Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Exorcising Democrats' Confederate History

Why are progressives clamoring to remove many of America's mementos dedicated to the Old South? Generations later, can remnants of Civil War Democrats cause active psychological “harm”? That seems highly unlikely. However, what's real is the targeting of Robert E. Lee, J.E.B. Stuart and Jefferson Davis. If that's the liberal standard for destroying their icons, who has caused more recent and lasting damage than Barack Obama? Therefore, isn't it logical for them to purge both ancient root and modern branch? Yet, fear not, President Obama's safe from their revisionist historical pruning. It's only his antebellum counterparts who find themselves on the chopping block.

Let's pull some contextual threads from this spidery progressive web, shall we? Reportedly, Democrats in Alexandria, Virginia want to rename a main thoroughfare, Jefferson Davis Highway. Also, they want to move a statue on State Route 400 of a Confederate soldier, “Appomattox,” to the comparable obscurity of a nearby museum. Erected in 1889, is the presence of this unarmed Southerner—like the street named for the Confederacy's president—suddenly noxious to the average commuter? Do they trigger so much daily trauma that they're right to nix them? Not to be outshone, Fairfax County is embroiled in a two-year debate to strip Confederate General Stuart's name from one of its most racially diverse high schools. Their dragnet is not local however, it's a monstrosity cast widely across state lines as far as Louisiana.

As the left's revisionist hysteria is never satisfied, Stuart's famous contemporary General Robert E. Lee is targeted in both places. Atop a pillar since 1884, his towering figure was removed from its New Orleans perch last Friday after 133 years. (His was not the first to fall. On May 11th, the powers that be removed a statue from the Jefferson Davis memorial there. On Saturday, a display—the word “LOVE”—was found on its vacated platform.) Only time will tell if his Virginia likeness—mutely astride his majestic horse in Lee Park since 1924—will suffer the same “loving” fate. As the land was specifically donated to showcase this Southern soldier, is it right to unseat him after 93 years? What's more horrible here, destroying the vestiges of progressives' 19th century past or the wasteful expenditure to taxpayers of $300,000 to do it?

Doesn't all history have a worthy place simply because it happened? How can eradicating the lessons that shaped our collective cultural experience ever be the “right” thing to do? Isn't the mind-set to wipe clean the landscape—of old dignitaries' names and harmless inanimate objects—really a fascist desire to ban ideas themselves? (Will these safe space liberal “do-gooders” advocate “Fahrenheit 451”-style book burning next?) Obviously, their predecessors' dual stains of slavery and segregation—never acknowledged or owned by them hereafter—are of lasting shame. Well, frankly, they should be. Hence, their current self-serving agenda to simply airbrush monuments out of existence.

To this end, their go-to narrative is one of distraction and manipulation. To the muddleheaded, the dishonest proclaim often repeated nonsense: America is “secretly racist”! In the same vein as “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” liberals have kind of a politically-motivated hysterical blindness. What of the widespread advancements since the 1950s and 1960s Civil Rights movements? A prominent trend—the “black is beautiful” paradigm shift of the '60s and '70s—doesn't matter? Heck, these naysayers don't even acknowledge the cultural significance of the former occupant of the White House! So, concrete facts of societal progression are meaningless to them. Only their deluded aim to erase transgenerational political sins.

Seriously, it's been 152 years since the end of the Civil War! Only misguided spendthrifts waste today's public funds to “purify” the past. Obviously, historical footnotes—like the name of a road or a school, or four statues—have no magical power to corrupt anything of the now. What relevance to the day-to-day life experience of Americans do they really have? Very little, if any. In fact, their only intrinsic value are as markers showing where America has been—and how truly tolerant she has become!

Despite these ridiculous assertions, racism is not infused in the bronze edifices resembling long-dead Southerners. Likewise, it's not found in the hearts of persons striving to preserve them either. Interestingly, only Democrats' self-hatred persists with the passage of time. That liberal malady is seen in their psychological projection of guilt upon the rest us whose ancestors never owned a slave. Clearly, that's a problem better suited to the analyst's couch then the political realm. (On a related note, can our country be correctly viewed as innately “sexist” as Hillary Clinton is the latest nominee of her party—and the winner of the popular vote?) All elements described above encapsulate the schizophrenic thinking pervading every level of the Democratic Party.

In truth, tangible proof of America's well-established—and ever-expanding—pattern of embracing and celebrating diversity is everywhere! What of commonplace interracial marriage or the recent legalization of gay marriage? So, is it fair to automatically demonize a Republican simply for expressing a history-protecting impulse? Virginia's firebrand GOP gubernatorial hopeful Corey Stewart recently said:

“There’s all kinds of things that offend people, but that [removal] doesn’t make it right. That doesn’t make it so [fix the past]. This [the statue of Robert E. Lee] is a part of our history; if you don’t like our history, that’s too damn bad.”

Well, precisely. What's crystal clear is the Democrats have a cringeworthy history. Understandably, they're desperate to annihilate any reminders of the irrefutable and indefensible. Chief among them is their sole ownership of two infamous institutions: Virginia's antebellum past (read: slaveholding) and white supremacy (read: creating the Ku Klux Klan). As Abraham Lincoln preserved the Union, his party has a duty to safeguard the other side's artifacts for posterity. Without them as silent witnesses, falsely tarring conservatives with their own ongoing record of misdeeds becomes easy. If successful, all that would remain is a nebulous war of words for progressives to dominate. As George Santayana wisely advised: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Ironically, destroying America's Confederate past also diminishes her freedom-loving future.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

“Winning” In D.C.'s Swamp?

“[T]his was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.” – Democratic nominee Barack Obama's victory speech on June 3, 2008

Thankfully, the 2016 presidential election “shattered” heir apparent Hillary Clinton's White House prospects; perhaps forever. Mercifully, that means no Clinton promised “Obama third term”. America has finally been liberated from these twin progressive scourges. His was an utterly failed record: defined by divisive rhetoric—an almost Messianic cult of personality—and delusions of grandeur. (Specifically, Obama desired to dismantle the goodness embodied by “apple pie” Americanism.) On the other hand, her's is endless lies and scandals (strongly suggesting lawbreaking and corruption). Today, America is in far better hands, but only in relation to the grizzly alternative. Clearly, shifting from a dogmatic leftist ideologue to a populist outsider is an improvement. Yet, what remains is the unyielding quagmire of beltway elites (of both parties) coupled with Trump's surface narrative of “winning”.

For Mr. Trump's showiness, let us not be reminded of smirking selfie-obsessed Barack Obama. A superficial politician of illusory “accomplishments” (and hard leftist transformation who Bill Clinton pegged correctly as “an amateur”). Obama—the worst president of the modern age—was defined by a fatiguing number of inauthentic, self-congratulatory victory laps (between 333 rounds of golf per CBS reporter Mark Knoller). What's more egregious, his exchange of likely traitor Bowe Bergdahl for five high-level terrorists, his U.S. Iran payoff of 1.7 billion or his U.S.-Iran nuclear “deal” that wasn't? In every case, geopolitical adversaries were coddled and emboldened. Meanwhile, Obama claimed legacy-defining “successes” while America suffered domestically and receded further from relevancy on the international stage.

One hopes that the election of a real winner—a billionaire capitalist epitomizing the American Dream—will not follow suit. Indeed, doesn't such a person know the difference between Obama's show business tenure—and brick and mortar substance? Unfortunately, thus far, that remains to be seen. Specifically, the ObamaCare Lite “Republican” health-care bill, such as it is, finally squeaked by the House of Representatives. As it still faces the daunting and uncertain hurtle of passage in the Senate, it's hardly a done deal. Therefore, why did President Trump recently declare victory in the rose garden flanked by a phalanx of clapping, smiling GOP flunkeys? Obviously, pro-American deal making is necessary. Yet, isn't the devil in the details? Why are they being glossed over by this president in the same careless manner as the disastrous last one?

In fairness, Donald Trump has quickly discovered that confronting the status quo (read: “draining the swamp”) of the beltway bubble is a Herculean task worthy of that demigod's twelve punishing labors. This progressive/RINO “new budget compromise” funding the government through September is a measure precisely antithetical to the new president's priorities. Why then do they bankroll America's primary abortion provider Planned Parenthood? (For context, this organization was founded by Hillary Clinton's hero Margaret Sanger: an unapologetic racist and eugenicist. Thus, the reason it's overwhelmingly found in minority neighborhoods is no mystery.) Likewise, the GOP supposedly opposes sanctuary cities. Yet, those lawless enclaves—that regularly endanger local citizens' lives (read: San Francisco's Kate Steinle killed by a repeatedly deported illegal alien)—are fully funded too. Aren't Congressional Republicans supposed to be pro-life in all its guises?

Related to criminal border jumpers and the unnecessary cost of lives, what of Trump's pledge to build a U.S.-Mexican wall? Of the Republican response, Breitbart astonishingly reports:

“The fine print in the bipartisan 2017 budget plan includes several paragraphs designed to prevent Donald Trump's deputies from building a border wall with the reserve cash routinely stored in agency saving accounts.”

So, there's zero allotted to the meaningful construction of a long overdue physical barrier? By comparison, contrast that to the $295.9 million funneled to bail out Puerto Rico's bankrupt Medicare system. How is giving more money to island wastrels a good idea? Isn't that the definition of flushing good money after bad? What does this two-faced Republican majority actually stand for—besides themselves?

How else does one explain their intentional disregard of President Trump's election-winning agenda? Hence, a long-standing political pattern emerges from the murky bowels of the political swamp. In practice, Nancy Pelosi's priorities are indistinguishable from Paul Ryan's. Put simply, they're all entrenched Washington “swamp creatures”! Remember when this newly minted House Speaker promised a “fresh start”? Right out of the gate, what did he deliver? He rubber-stamped the progressives' 2 trillion dollar budget! Today's budgetary expenditures are just more of the same.

Paul Ryan and his weak-willed ilk habitually capitulate to Democrats despite their “leadership” position. Then, amazingly, victory is universally declared. Both sides crow about something “good sounding” at first blush. Yet, ultimately, their shortsighted choices are unmistakably detrimental in the well being of future generations. You know, those yet unborn left to pay the tab of their irresponsible largesse. In truth, what are these out of touch elitists really doing—besides rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic (read: the iceberg that's America's escalating 19.9 trillion dollar debt)?

Speaking of the massive, what's a bigger ego-trip then being a U.S. president? Still, Mr. Trump must resist Washington's insulated grandiosity. (A temptation so vulgarly indulged by his preening predecessor.) As a lesson, Ronald Reagan never engaged in such self-glorifying impulses. In this regard, he should consider William L. Jenkins's words as a template:

“President Reagan always gave the credit to the American people and American ideals. He treated his job as a valuable temporary loan from the American people, a loan that should be respected and returned with dutiful appreciation.”

Thanks to the ballast of the intractable D.C. swamp, the country remains in economic dire straits. That fragile state is equally due to spineless establishment Republicans and obstructionist, spendthrift progressives. For lasting success, Mr. Trump needs to continue to champion sensible, conservative policies. That means bringing needed doses of main street reality to heedless establishment power. Specifically, Congress should be held accountable with the veto, the bully pulpit and at the ballot box. Echoing Obama's absurdist practice of premature—or completely unwarranted self-serving “wins”—is a worthless photo-op. As valid as the ex-president's campaign hype that he could “heal” the planet, or “control” the rise of the oceans. That's the stuff of patients typically found in mental wards. Or is it the decision-makers in Congress? By their results and popularity, who can tell a difference?

Average citizens have had enough of swamp creatures: especially their hollow claims of “victory”. That much is clear. Despite our elected officials' rosy proclamations, rank and file Americans aren't close to experiencing legitimate wins. That's a vital distinction President Trump must make for his—and America's—enduring success. It's the only standard that means anything—and the only way to secure the future of our teetering nation.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Thursday, May 11, 2017

Crying Over “Shattered” Hillary

You know as well as I do, that plenty of people playing this game, they don't think that way. They're willing to sell their souls, crawl through sewers, lie to people, divide them, play on their worst fears for nothing! Just for the prize [to become a U.S. president].” – Jack Stanton (a.k.a. “Bill Clinton”), played by John Travolta, from “Primary Colors” (1998)

In light of the other option, the clear-minded are thrilled that Donald Trump is president. Deliciously, he finds himself ensconced in Oval Office while Hillary trolled the woods of Chappaqua, New York; a relegated political has-been too briefly put out to pasture. (Ah, if only she had stayed in the thicket. Without a hint of the grace demonstrated by defeated French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen, Mrs. Clinton has re-emerged to absurdly join the “Trump resistance”. With the power of the office behind him, it's utter lunacy for her to assume she'll be more successful now.) In hindsight, she ran on sheer superficiality: name recognition, her gender and an unstated message of entitlement. Given her (and Obama's) non-existent record of accomplishments, she could not run on issues or vision as Mr. Trump successfully did. So, she took Jack Stanton's low road described above, political polarization:

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.” – Hillary Clinton at a New York City fundraiser on September 9, 2016

Her hollow narrative and divisive strategy were not nearly enough. The Electoral College results made this plain. Speaking of being grossly generalistic, the Clintons have always been about themselves. That's precisely the unintended message Hillary's campaign loudly proclaimed. Didn't her ego-centered, gender-specific slogan “I'm with her” say everything? Contrast that with President Trump's Reaganesque “Make America Great Again”.

Beyond his obvious love of country—as transparent as Hillary's is absent—one logically suspects Mr. Trump initially ran for the presidency on a lark. He's pleasantly surprised (as his supporters) to find himself in the job: “Hey, I'm president! Can you believe it?” While he naturally wanted the gig, unlike Hillary, he didn't need it. Herein is another important difference between the two.

A new political tell-all, “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign” by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, is making the rounds. Like Marley's ghost to Richard Cohen's Scrooge, this exposé has compelled this Washington Post columnist to write his own shallow Hillary postmortem called “The reason Clinton lost.” As shell-shocked as her most ardent supporters, this partisan begrudgingly acknowledges that it was supposed to be “her turn”. He can articulate no other rationale for her candidacy: “As a mental exercise, I tried to come up with a message myself: “Hillary Clinton—because she’s not Trump” is the best I could do. As it turned out, she could do no better.” That's because there was nothing else. In the final analysis, Mrs. Clinton ran for the highest office in the land simply because she felt she deserved it.

The skin-deep analysis of this award-winning investigative reporter—and four-time Pulitzer Prize finalist for commentary—is little more than pro-Clinton gossamer and anti-Trump spit. What of Cohen's sanitized description of Hillary as “a cold and somewhat distant Midwestern archetype” and “a politician with no gift for politics”? For real-life context, would anyone hire an auto mechanic with no innate ability to fix cars?

Along these lines, he insults the reputation of Walter Mondale by comparing her to him. Yet, Hillary has none of the former vice president's decency or warmth. Moreover, she lacks his governmental competence (read: As Secretary of State, Hillary's department lost 6 billion dollars) or the gravitas of an elder statesman (read: Hillary's “Russian reset”: her humiliating plastic red button stunt). In fact, their only relevant connection is the shared stain of two Democrats who failed to attain the White House.

Inconvenient truths regarding Hillary are barely mentioned by Cohen, or ignored entirely by him. For example, he minimizes “Server-gate”—a Nixonian scandal on steroids—as “a historically trivial matter”. So, Mrs. Clinton's illegal use of private email servers—that likely put American operative lives at risk by exposing national security secrets to foreign powers and/or bad actors—is no big deal? Beyond that, what of her ever-changing inconsistencies that amounted to boldfaced lies to the American people? Furthermore, what of “Charity-gate,” the influence-peddling of the now defunct Clinton Foundation? Kool-Aid drinker Cohen doesn't even bring it up.

He bases his missive on a few personal moments spent with her, finding Hillary “fresh, irreverent and funny”. Well, can't anyone be snowed with a false impression during a brief interaction? Behind the scenes, via day-to-day experience, it's well known that potty-mouthed Hillary's personality is cruel: a shrew in the extreme. Hers is the Secret Service's punishment detail: the worst assignment to be had. But when one wears Mr. Cohen's rose colored glasses one sees what he wants to, right?

On that basis, Columnist Cohen contends, “But [Hillary] Clinton’s great failing, the book—not to mention the election itself—makes clear, was her inability to fashion a message.” What a coy, cloying criticism for such an obviously fundamentally flawed candidate! Likewise, his juvenile conclusion that “She lost, and a fool won” is equally petulant and misleading. Candidate Trump—a first-timer in the political sphere—was just “lucky” to best 16 traditional Republican candidates, plus Hillary in the general election? By any fair measure that's more than the randomness that luck implies, that's genius.

Salt of the earth swing state voters in the economically depressed Rust Belt (that she basically ignored during her campaign) got unlikable Hillary's “coal miner” message all right: they didn't matter to her, so she didn't matter to them. Thus, in their wisdom, they made the better choice: Donald Trump. Richard Cohen should respect that despite his raw disdain for this president. It turns out this political dinosaur doesn't get “the message”. Neither does Hillary, an amoral person unworthy of sycophant Cohen's empty rationalizations.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Flying “So Sorry” Airlines

Like last Sunday's overbooked United flight 3411—delayed for two hours after a blameless passenger was unceremoniously dumped from his flight like rejected, oversized luggage—the overdue apology from United's beleaguered CEO Oscar Munoz finally arrived on Tuesday:

“I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right. It’s never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again.”

Due to this self-inflicted public relations nightmare, United's stock is plummeting—and a boycott is being threatened. The recent loss of 1.1% of its value means $255 million has evaporated into the thin air of their less than friendly skies. Therefore, given Mr. Munoz's Johnny-come-lately epiphany, one is left to wonder whether he suddenly prizes his customers' welfare or just the corporation's shrinking bottom line.

Many on O'Hare's April 9th flight to Louisville are justified to remain cynical. Still, it's a relief that their “standard operating procedure” doesn't include heavies with badges manhandling a shrieking elderly doctor while dragging him from his seat and forcibly expelling him from an airplane. The married victim is identified as Dr. David Dao, 69, an Elizabethtown pulmonologist. (Interestingly and coincidentally, this physician also has a long criminal history of fraud, and trading prescription drugs for sexual favors with a male patient). In any case, the reality that he protested due to next morning hospital duties didn't dissuade the militant airline or jackbooted airport authorities. Did the three harassers wear brown shirts—and forget this is America—when they roughed him up?

The logistical problem started not from one doctor's resistance, but from the airline overbooking the flight. Four spots were needed for airline employees of an extra flight crew—so paying customers' needs be damned, right? Reportedly, an airline supervisor walked onto the plane and brusquely announced: “We have United employees that need to fly to Louisville tonight. … This flight’s not leaving until four people get off.” When the usual inducements such as $800 vouchers failed, four passengers were chosen at random. Only three complied. For the fourth, the police were called after Dr. Dao “refused to leave the aircraft voluntarily.” Unfortunately for the instigators, several passengers' cell phone videos of the incident have gone viral.

For example, witness Tyler Bridges posted his video to Twitter. Based upon his observation, “He said, more or less, 'I’m being selected because I'm Chinese.'” Educated in Vietnam, who would blame this traumatized doctor for having flashbacks of authoritarian thugs? From his window seat, two of the officers yanked him into the aisle while several passengers' “My Gods” reverberate. Dr. Dao goes limp when hitting the floor, his cell phone grasped in one hand. (Apparently, in the struggle he passed out after his nose impacted an armrest.) His glasses dislodged, his lip looking bloody, one of the officers pulls his dead weight by both arms down the aisle and out of the plane.

“No, this is wrong. Oh, my God, look at what you did to him!” exclaims one enraged female passenger over the din. Unfortunately, United CEO Oscar Munoz initial reaction did not concur. At the time, he demonized passenger Dao as “disruptive and belligerent”. Likewise, in an earlier statement Monday, he backed United employees, writing:

“While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right. ... Treating our customers and each other with respect and dignity is at the core of who we are, and we must always remember this no matter how challenging the situation.”

Frankly, one would expect this two-faced recipient of PRWeek U.S.’s Communicator of the Year for 2017 to do better. Speaking of seizing hands, they should confiscate Munoz's March 16 award. Likewise, Dr. Dao's attorneys should collect his yearly $6.7 million salary—and demand this CEO's immediate removal as the head of a now disgraced airline.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Thursday, April 6, 2017

Illegals: Don't Mess With Texas

Obviously, green card holders aren't American citizens. Why then did Rosa Ortega of Grand Prairie, TX, 37, assume she was entitled to vote? Further, why did she foolishly sign government forms attesting to U.S. citizenship? Unfortunately for this Mexican-born, Texas-raised mother of four, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Perhaps taking a page from D.C.'s “new sheriff” President Trump, the Lone Star State's penalty—imposed by Ms. Ortega's jury—shows startling backbone: eight years in the pokey and a $5000 fine for voter fraud. Beyond her stiff sentence, she also defies the expectations of a political stereotype: reportedly she voted for pro-law enforcement Republicans. There's some delicious irony in that.

Given this nightmarish scenario, Ms. Ortega's understandable reaction is very human one:

“Why me, God? Eight years for signing a piece of paper wrong. I didn’t know what I was doing. I don’t have any criminal record. Why am I the example?”

Notice how her words denote false victimization. An almost lawyerly evasiveness to diminish her illegal acts, perpetrated since 2004. Specifically, Ortega had voted in five elections in Dallas County before her voter registration was nixed in April of 2015. Per Fox 4 News, her identity was scrutinized after she tried to register to vote twice in Tarrant County. Those applications were both denied.

Doesn't this pattern of wrongdoing indicate willful ignorance? Hers is a total denial of personal responsibility for her choices—and their unexpected consequences. Indeed, Ortega is swiftly discovering a new paradigm like so many others in the shadows. Unlike Obama's lackadaisical regime, in Trump's America laws and legal status matter—again.

Despite Ms. Ortega's sympathetic protestations, voting by non-citizens is not a meaningless crime. Its stealthy practice is actually an insidious assault upon our country's soul. After all, what's more fundamental than diluting the all-important voice of We the People?

In most cases (not Ortega's: she's a permanent resident), this “thievery” is perpetrated by an unknown segment of an invisible, squatting underclass of foreign invaders with no legal standing. Perhaps assisting matters, per Pew Center statistics, voter inaccuracies are rampant. They include: dead people still registered and/or voting, the same person registered in two or more locations, and largely faulty or completely invalid registrations. How many of those permit illegals to vote?

Moreover, do they yet exert enough influence to tilt an election? What of a 2015 survey that indicates that 13% of illegals confess to fraudulent voting in California with its treasure trove of 55 electoral votes? Election results there show that since 1992, to the present, the nation's most populist state has voted solidly Democrat. Is it just coincidence that the outspokenly pro-illegal Democratic Party dominates there? These are the pressing, unanswered political questions of our age.

Elections aside, it's beyond naive to believe that the bushels of bad apples among the undocumented don't have a harmful impact upon our society. What of the tragic murders of Kate Steinle and Jamiel “Jas” Shaw II at the violent hands of illegals? Their premature deaths would not have occurred otherwise. More recently, neither would the bathroom gang rape of a 14-year old ninth-grader by two older illegal teens in Maryland's Rockville High School in March of 2017. Based on 2014 government data, the Pew Research Center estimates approximately 3.9 million kindergarten through 12th-grade students in U.S. schools—or 7.3% of the total—are children of illegal aliens. At minimum, how is that not a cultural disruption and a logistical nightmare? Likewise, how is a suspected 11 (or is it 30?) million strangers freely adrift within our borders—with no incentive to assimilate—never anything to be concerned about?

Insulated from danger, the powerful and moneyed families of Washington's elected officials are safe. As the establishment of both parties remains unaffected, their nonchalance on these related issues is easy to understand. For decades, why not act like metaphorical ostriches with heads buried in sand while an abetting MSM happily plays along? Yet, ignoring these glaring problems doesn't change their reality. For context, contrast that high school child's brutal sexual assault—or the killing of innocents—to Rosa Ortega temporary loss of freedom (and potential deportation). To borrow the catchphrase from the 1970's TV show “Baretta”: “Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.” Her unlucky fate broadcasts an important social and political message: lawbreakers, big and small, beware.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Going Cuckoo Hiding Obama's “Gatsby”

And I hope she'll be a fool—that's the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool.” – Daisy Buchanan, love interest from F. Scott Fitzgerald's literary classic “The Great Gatsby” (1925)

By publishing “Our dishonest president,” “Why Trump lies” and “Trump's Authoritarian Vision,” the Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times tries to play their readers for fools. To that end, this series should have been printed on April Fool's Day. After all, they comprise an absurdist anti-Trump hatchet job that actually epitomizes Barack Obama. Some 70 days in (within any new president's honeymoon) did any detractor treat the former president with partisan venom or unjustifiable disdain?

That answer is absolutely not. Back then, everything for the inexperienced sophomoric senator from Illinois was hope and change rainbows and unicorns. After 8 years, his progressive fantasy—a dystopian design to turn America into a big government, European-style socialist state—resulted in nothing good. Contrast that to Trump's rejuvenating vision of “America First”. Hence, it's laughable to claim, “He sees himself as not merely a force for change, but as a wrecking ball.” By definition, that which destroys can't also be that which restores. Utter hogwash! What of Obama's record-shattering debt (9.3 trillion added), ObamaCare's imploding failure (BHO's “Keep your plan” whopper: Politifact's Lie of the Year in 2013), Middle East tumult and the likelihood of a nuclear Iran (funded by Obama's 1.7 billion dollar payout in January of 2016) to name just a few of the last administration's messes. That unmistakable damage has nothing to do with President Trump. Per the facts, exactly who's been a wrecking ball here? The politically schizophrenic press can't find anything good about Mr. Trump—or anything wrong with Mr. Obama. Should such naked bias and baseless propaganda be trusted?

Under Obama for most of a decade, they found nothing amiss as the world burned with perpetual Middle Eastern strife and terrorist insurgency. Simultaneously, America teetered on economic insolvency enflamed by a domestic racial powder keg. Meanwhile, the enigma “in charge” was a F. Scott Fitzgerald style dilettante who led from behind and governed via golfing greens. (Per CBS reporter Mark Knoller, Barack Obama played 333 times over his two terms.) Interestingly, both high living figures changed their names: James Gatz assumed the Jay Gatsby persona while Barry Soetoro became Barack Obama. Yet, the parallels run deeper to equally murky pasts. After all, doesn't Gatsby's bootlegging and shadowy mob associations eerily denote Obama's Indonesian childhood, his controversial birthplace (read: Kenya or Hawaii?) and unclear religious persuasion (read: Christian or Muslim faith?). Furthermore, both men abandoned humble roots for larger-than-life ego-building aims. In pretender Gatsby case, to achieve wealth in order to be worthy of his “golden girl”. Similarly, for Obama, to gain the ultimate standing by playing at being a U.S. president.

Moreover, the two share a common psychology: the same heedless mind-set of the unyielding dreamer. The difference being Gatsby's obsession with the past (“Can't repeat the past?” he cried incredulously. “Why of course you can.”) versus Obama's sole interest in dominating the future:

“Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.” – Candidate Obama on Super Tuesday, February 5, 2008

As president, he clearly enjoyed the office's pomp and circumstance while, like Gatsby, completely ignoring distasteful realities. Specifically, what of his forgotten political hometown of Chicago: the nation's murder capitol for 5 of the 8 years of his presidency? Beyond that, Obama told numerous bald-faced lies and constantly stoked racial tensions to distract from his litany of atrocious mistakes. Even worse, he never took any responsibility whatsoever. Abetted by the MSM—today same as yesteryear—the political opposition is blamed for all of his failures. Thus, isn't Barack Obama the moneyed archetype for a nefarious Gatsby playboy? And speaking of careless people, doesn't designer duds Michelle roughly approximate superficial, shirt-obsessed Daisy Buchanan?

To ground things in a real-life context, Democratic ex-president Bill Clinton reportedly said: “Barack Obama is an amateur” in Edward Klein's similarly titled 2012 book. In retrospect 5 years later, that assessment is spot-on. Notice how today's LA Times's fictional smear of Donald Trump actually perfectly fits his predecessor:

“[Barack Obama] was a narcissist and a demagogue who used fear and dishonesty to appeal to the worst in American voters. The Times called him unprepared and unsuited for the job he was seeking, and said his election would be a 'catastrophe'.”

By any objective measure, the Obama years were exactly that: the worst of any modern U.S. president. For the record, Donald Trump opposes the dysfunctional and dictatorial Washington “swamp” that Mr. Obama exploited. While the LA Times freely vilifies The Donald as “authoritarian,” they completely disregard the guy who actually was. Of the two, which ultra-constitutional president ruled by fiat with executive orders? Which one bragged about using a pen and a phone as a middle finger to Congress; our system's lawmaking body? It's frankly Orwellian for them to conflate Obama's totalitarianism with Trump's anti-establishment stance that liberty-loving Americans cheer!

Like Obama, these anonymous scribblers have a tenuous relationship with reality. See how desperate they are to rehabilitate his failed legacy; to change the subject by unfairly besmirching his replacement. How is their extended Trump hit piece not an adverse reaction to his ongoing dismantling of the last guy's ruinous policies? How else does one logically explain this newspaper's unhinged four-piece tirade that wrongly transposes Obama's misdeeds and track record with Trump's? The LA Times's premature condemnation proves their birdbrained publication had indeed flown the coop! Ideologues' blind devotion to a facade: same as Gatsby's deluded love for Daisy, another unworthy idol.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Friday, March 31, 2017

Misbehaving Presidents' Mixed Messages

We don't win anymore. When was the last time we won? Did we win a war? Do we win anything? Do we win anything? We're going to win. We're going to win big, folks. We're going to start winning again, believe me. We're going to win.” – President Trump at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on February 24, 2017

Isn't winning a great message to hear from a sitting U.S. president? Contrast that to the Obama years, plagued by gargantuan failures and losses. For example, most telling was the actual level of U.S. unemployment: 95 million able-bodied Americans absent from the workforce. (The U.S. Department of Labor repeatedly claimed the rate hovered around a measly 5 percent.) Such a diet of consistent falsehoods included Obama's famous, “If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it.” That whopper earned him left-leaning Politifact's Lie of the Year in 2013.

Interestingly, misrepresentation is the defining characteristic of modern-day Democratic presidents (and failed hopeful Hillary Clinton). All that's now required is a slick persona, a tenuous grasp on truthfulness and the gift of honeyed words earnest in their bewitching power to distract the public. With Hillary's hubby, his failings were of a personal nature, embarrassing peccadilloes highlighted by an affair with a then 22-year-old intern. Remember Bill's infamous claim, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss [Monica] Lewinsky.” (The scandal rocked his presidency, but didn't end it. Ultimately, he received a pass because adultery was successfully spun as a private matter. However, his public disgrace affected his ability to govern much more gravely then was acknowledged at the time.) Also detrimental to the nation, were Barack Obama's numerous untruths. Like Clinton, he was abetted by a fawning press—and a foolishly forgiving electorate.

That same latitude is never granted to their Republican counterparts. Remember, George H. W. Bush's broken pledge, “Read my lips: no new taxes”? That one flip-flop cost him his 1992 re-election bid. By contrast, Barack Obama, not Ronald Reagan, was the true “Teflon president” . His big government tenure was “transformative” in all the wrong ways: obtrusive, overregulated and overtaxed (read: the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ObamaCare mandate because its legal basis is a tax!). Combine those systemic problems with a ballooning federal government, wasteful programs, deficit-spending and virtually doubling the nation's debt: a record-shattering 9.3 trillion! That's more in Barack Obama's eight years than all previous presidents combined (read: 212 years from Washington (1789) to Clinton (2001))!

In retrospect, the pre-election electorate was ravenous for a new voice, specifically an unapologetically pro-American one. (Hillary Clinton isn't that. Essentially, she promised a de facto Obama third term.) Enter the plain-speaking Washington outsider, a billionaire capitalist, who brashly articulated all things wrong with progressives in government. Central to that message was the concept of winning: obviously for himself and theoretically, one hopes, for the country. Today, how is that goal achieved by threatening the Tea Party's Freedom Caucus? Ironically, he attacks the very group he should champion:

“The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!” — President Trump's tweet at 9:07 AM on March 30, 2017

Under any circumstances, it's frankly nonsensical to ever conflate conservative Republicans with militantly obstructionist Democrats. Such groups are naturally philosophically opposed: political oil and water! For a campaign promise thwarted, he calls out the Freedom Caucus for rightfully scuttling Paul Ryan's disastrous “ObamaCare Lite” replacement? Thus, in the superficial name of “winning,” isn't that precisely like burning a village to the ground in order to “save” it?

The political landscape is, and remains, ripe for meaningful change. However, as of late, Mr. Trump's appealingly razor sharp campaign rhetoric is not living up to his muddled actions. To again reference the same CPAC speech:

“I'm here fighting for you and I will continue to fight for you. The victory and the win were something that really was dedicated to a country and people that believe in freedom, security and the rule of law. Our victory was a victory and the win for conservative values.”

A self-proclaimed guiding principle negated by his recent rant against House Republicans who stand for that precise thing! Immersed in the Washington swamp, allied with House Speaker Paul Ryan, is it possible he's lost sight of what conservatism means in concrete terms? After all, words are insubstantial compared to policy and practice. For his part, Mr. Ryan talks an equally good game. (Recall, he's been in Congress since 1998. That's 17 years before he assumed leadership of the lower chamber on October 29, 2015. For further context, for the last 7 years, the GOP has promised to repeal and replace ObamaCare.) With his reputation as a policy wonk, where has Mr. Ryan been all this time? His Johnny-come-lately response was a rushed bill—with the Republican brand simply slapped on—that fundamentally lacked bipartisan consensus: no Democratic support and not enough Republicans to pass the measure.

The American Health Care Act should have been a free market solution to health-care, but it wasn't. Hopeful for a “win,” President Trump mistakenly backed Ryan's loser: a bureaucratic 3-phased shell game that would have kept the government behemoth in place with superficial changes like substituting tax breaks for government subsides. So, it's wrong to scapegoat the Freedom Caucus for their lack of support. This debacle—this legislative “Rosemary's Baby”—is all Paul Ryan's mad creation. For this mess, he should be replaced forthwith. To that end, someone from the Freedom Caucus would be fitting.

Thus far, Mr. Trump's dealings with Congress have not lived up to his appealing CPAC rhetoric. The author of “The Art of The Deal” need not play things so fast and loose by vilifying other Republicans. While he owes the Republican establishment nothing, he would be wise to adopt the following Reaganesque Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any conservative. To do otherwise artificially divides the GOP against itself. And given their demonstrated lack of effective leadership, they need all the help they can get.

Polarizing allies won't achieve the right results for the American people. Still, Trump's willingness to work with everyone is exactly what President Reagan did. In that regard, “The Great Communicator” effectively went directly to the American people over the heads of his detractors (as The Donald does with his well-conceived tweets). Yet, Mr. Reagan never used the bully pulpit to literally bully anyone. Therefore, killing his Tea Party darlings in this way is something “The Gipper” would never do. That's not winning; it's reactionary, shortsighted and ultimately self-defeating. 

Lasting success for America equals a staunchly conservative agenda. To get there, Mr. Trump needs to appropriate the cohesive framework of principles embodied by the Freedom Caucus. Going forward, embracing them—rather than Paul Ryan's ilk—would greatly aid his cause. For instance, they would make an ideal legislative sounding board while he makes deals and takes constructive action. As modern history clearly demonstrates, only Democrats get away with misbehavior and mixed messages. Those types of mistakes are invariably fatal to the prospects, and success, of any Republican president.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Sanctuary Policy's Rotten Core

Is it really any surprise to discover that accused child rapist Henry Sanchez-Millian, 18—and his father Adolfo Sanchez-Reyes, 43—are both illegal aliens? Perhaps the state of Maryland—so concerned with family unification of other nation's citizens on American soil—can arrange a holding cell for father and son to share? After all, that's the convoluted reasoning behind their sanctuary practice (that actively subverts federal immigration law). Therefore, by their logic, a communal living arrangement behind bars is the most humane thing to do. At any rate, the son has been charged with first-degree rape and two counts of first-degree sexual offenses. If convicted, he faces the penalty of life imprisonment. On the other hand, his father contends with the comparably mild rebuke of deportation. That means separation of the two for the foreseeable future, if not forever. An ironic outcome given what started this mess in the first place.

This situation definitively demonstrates the domino effect of lawlessness. A dreadful chain of events that began with our porous southern border—the choices of a Guatemalan father and son to border jump—and Barack Obama's eyes closed catch-and-release program that reunified the pair! Speaking of two lawbreakers, Sanchez-Millian's wingman in that bathroom tryst with a 14-year-old at Rockville High School, is El Salvadorian Jose O. Montano, 17. (Reportedly, he was sent to Maryland to join an uncle.)

Complicating matters is federal law (U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler vs. Doe (457 U.S. 202 (1982)) that mandates school age illegals are entitled to a public education same as citizens. For their part, the local school administration enrolled these two wrongdoers—not as a junior and senior respectively—but in ninth grade classes. That's how this duo of older, Spanish speaking foreigners had access to this much younger female (among many). (The sexual assault occurred on school property at approximately 9 AM on Thursday, March 16.) Specifically, how else would Montano have met her, or been present to push her into that boys' bathroom? His attorney, David Wooten stated, “This was a consensual act. It was preplanned.” Wooten bolsters his claim by asserting that the victim texted “explicitly compromising images of herself”. Said last week and repeated Monday, Sanchez-Millian's lawyer Andrew Jezic reiterated, “All parties were willing participants.” If you're wondering why both narratives so tightly correspond, both men work together at the same firm!

All potential mitigating factors, if legitimate, have yet to be determined. Meanwhile, per Maryland state law the age of consent is technically 17, but persons aged between 14 and 16 may consent to sex given a small age difference of not more than 4 years for the older party. That's immaterial here as her assailants, near or just beyond maturity, have both been charged as adults. So, Sanchez-Millian and Montano may have gotten away with flouting our immigration laws, but they will likely get no pass for their brutal bathroom misadventures involving gang-raping and sodomizing a fellow ninth-grader.

This egregious circumstance is one of many cautionary tales. How American society is being destroyed within by the wrongheaded embrace of the undocumented under the guise of dogmatic “tolerance” and multiculturalism. The actual problem isn't America's systemic discrimination of foreigners. By any measure, what country celebrates diversity, or differences, more fully than us? The wholesale rejection of illegals has nothing to do with their superficial attributes such as ethnicity or country of origin, as pro-illegal proponents laughably insist. Indeed, their knee-jerk demonization of objectors as “racists” are lame attempts at distraction: a subject-changing excuse to justify their bizarre advocacy of naked lawlessness.

In that regard, if our laws are so draconian, why do so many clamor to live here (by any possible means)? Historically, as today, America remains a melting pot with one modern caveat: a person with legal status is warmly welcomed here; one who doesn't, isn't. Likewise, would any sensible person open their private residence to cohabitate with total strangers? Is America not the beloved “home” of her legal inhabitants?

In truth, illegal aliens are criminals: an invading underclass of squatters. They're the ones that don't respect our laws and customs—not vice versa as their supporters loudly proclaim. Therefore, a wildly chaotic influence is exerted, like acid upon our culture's social fabric. As important building blocks of that foundation are our public school systems, witness the snowballing uproar caused by this outrage at Maryland's Rockville High School! The additional revelation that Adolfo Sanchez-Reyes is also undocumented is yet more salt to a whole community's open wound. After all, it's obvious Sanchez-Millian's father acted as a familial magnet, didn't he? A butterfly effect of what was, what could have been avoided, and what should have been prevented.

From every angle, this specific incident is intolerable. These affiliated troublemakers including Montano and his uncle (whose legal status is unclear) should have been immediately expelled, not permitted to enter and reside within the United States. But, they were and a radiating cascade of escalating crime, loss and disruption is the predictable result. Most tragically, would the unnecessary suffering of a violated 14-year-old child and her aggrieved family—sacrifices upon the altar of politically correct multiculturalism—happened otherwise? Worrying about the fate of foreign lawbreakers while ignoring the rights of victimized citizens explains the topsy-turvy nature of our mixed-up, rather than mixed, society.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog