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?

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

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Lying Left's Legacy Lifting

“...[T]ruth will come to light; murder [read: political malfeasance] cannot be hid long...at 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 “CNSNews.com” 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

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Bushes Polarize Like Progressives

Given the unanticipated election of Donald Trump, it's difficult to determine which establishment faction is more perturbed, liberals or old guard Republicans. Despite clear and unambiguous Clintonian corruption, neither “side” seems capable of respecting the democratic process when one of their own is not in the winner's circle. Thus, to them, the people's will—and, by extension, the fate of the nation be damned!

The childish cattiness that has resulted is expected of Democrats. They're myopically focused on reelection, but little else. What political party wouldn't be furious over losing over 1,000 officeholders during the Obama era—including, stingingly, the presidency? Yet, what's unseemly is for GOP stalwarts to publicly chastise their party's current standard bearer. For example, George W. Bush said, “This guy [Trump] doesn't know what it means to be president.” How's that not calling the kettle black? What happened to the generations-long tradition of remaining silent regarding one's presidential successors? Likewise, what of Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment never to speak ill of another Republican? So much for honoring “the rules” of political discourse.

In truth, if Mr. Bush was going to “go there” he's waited eight years too long—and picked the wrong target. Recall, as a go-to excuse for Barack Obama's own multitude of failures, he conveniently “blamed Bush”. Specifically, Mr. Obama called his predecessor's deficit spending “unpatriotic” and “irresponsible”. For that demonization, the younger Bush has reason to be incensed. Not at Trump, but at the Democrat's hypocrisy for running through almost twice as much as he: 4.9 versus 9.3 trillion. If that's not egregious enough, what of Mr. Obama's cash payment of 1.7 billion to the pro-terrorist Iranian regime? Why was “W” as silent as a church mouse when actual presidential mismanagement—and malfeasance—transpired? (Is his anti-Trump fervor sour grapes for thwarting his brother Jeb's presidential prospects?)

As was widely reported, shockingly 41 voted for Hillary Clinton, and 43 voted for “none of the above.” How out of sync can two former Republican presidents be? In a recent speech “W” obtusely said, “At times, it can seem like the forces pulling us apart are stronger than the forces binding us together.” With their polarizing rhetoric on full display, isn't the Bush clan doing precisely that? Furthermore, doesn't their brand of divisiveness have the same negative impact as that of any progressive?

Naturally, the Bushes are free to squawk, and uselessly wring their hands. So, too, is the rest of the unsettled GOP establishment. However, piling on is a fool's errand that only makes matters worse. After all, thanks to the hard left MSM, untruths and distortions about Trump already run rampant. And unlike either Bush, at least President Trump has the courage to fight back against these false narratives rather than “dignifyingly” taking them. (Defeated Mitt Romney epitomized that failed philosophy.)

That both former presidents surnamed Bush would now speak out against a sitting president shows disdain for established decorum, and the voice of the electorate. With the nation coming apart at the seams during the disastrous Obama years, they collectively made not a peep. Apparently, for these beltway blue bloods, unjustly trashing Trump is a favorite pastime. That the Bushes partake shows their loyalties truly lie with the insulated political class (regardless of party affiliation) rather than with the voters. Moreover, as their sentiments are indistinguishable from that of Democrats, party labels are rendered meaningless. Herein, to any clear-thinking person is proof of the necessity of electing Donald Trump. The political pendulum has indeed swung far away from dynastic families—and, in 2016, an entitled insider. That maddening reality—as much as the brash billionaire himself—is deliciously driving the D.C. ruling elite daffy.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Washington Swamp's Russian Fever

Supposed “Russian interference” is the Democrats' morning-after poison pill for the results of the 2016 election. From November 9 onward, this narrative has been intended to undermine Donald Trump, and hamstring his “Make America Great Again” agenda.

Unfairly, the liberal MSM has rabidly embraced wild-eyed supposition based upon unsubstantiated innuendo. Its underlying purpose is a face-saving measure to distract from the complete repudiation of progressives' eight years of failures. This effort also had the immediate benefit of painting responsibility-phobic Hillary—and her Democratic fellows—as victims of an “international conspiracy”.

Given this contrivance, one is reminded of Mrs. Clinton's outrageous January 27, 1988 claim of a “vast right wing conspiracy” against her presidential hubby for his adulterous affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Then as now, a pattern of pure fiction spun as a distraction for Clintonian misdeeds. Specifically, during the last election cycle, what of Hillary's less than truthful answers; her highly suspect decisions related to her Server-gate scandal; her influence-peddling Charity-gate dealings; her obvious deficiencies as a politician?

Unfortunately, the entrenched Washington establishment has used this political smoke and mirrors as a feeble excuse not to pass meaningful legislation. That means both parties. On one hand, Democrats take up wasted space in Congress, filling the air with anti-Trump rhetoric. On the other, Republicans sit on their hands, ignoring their languishing seven-year pledge to repeal and replace ObamaCare. These dysfunctions epitomize “the swamp” President Trump is working mightily to drain.

Ah, the idle political class—typified by poster boy Paul Ryan (R-WI). He stated on May 17, 2017, “It is obvious there are some people out there who want to harm the president.’’ As he acknowledges this is the case, why not put a stop to months of nebulous, fruitless inquiries? With no evidence—and no end in sight—why do GOP enablers facilitate a huge distraction from the successful agenda the president ran on? Is it political cover for their own fecklessness?

For historical context, recall Mr. Ryan's acceptance speech as House Speaker on October 29, 2015:

“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. Neither the members nor the people are satisfied with how things are going. We need to make some changes, starting with how the House does business.”

Doe-eyed Ryan promised a “fresh start,” but delivered more gridlock. Conciliatory lip service notwithstanding, what of his results? Likewise, what of his Senate counterpart Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)? Both seem to have an innate aversion to taking the political heat leadership requires. In large part, this ire comes from collectively intractable Democrats. Yet, where is their consensus building within GOP's ranks? Given the rejection of the status quo articulated by the last election cycle—why hasn't either man forcefully defended the president? Why haven't they told Congressional Democrats to stow their obstructionist carping? As a touchstone, why wasn't the ObamaCare repeal bill ready for President Trump's signature on day one: January 20, 2017?

After all, the Republicans ran against the healthcare debacle for years. Precisely as establishment Democrats, Congressional RINOs played politics to gain legislative majorities. Now, after six months of a new administration and GOP dominance in Congress, what do Ryan and McConnell have to show for it? The American Healthcare Act (AHCA) barely passed the House, 217-213 and may not pass in the Senate. How's that for snatching failure out of the jaws of victory? Indeed, if McConnell's minions don't coalesce behind the president's policies forthwith, they will be “swamped” by Democrats eager to replace them in 2018.

It's not the Trump campaign that needs attention here, but Hillary Clinton herself. Specifically, as then Secretary of State, she rubber stamped the Uranium One “deal” in which 20% of U.S. domestic uranium production was ceded to Kremlin control. In exchange, the now defunct Clinton Foundation received four donations totaling $2.35 million. A real Soviet windfall! If that's not blatant enough, Bill Clinton also received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with government ties promoting Uranium One stock. So, who has Russian ties and likely colluded? That's clear to anyone not subscribing to the Democrats' dishonest “red scare”. A politically expedient bogeyman spawned by do-nothing Republicans and corrupt liberals' wishful thinking.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

Virginia's Fundamental Transformation

Virginia joined the Union in June of 1788. Of the 13 original colonies, Virginia likely had the greatest historical influence on our fledgling democracy. Specifically, four out of the five Founding Fathers who comprised America's first generation of U.S. presidents—Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe—were born there. Is it any wonder why this state's tourism slogan is “Virginia is for Lovers”? Certainly, over the years, what state has been more purely or proudly American?

In this tumultuous age, pro-America means Republicanism. To that end, Virginia had dependably voted that way from 1952 to 2004. The one exception in that longstanding trend is understandable. It was the re-election of the first modern progressive, LBJ, in 1964. Recall, Virginians didn't vote for John Kennedy in 1960. Yet, with the entire nation still emotionally shattered by his assassination, they chose his vice president by a healthy 7.3 percent margin.

In the 2016 presidential election, the reason Virginia has not yet returned to its conservative roots is troubling. In large part, this is due to current Governor Terry McAuliffe, a close Clinton political operative (the chairman of her 2008 presidential campaign, best known for fundraising). Last April, he tried to restore the voting rights of 206,000 convicts. The violent and the non-violent alike. Statistically, 7 of 10 felons identify politically as Democrats. Therefore, it's reasonable to infer that Mr. McAuliffe played politics to aid his pal Hillary's ultimately failed candidacy.

The Court stuck down McAuliffe's blanket executive order, but that judicial rebuff only slowed him down. By piecemeal, he still managed to rubber-stamp 60,000 cons by Election Day. Virginia's House Speaker William J. Howell put the matter succinctly, “I am not surprised by the lengths to which he [McAuliffe] is willing to go to deliver Virginia to Hillary Clinton in November.”

Let's now add to the tally of the jailbird vote. Today's revelation is that thousands of non-citizens lurk on Virginia's voter rolls. A telling example is Loudoun County between 2009 and 2014. Virginia Delegate Robert Marshall (R-Prince William) uncovered 9,000 juror disqualifications due to non-citizenship. This result was culled from the 350,000 residents by comparing voter registration lists and Department of Motor Vehicle driver's license applications. Naturally, this figure is anecdotal, but it strongly suggests that voter fraud is real and ongoing in Democratic strongholds.

Last year, the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF)—a conservative group striving to ensure the veracity of Virginia's voter lists—began demanding election officials turn over data on non-citizens, whether they voted or not. As 80 percent of illegal ballots favor the Democrat, Gov. McAuliffe's resistance to disclose this information is not hard to glean.

By hook or by crook, it appears, Hillary Clinton won Virginia 5.4 percent or 212,300 votes. What's unknown is how many of those votes were gained by the “alternative” methods described above. As Virginia's state motto is Sic semper tyrannis—meaning “Thus always to tyrants”—its governor is supposed to champion the people's will not actively subvert it.

Unfortunately, this systemic problem is not isolated. Look to Chicago's well-established pattern of dead people voting. Not to be undone is most populous California. Per a 2015 California Political Review poll, 13 percent of illegal aliens admit they vote. Indeed, the highly prestigious Pew Center indicates voter fraud is rampant. All told, perhaps millions of illegal votes: enough to throw the results of any election. In February, White House advisor Stephen Miller unequivocally stated this clear and present danger to the sanctity of our republic: “It is a fact and you will not deny it, that there are massive numbers of non-citizens in this country who are registered to vote.”

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

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

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

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

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

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

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002 

Putin's Rage for Immoral Obama

“People who order such fakes against the U.S. president-elect, fabricate them and use them in political struggle are worse than prostitutes. They have no moral restrictions whatsoever, and it highlights a significant degree of degradation of political elites in the West, including in the United States.” – Russian President Vladimir Putin on January 17, 2017

We live in interesting times when a commie dictator commands the moral high ground. If Russia hacked the DNC—and/or directly influenced the 2016 election—wouldn't that be a real feather in the Cossack's hat? That's a concrete demonstration of political power: something for Putin to publicly gloat about! Why then does he angrily deny it, call his Western accusers prostitutes? The only logical reason for this fiery reaction is it's not true.

Is WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange—who disclosed the treasure trove of embarrassing DNC emails—also lying when he publicly denied Russian involvement? Indeed, who's more trustworthy, progressive sore losers spinning Trump conspiracy theories, or Putin and Assange? Unfortunately, that's a really tough call! Furthermore, entrenched Republican dupes like John McCain and Lindsey Graham aren't helping matters. They're calling for a meaningless and feckless Congressional investigation. This fool's errand plays right into the Democrats' false narrative that Trump is an illegitimate president. Scapegoating Russia: that's the point of Putin's ire—and the Democrats' smoke and mirrors campaign.

It's beyond bizarre that Mr. Putin has addressed American's systemic political problems more honestly than the outgoing Obama Administration. The communist refers to the entire insulated beltway bubble ruling class. The roughly sixty House Democrats boycotting the Trump inauguration epitomize these fakers. Renewing Reaganesque patriotism and respect for our democracy is what Mr. Trump will champion. For a start, Mr. Obama is within hours of becoming an ex-president. Tellingly, also shortly to be freed from his gilded cage is Bradley (a.k.a “Chelsea”) Manning. You know, the traitorous leaker of U.S. secrets. S/he is an undeserving recipient of Barack Obama's vile presidential pardon. And as birds of a feather flee a ruined roost together, it's not tough to figure out the treasonous party most responsible for degrading America. Even Putin knows.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002  

Mistaking Trump for Hateful Obama

“Obama made America great again. Trump made America hate again” – Occupy Democrats' fascist propaganda

If the nation is currently politically polarized, that's due to President Obama. Who else has been in charge but him? For eight years, he and his progressive minions have badly ruled the roost. For example, who demonized the police when he said, “The cops acted stupidly” back in 2009? Further, who promoted the idea regarding his critics: 'We're gonna punish our enemies, and we're gonna reward our friends' in 2010? The only one promoting years of divisiveness and hatred has been orator Obama. As Democrat Harry Truman said of the U.S. presidency: the buck stops with him. That means every president. Is Mr. Truman wrong and Occupy Democrats right?

The fact remains that Donald Trump is not even in office yet! So, no reasonable person—or group—can blame the new guy for the acrimonious state of our nation. Therefore, Occupy Democrats' claims—and slogans, exemplified above—are patently absurd on their face. They are anti-American fascists—and their fiction is not to be trusted.

Part of living in a democracy means accepting the results of our periodic elections. Why should 2016 be any different than 2008 or 2012? Not to do so now is frankly un-American. If Hillary had won conservatives would not have liked it. Still, adults suck it up and honor the outcome.

That's a fundamental difference between today's rabble-rousing liberals and us. We actually respect the other guy when our candidate loses. Even a radical like Obama! As proof, despite his murky background, no Republican tried to derail or boycott Obama's inaugurations with claims of illegitimacy. Thus, it’s inexcusable for bogus Democrats to do so now with President-elect Trump.

In 2009, Mr. Obama put such matters succinctly: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” He has never spoken truer words. It's good advice that followers of Occupy Democrats should heed in 2017.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

Shellacked Dems Ignore Trump “Mule”

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

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

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

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

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Ending Obama “Cult” Pains Michelle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We are feeling what not having hope feels like.”

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Spoiler Trump: a GOP Coup de Grace

“A lion doesn't concern itself with the opinion of sheep.” ― George R.R. Martin, “A Game of Thrones”

In the MSM's unrelenting criticism of President-elect Donald Trump (and his transition team), the term “bloodletting” is weirdly telling of their collectively deluded mind-set. The Washington Post misuses that precise word in relation to the unremarkable demotion of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (for the more experienced Mike Pence) and the departure of former congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI).

A couple of understandable personnel changes and The Post's Wednesday front page radiates: 'Key figures purged'? Likewise, the next day obviously aggrieved columnist Dana Milbank called Republicans “one big mess.” The avalanche of farcical and wrongheaded descriptions persist. Also on Thursday, his colleague Karen DeYoung petulantly complained of Trump's “still empty” transition government offices. Newsflash to Ms. DeYoung and her fellow travelers in liberal la-la land: it's only been eight days since Trump's victory! (Is she secretly impatient for The Donald's governance?)

In the postmortem of the 2016 presidential election, failed Democrats—and their still clueless sycophants in the press—are the ones actually bloodletting. Their pollsters repeatedly got everything wrong. Even “newspaper of record” The New York Times is losing money. Yet, the red meat in this scenario is the Democrats as wholesale political road kill. It's a titanic trifecta: Crooked Hillary's unrealized presidential prospects, an absolute repudiation of anti-American progressivism, and Barack Obama's legacy is dead on arrival. While the ground quakes under lame duck Democrats' feet, the mindless “squawking” cacophony of disillusioned ideologues masquerading as journalists resounds.

Hillary Clinton's well-deserved defeat puts all insulated powerbrokers of the coddled beltway bubble ruling class on notice. Today, any establishment politician (read: RINOs) still “with her”—in word or deed—is not with We the People. Our will has been clearly voiced. Populist Donald Trump's surprise election to the presidency makes this assessment factual. Therefore, his famous catchphrase from “The Apprentice” is apropos to Washington elites: “You're fired.”

Similarly metaphorically pink-slipped are urbanite talking head prognosticators and the heedless Chicken Little MSM with their absurdist newspaper propaganda. The media's baseless criticisms are dishonest exaggerations that deny the new political reality. Herein lies the problem: their deeply partisan “reporting” will consign them to irrelevant background noise. (Think of the teacher's voice in “Peanuts” cartoons.) Mourning has indeed come to them, but a new dawn has come to America.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976