Friday, December 30, 2016

2016: An Anti-Women Year?

But scientists? Record-breaking athletes? Leaders? Does. Not. Compute. Still! In 2016. From the lab to the Olympic podium to the Oval Office, America still has a problem with women when they’re good at the things men have long reserved for themselves.” – Petula Dvorak, “feminist” Washington Post columnist

As Crooked Hillary did not win the presidency, scribbler Dvorak has yet another political ax to grind. What else explains her boneheaded assessment that 2016 is somehow globally anti-woman? Like liar Hillary, apparently Ms. Dvorak has an aversion to truth-telling—and modern-day reality. Girl power is everywhere! What of the current resident at 10 Downing Street? British Prime Minister Theresa May doesn't count as a leader? At home, how about Air Force general Lori Robinson: the highest ranking female in U.S. history—and the first women as a combat commander? Further, three women are on the Supreme Court. Isn't it hypocritical for Ms. Dvorak to accuse others of diminishing the contributions of women—when she completely ignores them?

In sport, why has she forgotten tennis pro Serena Williams? This year, Ms. Williams tied Steffi Graf's historic open era record of 22 major championships. Likewise, how about another American phenom, Simone Biles? As the winner of four gold metals, she's considered the “greatest gymnast of all time”. This breakout star of a team of women has established an Olympic legacy. Speaking of the Rio Games, U.S. women were the big winners: receiving 61 metals (to the men's 55), 27 of them golds. In 2016, if these don't count as record-breaking athletes to addled Dvorak, who does?

While it's true that women have not been so publicly acknowledged in scientific circles, even that unfortunate dynamic has been commemorated in today's highly rated movie, “Hidden Figures”. Given Ms. Dvorak's jaded '60s style mind-set, it's no surprise she doesn't pay attention to pro-woman box office trends. What else explains her failure to mention current number one “Rogue One”? That film features a brave, tough and capable female lead, Jyn Erso (played by actress Felicity Jones).

Indeed, 21st century America is one of the most accepting cultures on earth. Therefore, griping liberals—promoting a false anti-woman narrative—are actually grievance-holding dinosaurs of a bygone era. At present, tolerance is the overwhelming rule rather than the exception. As flawed and out of touch, such MSM misperceivers like Petula Dvorak should be pitied. Rightfully marginalized by current events—and a society that has evolved well beyond her. In truth, the “problem with women” is her own phantom menace. A sour grapes bogeyman of an ideologue's fevered imagination.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog  

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Liberal Losers Champion Hypocrisy

It’s understandable liberals presumed the Rockettes were going to be forced to do something with which they were opposed, because that’s what the liberal establishment [under Obama] has been doing to everyone else.” – Tammy Bruce, author, columnist and radio talk show host

When a handful of Rockettes declined to kick up their heels at Donald Trump's upcoming inauguration—a voluntary gig—liberals wrongly assumed the dancers' employer was “forcing them” to perform against their will. Where was a similar outcry when Christian bakers were compelled by the State to produce cakes for gay weddings? Further, why were libs as silent as church mice when the big government juggernaut that is ObamaCare compelled Catholic nuns to pay for useless birth control? (These Little Sisters of the Poor successfully petitioned the Supreme Court for “protection” from Obama's fascism.) For the last eight years, why has progressive “outrage” been so blatantly selective?

Wasn't the central theme of all civil rights movements—of women, blacks and gays—based upon the intrinsic idea of equal treatment for all? Why is it that today's progressives have inverted this meaning? Why do they seek “special” rights only for their fellow travelers (like one “graceless” Rockette who stated on Instagram that President-elect Trump “stands for everything we're against”)?

Democrats' only true agenda is self-serving power-seeking. Therefore, they distort and exploit a trivial circumstance for their own political gain. What else explains their full-throated lip service to griping, anti-Trump dupes who also constitute their future voting blocs? Ironically, a few Rockettes popping off behind the scenes has inadvertently made center stage leftist hypocrisy.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Friday, December 23, 2016

Shellacked Dems Ignore Trump “Mule”

There’s no education in the second kick of a mule.” – Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Majority Leader

President-elect Donald Trump is a political tsunami for returning Democrats as well as the outgoing president. Yet, the signs of an outraged electorate have been apparent for years. In the election cycles of 2010 and 2014, increasing Republican gains to 2017's domination of the federal government prove this assessment true. Why does the progressive political class continue to disregard the meaning of this circumstance? For Mr. Obama's obtuseness, the cost will be enormous: his disastrous legacy. For those remaining, the reelection of old guard leader Nancy Pelosi will likely consign Democrats to minority status for the foreseeable future. Reality is the pro-American wrecking crew of an upcoming Trump Administration.

For their collective defeat, these elitist egotists believe themselves to be “victims”. Post-election is about licking wounds for their sidelined little clique—not respecting the will of the voters. Lacking grace, all make revolving door excuses that deny personal responsibility. As examples, Mr. Obama claims unsubstantiated Russian interference while Mr. Clinton accuses “angry white men” of misogyny. Hillary blames FBI Director James Comey—and seemingly any tangent that readily leaps to mind. For her part, coddled Michelle vents to gal pal Oprah. All this gelded quartet needs is a mirror.

For years, these panderers have lived large as self-absorbed jet-setters. They've demonized opposition with false charges of intolerance. Trump's victory is the country's natural reaction: the third—and largest—kick of the “electorate mule”. Self-regard blinds them to this thunderous jolt. Ultimately, the 2016 election is more than a resounding repudiation of the Obama legacy or a future Clinton presidency. It's a wholesale rejection of the anti-American progressive agenda.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Ending Obama “Cult” Pains Michelle

Anyone who puts faith in a politician to make his or her life better is worshipping a false god. ... Politicians promote faith in themselves [read: Barack and Michelle Obama] because it helps their careers and feeds their egos.” – Cal Thomas, syndicated columnist in The Washington Times

The only wonderful thing about a false god is its inevitable demise. To progressive ideologues like coddled Michelle, the repudiations of her husband—political shellackings of 2010, 2014 and today—are deeply painful. After all, the Obamas are profoundly narcissistic and ego-driven. In 2014, that's why Mr. Obama said:

I’m not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that. But make no mistake: These [read: my] policies are on the ballot, every single one of them.

For Michelle's part, five-star White House perks and Air Force One jet-setting aren't enough. She wanted to be paid to be first lady. Indeed, the Obama presidency is defined by self-aggrandizement. What else explains Mr. Obama's habit of governing while golfing or his perpetual Hawaiian vacations? (Aptly, Michelle flew to Hawaii after her parting Oprah interview.) How can the Obamas take for granted the extraordinary faith gifted anyone residing in the White House? No one is entitled to sour grapes for being entrusted with such a lofty position. To helm the greatest nation on earth is a privilege—never an entitlement. It's a disgrace to behave otherwise.

Unlike the clueless and classless Obamas, President-elect Donald Trump “gets it.” That's the real reason behind his 'Thank You' tour. By contrast, neither carping Obama can muster even a few words of gratitude. A modern-day Marie Antoinette, entitled Michelle has happily existed in the echo chamber that is the White House bubble (same as her husband). What other couple has lived so publicly as careless millionaires, impervious to the suffering of their fellow citizens?

The Obama presidency is an anti-American exercise in fascism, the superficiality of identity politics and the cult of personality. The Obamas never even acknowledged harsh domestic or international realities. What of eight years of killing zones in inner cities like Chicago? What of Barack Obama's virtual doubling of America's national debt? What of the escalating worldwide scourge that is his unnamed radical Islamic terrorism? To them, none of these actual problems matter. They hold the ego-centered belief—a collective political delusion—that they are the “real victims”. See this same fiction paralleled by Michelle's griping and Hillary's election meltdown. As Hillary Clinton promised an “Obama third term,” how her failure is a resounding rejection of the Obama legacy. Country be damned: everything is about their marginalized little elitist clique.

Ah, the unceasing agony—to be at the mercy of a Republican Congress and The Donald's pen stroke! In this, America has been blessed with renewed hope and a new beginning. Michelle Obama's self-absorbed pessimism—a serious character flaw—provides the correct context for her out of touch reaction:

We are feeling what not having hope feels like.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Friday, December 16, 2016

Hollywood's Anti-Trump Minstrel Show

There are 538 members of the Electoral College. You, and just 36 other conscientious Republican electors could make a difference by voting your conscience on [Monday] December 19th and thereby shaping the future of our nation.” – Celebrity-laden political commercial by Unite For America

Fair and square, President-elect Donald Trump won. One meaningful measure is 30 of 50 states. Another is the most counties of any Republican since Ronald Reagan. That translates into a clear and definitive electoral victory of 306 votes. (Recall, the threshold to the presidency is 270.) Though Crooked Hillary conceded the election the morning after, she still backed Green Party Jill Stein's futile recount efforts which came to naught. Now, cry baby progressives have moved on a truly unprecedented step: the use of Hollywood actors as mouthpieces to directly lobby the Electoral College to nullify the people's selection.

So, presidential electors shouldn't do the right thing by honoring the results of the 2016 election? Thus, the standards of 29 states and the District of Columbia that bind their electors (via state law and/or by state or party pledge) to cast their vote for the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote should be summarily ignored? Great advice from people who make believe for a living! Naturally, they don't mean twice-failed Hillary. The empty-headed limousine liberals nebulously advocate “anyone but Trump.” How is that not lawlessness—the naked call of anarchy? Should American representative electors act like Iranian ayatollahs? In Unite For America's fascist propaganda, that's what the unhinged—like former pretend “West Wing” president Martin Sheen—want.

One wonders what's worse for hounded GOP electors: the nutty death threats they've received or being publicly called out by dopey Hollywood elitists? Please immediately send supportive emails to your elector via the website: Let them hear encouraging messages from patriotic Americans before they cast their votes for our 45th president this Monday.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog 

Thursday, December 15, 2016

The Washington Times: Politically Schizophrenic

The best path forward for the electoral college is to throw support behind a candidate whom a number of Trump-pledged electors can support: Vice President Joe Biden. As the sitting vice president, Mr. Biden is ready to immediately become president. And he is respected by both the right and left as a great statesman.” – Adam Copley, Pleasantville, PA, published on December 14, 2016

For the holidays, have The Washington Times opinion editors entered “The Twilight Zone”? (Do they think they actually work for The Washington Post?) As it isn't April Fool's Day, what else explains why liberal fascism is granted precious space in their scant Letters section? Given that The Times is supposedly the “conservative” Washington newspaper, the above absurdity is one for the ages. So, American elections shouldn’t count? The people's choice of President-elect Donald Trump shouldn’t really matter? The Electoral College should go rogue, subvert the 2016 election by elevating laughingstock Joe Biden to the presidency?

Let's sample the words and behavior of this “great statesman”. An obtuse gaffe machine with a habit of skinny dipping outside of the vice president's residences in Delaware and Washington (in front of understandably red-faced female Secret Service agents). When clothed, he says J-O-B-S is a three-letter word. He once described candidate Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean”. But wait, the comic relief gets richer. Mr. Biden's unknowing off the cuff remark that his boss “has a big stick” is another real gem. He's only “presidential material” to those lost souls desperately in need of psychological intervention.

Moreover, Joe Biden's political instincts are similarly disastrous. Domestically, as senator, he crafted the federal three-strikes legislation (copied by states like California) that's filled America's prisons to bursting with non-violent offenders. As vice president, he supported the economic fiasco that is ObamaCare. Not to be outdone internationally, he was against the decision to go after terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. He couldn't even arrange a simple Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) in Iraq, leaving a demilitarized zone ISIS moved into. Mr. Biden can't govern his brain or his mouth—let alone lead America. Therefore, one questions the boneheaded editorial decision to promote such an unworthy buffoon as president.

The Washington Times should not pander to progressives or otherwise parrot the MSM's anti-Trump propaganda. That means ending the practice of promoting liberals' screwball notions in their Letters section. Doing so wrongly alienates their loyal readership. More importantly, The Washington Times mistakenly hobbles the conservative viewpoint it's supposed to champion. Ironically, opinion editors need to read their own publication. Specifically, they should look to same-day column entitled “The mad search for pro-Trump columnists” by R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. Within, Mr. Tyrrell highlights this systemic problem: the legacy media's overt liberal bias disregards the potent ideas that have fueled Donald Trump's populist revolution within the Republican Party.

In retrospect, it's no wonder why it took The Washington Times 33 years—and 1 billion dollars in losses—to reach profitability for the first time in September of 2015. Around the same time, the powers that be condensed the Commentary section. The Letters to the Editor section was halved to the meager size of a postcard. Suddenly, an unimportant daily “book review” was made visually central (given a full column on the other half of the page). As this feature often seems more like an advertisement, it has no business being there. (One presumes the redesign was done for economic reasons. Given their history in the red, it's understandable.) In any case, the problem lies with careless Washington Times opinion editors. They consistently act like their Post counterparts by filling Letter space with anti-Republican claptrap.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Spinning Trump Conspiracy Theories

Let me be very clear: We do not have evidence of fraud. We do not have smoking guns.” – Green Party rainmaker Jill Stein, who received a whopping 7.33 million windfall after Election Day

For contrast, Jill Stein raised 3.5 million for her unsuccessful 2016 presidential campaign. That's less then half of what she received to challenge the voting totals in three states (pivotal to the election itself, but not to her prospects). She finished dead last of four, garnering zero electoral votes and only 1% of the popular vote or 1,316,040. Therefore, Ms. Stein can't win. As there's no apparent problem with the presidential election, why should a minor candidate with virtually no standing contest the results in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (where Trump's actually up 131 votes)? Likewise, why should Democratic mouthpieces in the press accuse Russian hackers of nebulous “interference”?

Both developments are narratives designed to promote the fiction that Donald Trump's election is somehow “illegitimate”. (Think of “Dubya” of Bush/Gore 2000.) Jill Stein—same as Bernie Sanders during the primary season—is a political straw man for Hillary Clinton. Like socialist Sanders, will newly flush shill Stein buy beachfront property with the leftover recount money?

Put nothing past progressives who call themselves “Democrats.” In truth, they are big government fascists. (Historically, the “switch” occurred when LBJ took over, using the country's grief over JFK's assassination to push his own anti-Kennedy agenda.) Further, attempts to undermine the Electoral College—members voting for Trump have reportedly received death threats—are just the latest example of their treasonous anti-Americanism. Leftists don't respect elections or democracy. They are elitist authoritarians who will do anything for their god: preserving political power.

There's nothing to fear from these divisive and diversionary tactics. They're just sour grapes. Liberals' litany of dirty tricks—via the MSM's trumped-up propaganda—will echo to a griping murmur after the inauguration. Moreover, their efforts to malign and marginalize will be self-defeating. After all, given their repeatedly false election forecasts, who are they but out of touch naysayers unworthy of attention or trust? Even The Washington Post admitted:

Trump was right all along, and we, the political class, were flat-out wrong. Trump effectively channeled anger and anxiety into a movement.

Innuendo spread by dishonest journalists (read: Democratic partisans) is the only problem here. Their influence—like their unsubstantiated claims—will fade like shadow: as immaterial as the outlandish stories they peddle.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Friday, December 9, 2016

Clarence Thomas: Ignored Conservative Icon

The persistent efforts to undermine Justice Thomas and his compelling body of jurisprudence, and to ignore the spectacular Horatio Alger [read: rags to riches] story of his life, are part of a deliberate strategy to silence a conservative voice from someone who might serve as a transformative role model in the African-American community in particular, and the American community more broadly. Sad, really, that the taxpayer-financed institutions of our own government would join in such efforts.” – John Eastman, founding director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence

Disgraced accused serial rapist Bill Cosby is favorably mentioned. So is philandering adulterer, golfer Tiger Woods. One imagines a whole wing of the new Smithsonian African American museum is dedicated to Barack Obama: the worst, most polarizing president ever to hold the office. Why then in our “post-racial” age, is a black Supreme Court Justice—one of the two ever to serve on the nation's highest court—treated like a modern-day Ralph Ellison “Invisible Man”?

Since the Supreme Court's inception on September 26, 1789, a grand total of 112 justices have had the distinct honor to serve. (By comparison, for context, Donald Trump will become America's 45th U.S. president on January 20, 2017.) To add further insult to injury, the only tangential reference to Justice Thomas is a political smear: a pin-back button reading “I Believe Anita Hill.” (Now ironically a race and gender anti-discrimination professor at Brandeis University, Ms. Hill famously accused the jurist of unsubstantiated sexual harassment at his 1991 Senate confirmation hearing.)

So, between references to Ms. Hill, Mr. Cosby and Mr. Woods, a rogue's gallery of the morally dubious are well-represented. (In fact, at the casual glance this ultramodern structure of sterile glass and oppressively ornate bronze mesh could easily be mistaken for a three tiered prison, an inverse step pyramid or a cubist slave ship.) Opened on the Washington mall on September 24, 2016, this 19th Smithsonian housing 37,000 objects is a 379,000 square foot eyesore. Within, ample space has been lovingly dedicated to violent quasi-terrorist anarchist organizations like the Black Panthers and Black Lives Matter. Yet, among 12 exhibitions, a person most central to both American history—and specifically the black experience—is wrongly marginalized and negated.

Liberal fascists running a museum cannot render Clarence Thomas invisible. As one of the country's finest legal minds, he's overcome numerous barriers—poverty, oppression and unbelievable odds—to epitomize the American Dream. Solely for his conservative voice, Mr. Thomas's glaring omission from the National Museum of African American History and Culture is a travesty. This heartless institution advocates acceptance and inclusion while exposing to the world their blatant two-faced hypocrisy.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Friday, December 2, 2016

“Santa” Trump Toys with Romney

The degree of difficulty in Romney's dive last night was greater than a reverse 4½ somersault in tuck position. Stunning flipflop” - November 30th tweet by ABC News analyst Matthew Dowd on Mitt Romney's complete Donald Trump attitude reversal

When you're a President-elect billionaire—and the world literally is your oyster—what's wrong with a little payback as political sport? Perhaps some subtle score settling for a willing dupe with a history of being manipulated by Democrats? Therefore, what's more fitting than to have this outspoken naysayer publicly humiliate himself with his smirking flip-flopping?

A delicious fate for Mitt Romney: a modern-day GOP Benedict Arnold. In retrospect, was his blistering rant criticizing Mr. Trump last March actually Shakespearean jealousy for a man who ultimately accomplished what he failed to achieve in 2012? To this end, Mitt acknowledged:

By the way, it’s not easy winning. I know that myself. He did something I tried to do and was unsuccessful in. He won the general election and he continues with a message of inclusion and bringing people together, and his vision is something which obviously connected with the American people in a very powerful way.

Actually, anyone familiar with winning knows it's easy. It's the losing part—holding grievances—that's tough (ask Hillary!). In this light, publicly condemning Mr. Trump as a “phony,” a “con man” and a “fake” sounds like self-serving sour grapes. Without a shred of proof, how is Mr. Romney disloyalty to the person who became the voters' choice not character assassination?

Ah, the difference eight months and an election make. Today, this brown-noser finds Mr. Trump's dining company to be “enlightening and interesting and engaging.” This dynamic proves that red meat at dinner (in the come-on chance to become Secretary of State) has attracted from the woodwork Mr. Trump's most pesky political housefly. Now, it's sweet revenge to hear Mr. Romney buzzing a radically different tune: that of The Donald's praises.

Out of touch, two-faced Romney epitomizes establishment Republicans: the polished, weak willed status quo. He's another creature of Washington: precisely what Mr. Trump ran against. Therefore, it's sheer folly for anyone to believe Mitt's in serious contention for anything besides further disappointment. In fact, on the campaign trail, Mr. Trump declared:

I said the guy is a stone cold loser, he choked and when you're a choker, you can never give a choker a second chance. It's too important. A choker is a choker.”

With such a pressing need for a new beginning for the country, why would Mr. Trump hamstring himself with someone he views in this way? Mr. Romney's failed track record in 2008—as well as his unsubstantiated Trump criticisms in 2016—cannot be disregarded. It's obvious Donald Trump doesn't suffer losers or fools—beyond perhaps toying with them a bit. Therefore, logically, this holiday season sycophants like Romney top Santa's naughty list. That roster doesn't include the next Secretary of State.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog