Tuesday, September 19, 2017

DACA's Robin Hood Excuse

Only in legend—and our topsy-turvy political climate—can lawbreakers be treated like heroes. As an analogy, Robin Hood famously stole from the rich to give to the poor. While doing so, he ironically wore all green: the color of money. This bowed bandit took goods benefiting one group, the wealthy, and redistributed them to another. Thus, was this Sherwood Forest dweller, this “do-gooder” outlaw, the world's first Bernie Sanders (I-VT) socialist?

Today, can't any political scheme be rationalized via Robin Hood's claim of good intentions? For example, when Democrats made their late night, locked door legislative arrangement—with zero Republican support that average Americans knew nothing about—that's called Obamacare. Given their appropriation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, Robin of Loxley would have undoubtedly been among their number given his own sticky fingered proclivities. Yet, if a similar takeover was perpetrated in the private sector, it's likely criminal; or in DACA's (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) case at least unconstitutional.

How is stealing a quasi-legal status akin to citizenship not in the same vein as bank robbing? After all, in both cases something valuable is stolen by individuals with no legal entitlement to it. Complicating matters is the fact that such freedoms are intangible: in essence, more precious than Robin's booty could ever be. So, rather than a higher penalty, our society's lawmakers should reward such wrongdoing, again? For context, during the Reagan era, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) granted up to three million unauthorized migrants a path to legalization if they had been “continuously” present in the U.S. since January 1, 1982. Isn't any DACA replacement, regardless of its particulars, singing from the same sheet music? Make no mistake: it's politically correct amnesty for the undeserving. A popular and easy “fix” to low-information voters that bolsters the self-serving agendas of both political parties: cheap labor for Republicans, voters for Democrats. However, what's politically expedient still is not right. Laws turned into Swiss cheese by Washington's shortsighted whims are as effective as porous borders are safe.

Any democratic society must respect the laws that bind its members or it quickly degenerates into chaos, criminality and tribalism. Such is the ongoing occupation of America by an estimated 11 million illegals. Under the best scenario, even a handful of bad actors among this shadowy underclass are an existential threat. Who are they? Where are they? How do they support themselves? Where do their loyalties lie? How is any modern society to function without safeguards or a basic measure of cultural cohesion?

In any civilized society, lawbreakers go to jail for undermining society in various fundamental ways. Consequently, that outcome causes absences that divide families. Children from both camps, though no fault of their own, are made to suffer because of their parent's unlawful decisions. In a nutshell, illegals' offspring are “anchor babies” compelling D.C.'s current “compassionate” DACA doublespeak. In the name of their broods, why should illegals derive special privileges that no incarcerated citizen enjoys: to flout our laws with impunity, and escape consequences all to benefit their blameless loved ones? In other words, a good sounding excuse justifies almost any malfeasance. By that same skewed logic, should all convicts be liberated from America's prisons solely to rejoin their marginalized children? The fact remains that both sets of law violators present a potential danger to everyone else. Even a crowd-pleasing rogue like Robin Hood would not abet such a grand injustice.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Paul Ryan: Nicest Swamp Creature

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. In other words, due to one's high status that person can claim anything without fear of being challenged by those who know less. So it is with Washington Times columnist Richard W. Rahn's muddled analysis of Paul Ryan (R-WI), an 18-year veteran of the Washington bog. Given this writer's flowery assertions, however, he sounds like the newly appointed cheerleader of the Republican excuses brigade! To that end, his doe-eyed opening sentence speaks volumes:

“It is tough to play hardball with your friends.”

Has Congress metastasized into a millionaires' social club? Are Mr. Ryan's fellow representatives supposed to be playboys for him to pal around with? If that's now the prevailing mind-set on Capitol Hill, it certainly explains a lot! Specifically, Gallup's record low approval rating for Congress in 2017: a measly 16%. And is that statistic any surprise given their collective failure to repeal Obamacare—after seven years of broken GOP promises? Thus, is it reasonable to sing Paul Ryan's praises as he's one of the primary figures responsible for the ongoing legislative morass?

That's not Pauly's fault, says Rahn. The real trouble is he's just so darn agreeable! Is affability suddenly a personality flaw in politics, or in the business of governance? If so, will someone send Mr. Ryan “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie? Recall, in the natural world that honey's sweetness attracts many more flies than vinegar; so it is with human nature. In fact, didn't President Ronald Reagan epitomize a sunny disposition—and didn't that trait make him more effective as a leader, not less so?

Naturally, the reality of Speaker Ryan's inherent inability to lead is quickly glossed over:

“[He is] not particularly good at managing a large number [read: 240 of 435; one vacancy] of independently-minded people.”

For his unsuccessful cat wrangling of only his party (and half of the legislature) a premium is earned: a $223,500 annual salary. That's a whopping $49,500 more than the House's rank and file. (By comparison, President Trump runs the entire executive branch for $400,000 a year, per Title 3 of the U.S. Code; donating his whole salary, save one dollar, to charity.) Mr. Ryan has not followed suit—and given his lack of positive results—perhaps he should.

But wait, Rahn claims, Mr. Ryan real aptitude is as a “policy wonk”. If that's so, why did he capitulate to the Democrats' two trillion dollar debt-busting budget rather than opposing it? Likewise, is he “highly accomplished” for losing control of the budgetary schedule as Mr. Rahn admits? For context, when Speaker Ryan assumed his leadership role on October 29, 2015, the national debt was $18,152,590,112,385.69. As of this writing, it has increased to $20,173,505,864,062.25. After almost two years, why are all of the economic indicators under his “expert” tutelage still going in the wrong direction?

Beyond the escalating debt, proof is seen in the pitiful pre-Trump 2% GDP. By those measures alone, Mr. Ryan would have been fired in the private sector long ago. After all, as Speaker he determines the agenda; same as his chamber controls the nation's purse strings. And despite his hollow-sounding protestations about not initially wanting the post, the fact remains that he took it. In this way, he seems to cultivate a regular guy “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington” persona. Still, the fact that Mr. Rahn doesn't see through this slick veneer is troubling. It means his favorable depiction of Mr. Ryan is untrustworthy. As that is the case, perhaps a fictional one can illuminate his real-life subject better:

“Listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open.” – Dr. Jeffrey Pelt, National Security Adviser, played by Richard Jordan in “The Hunt for Red October” (1990)

Now that sounds like a realistic baseline with which to evaluate any longtime D.C. insider. Yet, unlike Dr. Pelt, one would never expect Paul “not ready” Ryan to be so candid about his own history of mealy-mouthed capriciousness regarding his faux support of President Trump.

Hence, in the Trump era, the American electorate has had their fill of nice guy RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) who embrace the status quo by subverting “M.A.G.A.” policies. By his record and his actions, that's who Paul Ryan really is. That's also precisely why our results-driven president cut a three-month extension with the Democrats (for government funding, and Hurricane Harvey relief). And why not? When has that fresh-faced facade of the do-nothing Republican establishment ever been a friend to him? Indeed, championing such incompetence demonstrates a profound obliviousness to modern-day political dysfunction—that even a clear-eyed low-information voter can see.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Confederacy Stains Church Windows

In 1953, was it really wrong to commemorate Gen. Robert E. Lee in the stained glass of Washington, D.C.'s National Cathedral? For context, a typical statement from this post-war unifier from March 15, 1866:

“We shall have to be patient, and suffer for awhile at least; and all controversy, I think, will only serve to prolong angry and bitter feelings and postpone the period when reason and charity may resume their sway.”

Politically correct progressives, it seems, are in a cultural jihad with his ghost. A modern-day McCarthyism-style fervor to annihilate the famous figures populating their own Confederate history. It's analogous to a real-life “Fahrenheit 451”: tearing down statues of their forebearers instead of burning books. However, the goal to eradicate threatening ideas—both sets of objects represent—is identical. Unfortunately, Democrats' demented dogma has recently shuttered the windows of a national religious landmark.

Last Tuesday evening—after a two-year debate—the cathedral's governing board voted to remove two 4-by-6 foot stain glass panels. Related to church windows, what do parishioners typically see other than emanations of color and beautiful designs? Still, the fact that they depict two important Confederate generals, Lee and Gen. Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, now means they must be purged. Per Church officials, this sudden “eyesore” is “a barrier to our important work on racial justice and racial reconciliation.” A convenient excuse of the self-righteous to perpetrate retribution against demonized, and defenseless, targets. Flawed as they may have been, weren't these American soldiers also Christians? Thus, to utilize Scripture as a guide:

“Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, 'Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother [Confederates] who sins against me? Up to seven times?' Jesus answered, 'I tell you, not just seven times, but seventy-seven times!'” (Matthew 18:21-2)

As their religion's prime directive is forgiveness, why have these church elders sown dissension instead?

Hence, their brief deconsecration service that followed Thursday was a farce. A hypocritical effort to mask scorn via a “respectful” ritual toward disparaged subjects. Yet, liberals' self-serving perpetuation of an ancient grievance has no relevance, for example, to Lee's post-war actions. In this matter, their ire is a bizarre and destructive (often violently expressed) mind-set. Thus, as the acknowledged face of the Confederacy, Gen. Lee is a scapegoat for Democrats' own existential crisis of conscience. In short, they use his image to inflame today's political landscape. Their groundless accusations—as their unfounded rage—have no bearing on him, then as now.

Neither do their baseless claims of his influence have any connection to race relations in America of 2017. Our widespread celebration of diversity—as demonstrated by commonplace interracial marriage—is a case in point. Those needing a more blatant example of societal evolution need only consider the last occupant of the Oval Office. What greater honor can be bestowed upon anyone to represent all Americans then electing that person to helm the country?

Speaking of obvious truths, the Cathedral Chapter's unfortunate determination is actually an insult to the gift, and the legacy, of the completely blameless United Daughters of the Confederacy (and a private benefactor). After all, they raised the funds and donated the windows to the church. Thus, for 64 years the Daughters' intention was to honor the past, not justify its mistakes. This fact was even acknowledged by religious progressive Gary Hall, the former dean of the cathedral, who stated in 2015 that the prominently placed panels signified a desire to “foster reconciliation between parts of the nation that had been divided by the Civil War.” Historically, that means the Confederacy’s descendants commissioned the windows as an act of contrition: to promote unity, and healing. In other words, precisely what Lee did during the Reconstruction Era. Therefore, what reflective message could be more appropriate in a hallowed space than that one? To the well-informed, removing the windows only abets ignorance of the past. Quite an “enlightened” decision in this topsy-turvy political climate!

Tragically such visual beauty has also become a Rorschach test for polarizing partisans in the MSM. For example, The Washington Post's Colbert King misconstrued:

“The solemn truth was inescapable: The windows honored a system that rested upon black subjugation and white supremacy. They were a stain on the cathedral and were, as the chapter’s removal resolution stated, 'inconsistent with [the church’s] current mission to serve as a house of prayer for all people'. ... They had to go.”

Interestingly, this columnist's spouse, Gwen, is a member of the Cathedral Chapter. She voted to strip the nave of these “offensive” artifacts, too. Given the Kings' collective advocacy of vanquishing the National Cathedral's “silent symbols of a bloody war fought to uphold a traitorous Confederacy rooted in slavery,” perhaps they should complain about the open display of crucifixes next? After all, didn't the Ku Klux Klan (read: the militant arm of Southern Democrats) habitually burn crosses to terrorize minorities? Aren't these archaic instruments of Roman torture as off-putting to the delicate sensibilities of their flock as their newly condemned windows?

As followers of Christ, what would Jesus do?

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Thursday, September 7, 2017

Lindsey Graham: Ruinous RINO

Conservative icon President Ronald Reagan has a famous Eleventh Commandment that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) foolishly disregards to his—and the GOP's—political peril. It is thus: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. Yet, for the enticing glow of a TV camera—and the gotcha questions of a liberal interviewer—he will say just about anything:

“[Attorney General] Jeff Sessions is wrong. These kids are not taking jobs from American citizens, they're part of our country.”

By any legal definition, citizens make up America; this is true of every sovereign nation on earth. As Sen. Graham received his J.D. from the University of South Carolina in 1981, one would assume he comprehends the distinction. After all, the law is unambiguous: either one resides stateside legitimately, or not.

Only one who slept through law school could possibly take the position that AG Sessions is incorrect regarding the “Dreamers.” Specifically, Barack Obama's June 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was an overreaching executive order. Such rule breaking is the purvey of emperors or would-be kings: never any Constitution-respecting U.S. president (like Trump). In fact, Mr. Graham should be incensed that his lawmaking role had been so roguishly usurped by DACA: not defending the undeserving recipients of this ultra-constitutional farce.

Given Mr. Graham's inexplicable attitude, isn't it disconcerting that this senior senator has been a member of Congress for more than two decades? In all that time, why hasn't his ilk resolved the illegal migration problem? Moreover, rather then taking Mr. Obama to task for creating this immigration mess, Mr. Graham publicly criticizes a member of his own party for following the spirit, and the letter, of the law?

Why do so many prominent Republicans like he, John McCain (R-AZ) and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)—indigenous Washington “swamp” creatures one and all—defend their do-nothing status quo? At every turn, it seems, they offer nothing more than full-throated excuses such as, laughably, McConnell's:

“Our new president, of course, has not been in this line of work before, and I think had excessive expectations about how quickly things happen in the Democratic process.”

Therefore, one can understand why the can-do attitude of a results-driven, private sector capitalist would challenge the bureaucratic intricacies of government that lifelong politicians hide behind. Consequently, a main reason why President Trump was elected: to “shake things up” that badly need it! Insanely, these RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) undermine him and the agenda that he—and they—were elected upon! Why are they indistinguishable from their truth afflicted Democratic counterparts?

Once again, Mr. Graham is mistaken when he, as Democrats, blithely claims that “Dreamers” are not siphoning resources—and opportunities—that should be reserved for U.S. citizens. Indeed, how can this “leader” ignore the negative impacts of the undocumented? One telling example is taxpayer funded public school education. Per the National Center for Educational Statistics:

“Total expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools in the United States in 2013–14 amounted to $634 billion, or $12,509 per public school student enrolled in the fall (in constant 2015–16 dollars).”

For context, per Pew Center statistics, some 11 million illegals reside in the United States. Of those, approximately 17% are under the age of 18. As a typical pre-college education is twelve years, at $12,509 per year for 1,870,000 illegals amounts to: $280,701,960,000! Furthermore, related to employment, Pew Hispanic Center puts the number of illegal aliens in the workforce at 8 million. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median wage for full time workers in the United States in the final quarter of 2016 was $44,148 per year. That amounts to $353,184,000,000 in lost citizens' wages. How's that not taking by foreign squatters from the fiscally abused taxpayers who also pay Lindsey Graham's yearly salary of $174,000? Is he just insulated or completely obtuse?

After more than seven and a half months of GOP inaction and broken promises (read: Obamacare repeal) what's clear is that RINOs, as he, care nothing about their ill-used constituents. You know, the voters who elevated his kind to majorities in Congress. So, why the utter disconnect by the upper echelon of the Republican Party?

It turns out these folks have a political syndrome akin to Jan Brady's Marcia envy. For those unfamiliar with the sitcom “The Brady Bunch” (1969-1974), Jan was her family's insecure loner, the often marginalized middle child to her popular paragon of an older sister. Beautiful and talented, Marcia naturally attracted attention overshadowing her inferior sibling. Like Jan, RINOs desperately want to be liked—above all else! Ironically by the Trump-hating liberal clique that is the MSM. However, the press is populated by propagandist “mean girls” unwilling to lavish the same slavish devotion they habitually bestow on Democrats. Hence, RINOs utter soft, milquetoast phrases, as exemplified above, mimicking progressive perspectives. Specifically, that Lindsey Graham wrongly sees the offspring of lawbreakers as part of our societal fabric is inconsistent with immigration law—and the will of American patriots. How then can he also support funding Trump's southern border wall?

To play both sides of an issue by subtly pandering—to go as the political winds dictate—typifies gelatinous RINOs, and polarizing liberals. Thanks to ongoing media spin, the electorate is likely to ignore Democrats' many untruths, but they will expose the GOP's lack of legislative accomplishments. At this rate, Mr. Graham will likely find himself, and his party, consigned to the minority after the 2018 midterm elections. Meanwhile, the debt keeps growing; the Obamacare repeal failed (by RINO John McCain's deciding vote); tax reform is uncertain; and the voters have lost faith in clearly feckless Congressional Republicans. Rather than embracing the daily opportunities to follow Trump's lead, this fork-tongued backbencher will find himself returned there.

Still, a cushy office, a six-figure salary, and the trappings of power are nice booby prizes. That's certainly enough to build the flagging self-esteem of the Jan Bradys of the world, anyway. But, if Sen. Graham wants to truly be a winner—like Marcia Brady, Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan—he needs to relentlessly champion conservatism via the priorities set forth by this president forthwith. To that end, focusing on the concerns of his fellow citizens—rather than parroting the bleeding heart narratives of the left—would be a vast improvement. In the final analysis, being an ineffectual RINO fosters scorn and mistrust from every corner. It guarantees failure: no matter which side Lindsey Graham finds himself on.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Friday, August 25, 2017

Identity Politics Fouls American Melting Pot

Given the range of human behavior and perception, it's a social and romantic myth that “opposites attract.” In fact, it's likely a subconscious tendency for people to associate with others based upon superficial commonalities like ethnicity. All value judgments aside, its root is likely an ancient survival instinct. (Something that has nothing to do with hate or racial discrimination.)

This impulse emerges from one's family unit, building outward to larger circles of shared interests via common language and cultural experiences. In turn, these “specialized” factions form the matrix of vibrant communities from the local to the state level and beyond.

Still, there always remains some psychological tension between the individual desire for independence—versus any group's desire for uniformity. However, even in the case of identical twins, diversity is still seen in distinctive personalities. Thus, achieving a balance between all of these forces—where difference is as respected as sameness is embraced—is the foundation of any healthy and prosperous society.

In the modern age, freedom of thought, lifestyle and religious expression defines the West. Specifically, this is why America is the envy of the world: why people from distant shores—and diverse backgrounds—flock to live here. Yet, today, the vital mechanism that makes all of this work is under constant attack by Democrats' progressivism. Their words imply: 'come to the U.S. and impose your origin country's values even when they diametrically oppose our traditions'. Hence, Garrett Hardin, Ph.D. (1915 - 2003), ecologist and social scientist, cautions:

“Diversity within a nation destroys unity and leads to civil wars. Immigration, a benefit during the youth of a nation, can act as a disease in its mature state. Too much internal diversity in large nations has led to violence and disintegration. We are now in the process of destabilizing our own country. The magic words of destabilizers are ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism’.”

Positive differences—same as new ideas—remain wonderful, and necessary things. Indeed, both add “spice” to any human interaction or evolving relationship. But, identity politics preys on those dissimilarities, exploits them for the ruling class's self-centered political ends. So, liberals subtly promote their Big Lie of the “bad American”: the dominant culture (read: white folks) perpetually victimizes minority groups because of their differing external appearance. Scurrilously, Democrats imply a deep-seated intolerance in our daily lives that does not exist. To add insult to injury, they pretend that those they claim to champion are somehow helpless or inferior. In reality, anyone can realize the American Dream with hard work, and a little luck.

Capitalism is the basis of America's economic strength—embodied by the good, but often stylistically mercurial President Trump. For context, his attitude of U.S. victory contradicts that of another recent political upstart: socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Unlike Trump's motto of “America First”—based upon private sector investment and expansion—Sanders peddles big government intrusion as the “solution” to society's woes. In retrospect, as a harbinger of failure, was it any surprise that Bernie was swept into office during the 110th session of Congress: when polarizing Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) became House Speaker, and the legislature fell under total Democratic control?

Since that time, what of the nation's metastasizing debt—nearing 20 trillion under liberals' (and RINOs') inept ministrations? Does any clear-thinking person still buy the Washington swamp's narratives? For one, President Ronald Reagan certainly didn't. Back on August 12, 1986 he said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”

Absurdly, “helpful” progressives act as if all non-whites have a built-in ax to grind because of their minority status. So, if something goes wrong for them, fault is always “elsewhere”. In fact, identity politics only gains traction because liberals, via the MSM, manipulate the low-information voter into believing he or she is aggrieved. As a case and point, if this is not so, why are they so busy fracturing the country over mute and harmless Confederate statues—otherwise completely ignored for generations?

Democrats' fiery rhetoric is stirring America's melting pot to the boiling point. Most eloquently, Suzanne Fields of The Washington Times recently wrote:

“Now we’re embroiled in domestic wars of a different kind and the younger generations challenge democracy from within, even marching against free speech, making the protection of the fragile First Amendment ever more difficult.”

When free speech is repressed—as it is now by unhinged leftist mobs—an angry and frustrated environment encourages the generalized use of fists rather than words. Remember, these purveyors of alienation want chaos, open borders, lawlessness, and most of all, tribalism. What's absolutely alien to them is the American motto e pluribus unum: out of many, one. The underlying reason for all of their destructive vulcanization is simple: a happy electorate votes for Republicans.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Blaming Others for Dastardly Deeds

Capitol Hill displays 100 luminaries in Statuary Hall: two donated from every state in the nation. Per The Washington Times, more than 25 of these silent sentinels—Confederate politicians and/or soldiers; others merely slaveholders or segregationists—from a bygone era have come under public assault by polarizing progressives. Notably, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) recently said:

“There is no room for celebrating the violent bigotry of the men of the Confederacy in the hallowed halls of the United States Capitol or in places of honor across the country.”

Recall, Ms. Pelosi is a 30-year veteran of the House of Representatives. Has she forgotten she was in charge of that institution not so long ago? As the 52nd Speaker of the House, why didn't she have the “offensive” Confederate figures populating her workplace removed? Wasn't four years—from January 4, 2007 to January 3, 2011—enough time to purge the chamber of her “undesirables”?

Correspondingly, Democrats had total control of the U.S. Senate for four months. A 60-member filibuster proof majority from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. For context, in that small window there was ample time for them to pass Obamacare. Yet, on this matter, why were Democrats as mute and inactive then as the statues they now so vehemently object to?

A shame unmentioned by anyone—but known by everyone—is an open historical secret. Ms. Pelosi's violent bigots were her own political forebearers: antebellum Democrats. If those disreputable Southerners were not pro-slavery, why did they start the Civil War? Did they not also create the Ku Klux Klan to resist liberating Republicans, and intimidate their supporters? Furthermore, weren't chastened Democrats still managing things on the ground after the Reconstruction in 1877? Did they not establish segregationist Jim Crow laws (as antithetical to Republicans as slavery) that finally went out of favor at the beginning of the civil rights movement of 1950?

Certainly a cruel record they would like the informed to forget. Fortunately, conservatives—aptly represented by the GOP's symbol of the elephant—have long memories. What's understood is that liberals, regardless of the passage of time, have always been rabble-rousing troublemakers. Specifically, as they evaluate every circumstance through the superficial prism of race—aren't they as identity obsessed, and polarizing, as their political ancestors?

Each generation presents a clear and unmistakable threat to traditional American values. Therefore, in function, obstructionist Democrats (read: anti-Trump proponents) are simply the latest version of anti-Union Confederates. As an example, wasn't West Virginia Sen. Robert C. Byrd—known as the “Exalted Cyclops” of the KKK—also a lifelong Democrat? In that regard, it's interesting to note that Ms. Pelosi worked side by side with this former Klansman for 23 years. Thus, for decades, she was apparently untroubled by Mr. Byrd's outspoken embodiment of racial prejudice. Why then should inanimate Confederate statues now provoke discomfort for her?

What hasn't bothered her in more than a quarter of a century suddenly does so on August 17, 2017 when she proclaimed:

“The Confederate statues in the halls of Congress have always been reprehensible. If Republicans are serious about rejecting white supremacy, I call upon Speaker Ryan to join Democrats to remove the Confederate statues from the Capitol immediately.”

So, solely on her say-so—via Democratic voodoo (one imagines some magical form of osmosis she has been immune to during her lengthy Congressional career)—Republicans have secretly been infected by pro-KKK attitudes? Specifically, Republicans should be condemned for not doing what she never has—and brought up for the first time last week? This Democratic leader has certainly mastered the art of hypocrisy!

In truth, her ridiculous assertion contradicts the GOP's founding principle of abolitionism! From its inception in 1854, Republicans have repeatedly championed equal rights for all. Thus, only dupes would heed this Johnny-come-lately to anti-Confederacy sentiment. Likewise, Ms. Pelosi's hollow claim to value honor is yet another polarizing stunt. It's neither Republicans nor Confederate statues that's contemptible here!

In light of all their dreadful history, it's easy to see why progressives will never acknowledge these facts. As with their antecedents forming the KKK, today's Democrats encourage their lawless followers to riot and terrorize. Once again, Pelosi's fiery rhetoric—based upon utter falsehoods—foments insurgency:

“I am deeply alarmed by the hateful and dangerous nature of the event, its timing so soon after the horrors in Charlottesville, and the serious questions over whether the National Park Service is at all equipped to ensure public safety during a white supremacist rally.”

Pelosi's “dangerous” assembly is a multicultural free speech rally by Patriot Prayer next Saturday at San Francisco's Crissy Field. Since when is a gathering to express mainstream American tolerance something “hateful”?

In any case, what Democrats care about here is cleansing the American landscape of physical mementos of their vile political past. Hence, their Confederate counterparts must go. In practice, when that occurs, progressives ensure the innocent right wing is blamed for it; as well as any associated street violence (perpetrated by their fascist thugs).

With the abetting MSM media in tow, Democrats' propaganda is constantly reinforced. Their message is wrongly perceived by the low-information citizen as gospel. To subsist, responsibility-phobic Democrats habitually scapegoat others (read: “Trump Derangement Syndrome”). Thus, liberals' latest fixation on imaginary Confederate ghosts is yet another subject-changing distraction from their own leftist tyranny.

In the final analysis, how devious is Nancy Pelosi's strategy: demonizing the defenseless dead while simultaneously defaming the reputations of Republicans as de facto 21st century collaborators! Yet, her wickedly revisionist narrative fails to hide the timeless cultural sins of her corrupt political party.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Monday, August 21, 2017

What Triggers the Mob

How can the removal (or destruction) of any external object purge the human psyche of a disgraceful mind-set like racism?

Recall that all history is a series of discrete events locked in time: unchanging and unalterable. Therefore, today's revisionist fervor directed at America's antebellum past is misguided. Like amber dating back 100 million years to the mid-Cretaceous period (proving Tyrannosaurus rex had bird-like feathers), would it be right to destroy a specimen simply because the subject could evoke some existential human dread of prehistoric monsters? An absurd example that makes an important point: Confederate statuary, like dinosaur bones, only demonstrate the existence of a thing. Yet, meaning is inherently fluid: applied in the now by the living.

To eradicate historical artifacts in the name of progressives' “progress” is jackbooted fascism. It's the real-life manifestation of George Orwell's “1984”. Specifically, Big Brother is the identity politics-obsessed Democratic Party. Their creature is the violently inflamed street mob: faceless, mindless and everywhere. One prominent example is Black Lives Matter who on August 29, 2015 publicly proclaimed, “Pigs [cops] in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.” On CNN, this lawless group was praised by Georgetown University sociology professor Michael Eric Dyson who said Wednesday, “The people that we claim, Black Lives Matter, the antifa movement, and so on, are interested in preserving the fabric of America.” So, exactly how does a cop-killing advocacy group “preserve” American society?

Democrats demonize today’s law enforcement officers—simply for wearing a uniform (and perhaps carrying a gun)—as indiscriminately as long-dead American icons. Telling examples are found in the murder capital of Chicago. Instead of spotlighting the skyrocketing death toll, the aggrieved and clueless like Bishop James Dukes, pastor of the Liberation Christian Center, has asked the mayor's office to remove monuments to two U.S. presidents including Founding Father George Washington. Even worse, a Chicagoean malcontent has vandalized a giant bust of Abraham Lincoln—our slavery-abolishing 16th president—with a flammable spray. Thusly, President Trump's Thursday Tweet is prescient, “Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson—who's next, Washington, Jefferson? So foolish.” What's foolish is in the name of “tolerance”, the intolerant constantly attack the undeserving, then as now, as “racist” bogeymen.

Anti-American anarchists populating the left thrive by causing chaos and disruption. Their whack-a-mole strategy is based on a fundamental flaw of reasoning: that the inanimate—especially what they label triggering symbols—can be blamed for flawed human choices that constantly mold society. Hence, their fascist impulses to prohibit what's objectionable only to them: guns, cops or Confederate figures. Yet, none of these groupings automatically cause problems. In truth, almost anything physical can be weaponized. For instance, would Virginia be wise to ban all cars because one crazed individual, James Alex Fields Jr., 20, killed Charlottesville resident Heather Heyer, 32, with his silver Dodge Challenger?

What plagues our culture are Democrats who exploit various tragedies for their own divisive political ends. They don't see the evolved reality of the melting pot that is 21st century America. For them and their followers, individual responsibility is nonexistent. Instead, liberals promote victimhood narratives—eagerly embraced by those easily manipulated by fictional offenses—to incite actual violence.

Simply as a record, history deserves to be protected because all men are fallible, and wrongdoers exist in every age. The mistake our generation is making is focusing on them instead of their hateful modern-day equivalents.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Clinton Caused Korean Crisis

If David Keene's column (“Making the best of a bad nuclear hand, The Washington Times, 8/15/17) on North Korea was analogous to a play, it would focus on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern while disregarding the story's lead, Hamlet. Indeed, the mysterious figure central to today's Asian travesty—and wholly unmentioned—is Bill Clinton, circa 1994. Recall some 23 years ago, Slick Willie entered into a $4 billion agreement for U.S. aid to Kim Jong Il's regime. The stated goal then was to “end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.” Given the threat now presented by Kim Jong-un: whoops!

Isn't it important to mention the person most directly responsible for getting America into this international quagmire?

Instead, Mr. Keene focuses on trivial players: Democratic National Committee Deputy Chairman and Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, and Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser and U.N. ambassador. For his part, Mr. Ellison is the former co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. For context, at a town hall meeting in Jensen Beach, FL, ex-congressman Allen West said on April 10, 2012:

“I believe about 78 to 81 House Democrats are members of the Communist Party. It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.”

Given Ellison's murky background—whom Mr. Keene pegs as a fool—why quote him? Likewise, speaking of untrustworthy Democratic mouthpieces, is Susan Rice. Remember Benghazi and “Sunday Susan's” multiple claims that the consulate attack was the result of an internet video. Why waste time on those with zero credibility, as she, while letting another politician surnamed Clinton go scot-free?

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Monday, August 14, 2017

Gifting Nukes to North Korea, Iran

In nature, typical human beings are smart enough not to feed the gators. Wisely, neither do they tangle with grizzly bears. Historically, why then do Democratic presidents consistently subsidize, and embolden, America's geopolitical foes? A prime example is Bill Clinton's public capitulation to one back on October 18, 1994:

“This agreement [$4 billion in U.S. energy aid] will help achieve a longstanding and vital American objective—an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.”

In light of the present reality there: whoops!

Recall that this poll-obsessed president—same as the last occupant of the White House—mastered the promotion of superficial political narratives. Stated plainly, the optics of how something can be politically spun: without any thought to how dire something actually is, or may turn out in the long term to be. Facilitated by Bill Clinton, what greater example could there be than North Korea? Today, a totalitarian regime has him to thank for reportedly passing the nuclear threshold.

Beyond any consideration, Democrats are always about preserving their party's influence via the next election cycle. Back then, in the middle of his first term, Mr. Clinton badly needed a talking point. An illusory “victory” he could point to to stave off what shortly became 1994's Republican Revolution: a GOP takeover of both chambers of Congress for the first time in 40 years. Yet, at the time, Clinton's machinations were even acknowledged by the partisan New York Times:

“The accord struck in Geneva gave the President a chance to proclaim a major foreign policy success just weeks before the midterm election. But Asian diplomats pointed out today that it also placed the United States in the odd position of bolstering the political capital of a man it has regularly denounced as a terrorist, a supplier of missile technology to Iran and a dictator: Kim Jong Il.” 

Ah, the difference 23 years makes.

In retrospect, Kim Jong Il (Kim Jong-un's father) had Bill Clinton's yellow cake and ate it too. Naturally, by cake, I refer to de facto U.S. financing of North Korea fledgling nuclear weapons program. Over the decade that U.S. billions flowed to Pyongyang, isn't it likely that some of that American cash was misappropriated to acquire uranium, and develop military technology like ballistic missiles?

As the Clinton administration had declared Kim Jong-un's father a terrorist, why would they foolhardily enter into an agreement with someone obviously so dangerous and untrustworthy? Remember, the former Arkansas governor had no international experience. His shortsighted political “fix” garnered some momentary positive press, but achieved nothing meaningful. In the House of Representatives, a 54-seat swing put Republicans in charge for the first time since 1952. Likewise, an 8-seat gain gave the GOP control of the Senate held previously in 1986. As is so typical in modern-day politics, problems escalate by being kicked farther down the road to someone else, and an uncertain future.

Then, as now, Republicans hold the reins of power in Congress and the White House. Given the contentious political landscape—and disturbing international developments—a mixed blessing, at best. What it really means is that the GOP—and Donald Trump, in particular—is left holding the bag for decades of liberals' reckless policy decisions. Idiotic choices exemplified by thoughtless neophytes like Bill Clinton in the 90s, and repeated by Barack Obama during his administration. Besides Obama's coddling North Korea for eight years, what of his adding almost 10 trillion added to the nation's debt; ISIS's full flowering under his watch; the healthcare debacle that is Obamacare; and the yet-to-be realized Damocles sword that's his disastrous Iranian “deal”. Wrongly maligned by the beltway establishments of both parties, how “lucky” for Mr. Trump to also potentially contend with an upcoming nuclear threat from Middle Eastern Ayatollahs!

In essence, isn't Bill Clinton's North Korea misadventure equivalent to Barack Obama's and Iran? Once again, the pretext of a “Democratic victory lap” on the international stage was the unhinged rationale for misappropriating American resources to bankroll the largest state-sponsor of terrorism: $33.6 billion! As the clock rapidly expires, does any clear thinking person truly believe that Iranian leaders are not actively following North Korea's lead?

To that end, in the modern era, Democratic presidents tend to drag America into armed conflicts (or as close to them as possible). As examples, there's no doubt that Democrats were in the White House during the three big “defensive” wars of the 20th century: the two World Wars and Korea. Furthermore, Democrats started and escalating the widely unpopular Vietnam War. In Asia, so much American blood and treasure needless lost! If history repeats itself there, his Democratic predecessors, not Trump, overwhelmingly bear responsibility.

In the interest of full disclosure, there are two notable exceptions where contemporary Republican presidents have initiated war. First, was Bill Clinton's minor inheritance of the military intervention in Somalia ordered by George H. W. Bush. Second, and of far greater significance, was Mr. Obama's inheritance of the Iraq War from George W. Bush. Yet, an important mitigating factor shows, once again, that a Democrat's hands are central to triggering that American tragedy. This time it was Bill Clinton's chose not to act against Osama bin Laden—the mastermind of the 9/11 attack—that enabled the deadly domino effect. As Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) articulated in the GOP debate on February 13, 2016:

“The World Trade Center came down because Bill Clinton didn’t kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance to kill him [four chances per the 9/11 report].”

For all of the above, if not for failed Democratic presidents would Mr. Trump be in such an unenviable position overseas? Thus, his fiery rhetoric of “fire and fury” is singularly appropriate under these circumstances. For insight into the president's mentality, his 1990 book, “Trump: Surviving at the Top,” states:

“Americans have become so accustomed to professional politicians that when they are faced with a strong personality—a man or woman of action—they are afraid, or at least very wary … When we fear leaders of great passion, though, we often forget that the other side fears them, too.”

Such a mind-set undoubtedly scares anti-Trump pundits populating the MSM media, but it sends an unmistakable, Reaganesque message of strength and resolve. Trouble-making North Korea—and other anti-American despots—would be wise to listen. For real change has arrived: this time a pro-America grizzly is being provoked. Regardless of the outcome, that will make all of the difference. No longer does a wishy-washy Clinton, or a progressive apologist, occupy the Oval Office.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

SF Pays Illegal To Stay

A threatened lawsuit from illegal Pedro Figueroa-Zarceno, 33, for “wrongful arrest” has compelled local officials to pay him $190,000! This appalling decision gives the words of acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas D. Homan, deeper resonance:

“Sanctuary cities, in my opinion, are un-American. … They're a sanctuary city, they're proud of it.”

Ah, San Francisco, represented by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Recall, her stomping grounds were made infamous by the July 1, 2015 slaying of 32-year-old Kate Steinle. Walking along Pier 14 with her father, Ms. Steinle was struck in the back by a ricocheting bullet from a stolen gun in the hands of an illegal, Juan Francisco López-Sánchez: a felon with 7 convictions and 5 deportations. López-Sánchez had been in the custody of the San Francisco Sheriff on drug charges when ICE issued a detainer for him. Instead of turning him over as federal law demanded, this convicted criminal was set free—and an innocent lost her life.

Over two years later, things have evolved from the tragic to the farcical.

Today, San Francisco is apparently so “proud” of their ongoing sanctuary status, they're paying Señor Figueroa-Zarceno six figures for not living up to their federal law-violating “principles”! For context, back in December 2015, Figueroa-Zarceno informed police about his stolen vehicle. That caused them to become aware of his DUI conviction and an order for deportation to his home country of El Salvador. Reporting the theft of his vehicle ironically led to his arrest and two month incarceration. Yet, given San Francisco’s sanctuary policies, this outcome was illegal. Per the 1989 “City and County of Refuge” Ordinance (also known as the Sanctuary Ordinance):

“City employees [are prohibited] from using City funds or resources to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the enforcement of Federal immigration law.”

Hence, for complying with federal law—that importantly supersedes local statutes—San Francisco obliged itself to pay Figueroa-Zarceno from the taxpayer till. What's more absurd: that this two-faced “victim” claims “what happened to [him] was very unfair and it was an injustice,” or cutting him a large government check for his “inconvenience”? Indeed, this outrageous settlement illustrates the schizophrenic nature of sanctuary policies for law enforcement. Which do they honor? The conflicting city policy or the federal mandate? Siding with the former means releasing often violent offenders or risking similar payouts.

Hypocritical Democrats falsely justify sanctuary cities by advocating the straw man argument of “tolerance and multiculturalism”. In truth, Democrats promote these lawless enclaves—populated by illegals and criminals—precisely because these same illegitimate groups overwhelmingly support them politically! As a case and point, is California Political Review's “Poll: 13% of Illegal Aliens ADMIT They Vote”. Tellingly, 80% of noncitizens back Democrats. Therefore, progressives shield these lawbreaking foreigners because their political prospects are tied to them.

For this safely ensconced ruling elite, what do they care about perpetuating a dangerous environment? Another Democratic-run urban jungle—like America's murder capital, Chicago—leaps to mind. Former Obama flunky Rahm Emanuel parrots, “We want you to come to Chicago if you believe in the American dream.” What of the unrealized dreams of the 423 fatalities—recorded there in 2017, so far—Mister Mayor? What of this unending nightmare Democrats universally condone, and encourage? Undocumented aliens hide in plain sight while citizens cower from shadowy, un-American threats to life and limb.

This discrepancy is most clearly seen in San Francisco's disbursement of money to “injured” parties. While illegal Figueroa-Zarceno will be quickly paid for his trouble, last January U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero dismissed the wrongful death suit filed against San Francisco, and then-Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, by Kate Steinle's family. (The lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management—the source of the López-Sánchez's stolen firearm from an agent's car—is proceeding.) In essence, city leaders have negated a citizen's constitutional rights, Kate's, while championing the “rights” of a foreign squatter? What an Orwellian result! In the final analysis, which group demonstrates more contempt for America? Liberals who run San Francisco or illegals who inhabit it?

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog