Friday, October 12, 2018

Comparing Trump and Reagan

On October 7, 1984, President Reagan famously said to Walter Mondale, “There you go again.”  Historically, gentlemanly detractors also maligned him.  Mark Weinberg makes this same mistake in his Trump-Reagan column, “Where do we go from here”.  For Weinberg, political nostalgia has caused confusion over personality and substance regarding his subjects. 

On the basis of policies and accomplishments President Trump has proven he’s our generation’s Reagan.  What of Donald Trump's “Make America Great Again” motto: a Reaganesque message trumpeting U.S. exceptionalism?  Specifically, Trump has modeled Reaganomics by lower taxes to spur today’s 4.2 percent GDP.  In his first year, the Trump administration reduced the federal workforce by almost 13,000.  Given Reagan’s abhorrence for the size and scope of government, the Trump era rollback of 22 regulations for every new one is clearly something “The Gipper” would approve of.  Furthermore, both men value the rule of law and keeping our country safe.

Similar in substance is Trump to Reagan on the international stage.  His policy of direct engagement with foreign leaders and his “Peace through strength” doctrine mirror Reagan’s.  In the 1980s, the geopolitical foe was Gorbachev, and the “evil empire” was the Soviet Union.  Today’s villainous regime is North Korea and Kim Jong Un.  The actors have changed, but not the chairs.  Where it counts, who’s more Reagan than Trump?  

Warts and all, each man is the leader of his time.  In his smiling, affable way “The Great Communicator” fought just as tenaciously as Trump’s fighting now.  But the game has changed.  It’s unrealistic to expect a plainspoken New York billionaire to be constrained by the pearl-clutching behaviors of the past.  After all, neither political party has remained static in its orientation.  How much do outspoken, big government socialists—infesting today’s Democratic Party—have in common with the policies or demeanor of JFK?  The return to civility will only happen when the American people demand it from every representative.  Meanwhile, it’s too easy to fixate on the President.  In “Julius Caesar” the Bard counseled, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Friday, August 31, 2018

Biden’s words fowl in DeSantis’ mouth

How can identical words be “offense” only when uttered by a Republican politician?  Ron DeSantis, the Trump-supported candidate for governor of Florida, said of his Democratic opponent, “He’s an articulate spokesman for far-left views, and he’s a charismatic candidate.”  The sensible among us would recognize such descriptors as inherently complimentary.

Not so with the free speech-repressing politically correct crowd.  From DeSantis the left automatically heard “racist dog whistles” because the Democratic nominee is Andrew Gillum, the progressive mayor of Tallahassee, who happens to be black.  By contrast, the left remains silent as crickets that Joe Biden used the same language to describe then presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2007:

“I mean you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s storybook, man.”

Obviously the faux outrage is only reserved for representatives of the anti-bigotry party of Lincoln.  Unfortunately, this tempest in a teapot was further inflamed by Mr. DeSantis’ unsavvy reference to “monkey this up” by embracing Mr. Gillum’s socialist agenda.  For political polarization, Democrats assume the worst, most twisted  interpretation of GOP gaffes: a quality completely ignored in their own candidates.  With the left's linguistic double standard, truth is an easy sacrifice for an ill-gotten political advantage.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Monday, August 27, 2018

Overcoming the China Syndrome

Clifford D. May’s “The China syndrome” is spot on.  Many Americans, and Washington decision-makers, still mistakenly view China as a trading partner rather than a geo-political adversary.  Mr. May’s correct that our “friends” are singularly focused on usurping America’s First World position.  This reality was echoed in a recent Mark Levin interview with National Security and Defense Strategy expert Michael Pillsbury (Director of the Center of Chinese Strategy at the Hudson Institute) who said of the Chinese: 

The key source of economic growth is science and technology [also known as technology-based planning].  ... It's a comprehensive approach that to become number one in the world we've got to get hold of what they call the innovation technology base.  Find out the most dramatic, profit-making technologies in the world and get them—by one means or another.

Via TBP, the Chinese correctly exploit technology to produce superior goods and services, exported globally.  The resulting influx of wealth facilitates China’s worldwide “bullying” of other nations so aptly detailed by Mr. May.  

Likewise, the U.S. is not immune to this systematic erosion of autonomy.  In fact, the quicksand is greatly aided by America’s distracted focus on financial shell games (ie, financed-based planning) such as lowering taxes, reducing government regulations and tariffs.  These manipulations only work in the short run—and won’t counter China’s long-term strategy to undermine and diminish U.S. strength. 

Essentially, it's like they’re playing chess while America plays checkers.  A titanic threat to the course of nations.  The Chinese enjoy this sustained competitive advantage due to technology-based planning.  The U.S. government must immediately implement our own available system: a great topic for Mr. May’s next article.

David L. Hunter is the writer of “How to Rebuild a First World Economy

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Thursday, July 26, 2018

Photos Suggest Shared Shadiness

Almost 2,500 years ago Greek fabulist Aesop sagely advised, “A man is known by the company he keeps”.  A modern analogy is seen in whom one chooses to break bread with.  This concept particularly applies to the slippery Clintons, and the now disgraced movie mogul they chose to dine with on December 13, 2016.  That Hollywood bigwig is today’s accused serial rapist Harvey Weinstein.  According to photographs—mysteriously only recently uncovered by Britain’s Daily Mail, not the mainstream media—Hillary is seated between two men accused of sexual assault; the other being her husband Bill.  Ah, the “hiddenness” of such open secrets—and the curious concealment of related pictures.

Historically, Hillary knew about Bill’s “bimbo eruptions” in the 1990s.  Another Clintonian open secret: long denied until the irrefutable DNA on Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress.  Likewise, in her decades-long friendship with Weinstein, is it possible that she didn’t know when everyone in Hollywood seemed to?  At the exclusive East Harlem eatery called Rao’s—mere weeks after her failed presidential campaign—Hillary is fraternizing with such a man?  Given her stinging political defeat one would reasonably infer she would surround herself with trusted intimates.  That means either she didn’t know or she didn't care.  Either way, what would Aesop say about her character, or theirs?
The suppression of questionable photos involving prominent Democrats is nothing new.  Another telling example is an obscure image taken at a weekly Congressional Black Caucus lunch back in 2005.  A single frame shot by Askia Muhammad and hidden by him for 13 years.  The main subjects were then freshman senator Barack Obama and the minister Louis Farrakhan: the highly controversial anti-Semitic, anti-white and anti-gay leader of the Nation of Islam.  (For context, per the New York Times, Mr. Farrakhan described Adolf Hitler as “a very great man” in 1984.)  If exposed then, what would the electorate have thought of photographic proof of connection between both men?

In any case, here’s what Mr. Muhammad told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “I swore myself to secrecy. If the picture was exposed, it could still be a deal breaker for Obama [becoming president]. … I did not want to be the instrument of his downfall.”  His candid response likely explains why Hillary’s Weinstein photographs also took so long to surface.  Using Aesop's standard, these images depict associations with dubious characters.  Why hide these photos for years unless they symbolize a deeper reality of collective corruption?

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

Primary Upset Shows Red Innards

The cannibalization of Democrats—now philosophically interchangeable with Bernie Sanders-style socialism—is fascinating (and deeply disturbing) to see.  What else explains last week's primary defeat of establishment candidate Rep. Joseph Crowley?  Shockingly, the fourth most powerful Democrat in Congress—a 10-term incumbent—pink-slipped by the voters of NY-14.  In Mr. Crowley's former slot now stands a genuine pinko: 28-year-old political newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Ah, à la Obama, another fresh-faced progressive spinning the old yarn of collectivism.  On NBC's “Meet the Press” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez mirrored the former “hope and change” president by stating, “I’m an educator, I’m an organizer. And I believe that what we’re really seeing is just a movement for health care, housing and education in the United States.”  Well, everyone values such things; the question is how they’re achieved.  In reality, capitalism already provides that to the most people of any economic system—with the added benefit of self-determination. 

Socialism is always based upon redistribution of government resources.  Therefore, in practice, this House nominee peddles de facto economic enslavement via perpetual government dependence.  That's not the American way.  In truth, it’s a complete abandonment of the principles that defined their party under JFK.  Would President Kennedy want higher taxes, single-payer healthcare, radical criminal justice “reform” to empty prisons, and open U.S. borders (by abolishing ICE)?  Furthermore, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s claim “Democrats are a big-tent party” is as hollow as her dystopian rhetoric.  By today’s standards, JFK’s policies place him slightly left of mainstream Republicans.  On that basis, Jack would be shown the door as unceremoniously as Joseph Crowley was. 

Would the late Norman Thomas, a fellow socialist, Presbyterian preacher and six-time presidential candidate, be that surprised by the unvarnished emergence of another democratic upstart?  Reverend Thomas famously prophesied that socialism would stealthily (and incrementally) arrive in America wearing the mantle of the Democratic Party.  In the modern era, it emerged with the failed campaign of Bernie Sanders in 2015.  That movement has gained a latest toehold with the unexpected victory of millennial Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  The white and blue has been drained from the Democratic Party, but the red—at its metastasized heart—remains.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Ryan Leaving Washington Broke(n)

What should be said of Wisconsin's Paul, the Unwilling: the earnestly mannered, fresh-faced, doe-eyed House Speaker? During his three years in charge, this “policy wonk” spends as frivolously as any progressive—while piously opining about conservatism. For context, when Mr. Ryan became a representative in January of 1999 the U.S. debt was only $5.56 trillion. Given the nation's deeply underwater finances—that ballooned over his 19-year career (and spanned four U.S. presidents), Ryan's truly a Republican In Name Only (RINO).

Specifically, he's the embodiment of incompatible opposites. Mr. Ryan took the top congressional job in October of 2015—while publicly proclaiming he didn't want it. Likewise was his chilly embrace of then-GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. As the standard-bearer, the President was never the beneficiary of Mr. Ryan's largesse: extended to all Democrats. Regarding support of Trump, this highest elected Republican famously said, “I’m not there right now.” Contrast that to Ryan's sunny treatment of his liberal colleagues in his first speech as the 62nd Speaker of the House:

“But let’s be frank: The House is broken. We are not solving problems. We are adding to them. And I am not interested in laying blame. We are not settling scores. We are wiping the slate clean.”

In retrospect, Mr. Ryan's loyalty was always to the entrenched Washington establishment (read: the swamp), not to the brash billionaire businessman become president or his populist constituency.

Let's look briefly at this Speaker's “report card”. When Mr. Ryan assumed his leadership role on October 29, 2015, the national debt was $18,152,590,112,385.69. Upon his retirement announcement on April 11th, the figure was $21,121,833,941,447.86. That's an increase of $2.97 trillion in two years and 5 ½ months. Per Gallup, Congress's approval rating (Nov. 4-8, 2015) was 11%. As Gallup's figure is not yet available, the RealClear average is currently 13.2%. That's a meager improvement of 2.2%. Schizophrenically, Mr. Ryan reforms taxes like a Republican while squandering like a spendthrift Democrat. What else explains his rubber-stamping a budget-busting 1.8 trillion dollar spending bill early in his tenure (December 2015), barely averting a government shutdown in March (with another $1.3 trillion in expenditures) while previously passing tax relief (December 2017)? Given his track record and fiscal results, that's an F.

While Paul Ryan basks, taking his self-congratulatory victory laps—only his myriad failures weakening America will be his legacy.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Guns Banned, Knives Next?

Shockingly, New York and London, two world-famous cities of similar population sizes, currently have equivalent murder rates.  The glaring differences are that the United Kingdom has no Second Amendment, and prohibited firearms in 1997.  That has not stopped the violence, however.  The mostly gang-related carnage has been accomplished with knives instead. 

That’s no problem to London Mayor Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim to hold the post in a major Western capital.  He tweeted, “No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife. Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law.”  Since Mr. Khan plans to restrict British cutlery, will his next target be serving forks?  If this is the new trend there, he has certainly fashioned a big job for himself.  Imagine confiscating all of the blunt objects at hand, or lying about, that can be weaponized!

When will leftists finally acknowledge the simple truth that inanimate objects cannot be blamed for the hateful intentions of the wielder?  So much for the “evolved sensibilities” of our floundering cultural cousins in the gun-free zone across the pond.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

The Young Lead The Foolish

Last Saturday's “March for Our Lives” rally had a wealth of protesting voices, but little common sense. How topsy turvy is our political landscape when hundreds of thousands gathered in Washington, DC to protest the Bill of Rights: specifically the Second Amendment? Benjamin Franklin would counsel the outspoken masses thusly: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” For the illusion of some greater sense of security, individuals would willingly submit to further government restriction and control? Yet, in large part, wasn't it the failure of law enforcement that facilitated the Parkland, Florida school shooting rather than preventing it?

Deluded marchers, as embattled Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, completely miss the lesson of the Valentine's Day massacre of 17 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. It's not about blaming the gun or even the homicidal shooter. It's about the complete failure of the State to protect the local population from a clear and unmistakable danger. It's about profound incompetence masked as self-congratulation. What else explains Sheriff Israel's disinterest in immediately viewing the video of his four errant deputies: who neglected to enter the school while the shooting took place? What else explains his laughable statement to CNN's Jake Tapper, “I've given amazing leadership to this agency” the following Sunday? He's ignored calls for his resignation, and refused to release the video of his officers' dereliction of duty. What does that say about this public servant's responsiveness and accountability?

In essence, “March for Our Lives” malcontents advocate giving Sheriff Israel's ilk more power. Is that wise given their colossal bungling—that cost lives rather than saving them? Specifically, an armed deputy wearing a bullet proof vest (a resource officer sharing the already infamous name Scot Peterson) arrived 90 seconds into the attack, but remained outdoors while the perpetrator shot innocents inside for nearly five minutes. Sheriff Israel's other responsibility-phobic officers milled around outside too. In retrospect, can anything good be said about these cowards? Per Naples Daily News, authorities received at least 18 warning calls from 2008 to 2017 regarding Nikolas Cruz, 19. NDN reports, “In February 2016, neighbors told police that they were worried he 'planned to shoot up the school' after seeing alarming pictures on Instagram showing Cruz brandishing guns.” So neighbors (a group that historically never sees or hears anything about a given suspect) saw something and said something. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School also did something. Per Fox News’s Sean Hannity, Mr. Cruz was such an apparent threat, he was prohibited from wearing a backpack for security concerns. Ultimately, he was expelled from the school for misbehavior. Shockingly, law enforcement visited Cruz's home 39 times over seven years. Even the FBI was alerted twice: one instance was just weeks before the shooting occurred. Despite all these blurry blue lines of bureaucracy, this highly preventable tragedy was not. The fact that Officer Peterson resigned, and suspect Cruz was arrested, is cold comfort to the families who lost loved ones in such a violent and horrific manner.

Despite numerous red flags authorities dropped the ball on every level. In that regard, nothing at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School has appeared to change. As reported by's Tim Swift last Tuesday, a Broward County sheriff's deputy, Moises Carotti, has been suspended—with pay—after he was caught sleeping in a patrol car outside that very site! If “March for Our Lives” anti-gun protesters are looking for a legitimate reason to object, a golden opportunity exists: police not serving the communities they're sworn to protect. Hence, the real issue here is not guns. As with all objects that can be weaponized (read: cars, bats, knives, rocks etc.) doesn't the wielder vitally determine whether something is good or bad? In a free society that answer is always yes.

What all of this hubbub boils down is who to trust: faceless government bureaucracy or the individual to make responsible choices. Unfortunately, the reality here is that law enforcement has fallen inexcusably short, contributing to 17 deaths. Therefore, legally armed white hat elements in our society should fill in the gap. Naturally, most teenagers understand none of this. How can they when they're biologically impulsive and notoriously shortsighted as to life's consequences? Their wish to be cocooned in metaphorical bubble wrap is certainly understandable: it's the naive thinking of the unrealistic dreamer. Yet, what of the mature bubbleheads supporting these misdirected young marchers? It's pure folly for adults to believe these kids will save us from ourselves. From playwright Herb Gardner's aptly named “A Thousand Clowns” comes the common sense adage: “Out of the mouths of babes comes drooling”. For good reason since time immemorial adults have guided children, not vice versa. Only the aged and the addled follow anywhere teenagers lead.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Thursday, March 22, 2018

Slut-Shaming A U.S. President

With the #MeToo movement in full flight, why hasn't anyone in the legacy media finally held former U.S. president Bill Clinton to account for his lifetime of boorish behavior? What of his string of adulterous affairs with numerous accusers—even within the Oval Office? What of Juanita Broaddrick's 40-year-old allegation of rape? Is it fair for Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen to slut-shame the sitting U.S. president: while giving worse behaved Bubba a complete pass? For one thing, Mr. Clinton's juvenile high jinks—among them, the Lewinsky affair: a national scandal that virtually brought the country to a standstill, and led to Bill's impeachment—happened while he was in office. How is that comparable to a porn star's allegation of a consensual affair with Donald Trump, then a private citizen, in 2006?

Where is this partisan's “honesty, dignity and rectitude”? In reality, Mr. Cohen engages in the yellowiest journalism by using language better suited to the gutter: “But Trump himself is a slut. He is a liar and a moral harlot who revels in irresponsibility and bad-boy behavior.” To paraphrase the Bible, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” (John 8:7). That would be good advice for the Post's holier than thou columnist to heed: especially given his own sexism directed at a younger, female subordinate in the workplace. As reported in June of 1998 by the Washingtonian's Harry Jaffe in “Cohen Gets Kid-Gloves Treatment in Harassment Case”:

“Among the allegations reported to [deputy managing editor Milton] Coleman: Cohen asked [Devon] Spurgeon to come into his office and close the door, then queried her about her generation's view of oral sex. Also at issue: a conversation where Cohen said it's too bad Bill Clinton is the only one who can grope in his office and get away with it. He also is said to have intimidated her with references to his connections with top Post editors, such as Tom Wilkinson, who can hire and fire.”

How is it not beyond creepy for a then 57-year-old man to question a then 23-year-old editorial aide about sexual mores? At the time, the Post's response was simply to move his office to a different floor. As for curbing potential misdeeds, that's about as effective as moving an accused pedophile priest to a new perish. Indeed, all these years later, where's Richard Cohen's, or The Washington Post's, integrity and transparency regarding these events? As of now, this stone thrower is still employed there. In fact, sanctioned for decades to point fingers at others while ignoring his own less than chivalrous conduct. (As was typical in the Clinton era of “bimbo eruptions,” the wagons were circled and the young woman in question was blamed.) Unfortunately, his journalistic old boy's club is still stuck in Clintonian amber. Neither Clinton nor Cohen have yet received their deserved comeuppance in 2018.

Upon reflection, how was the lurid, sex scandal-plagued Clinton era not a shadowy reflection of recently exposed Hollywood sex scandals (read: Clinton friend and donor Harvey Weinstein), and the #MeToo movement? In both cases, didn't prominent Democrats misuse their lofty positions to exploit underlings for sexual favors? Specifically, when Bubba chased Monica around the resolute desk in the Oval Office, wasn't Bill's bad-boy behavior (with her and others) equivalent to the adulterous antics of a bathrobed Harvey? Rightly, today's press has excoriated the disgraced movie mogul Yet, Bill's extramarital affair with then 22-year-old White House intern Monica Lewinsky is still treated with kid gloves. Ironically, his still traumatized former paramour, now 44, couldn't bring herself to hold the Clintons responsible in her candid March 2018 Vanity Fair article: he for his arguably predatory behavior; she for calling Lewinsky a “narcissistic loony toon”. Shouldn't the Clintons be held to the same standard of conduct that the media is rabidly trying to hold The Donald to?

The hard left media continuing to protect the coddled Clintons conveys the message that questionable actions, or words, have no bearing on character or a president's ability to lead the nation. And despite the sea change regarding sexual harassment, Bill and Hillary have survived their various imbroglios, haven't they? So, it stands to reason that President Trump will also survive the supposed peccadilloes of his past. Before applying such blatant double standards to U.S. presidents, Democratic surrogates of the biased MSM need to take a long look in a mirror. Not to do so shows the truth of what they are: untrustworthy mudslingers of salacious leftist propaganda.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Monday, March 19, 2018

Fuzzy Words Hide Shady Leftists

I was not aware of any Communists at Fort Roach*, although there were several gentleman of the extreme left … who called themselves 'progressives', a term I subsequently learned was the Party's code word for true believers.” – Edmund Morris, Pulitzer Prize winner and author of “Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan”

*The First Motion Picture Unit of the U.S. Army Air Forces (USAAF) during World War II (installed at the dormant Hal Roach Studios in Culver City, California) in the 1940s

As disclosed by biographer Morris, the label progressive is leftist code for an adherent of communism. Yet, communism's collectivism diametrically opposes American principles embodied by individual liberty. In short, such oil and water philosophies don't mix. What's misleading is the root word of progressive happens to be “progress”. So, it's easy to assume that both terms mean the same good something. (After all, in this technologically driven age, who's not in favor of advancement?) Yet, progressivism is destructive in its practice, and backward in its orientation. In reality, it fails everywhere it's tried. By almost every objective measure (with the anomaly of a flourishing Wall Street), President Obama's progressivism was ruinous for America. Specifically, the economic albatross of a record-shattering 9.3 trillion added to the national debt was no accident. Likewise, leftist leadership turned oil and diamond rich Venezuela into a hellhole where basic necessities, like toilet paper, are scarce. Democrats typically use such nebulous, good sounding language to conceal their real anti-American intentions. For example, their knee-jerk advocacy of “investment” in some fashionable cause. That's just doublespeak for raising taxes and growing government. Such poison pills only undermine our nation's solvency, and future prospects. For these wastrels, it's better to rule in a leftist hell—propagated by their political pandering and cultural divisiveness—then serve in heaven as pro-American constitutionalists.

In the same vein, political movements with the word “Democrat” in them are usually totalitarian: as the Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea. Certainly, no lover of civil rights, and human freedoms, are they. For proof of Kim Jong-Un's liberalism, who can forget the tragic fate of American student 22-year-old Otto Warmbier? For the college prank of foolishly attempting to steal a propaganda poster this future ivy leaguer was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor. Fifteen months later he was returned to the United States in a vegetative state. This coma—the result of likely torture—led to his premature demise; a young man in full flower cut down. What a waste of potential, what a senseless loss of life.

Speaking of destroying life of accused agitators on foreign soil, how about Barack Obama's Orwellian-style “disposition matrix”? This was the former president's secret kill list: a database of suspected terrorists to be dispensed with, either targeted in drone strikes, or captured and interrogated. How is that nihilistic system not equivalent to the barbarity of the Kim regime? In fact, some of Mr. Obama's quarry were even American citizens! The horror is that guilt or innocence didn't matter. The accused were deprived of their lives without due process: that means no right to legal representation and a fair trial, and no judgment by a jury of one's peers. From on high, what a megalomaniac thrill to play God!

That's not the only similarity between the leadership in North Korea and today's Democrats. Both groups use demonizing rhetoric against their perceived adversaries. Specifically, reported by on March 7th, the former instruct their people to call Americans bastards. How is Hillary Clinton's repudiation of Trump supporters as a basket of deplorables any less hateful and derogatory? The 2016 presidential election ended over 16 months ago, but she's still spewing venomous blame. In India, this foul-mouthed “feminist icon” smeared the married, white women who didn't support her. Outrageously, she implied they were mindless chattel: incapable of acting independently of their husbands, bosses or sons. So much for this skin-deep “champion of women”.

With all leftists, freedom of thought is vehemently suppressed because it departs from the Party's official position. On every issue under the sun, conformity of perception is paramount. What liberals say is “right” in this moment can be completely the opposite of what they stood for yesterday. Even writers David Nakamura and Ed O'Keefe of the highly partisan Washington Post acknowledged:

In 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Secure Fence Act, a bill that authorized the construction of hundreds of miles of fencing along the border. That legislation was approved with broad bipartisan support, including, in the Senate, by such Democratic luminaries as Barack Obama (Ill.), Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), Joe Biden (Del.) and Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), now the Senate minority leader.”

In 2018, that's The Donald's border wall. Yet, so afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome are they, progressives automatically oppose what they previously supported—under the previous two administrations. As masters of the political flip-flop, hypocrisy and self-interest define them (read: Crooked Hillary).

Thus, proponents of the left—regardless of their particular stripe—demonstrate a jackbooted impulse to dominate others. In common, each ruling class controls via a herd mentality. Unchecked, the Worker's Party of Korea (WPK) can govern by overt force. Meanwhile, dissembling Democrats weaponize their words to incite protests. Sometimes these “social justice” movements metastasize into mob violence (read: Black Lives Matter). Yet, either by force or by fearmongering the left advances its un-American notions. These exploitative elites preach inclusivity while repressing and actively dividing.

These true believers, as Hillary and Obama, are oblivious to patriotic Americans' views or problems. They're insulated creatures of the Washington establishment; buoyed by their hard left extremism and access to governmental influence. In truth, they care nothing for their fellow citizens' freedoms (particularly the Second Amendment), and actively work to subvert them. As a parallel, their mindset is epitomized in “Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith” (2005) when the Republic becomes a dictatorial galactic empire:

“So this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause.” – Padmé Amidala (played by Natalie Portman)

As “Democratic” leader Kim Jong-Un is a scourge upon the world stage, progressives are a cancer upon the American body politic. Acting and speaking with the same anti-U.S. malevolence is clear—regardless of what commonality their fuzzy labels are designed to obscure.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Lying Left's Legacy Lifting

...[T]ruth will come to light; murder [read: political malfeasance] cannot be hid the length truth will out.” – William Shakespeare, “The Merchant of Venice” (1596)

For over a year now the false narrative that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election has loomed large on the political landscape: a petulant fury from crybaby Democrats who populate the MSM, the legislative minority, and the deep state within government. Ironically, these so-called Democrats no longer respect the democratic process because their “inevitable” candidate didn't win. For them, this defeat is particularly stinging. What else explains the Obama/Clinton party of progressives/socialists who pulled every dirty trick—and still lost?

What will today's breed of Democrats likely be remembered for? Certainly, their constant, unsubstantiated smears of President Trump (and the GOP, in general). And an utter lack of constructive ideas, viable policies and trustworthy words. Besides being anti-Trump what do these polarizing grandstanders stand for—besides doing or saying anything to remain in office?

Perhaps for the first time during the disastrous Obama years, these liberal “servants of the people” habitually make public pronouncements completely divorced from reality. In fact, so incensed by Mr. Obama's dubious claims, who can forget Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) yelling “You lie” during the former president's healthcare speech to a joint session of Congress in 2009?

Mr. Wilson quickly apologized for his lack of civility. But in our topsy turvy culture, then, the person demonized was only this truth-telling congressman! Two years later “” reported the facts:

“The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on Tuesday [August 9, 2011] that it has awarded $28.8 million to 67 community health centers with funds from the Obamacare health reform law.”

Migrant and seasonal workers are typically foreigners. And these subsidized clinics routinely do not ask for or collect data regarding a patient's citizenship status. So, as light dispels shadow, the truth emerged eventually. Unfortunately, a forgiving electorate did not hold President Obama accountable for his utter lack of veracity at the ballot box (as it likely did for Hillary Clinton in 2016).

Speaking of Barack's whoppers, related to Russian interference, he proclaimed during a Rose Garden press conference on October 18, 2016:

“‘There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections …. There’s no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time. And so, I’d advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.’”

Because the liberal establishment was so confident of Hillary's victory, they did not want to cast doubt on the expected outcome of the 2016 election. When they lost their only option was to tar the winner with falsehoods. Yet, where is the actual evidence of political collaboration with the Soviets? It's only found in the Democratic Party. For example, who can forget President Obama's hot mic disclosure to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more “flexibility” to negotiate on missile defense after the November 2012 election? Furthermore, how is the fake Russian dossier on Donald Trump—paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign—not blatant collusion? Likewise, what about the infamous Uranium One deal? The Clinton Foundation accepted $145 million while Russia gained control of 20 percent of domestic U.S. uranium production! (Is that not collusion that rises to the level of treason?) These many instances range from the serious to the silly. More recently, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was caught on audio tape trying to obtain nonexistent “naked” photos of Trump from Vladmir Kyzetsov and Alexei Stolyarov. He thought they were highly placed Russian officials, but they were just comedians spoofing him! For their deplorable track record, why should anyone believe anything any prominent Democrat politician says?

As intangible as a shadow, the Trump collusion fog is slowly dissipating. Indeed, Trump's election remains an important turning point in our political discourse. As light dispels darkness, the People have liberated themselves from their self-imposed progressive stupor. Besides restoration of the American Dream, hopefully, the Trump era will be remembered for demarcation. Only one party advocates honesty, fidelity to law, citizen's rights and American exceptionalism. The other offers only continued pot-stirring chaos via their bold-faced lies resulting in further anarchy and lawlessness. In the meantime, their untruthful rhetoric will not stick to the trash-talking “Teflon” Don. Democrats' spurious claims of conspiracy are only true regarding themselves.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog