Friday, February 24, 2017

Tarnished Oscar Gold

It's a political time, so I imagine the Oscars will look exactly like your Twitter of Facebook feed. Why should we ignore for three hours what we're talking about 24 hours a day?” – Lin-Manuel Miranda, “Hamilton” creator, in a guest column for the Hollywood Reporter on February 20, 2017

At the nexus of art and commerce, the movie business has always been about escapist entertainment. Today, that dynamic is severely undermined by actors making polarizing statements during awards shows. Naturally, everyone is certainly entitled to an opinion. Yet, sometimes it's wiser to keep a controversial view private if it's likely to alienate the public. After all, ticket buyers keep the whole industry afloat. Isn't this lack of civility equivalent to biting the hands that feed them?

Recall, the purpose of the Academy Awards is to celebrate the practitioners of the dream factory. Perhaps the best representation of this was Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers gliding across the dance floor in their “Top Hat” (1935) finery! Watching them, the audience could briefly forget about their Great Depression troubles. This Sunday, the glitterati dressed in designer duds for a three-hour spectacle should behave accordingly. Why then does Lin-Manuel Miranda encourage real-life banality to intrude?

Would someone read Lin-Manuel his Miranda rights: swear him—and his fellow travelers in La-La Land—to blissful silence just this once? Honestly, does anyone go to the theater to be lectured to? Historically, as today, people go to movies for many reasons: for vicarious experience, to learn something new, to have an emotional outlet or simply to be distracted from our social ills. None of the above include to feel irritated. Therefore, the Silent Majority speak loudly—with their feet—by avoiding the cinema. Likewise, the TV ratings for the Oscars has also fallen to the lowest point since 2008. Who isn't weary of the vitriol—the perpetual airing of grievances and political causes—by the rich and famous? And why should these truly fortunate complain, or target fellow Americans for holding a different perspective?

The statistics of erosion tell the tale. Only 9.7 percent of the population or 27.3 million people (read: 3 percent of adults in 2017) still go to the movies weekly. Compare that to 80 million or 65 percent of the population who went to the movies at the same rate during the Astaire-Rogers era. Of course, high cost and a plethora of modern options are contributing factors to the titanic decline. And exactly how does A-list divisiveness help?

In skilled hands, any successful movie message is accomplished with subtlety and persuasion. Even though the medium is fictional, the heart and the intellect are authentically moved. Actors function as living props in the enterprise of telling a story. Their talents are based on conveying other people's words. Without the safety net of a script to parrot, these professionals at make believe are lost. Ironically, they come off as hollow when they ad-lib. Thus, it's clear why their turned off viewership has dwindled—and their do-gooder intentions fall on their cradled Oscar's deaf ears.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Libs Immune to Yiannopoulos Fate

Obi-Wan: “Your father... was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force. He ceased to be the Jedi Anakin Skywalker and 'became' Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So, what I told you was true... from a certain point of view.”
Luke: “A certain point of view?”
Obi-Wan: “Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.” – Star Wars: Episode VI - “Return of the Jedi” (1983)

In modern America, with the ongoing libertine influence of Howard Stern and Jerry Springer types, very few necessary taboos remain. One that does is pedophilia. Another related prohibition is pederasty: relations between two males when one is a minor. Unfortunately, gay provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos “went there” back on January 4, 2016. The interview was little-known, but the rabidly anti-right MSM has legitimately hoisted him by his own petard with it. The site of his disgrace was the satirical left-leaning Drunken Peasants Podcast with Ben and TJ (“The Amazing Atheist”). Oh, Milo's mistake of flapping gums and wrongheaded sentiments!

Of late, he's learned the price for speaking out against the perfectly reasonable age-of-consent laws. No doubt disgusted, the organizers of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) withdrew his invitation to speak. Also last Monday, his book publisher Simon & Schuster abruptly axed his ironically named autobiography “Dangerous”. Likewise, Tuesday, he resigned from his two-year gig as senior editor for Breitbart News. A domino effect of negative consequences undeterred by his hollow claim of “being misunderstood”.

Don't bother parsing the meaning of Yiannopoulos's wacky statements too closely. This Slick Willie scenario echoes Bill Clinton's nonsensical: “It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is”. In each case, the optics are bad and the message ill-conceived. Yet, the downfall is swift and total only for the conservative. To compare with a contemporary example, has Madonna's career suffered one whit for publicly proclaiming her anarchist desire to “blow up the White House”? Indeed, her lawless call for violence and sedition is certainly on par with his salacious disregard of the laws that protect children. Why do only liberals get a pass for every outrageous thing they say?

Given Yiannopoulos's foot-in-mouth plight, the Material Girl's song lyrics for “Words” (1992) are apropos:

Words, they cut like a knife, cut into my life
I don't want to hear your words
They always attack, please take them all back
If they're yours I don't want anymore

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Monday, February 20, 2017

Krazy Kollege Kids!

I was an unmitigated nuisance … by that time I was nearing the end of my schooldays, which I look back on as the most completely wasted and mischievous part of my life.” – George Bernard Shaw, Irish playwright, awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1925

In this generation, perhaps there's nothing more troubling than the befuddled thinking of young progressives. Unfortunately, examples are everywhere. In “Calexit” California, the state university in Los Angles embraces segregated, black-only housing. Not to be outdone, in lily-white Pennsylvania, Elizabethtown College's Democrats wear a 21st century version of the Scarlet Letter: plain white puzzle pieces publicly proclaiming their imaginary genetic solidarity with 19th century slaveholders. Now, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the left's political fun house finds expression in clown car antics there. These snowflakes demand free tuition for all black students due to their wrongheaded claim of “systemic racism”. So, are the rational to believe that prejudice is magically solved by promoting new race-based discrimination?

In America of 2017, the belief in deep-seeded societal bigotry is utter hogwash! Why do these millennials pretend to live in an antebellum time warp? Recall, slavery ended with Abraham Lincoln in 1865: 152 years ago! It's idiotic to ignore the reality that our culture has radically evolved for the better since then. Today, the celebration of diversity—and tolerance of differences—is widespread.

Specifically, this modern trend was seeded by the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. Indeed, the effects of those policies have germinated in our society for over 50 years. Don't the clear results of those strides count for anything? Apparently not to these collegians with their petulant demands and polarizing behavior.

Remember, any human society is inherently imperfect. Therefore, human conflict based upon dissimilar perceptions will always exist. Yet, these students' militant insistence on race-based unequal treatment—in the name of Orwellian fairness—is beyond bizarre. It's equivalent to proclaiming peace while actively making war. These hysterical know-nothings imagine an external enemy: a psychological projection of their own youthful ignorance.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Friday, February 17, 2017

Whitey's Scarlet Letter: “P” For Privilege

Discussions about race are often perceived as being only open to people of color, but I think it is just as important for white people to partake in conversations about race. No matter how accepting someone is, that doesn’t stop them from being part of a system based on centuries of inequality.” – Aileen Ida, president of the College Democrats, Elizabethtown College

In 2017, how else can adolescent angst be expressed except to tilt at imaginary windmills? Is Aileen Ida simply ignorant of this American age of near universal acceptance of differences? Indeed, concrete evidence is obvious everywhere. Until last month, did she miss the fact that a black man has been president for the last eight years? How about our tolerance for the new institution of gay marriage? Why the public self-flagellation by students at Elizabethtown College, a small liberal arts school in lily-white Lancaster County, Pennsylvania?

Beyond their ivied walls, these safe-spacers can't cope with the new reality of Trump's America. After all, their party, the Democrats, are in political purgatory: backbenchers in government, exposed as a regional party in urban centers on both coasts that don't include them! Thus, they wear cultist lapel pins—shaped like plain white puzzle pieces—to demonstrate they “don't fit in anywhere”.

Naturally, they don't comprehend the true meaning of their symbolism. They frame their attention-grabbing antics as some kind of wacky multigenerational genetic guilt. Perhaps some of their ancestors were slaveholders, but if so, so what? It's a safe bet these computer savvy know-nothings haven't checked on Thus, they self-shame by pretending to be distant offspring of theoretical 19th century white oppressors? No wonder they're progressives; that's dopey thinking of the highest order! A modern riff on thought-crime from George Orwell's totalitarian classic “1984”.

Oh, how these young Democrats yearn for Hester Prynne's America of 1850. When slavery, oppression and bigotry were real! At least when the fictional Ms. Prynne wore her Scarlet Letter, she was guilty of adultery. However, these “cultural warriors”—these champions of convoluted fairness—have very little to legitimately object to. So, the witless and coddled define themselves by false projection and historical misappropriation. A twisted millennial fantasy of a white bogeyman, seen exclusively in their dormitory mirrors.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Trump's Fix: No Visas, No Travelers

Why bother with the uncertainty of an evenly split Supreme Court, or continue to lock horns with Washington State's activist Ninth Circuit? The implementation of President Trump's 90-day travel moratorium is at his fingertips! Per the Immigration Law Institute, at least five of the seven terrorist-infested countries have already been deemed “uncooperative” by refusing to take back their citizens: criminal aliens ordered deported by the U.S. government. Per the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Section 243(d), the recipe to safeguard American citizens is clear:

“On being notified by the [Secretary of Homeland Security] that the government of a foreign country denies or unreasonably delays accepting an alien who is a citizen, subject, national, or resident of that country after the [Secretary of Homeland Security] asks whether the government will accept the alien under this section, the Secretary of State shall order consular officers in that foreign country to discontinue granting immigrant visas or nonimmigrant visas, or both, to citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents of that country until the [Secretary of Homeland Security] notifies the Secretary that the country has accepted the alien.”

Therefore, John Kelly, Secretary of Homeland Security, issues an official notification regarding these troublemaking counties to Rex Tillerson's State Department. He, in turn, immediately halts sending out travel visas. Ipso facto: no visas, no unwelcome overseas visitors. No fuss, no muss: ban achieved.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

The West’s Confederacy of Dunces

They created a system where it was virtually impossible to ever catch anyone cheating, removed all verification processes, automatically registered all drivers license holders—whether they like it or not, and then launched that program immediately after granting every one of the untold millions of illegal aliens in California a driver's license.” – Tim Donnelly, former California State Assemblyman

Per the highly respected and nonpartisan Pew Center, 11.1 (or is it 30?) million illegal aliens live within America's porous borders. Of this human tsunami, one in five illegal aliens reside in two metropolitan areas, either Los Angeles or New York City. Per their latest data, that translates into 2.2 million people.

Using simple math, we'll assume half of them reside in LA. To flush out the political landscape there, per a 2015 California Political Review poll, 13% admit to illegal voting. Also shown in that study is that 80 percent—or four of five illegal voters—cast ballots for Democrats. (As California is home to one-third of all welfare recipients, Democrats pushing cradle-to-grave dependence is unfortunately a natural fit.) Therefore, just in California, that means 114,400 fraudulent votes for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. (Hypothetically, double that result to include NYC.) Still, how ever it was achieved, with 60 percent of the popular vote, it's no surprise Crooked Hillary won there!

With 55 electoral votes—of the vital 270 needed—California remains a major player in choosing a new U.S. president. Is the Golden State—America's largest by population—actually a tarnished and seedy microcosm of voting corruption? Specifically, I refer to population dense, Democrat-controlled urban centers that delivered Hillary victories. For example, the regular cycle of dead people voting in Chicago readily comes to mind. Of this wrongdoing, expert J. Christian Adams—a former election attorney for the Department of Justice—told Fox and Friends last October:

“Dead people are voting and it’s something this [Obama's] administration does not want to do anything about. They must like it. They must like who they are voting for… Now we have four million, four million Steve, ineligible and dead voters on American voter rolls according to the Pew Charitable Trust.”

This is a fundamental threat to the very foundation of our democracy. An ever-present iceberg to the Titanic that is the good ship America. Let's be clear: election fraud is election stealing. Yet, on both sides of the aisle, obtuse establishment politicians blithely pretend this systemic problem is nonexistent. No wonder this finite reality so difficult to gauge! Finding accurate information is as tedious as counting grains of sand on one of California's beaches.

To go down Alice's rabbit hole further, obstructionist Democrats now call for “Calexit” due to the election of Donald Trump. Apparently, one in three Californians polled support the split. (Are they same one-third receiving those welfare payments?) In any case, California is making belligerent noises like South Carolina of 1860 (when it seceded from the Union over the election of Abraham Lincoln). In that rebellious spirit, officials grumble about not remitting legally obligated tax dollars to the federal government. Likewise, they insanely contemplate mutating sanctuary cities into one lawless state. Does Jerry Brown (a.k.a. “Governor Moonbeam”) envision Westworld debauchery as a real-life template?

Still, the most immediate “California problem” actually emanates from Washington State's Ninth Circuit of Appeals. Helmed by three loony lefties, their decisions are overturned 80 percent of the time. Essentially, this activist triumvirate ruled that foreigners' travel plans should not be inconvenienced by Trump's executive order (read: a 90-day moratorium regarding seven terrorist-infested countries with no trustworthy government to vouch for them). It doesn't matters to them that the President's action is expressly supported by federal law, 1952's Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 212(f), which specifies:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Thus, this kangaroo court radically overstepped its bounds; thumbing its nose at all concerned.

Three Ninth Circuit judges means three major legal errors. As described above, they encroached on the co-equal executive branch of government (read: Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution). Second, they granted non-citizens—with no constitutional right to live here—legal standing where none exists. Then, they compounded that mistake by gifting foreigners preferential treatment over the legitimate safety concerns of American citizens.

The President's duty is preserve our country's sovereignty. That means enforcing law to ensure the American people are protected. Therefore, in practice, Trump determines the conditions by which non-citizens can enter, leave or otherwise reside within our borders. After all, lives are at stake!

Progressive ideologues—whether politicians or judges—should not be playing chicken with our collective fate. Specifically, Trump's constitutional authority should not be usurped by this rogues' gallery extending from Washington's Ninth Circuit to California's state house. In this situation, the former pretends to be “beyond reproach.” Yet, unlike King Solomon, they cut the baby in half with their mangled misinterpretation of the equal protection clause. The fact remains: citizens' rights can't be countermanded by non-citizens' needs. (Likewise, one state's rambunctious desire for independence cannot prevail over the national interest in unity.) Therefore, Washington State's reckless ban block—like California's antebellum fantasy—demonstrate how badly out of step they are with the rest of us.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Monday, February 13, 2017

Air Force: Pelosi Party Planes

Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2008 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline.” – Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch President

Back in 2008-10, was Nancy Pelosi a grandma groupie for the boozer band Guns N' Roses? Were they her constant travel companions for 90 documented flights—many domestically from Washington-California—and others abroad? What else explains spending $101,000 in “in flight” services on Air Force jets over those two years? That's almost $1,000 per week—just in food and drink alone. Naturally, only premium spirits for then-Speaker Pelosi and her unknown entourage! To name just a few brands consumed: Courvoisier cognac, Grey Goose vodka, Jim Beam and Jack Daniels whiskey, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Bombay Sapphire gin and Corona beer. And why shouldn't this ruling class elitist be catered to when utilizing the Air Force as her own personal travel fleet?

Recall, Ms. Pelosi’s net worth is $100 million. Yet, why should she pay for this “free” government perk once at her beck and call? (A disclaimer: as second in line to the presidency, the House Speaker is technically permitted use of government-chartered jets for private travel.) In any case, why shouldn't this modern-day Marie Antoinette take advantage of the taxpaying suckers stuck with her “queenly” (read: 2.1 million) bills? Likewise, for the American peasants, but never for “Travelin' Nan”: inconvenient commercial airline schedules; time-consuming connections and delays; long passenger lines; luggage searches; airport check points, pat-downs and/or security wanding; a coach seat fit for a sardine—and the “bonuses” of stress and hassle with one's meager packet of peanuts and a soda!

Despite the flak, fast-forward to today. This entitled crone still helms the Democrats as House Minority Leader. Tellingly, Nancy Pelosi's 2011 Republican successor, John Boehner (R-Ohio)—and the current officeholder Paul Ryan (R-WI)—wisely swore off such an extravagance. At least for domestic trips, that is.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Thursday, February 9, 2017

ObamaCare: Death or Deductible?

I should have gone to the hospital. [But] I knew there was a big bill waiting for me if I did, and I rolled the dice.” – Dr. Ashish Jha, Harvard University employee

Remember, the entire purpose of health insurance is the ability to receive inexpensive medical attention. In 2017, not even a M.D. can afford the so-called Affordable Care Act (known colloquially as ObamaCare). This big government behemoth—which swallowed 1/6 of the U.S. economy—is so costly, it actually discourages enrollees from seeking care. In George Orwell's dystopian novel “1984”, how is real-life ObamaCare any different than Big Brother's “Ministry of Peace” that actually makes perpetual war?

Harvard heath-policy researcher, Dr. Ashish Jha's heart had raced dangerously for more than an hour. His home remedies were ineffective. Was his condition life threatening tachycardia which can lead to a heart attack? He couldn't be sure. He admitted to his wife that the solution was an emergency room visit. Yet, this doctor feared his potential demise less than the 6,000 deductible that awaited him if he sought treatment. Cowed by the economics, like so many others, he didn't go.

When Dr. Jha signed up for the “lower” premium higher out-of-pocket plan, it had been a kind of personal experiment for him. An academic's quest to better understand how a trade-off—the cost-benefit ratio—influences heath. Unfortunately, his ivory tower scenario resulted in a life and limb gamble no different than Russian roulette. With the clock ticking, what matters more: money or mortality?

Today, that's a concrete question for the Republican-controlled Congress to answer. Why do they continue to dither over repealing ObamaCare? You know, the action they pledged to take six years ago? Dr. Jha is in the same boat as at least 46 million Americans with deductibles of $1,000 a year or more. For context, patient liability has increased a whopping 67 percent in the employer market since 2010. (ObamaCare was signed into law on March 23, 2010.) Furthermore, The Health Policy Brief by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation summarizes Dr. Jha's dilemma rather clinically:

“Increasing plan deductibles has emerged as one potential solution to slowing health care cost growth by reducing use”.

Besides increased medication, Dr. Jha's cardiologist indicates a procedure will likely to cure his infirmity. Despite his health scare, Dr. Jha's decided to roll the dice for yet another year. Although he's clear on the solution, he's still stymied by the gargantuan deductible. Can one blame him if he's waiting on the Republicans' cost-effective ObamaCare replacement?

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

A Bleeding Heart's 'Supreme' Sacrifice

All of me – Why not take all of me
Can't you see I'm no good without you
Take my lips I want to loose them
Take my arms I'll never use them
Your goodbye left me with eyes that cry
How can I go on dear without you...

From the movie theme of “All of Me” (1984)

Given the generally unhinged and hysterical state of today's vanquished progressives, it's singularly appropriate that a dark interpretation of the title song from a 1984 movie would suddenly come to bear. With President Trump's Supreme Court nomination of the eminently qualified Neil Gorsuch, 49, their squirrelly thoughts shift wildly to the future loss of crone Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 83. Compare the above stanza with the following disjointed rant exemplified by The Washington Post's Rachel Manteuffel:

“I’ve found myself thinking about you lately, and how things are going with you, and I just wanted you to know that I ... have some tokens of my esteem that you might enjoy. Such as blood. If you have any need for blood, you can have the eight or so units of A-positive that are right here in my body. There’s also a gently used liver in here, lobes of it just lying around if you need them.... Do you like platelets? I have excellent platelets. I have had all my shots. ... My kidneys function well. I have two. Either one is yours for the taking. Both, if need be. … I have scads of nerves that you can have. Just take them. My skin would graft onto you beautifully. Bones, stem cells, a whole eyeball I don’t need, feet of intestines, feet. Just a ridiculous amount of health, way more than should rightly belong to someone with my standing in the world.”

Ms. Manteuffel also specifies her large heart to be trimmed to fit Justice Ginsburg's diminutive size. This frankly gory element brings to mind another 'body parts' film, “The Silence of the Lambs” (1991) (released synchronistically on Valentine's Day). Specifically, how is one not graphically reminded of Jame Gumb's basement lair of kidnapped and skinned women, or Hannibal Lecter, when Manteuffel suggests:

“If you need to keep me on life support in your house, just in case, while you slice off any bits that appeal to you, that is totally fine and my loved ones will understand. … We have discussed it. ”

Ah, what would Dr. Lecter say about that conversation? In any case, notice the conspicuous absence from the rambling list of human anatomy: this scribbler's brain. Is that because Manteuffel knows Ms. Ginsburg has no use for such an inferior organ? Or does this Post employee use her gray matter so infrequently that it never occurs to her to offer it? Indeed, her opinion piece is so bizarre she should be known henceforth as Macabre Manteuffel!

“MM” would greatly benefit from reading “On Death and Dying” (1969) by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross. Within, the five stages of grief resulting from an unexpected loss (read: the 2016 presidential election) are detailed. Philosophically, Manteuffel is stuck at stage three, known as bargaining. Still, the ultimate goal of any grieving process is acceptance. That means intensive therapy, though not with “Hannibal the Cannibal”. This deluded ideologue will need to keep all of her body parts to get there.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Monday, February 6, 2017

Purge Obamites From Government

President Trump rightfully fired former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates for “acting out”. Still, this holdover should not have been permitted to stay in office in the first place. Likewise, all Obama flunkeys—still entrenched in the federal government's bureaucracy—need to be immediately terminated. That's easily accomplished with one executive order to pink-slip all residual Obama political appointments.

How many remain like troublemaker Yates, or a radical like former Obama Defense Department official Rosa Brooks? For her part, Ms. Brooks publicly advocated “a military insurrection” to compel two-week Trump from office. How is a coup not on par with nutty singer Madonna's call to “blow up the White House”? That's not free speech, that's un-American sedition. Why is it that Obama's minions, and Hollywood limousine liberals, only appreciate democracy when it falls their way?

As much as Trump's style may be grating or unorthodox, what he stands for is apple pie Americanism. Indeed, this America First president is a pragmatist and a populist. He wants to curtail government red tape, intrusion and overreach. For example, he approved the Keystone XL pipeline and wants to champion domestic industry. Thus, how is ensuring American energy independence—while simultaneously providing well-paying blue-collar jobs—something for progressives to get hysterical about? To them, is being an unapologetic pro-American capitalist suddenly an impeachable offense?

The only measure that mattered in the 2016 election was the Electoral College. In that result, the voice of the American people was crystal clear. Obama's failed policies—and his heir apparent—are out. For many good reasons, Republicans now dominate all branches of government.

Emasculated Democrats must similarly expel these fringe elements from their ranks. If they continue their obstructionist path, they risk further voter alienation and long-term political irrelevancy. That's what they should really fear: being the minority party in perpetuity.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog 

Friday, February 3, 2017

Journalist, Not Biased Hack

Objectivity is dead, and I’m okay with it.” – Lewis Wallace, former “Marketplace” reporter

The above is the title of his essay published on the website, Medium. As this attitude negates Wallace's “impartial” role as a journalist, he was ultimately terminated by his employer.

Recall, the purpose of journalism is to convey current events impartially with facts. Any unbound person—unwilling to exercise fact-based dispassion—can't be a legitimate journalist. Instead, that's a de facto activist: a propagandist with a press pass.

Facts are essential, intractable things. They remain elemental to authentic journalism. Specifically, facts anchor news stories to reality. When correctly utilized, they greatly aid journalistic truth-telling. 'Just the facts, ma'am'—for good reason.

Journalism's traditional tenets don't impede anyone with skill from getting their writerly point across. Wallace finds himself in the unemployment line solely for willfully violating a professional taboo. Demonstrating the rank intolerance he rails against, he writes:

“We need to admit that those who oppose free speech, diversity and kindergarten level fairness are our enemies”.

How is it not fascism to demonize others simply for holding a different political perspective? Is it not hypocritical, and childish, to condemn another in the name of Wallace's militant “fairness”? To paraphrase Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, a bad judge to the law is equivalent to the journalist disregarding objectivity. They are incongruent and cannot coexist in the same sphere.

Without facts, journalism rapidly degrades into valueless, gelatinous goo. Reporting becomes untrustworthy and indistinguishable from fiction. Hence, the Orwellian specter of today's “fake news”. The false is peddled as true: witness the absurd claim of Trump's “threat to invade Mexico”. (He didn't, per CNN he actually offered help.) This Associated Press narrative was mindlessly disseminated far and wide as truth. Is this American journalism or an old fashioned telephone game from Mr. Wallace's kindergarten class?

Beyond the editorial page, neutrality remains a job requirement. Lewis Wallace confused a First Amendment right of self-expression with his professional duty. His employer acted appropriately because he wouldn't (read: another pesky fact for this “victim” to misconstrue and grouse about).

As with everything he advocates, Wallace only has himself to blame. This is the fallout of competing interests—and the healthy expression of a difference of opinion.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog