Clinton Caused Korean Crisis

If David Keene's column (“Making the best of a bad nuclear hand,” The Washington Times, 8/15/17) on North Korea was analogous to a play, it would focus on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern while disregarding the story's lead, Hamlet. Indeed, the mysterious figure central to today's Asian travesty—and wholly unmentioned—is Bill Clinton, circa 1994. Recall some 23 years ago, Slick Willie entered into a $4 billion agreement for U.S. aid to Kim Jong Il's regime. The stated goal then was to “end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.” Given the threat now presented by Kim Jong-un: whoops!

Isn't it important to mention the person most directly responsible for getting America into this international quagmire?

Instead, Mr. Keene focuses on trivial players: Democratic National Committee Deputy Chairman and Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, and Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser and U.N. ambassador. For his part, Mr. Ellison is the former co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. For context, at a town hall meeting in Jensen Beach, FL, ex-congressman Allen West said on April 10, 2012:

“I believe about 78 to 81 House Democrats are members of the Communist Party. It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.”

Given Ellison's murky background—whom Mr. Keene pegs as a fool—why quote him? Likewise, speaking of untrustworthy Democratic mouthpieces, is Susan Rice. Remember Benghazi and “Sunday Susan's” multiple claims that the consulate attack was the result of an internet video. Why waste time on those with zero credibility, as she, while letting another politician surnamed Clinton go scot-free?

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  

Golfer Obama's Racial Cornflakes

“President Obama views everything through the prism of race. He's a race hustler. ... This guy could take a bowl of cornflakes with chocolate milk poured in it, and he could find some racist angle to it.” – Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke on this president's unwillingness to cut short his two week golfing vacation neither to condemn rioting and his city's burning by Black Lives Matter nor assist Louisiana flood victims (2016)

“I don’t know – not having been there and not seeing all the facts – what role race played in that, but … Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody [fellow malcontent and friend Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.] when there was already proof that they were in their own home.” – Barack Obama on “racist” cops (2009)

While golfer-in-chief—and Tiger Woods wannabe—Barack Obama frolicked on a two week Martha's Vineyard vacation, most notably, a Louisiana flood caused 13 deaths, demolished 40,000 homes, and left 100,000 residents homeless. For a moment, consider the optics of any American president serenely at-play among pristine green, manicured links while his fellow citizens are bedeviled by a home-destroying natural disaster? What kind of amoral person is that? What other public servant would get away scot-free with this kind of nonchalant non-response on full display?

Given Mr. Obama's track record, his reaction is frankly no surprise. After all, this is the same “leader” who ignored the terrorist uprising that murdered 4 dead Americans in Benghazi (subsequently lying that the fictitious cause was an internet video). To add insult to injury, he chose to keep to his predetermined schedule then too: a next day Las Vegas fundraiser rather than deal with the tragedy. Almost eight years on, why should this “tiger” change his stripes?

He didn't and he won't. On that score, neither will similarly disinterested Hillary. To make an Obama-Benghazi parallel, both were off together fundraising during the flood's aftermath. She still hasn't made an appearance in Baton Rouge. She figures her phone call to the governor and a Facebook posting of “heartbreak” for Louisiana is more than sufficient. Once can reasonably infer her thinking, “At this point, what difference does it make?” Obviously, the disaster matters not at all to her or she too would be there. Moreover, I'd wager slim odds that this influence peddler's “charitable” foundation ever bothers to even cut a relief check.

Not even in office (yet), The Donald is already acting more appropriately presidential than both the current occupant of the Oval Office and the empty skirt hoping to replace him. Of the three, Mr. Trump showed up first, and in a timely manner. Of greater significance is the little-reported 18 wheeler of supplies he paid for and distributed. As with everything else, lying Hillary Clinton ignores truth. In last Thursday's Reno, NV speech she laughably still claims he's a “hater” of minorities. She said, “He [Trump] is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party.” As usual, she's got everything backwards, and needs to look in a mirror. The radical fringe is big government control progressivism that has metastasized the Democratic Party into something completely alien to JFK.

Deniers of Trump's philanthropy will simply state the obvious, that Trump's a rich guy with deep pockets. Yet, the Clintons are also uber-rich: per their tax returns personally worth $238 million. How much of that scratch will be similarly donated to the displaced, predominantly black community in Louisiana? You know, the same ones tee time Obama cares so “deeply” for—from the elitist playground of Martha's Vineyard?

Outspoken Sheriff David Clarke is right about Mr. Obama's jaded view of “colored” cornflakes. Progressives promote phantom discrimination for self-serving political polarization. That's why they regularly conjure racist bogeymen [read: white cops] out of thin air. In reality, a rare few exist in today's widely tolerant America. After all, does the social progress of two generations of now passé interracial marriage—and newly legalized gay marriage—mean nothing? Indeed, how can the American voters who freely elected a black man to the U.S. presidency—not once, but twice—be negatively influenced by his skin color? Such is the impossible charge repeatedly leveled by this deluded and hypocritical “leader” while he mindless enjoys “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.”

Barack Obama has covered his multitude of policy failures (and administration scandals) by habitually crying wolf. It's the utter misuse of the presidential bully pulpit as a change-the-subject political ploy (with the added personal benefit of keeping his identity-based constituencies artificially fired up to support him). Specifically, Mr. Obama has consistently highlighted isolated, tragic examples as “typical” of fictitious racial tension in America. Why else would he speak negatively of police officer Darren Wilson (later completely exonerated of any wrongdoing) at the international forum of the United Nations?

In the same vein, nobodies and thugs like Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Freddie Gray are sanctified in death, distorted into empty symbols of a bygone Civil Rights era. For example, the narrative surrounding Michael Brown's 'hands up, don't shoot' never actually happened. But, the tall tale sparked the very real violence of Black Lives Matter anarchy. Thus, blameless cops have been executed (in New York and Dallas), rioting cities have been burned (Ferguson, MO, Milwaukee, WI and Baltimore, MD), and all along minority communities are played for fools. By margins as high as 90%, these dupes gratefully reelect their progressive oppressors. While they toil away in crime-plagued inner-city slums, Hillary “dead broke” Clinton is a corrupt jet-setter living in an elitist bubble of armed Secret Service protection, limousines, private planes and multiple palatial estates.

The only question that remains is whether she will eat Wheaties and take up Obama's rich man sport if elected, or nurse her well-deserved loss to Donald Trump with a bowl of politically correct fruit loops and racist chocolate milk.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

The corrupt ivory tower of Socialism

If elected leaders were fundamentally altruistic—unselfishly devoted to the empowerment of their fellow man—the theory of collectivism might have promise. The widespread sentiment would have to be consistently along the philosophical lines of JFK's “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” But it's not. The present generation of “Democrats” promote the polar opposite perspective. It is the use of often faceless, bureaucratic government to promote cradle-to-grave economic dependence with themselves, naturally, the elected head of the food chain. That's the maddeningly indifferent DMV experience of running healthcare via Obamacare, except for everything. In other words, this is tyranny of big government á la George Orwell's dystopian “1984.” Make no mistake, Big Brother's name in 2016 is Bernie “90% tax rate” Sanders. And not to leave madame out of the equation, Big Sister is scandal-prone, chronic liar Hillary Clinton.

Speaking of spewing a torrent of lies, during the infamous Benghazi hearings when Hillary Clinton said “What difference, at this point, does it make?” was she clandestinely referring to the phony choice that is the Democrat/Socialist alternative? That is why she and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz can't explain a difference because—newsflash—there isn't one. If you have two candidates promoting versions of the same statist agenda, the snookered and befuddled voters will choose the genuine article not the one under potential, future federal indictment (read:Server-gate). Despite Mrs. Clinton's often-cited novelty of her own sex as a presidential candidate, that's why Mr. Sanders leads in the polls and will win in New Hampshire. Madeleine Albright says women will go to hell for not voting for Hillary, I assure you the country will if women (or men) do.

It is not that Bernie Sanders is so “hip” to millenials, it is that he a better used car salesman of the complete fallacy of “free stuff.” It's Bernie Sanders as a red-suited pseudo-Santa Claus promising, for example, “free” college tuition, a yearly 70 billion tab to the taxpayer in a country with a 19 trillion dollar debt—and growing by the nanosecond. Unfortunately, this generation is so accustomed to helicopter mommies and daddies paying their bills, it is not a stretch for them to believe Uncle Sam can be gerrymandered into a surrogate fiscal “father.” Politically, this is standard class warfare, the demonized 1 percent “haves” versus the 99 percent “have-nots.” It keeps the masses stirred up, angry and blaming somebody else for their personal woes—and not incidentally electing candy-promising Democrats. Specifically, it's buying votes with other people's money á la Obama's financial redistributionist schemes like the aforementioned Obamacare. But it is even more insidious than that. It is the grievance culture manipulated by the Democratic ruling class to keep themselves perpetually in power that destroys American society like a cancer from within. Witness the last 7 years of the “fundamental transformation of America:” progressives are more than content to rule in a socialistic hell of their own design.

This divisive political wedge is straight out of the Democrat's political playbook. The fact that it is used even more effectively by Mr. Sanders than by Mrs. Clinton, once again, concretely demonstrates that there is no daylight in their politics. Despite publicly cursing capitalists, with a wink-and-a-nod both take Wall Street money. The back-and-forth finger-pointing between the two is just a sham given their famous debate handshake. Let me be clear: the choice boils down to anti-American socialism under the appropriated Democrat brand or conservative, can-do American exceptionalism. Pick a name out of a hat, any of the diverse bench of Republicans will be a vast improvement.

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

Hillary Clinton: prison cell not Oval Office

Delusional, morally bankrupt, self-obsessed Hillary Clinton—a metaphorical modern day power-obsessed Lady Macbeth (with the same self-destructive [political] behavior) is the poster child of the dictionary definition of treason: a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state and the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery. (Indeed, staffers should have known something was amiss when the Clinton's movers snatched everything not nailed down when the Clintons left the White House—the people's house—the first time.) Yes, people of Hillary's ilk live by a single axiom: numero uno first, last and always.

Clearly, Mrs. Clinton exists in the rarefied air of ruling class elitists: millionaires and billionaires, and former and future U.S. Presidents. Therefore, the rule of law (and not the fickle dictates of distant kings and emperors for which the American Revolution was fought) is not for her. It is something only to penalize the rest of us—the “little people” laboring in the hamster wheels of part-time jobs (sans health insurance due to Obamacare regulations)—to pay the 18 trillion dollar tab (and counting) of their largesse. We should be grateful for she who would stoop to rule us.

Under Congressional questioning, recall her petulant knee-jerk response to four murdered Americans (including one U.S. Ambassador) in Benghazi when she raged “what difference, at this point, does it make?” Therefore, her callous, blasé attitude (and her recent smarmy joke about using the Snapchat app and automatically deleting emails) is just par for the course. Mrs. Clinton sent and received top secret material (of the 20% currently sampled, 305 are classified) across a non-governmental, unsecured, private server (in clear violation of law) that has likely exposed the nation's vulnerabilities to our enemies. That obliviousness—and the intentional lies of cover-up—are treasonous.

Of this, Watergate reporter Bob Woodward said: “Follow the trail here. There are all these emails. Well, they were sent to someone or someone sent them to her. So, if things have been erased here, there's a way to go back to these emails or who received them from Hillary Clinton. So, you've got a massive amount of data in a way, reminds me of the Nixon tapes: Thousands of hours of secretly recorded conversations that Nixon thought were exclusively his.” Lesser politicians not abetted by a minimizing hard-left MSM would be doomed.

In any case, ignorance of the law is no defense. A far less dire example: former CIA director and retired general David H. Petraeus who shared classified material with his biographer mistress (who incidentally had a security clearance) got prosecuted for his lack of good judgment. As orange is the new black, Mrs. Clinton belongs in the big house not the White House in 2016.

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

In Hillary’s Orwellian circle of trust

To quote she who would be president in 2016, in a speech the press has dubbed 'Bonds of Trust:' "From Ferguson to Staten Island to Baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable." Yet, while she hypocritically pontificates upon broken trust between the black community and the police she completely ignores her own severe lack of honesty and forthrightness when it comes to explaining her own behavior and actions to the American people.

Ignoring the shrieking, chest-pounding 300 pound gorilla in the corner, Mrs. Clinton refuses to finally address her own dismal record of veracity considering the still unanswered questions regarding Benghazi, Server-gate (modern day Nixonian document shredding) and the most recent in a long list of Clintonian scandals, the multi-faceted Charity-gate.  This week's latest revelation of Clintonian malfeasance includes 1,100 foreign donors who were mysteriously not reported by the Clinton Foundation; her and Bill's supposed family charity.  That little nugget comes literally right on the heels of Peter Schweizer's expose of the Hillary Clinton-Bill Clinton fiscal shell game, "Clinton Cash," of bartering favorable U.S. government treatment through the State Department she headed (her role) to the mostly foreign donors who gave exorbitant, six-figure speaking fees to Bill (his role) or otherwise donated large sums of money to the charity.

It is interesting dynamic when a politician with her own severe trustworthiness deficit lectures the rest of us on trust: "We must urgently begin to rebuild the bonds of trust and respect among Americans. Between police and citizens, yes, but also across society, restoring trust in our politics, our press, our markets, between and among neighbors, and even people with whom we disagree politically."  So desperate is she to distract—and point the finger away from her own lack of character—that she, in essence, panders to the violent street mob and further galvanizes a volatile situation by demonizing the cops a la Obama.  Her and Obama's Saul Alinsky-style political smoke screens have a direct correlation to the tear gas in the street: this is what happens when those charged with safeguarding the country use the bully pulpit to foment anti-American sentiment and tear society apart along racial lines.

Apparently Mrs. Clinton, who like her husband before her, is inartfully combining the Clintonian mantra of "say anything to get elected" with the Obama brand of destructive, divisive Democratic politics of "never letting a crisis go to waste" for personal and political gain.  Through her Orwellian words, she claims the intention to unite, but in actually she desires the opposite: to polarize and divide.  She knows all too well that an unhappy populace votes Democrat.  Remember her and Bill's single greatest character flaw from which all their lies, greed and hubris stem: their obsessive self-serving power-seeking.

The first one strapped with the body cameras she now advocates should be Mrs. Clinton herself.  So the rest of us can monitor her.  A lie detector should closely follow.  If she can't pass that test then she has no business being the next president of the United States.

Re. Saul Alinsky: In 1969, Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College titled "There Is Only the Fight . . . ": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. The subject was famed radical community organizer Saul Alinsky.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Romney's lesson lost on Hillary (re. Joseph Curl, February 1, 2015)

I congratulate Joseph Curl on his brilliant Political Theater column "The lesson for Hillary in Mitt's decision."  His comparison of real life political figures to the fictitious title character of classic American cinema, Citizen Kane--a seriously flawed man of not only of extreme hubris and material wealth but also a certain myopic self-obsession and empathetic emotional bankruptcy--is telling.  Whether or not these seemingly universal impulses of political leaders stem from some deep-seated psychological need for public adoration is interesting.  However, I have no doubt that this selfsame desire has its foundation in the ego's need to control others.  As another astute Washington Times columnist Monica Crawley recently opined, Ms. Clinton, the likely Democratic contender for president, would "walk over her grandmother" to succeed Mr. Obama.  In the case of the Clintons, their compulsive self-serving power-seeking rises to the level of an art form; a specific parallel between them and Citizen Kane.  Also, like the adulterous Citizen Kane whose political ambitions were ultimately thwarted by scandal, Ms. Clinton will have many strikes against her like age (she will be 69 in 2016), a paper thin resume of any actual accomplishments and the looming political baggage of Benghazi.  Unlike Mr. Romney who has the class to step aside so that the Republicans can nominate the most viable candidate, nothing will likely dissuade Ms. Clinton.  Republican detractors will be smeared as misogynists; an absurd fiction dutifully disseminated by a sycophantic liberal mass media that will cover for her at every turn.  As an example, Benghazi will be portrayed as "old news" and a non-issue.  Ironically, Citizen Kane, a newspaper publisher, could not muzzle the press that publically exposed his peccadilloes.  Ms. Clinton will have no such problem.  Like Romney, she should step aside for the good of the country: if the last six years has proven anything it is that America does not need another community-organizing Saul Alinsky liberal in the White House and the resulting continuation of cultural and geopolitical chaos.

Notes:

Re. paper thin resume: As Senator, Hillary had only a total of twenty bills passed. Of those, fifteen were purely symbolic in nature. (Dick Morris: Hillary's 'Paltry' Senate Record)

Re. Saul Alinsky: In 1969, Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College titled "There Is Only the Fight . . . ": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. The subject was famed radical community organizer Saul Alinsky.

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

Why Hillary can and will run (How Washington Times columnist Wesley Pruden has it wrong)

It's a rare occurrence for Wesley Pruden to read the tea leaves so wrongly, but in this case his wishful thinking is tantamount to hysterical blindness.  It is a pop culture axiom succinctly expressed by the Oracle character in the Matrix movie: 'What do powerful men [or women] want?'  The answer: 'more power.'  In the battle of dueling Washington Times columnists the women have it when Monica Crowley correctly points out in her brilliant "Hillary and Obama" piece of Thursday, January 15 that Mrs. Clinton would "walk over her grandmother" to succeed Mr. Obama as president.  In the case of the Clintons, their obsessive self-serving power-seeking rises to the level of an art form.  I have no doubt in their private moments to this day that the Clintons—who are legendary for holding grudges—still grouse about the fresh-faced political upstart that was the Barack Obama phenomenon of 2008 that stole "her" prize.  Unlucky for them, Mr. Obama was an attractive, articulate blank slate that the average person could, and did, literally tie his hopes to, and a better narrative: the first Afro-American president.  That trumps the first woman president narrative by a mile, and besides Hillary has enough political baggage to make Samsonite jealous.  In any case, thanks to Bubba's actions of a few years ago I knew the fix was in—that Mrs. Clinton was positioning herself for a 2016 run—back in 2012.  Indeed, given their longstanding political grudge why would Bill stump for the very person that prevented his spouse's ascension to the White House during the 2012 Democratic convention?  The answer lies, I suspect, in a political calculation; something at which the Clintons excel.  If Romney ran successfully against Obama's weak record and won, the likelihood of Republican control of the executive branch for eight years would likely end Hillary's window of opportunity.  (She will be 73 in 2020.)  Better to use Bill's "good-ole-boy" persona and honey-tongued charm to woo the voters and shore up Obama who would be out in four years.  Mark my words, Mr. Pruden: Hillary can and will run.  Her playbook will alternately play the gender card or the victim card of long-suffering wife as it suits her.  It will be a one-note Virginia Slims political campaign of "we've come a long way, baby" and phrases like "breaking the glass ceiling" will be used.  Republican detractors will be smeared as misogynists; an absurd fiction dutifully disseminated by a sycophantic liberal mass media.  Democrats know: say the lie loud enough, and loud enough, at it filters down as truth to the low-information voter.  The fact that Ms. Clinton public persona is shrew-like or that she lacks Bubba's political gifts or is a polarizing political force á la Obama is irrelevant when the press will cover for her at every turn.  As an example, Benghazi will be portrayed by Mrs. Clinton simply as "old news" and a non-issue; more road kill in the rearview mirror of the relentless Clinton political machine.  A multi-millionaire using phrases like "dead broke" may be an inartful lie, but Mrs. Clinton is exactly right when she states that it will "make no difference" as most Democrats exist in a consequence free zone of an adoring, biased press.

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

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/15/wesley-pruden-why-hillary-clinton-wont-run-for-pre/

Impeach the bystander president (after November's 2014 mid-term election)

While Malaysian Flight 17 still smoldered, downed by a surface-to-air missile likely fired by pro-Russian separatists incinerating 298 people, the president continued his scheduled fund raising and speechifying—in which he stated this ‘may be’ a terrible tragedy—without missing a beat.  This dynamic was eerily similar to his reaction the day after the Benghazi travesty in which four heroic Americans were slain futilely defending an overrun and under-secured American embassy.  The president was troubled not a smidgen by this, or other legitimate scandals such as the IRS targeting of conservative groups or NSA spying on rank and file Americans, which he termed ‘phony.’  He has usurped the legislating powers of Congress by the repeated administrative manipulation of the deadlines and requirements of Obamacare for his own political benefit.  Unlike the rest of us, this “Tiger Woods” president seems to exist on a fantasy island (or is that Martha’s Vineyard?) of publically demonized millionaires and billionaires unencumbered by Chinese and Russian aggression against their neighbors, terrorism’s spread in Syria and Iraq, war in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas, nuclear enrichment in Iran and lest I forget the Katrina-like flood of illegal immigrants that have shredded our Southern border worse than the Constitution our Constitutional lawyer president consistently disregards.   When the secret service used the code name ‘Renegade’ for this president, they certainly got that one right.  Congress, do your duty: impeach Obama.

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