richard Cohen got only one thing right: the witch part. Missus Slick Willie has literally been mired in corruption and scandal since her late 20s—and hypocritical scribbler Cohen now cheerleads 40 years of Clintons getting away with everything? Is this the same award-winning reporter who co-wrote 1974's “A Heartbeat Away: The Investigation and Resignation of Spiro T. Agnew”: an expose of a corrupt vice president? Unlike Hillary, at least scandal-prone Agnew was already in office before being rightfully driven from it. Assuming that Mr. Cohen isn't simply addled, how is it that he pillared the Republican in his youth, but now champions the Democrat (clearly guilty of far worse wrongdoing) in his advanced age?

“Colossus of integrity and wisdom?” and “If not completely innocent, then not guilty?” Seriously? Loony bins are full of such parsing people who peddle such laughable, patently false delusions. Mr. Cohen desperately needs an intervention, and a cocktail of strong psychotropic medications forthwith.

In any case, it's not Republicans who need to rest. (Some would rightfully assert they already have for the last almost 8 years of Barack Obama's ultra-Constitutional overreach, and abject lawlessness). The rest needed here is solely Richard Cohen's.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Monday, July 11, 2016

Sulu's Dark Side of Half Moon

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” ― John F. Kennedy at Rice University, September 12, 1962

Immortalized as classic TV, Star Trek (1966 - '69) and its optimistic opening phrase “Space: the final frontier...” was a veiled reference to JFK's New Frontier ideals of a fair and inclusive society. It was the definitive sci-fi program (stylistically years ahead of the tastes of its meager original audience). Under the guise of fictional 22nd century space explorers, the show dealt directly (albeit subtly) with highly-charged social issues. Recall that the 1960s was the Civil Rights era. As an example, the program made commentary on evolving race relations with “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.” In season three, episode 70, a pair of two-toned, hate-filled humanoid characters are the last survivors of their kind. One is black/white face right/left, the other is the same—colors reversed. For 50,000 years one has relentlessly chased the other. In the story their mutual journey ends in isolation—and certain death on their nuked home planet. (Produced today might the two “space aliens” be portrayed with black and blue color schemes representing Black Lives Matter and the recently slain 5 Dallas police officers?)

As Star Trek traveled the cosmos (the creative landscape of the writers' imaginations) Jack Kennedy made the real-life determination that Americans would be the first to journey to the moon. This 'one great leap for mankind' was accomplished during the Apollo 11 mission when the Eagle lunar module touched desolate terra firma on June 20, 1969. However, Star Trek did not fare so well. Its “five year mission” was cut short after only three seasons (canceled by NBC for low ratings). Synchronistically, Star Trek's TV life span mirrored the brief three years of “Camelot,” the nickname of Mr. Kennedy's presidency (due to his assassination in Dallas on November 22, 1963).

Today, finding universal acceptance of biological differences like skin color and sexual orientation seems more difficult than JFK's realized dream of moon walking. Star Trek, in its own way, was similarly groundbreaking. Specifically, the first interracial kiss on TV occurred between Lt. Uhura (Nichelle Nichols) and humanitarian lothario Captain James T. Kirk (William Shatner) modeled on JFK. Let's just say that Captain Kirk seemed to have a comely, scantily dressed new female at every port of call. And related to this “smooch heard 'round the world,” Mr. Shatner rakishly insisted on a script change so the glory would be his rather than Spock's (Leonard Nimoy). Thus, he boldly went (on TV anyway) where no man had gone before.

Warp speed to America of 2016. With interracial marriage commonplace—and gay marriage newly legalized—what's the big deal that one of the signature characters will be openly gay? In the appropriately named “Star Trek: Beyond,” the third installment of the movie franchise (re-imagined with a new cast), doesn't such a thematic change rightfully pay homage to the spirit of creator Gene Roddenberry's original show—and inclusive sensibilities? Isn't this just a simple substitution: sexual orientation for race? Surprisingly, not everyone is creatively on board. Ironically, the person opposed is now openly gay actor George Takei who played navigator Hikaru Sulu in the original series.

Mr. Takei came boldly out of the celluloid closet in real-life in 2005. Why can't today's fictional version of Hikaru Sulu do the same? Played by John Cho, his take: “This movie is going to be coming out on the 50th anniversary of Star Trek, the 50th anniversary of paying tribute to Gene Roddenberry, the man whose vision it was that carried us through half a century. Honor him and create a new character. I urged them. He [director Justin Lin] left me feeling that was going to happen.” Well, precisely. How is it that Mr. Takei has gotten everything so entirely backwards when saying, “Unfortunately, it’s a twist of Gene Roddenberry’s creation, to which he put in so much thought. I think it’s really unfortunate.” Sorry Georgie! As a Hollywood veteran, he knows very well there are no creative sacred cows—for better or worse. An example of better was the superior reboot (read: story, acting, special effects) of the brilliant “Battlestar Galactica” (2004-'09). In this update Lt. Kara “Starbuck” Thrace featured a thematically complex female (Katee Sackoff) in place of the unremarkable male version (Dirk Benedict) in the original. On the other hand, inevitably there is worse. Does anyone seriously believe that an all-female team of “Ghostbusters” is really a good idea?

The original Star Trek portrayed a fictional Kennedy-style Utopian society aspired to. Today's Star Trek feature films reflect today's reality of a widely tolerant America that has—in great measure—arrived. On screen, as in real-life, the journey to universal acceptance of difference steadily continues. Notable tragedies like Orlando and Dallas are manipulated and spun by the propagandist MSM as generalized American “intolerance.” Similarly, anarchist movements like Black Lives Matter are wrongly highlighted for a polarizing political effect beneficial to progressives who lead by social division. Yet, to any clearly thinking person, the violence and the killing remain exceptions to the rule. Optimists see the truth: the normalcy of open minds, everyday courtesy—and shared grief in the loss of innocent lives. Ultimately, love overcomes fear in the same way that light overcomes darkness. And as Star Trek aficionados well know resistance to certain things—like reaching for the stars or accepting diversity—is indeed futile.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Saturday, July 9, 2016

Black Lives Matter's Dallas About-face

By definition, every leftist political organ—specifically Democrats (like Barack Obama) and their propagandist creature the MSM—is inherently amoral and patently two-faced. Epitomized by Bill and Hillary Clinton, they say in the moment exactly that which is politically self-serving. To these shameless hypocrites, the fact that what is said now completely negates what was said previously doesn't matter. Any track record or past history does not exist (read: Democrats' historical support of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws etc.)

Specifically, less than 48 hours ago, a piece surmising that Black Lives Matter proponents populate the “The Twilight Zone” was published. Only a theory, the ink—same as the blue blood outrageously shed by 5 in Dallas “coincidentally” at a Black Lives Matter rally—has barely dried. Now, by today's sudden 180 degree flip, BLM suddenly condemns the murder of police they have publicly clamored for—for years?

How convenient to have magically forgotten a December 13, 2014 New York protest in which they repeatedly shouted: “What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now.” Think that's just an anomaly? Almost one year ago, in Minnesota on Saturday, August 29, 2015, they chanted in unison “Pigs [cops] in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon.” However, it would be incorrect to assume that today's sudden mass denial is a recent phenomenon. The seed of this cover up started with Rashad Turner (lead organizer of BLM, St. Paul) that following Monday, August 31, 2015. On CNN with Brooke Baldwin, this spokesman for an anarchist death cult laughably claimed their public call to violence was “not speaking of killing a police officer.” Was Mr. Turner channeling Bill Clinton's “It depends upon what the meaning of the world 'is' is”? So the unambiguous advocacy of murdering cops is suddenly not that?

Don't listen to what we said then, listen to what we say now? Seriously? Forget your lying ears? One is instantly reminded of Annie Wilkes unhinged rant about mass amnesia in “Misery” (1990).

Speaking of misery and Dallas, Black Lives Matter has gotten what it has previously clearly yearned for. For our part, the rest of us must forgive them all their mistakes. Yet, that's a very different thing than pretending they never happened in the first place. Hopefully, this will become a defining mea culpa moment for them. If that is the case, they must end their violent hate speech. Like cocooned caterpillar to butterfly, they must immediately transform—by adopting the peaceful protest conduct of MLK. Then black lives truly will matter—same as blue ones.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog