Obama's true-life “nanny” state

As past is prologue, flashback to February of 2008.  Way back then—even before Mr. Obama's first term election—Michelle Obama said of her hubby, “Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”  Rest assured, like the Oracle at Delphi, that's a woman to read the Obama tea leaves by.

In retrospect of a more than 7 transpired years of a largely dictatorial and ultra-Constitutional (“I have a pen, I have a phone”) presidency, this nebulous and foreboding nugget is now as clear as glass.  Mr. Obama's totalitarian promise of interference in the lives of average, private citizens extends to truly remarkable and unprecedented lengths.

Apparently, the White House has waded effortlessly into big-government, “do-gooder” fascism.  While the year is technically 2016, the uneasy chill feels like Orwell's “1984” in Mr. Obama's sly Big Brother attempt to usurp parental control of child-rearing.  I coyly refer to the intimate activity of protecting babies' bums from diaper rash with their “well-meaning” initiative of low-cost diapers.  From on high, it is Mr. Obama's literal manifestation of cradle-to-grave government dependence.

After all, despite thousands of years of human societies, how else are people old enough to sire children expected to raise them if not for this Bernie Sanders-style “free” government largesse?

Think those diapers are expensive now?  Wait 'til “junior poopy pants” grows up, can't find work (due to the lasting domino effect of Obama’s present day job-killing economic policies) and that 20 trillion Chinese bill for government funds borrowed at interest (read: the debt) comes due.  By then, this whole next generation of Americans will really be knee-deep in the brown stuff.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

2016: “nice” losers, nasty winners

The presidential candidate of Midwestern nostalgia, Ohio governor John Kasich, is a nice man. Unfortunately, the 2016 election cycle is a meat-grinder: equal parts unpredictability and contentiousness, not decency. Therefore, “nice guy” candidates like the highly likable and eminent Dr. Ben Carson, in the same Kasich mold, trail badly in the polls. In any case, the electorate is disillusioned by the establishments of both political parties, as well as the propagandist, one-sided MSM that carries the Democrat's swill of half-truths, misleading statements by omission, and outright cover for lies (like Joe Biden's 1992 "misunderstood" objection to an end-term Republican president making a Supreme Court nomination.) All under Mr.Obama's golf-playing watch: 10 trillion in additional debt; almost 8 more years of economic downturn; 93 million able-bodied Americans unable to find employment; Democrat's pandering to Radical Islam, illegal aliens and Black Lives Matter; Europe awash in 60 million migrants and the Middle East on fire with terrorism. And lest I forget our pro-Islamic president's crowning legacy: the high probability proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East under the control of Iranian ayatollahs.

To any clear thinking person, is it any surprise that everything is “throw the bums out?” (This means you too, House Speaker Paul Ryan, with your “fresh start” 2 trillion dollar budgetary capitulation to Democrats.) In 2016, it takes no genius to realize that voters are fed up to their eyeballs. Consequently, Kasich's fond Americana of homemade apple pies or “I Love Lucy” reruns is out-of-step with the timbre of the country. The long-suffering silent majority is awake, and the political landscape rightfully trembles: a mobilized army is at the Republican ballot box. This unique phenomenon (with obvious causes and contrarily unforeseeable results) is the real life manifestation of “Network” fictional newscaster-prophet Howard Beale's justified rage at the system. Simply put, like him, we're 'mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore.'

Make no mistake: this is a year of unprecedented, hardscrabble political blood-sport. Therefore, genteel non-brawlers for the presidency like Mitt Romney (who had his chance 4 years ago) not only need not apply, they should keep silent by invoking Ronald Reagan's 11^th commandment of not speaking ill of fellow Republicans, even primary-leading Donald Trump. After all, we don't need 3 million uninspired conservatives staying home as they did for the “elder statesman of 2012” who gifted Mr. Obama his disastrous second term.

Beyond that, it is a mistake to assume the “mad as hell” ire is just a “guy” thing. Historically anti-suffrage Democrats' bray today about unfairness to women such as the gender pay-gap, but in Hillary Clinton's State Department (that mysteriously “lost” 6 billion) as in Mr. Obama's White House, the hypocrisy of paying women less for the same work is still firmly entrenched. Yet, outrageously, it is not Democrat's being demonized for their real life records of actual economic discrimination. It's the aforementioned nice guy, John Kasich, whose innocuous statement (“of many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me,”) relates to his memory of first running for political office in 1978.

His words are not descriptive of his current view of the role of women in 2016. This rabid MSM distortion is exactly what I mean by the press's “misleading statements.” Rather than faithful and objective reporting decades long gone, the fourth estate intentionally omits context—and actively misconstrues what is said—to mean something never intended. It is also no coincidence that all of these yellow journalistic “dirty tricks” benefit Democrats. How else could a scandal-laden, habitual liar (under as many as three federal investigations for corruption and influence-peddling) be a lock for her party's presidential nomination?

In psychological terms this disgraceful political dynamic is classic projection. Blaming “others,” specifically Republicans, for the precise mind-set, behavior and policies that they themselves are guilty of. In any case, if it is acceptable to take Kasich to task for his off-the-cuff statement regarding a woman's political role in 1978, it is fair game to also mention a highly relevant front-running Democrat's example. Of course, I coyly refer to 1998's “Zipper-gate” scandal: Hillary's spouse Bill and his paramour, the then blue dress-wearing 22-year-old intern, Monica Lewinsky. My point: seduced by a powerful older man (a U.S. president no less) was that impressionable young woman championed by Hillary—today's “women's rights icon”—or mercilessly criticized by her as a “narcissistic loony toon?”

The subsequent DNA evidence of Bill's extra-marital dalliance proved Hillary's assessment untrue (as with her future, similar misstatements on Benghazi, Server-gate and “Clinton Cash”). Yet, propped up by the media (same as Obama), her false narrative as the “wronged wife” persists to this day. Indeed, Hillary's history of withering attacks on the cadre of women of Bill's '90s “bimbo eruption” demonstrate the pair are no respecters of anything related to women. Further, politicians with the Clinton surname are much more deserving of a prison stint rather than a “rosy” reward of taxpayer-funded habitation in the White House.

All of the above demonstrates that American politics is a dirty, ego-driven business. Unfortunately, the kind and well intentioned get crushed underfoot. The unfair treatment of Kasich (and Carson) is a case and point. There is no room in the current political climate for these men of authenticity. However, as a voice of reason, the role of vice president remains a real possibility to temper the Machiavellian passions of the next U.S. president.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

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

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

Race: from the eye of the beholder

Stop The Washington Post presses! One of their race-obsessed scribblers—their intrepid columnist Lonnae O'Neal—has begrudgingly admitted in print that she was wrong! She who previously has seen absolutely every black-white human interaction through that divisive prism—might have had a moment of clarity. A real rarity in political terms: a "come to Jesus" epiphany. Don't expect it to last as habitual race-baiting pays the bills. After all, unlike 93 million able-bodied Americans who can't find a job, Ms. O'Neal doesn't want to inadvertently find herself the latest casualty of Mr. Obama's “5%” unemployment rate.

Her new column, 'Why can’t we agree on what we see when we see race?' addresses her previous one: 'Was classroom arrest a case of excessive force? Just imagine it was a white girl.' Regarding the latter, the reader has not even gotten to body of the article (or the objective details of the situation) and Ms. O'Neal's bias is already in full flower in the title.

Fast-forward two weeks. Suddenly, that which she was so adamant about—that race was the causal factor—perhaps, after all, was incidental to the greater issue of a bullying cop wrongly manhandling an intransigent student. Although Ms. O'Neal is very late to the party of evolved and generally tolerant 21st century race relations, it is a real pleasure to extend a welcoming hand. If she lounges, she will find the waters more than fine.

Today, she sensibly sees video cop incidents, such as the above, as “'racial Rorschach test[s,]' [d]ifferent people seeing the same thing but drawing different conclusions.” In other words, scientifically, one's internal belief system automatically filters physical stimuli into a unique point of view. Therefore, by definition, a “racist” has nothing to do with skin color, but with a mindset that sees every societal ill as framed by a racial cause or consequence.

Is it any wonder 7 years into the most polarizing president in U.S. history who subverts the social order (“The cops acted stupidly”) and engages in race (“If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon”) and class warfare (“You didn't build that”) at every opportunity that attitudes would not be hardened? Indeed, how could they not be? Obama and the abetting MSM (which, of late, Ms. O'Neal has been an active participant) have spawned the Black Lives Matter Frankenstein monster.

Ms. O'Neal has finally seen the enemy that she acknowledges threatens to tear our divided republic asunder from within. Yet, same as our chronically responsibility-phobic president, she has still not realized she was looking in the mirror at the time.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Sanders’s Charade For President

In the American sense of the word, there is nothing “independent” about Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders; an outspoken advocate of bigger government, higher taxes and further income redistribution á la Obama.  As an avowed Socialist, his collectivist views are anti-Capitalist and antithetical to the American economic system.  With 93 million able-bodied Americans looking for full time employment— and uncounted by labor statistics­— a politician with Mr. Sanders’s views is too radical to be elected, even by loopy Democrat standards.  So why is such a wild card in the race for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president?   

Make no mistake: he of the little “I” by his surname is nothing more than a shill for the Democratic Party.  Indeed, he who regularly caucuses and votes with Democrats is a de facto Democrat.  In truth, Mr. Sanders is running precisely because he is unelectable.  His role in this Kabuki theater is to happily serve the collective: to be a smiling, friendly place holder to populate the stage during debates and in the press.  To this end, he has not and will not say anything truly controversial about Hillary Clinton as any legitimate contender would.  For example, the best Mr. Sanders can muster is milquetoast platitudes: “Hillary Clinton is a candidate, I am a candidate…. The people in this country will make their choice.”  The closest thing to a criticism thus far was calling Mrs. Clinton a “fence-sitter” on the Trans-Pacific trade proposal.  Mr. Sanders should know that fence-sitting— and going with the changing political winds—is the very epitome of Clintonian politics.

Mr. Sanders presence creates the illusion of a contest for the Democratic nomination—rather than a coronation—and makes Hillary Clinton appear more politically mainstream­—and therefore, more palatable to the general electorate.  The payoff to Mr. Sanders is increased personal visibility in the political conversation and a wide platform to promote his anti-Capitalist agenda.

On the other hand, with only three years of Senate experience under her belt Mrs. Warren is savvy enough to know that the voters are unlikely to elect another third year, neophyte, progressive Senator to the White House.  That's why she who claims to be “1/32 American Indian” will bide her time and cool her moccasin-adorned heels in the legislature.

Progressives like Warren and Socialists like Sanders are birds of a feather: both believe in the economic fantasy of “free” stuff—which is never really free—and is always paid for by someone else.  Hence, their policy of “free” tuition for students at public colleges and universities.  With typical Democrat blasé, they operate in a fiscal twilight zone (where debt and deficit spending don’t matter) and resources just drop magically from the heavens to serve their dystopian designs.  In essence they demonize “Paul” (Wall Street) to justify stealing from him (class warfare) in order to pander for “Peter's” vote.  Everything for Democrats revolves around garnering numbers for reelection: maintaining their own political power base.  In this case, that is exactly Mr. Sander’s underlying purpose: to get Hillary Clinton into the Oval Office.

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