GOP Blood Flows On Patriotic Day

A historically pro-American day—June 14^th—has been marred by the leftist violence of a lone gunman with the blood of innocents spilled. Previously, this date was a celebratory one: the 100th anniversary of Flag Day, the 242^th year of the founding of the U.S. Army (motto: “This We'll Defend”)—and for good measure President Trump's 71^st birthday. Who will remember any of that after Wednesday's incident?

All these reasons for joy have been overshadowed by the wielder of a semi-automatic rifle—an outspoken campaign volunteer for (Democrat colleague and socialist) Bernie Sanders (I-VT)—who shot at some 25 Republican Congressman, and staffers, at Simpson Park in Alexandria, VA. Per law enforcement, the deceased suspect is identified as James T. Hodgkinson of Belleville, IL, 66, the former owner of a home inspection business. His reported 10 minute melee happened just after 7 AM EST in which some 60 rounds were fired. The attack disrupted the Republicans' baseball practice for an annual charity game with Democrats. Held Thursday night at Nationals Park, this 108 year tradition, started in 1909, was interrupted by the Great Depression, World War II, and a brief pause from 1958 to 1961 as the event was thought then to have become “too physical”. Speaking of risk to life and limb, eyewitness Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said to MSNBC, “Had they [Capitol Police] not been there, it would have been a massacre.” Ah, the obvious value of armed good guys when those present would have otherwise been sitting ducks.

The two-person protective detail would not have been there except for the fortunate attendance of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA). This circumstance prevented what very likely would have been a killing field. Unfortunately, Mr. Scalise was shot in the hip, has been hospitalized for surgery, and remains in critical condition. Likewise shot were police officer Crystal Griner, Congressional aide Zack Barth, and lobbyist Matt Mika, before Hodgkinson's threat was nullified.

On March 22^nd, this assailant wrote on Facebook, “Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.” In retrospect, Hodgkinson apparently meant that statement literally. Instead of accepting the peaceful results of the ballot box, he picked up a weapon and specifically targeted a group of open-air Republicans. Per CNBC, Congressmen Jeff Duncan (R-SC) and Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) described an encounter with the perpetrator who asked them if those practicing were “Republicans or Democrats” before the shooting. DeSantis—when shown a photo of Hodgkinson—confirmed he was the man who approached them.

Connecting the dots, how can this carnage not be politically motivated? Moreover, how is this attitude not, for example, reflective of the The Washington Post's anti-Trump masthead motto: “Democracy Dies in Darkness”? Yet, the MSM is not the only element doing the ongoing agitation. For example, speaking at the LGBT for Hillary fundraising gala in New York City back on Sept. 9, 2016, Clinton said:

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given [them] voice.... He tweets and retweets their offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks—they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”

How's that not an incendiary and hate-filled call to arms, of sorts? An unfortunate hangover of the polarization that defined the Obama years. Frenzied Democratic sentiments—typified by Hillary's—have long sown the seeds of discontent and alienation. Clearly, they have fostered this antagonistic political environment; contributed mightily to Wednesday's horror directed at Republicans. Fast-forward to 2017—and cloying Hillary's divisive drumbeat continues. On May 2, 2017, this ultimate Washington insider stated, “I’m now back to being an activist citizen and part of the resistance.” Laughably, she's an “outsider” now? Progressives, as she, intentionally use fiery language in the same spraying, destructive manner as suspect Hodgkinson's projectiles.

As a rule, conservatives don't solve their political disagreements with firearms and bullets. Why do liberal political leaders universally blame the gun? Former Clinton fundraising bagman and current VA governor Terry McAuliffe knee-jerk reaction was:

“There are too many guns on the street. We lose 93 million Americans to gun violence a day.” (The flummoxed politician repeatedly misspoke, meaning only 93 victims per day.)

Why do Democrats en masse—entirely and perpetually—ignore the pivotal reality of the user? Make no mistake, in righteous hands guns make society safer. They deter criminality and limit human causalities. That was conclusively demonstrated here. To that end, two armed heroes saved many lives otherwise lost in that early morning ambush. The only person posing a danger was an unhinged supporter of Democrats. He was likely inspired to kill Republicans because of liberals' unrelenting, uncivilized rhetoric.

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

Misbehaving Presidents' Mixed Messages

“We don't win anymore. When was the last time we won? Did we win a war? Do we win anything? Do we win anything? We're going to win. We're going to win big, folks. We're going to start winning again, believe me. We're going to win.” – President Trump at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on February 24, 2017

Isn't winning a great message to hear from a sitting U.S. president? Contrast that to the Obama years, plagued by gargantuan failures and losses. For example, most telling was the actual level of U.S. unemployment: 95 million able-bodied Americans absent from the workforce. (The U.S. Department of Labor repeatedly claimed the rate hovered around a measly 5 percent.) Such a diet of consistent falsehoods included Obama's famous, “If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it.” That whopper earned him left-leaning Politifact's Lie of the Year in 2013.

Interestingly, misrepresentation is the defining characteristic of modern-day Democratic presidents (and failed hopeful Hillary Clinton). All that's now required is a slick persona, a tenuous grasp on truthfulness and the gift of honeyed words earnest in their bewitching power to distract the public. With Hillary's hubby, his failings were of a personal nature, embarrassing peccadilloes highlighted by an affair with a then 22-year-old intern. Remember Bill's infamous claim, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss [Monica] Lewinsky.” (The scandal rocked his presidency, but didn't end it. Ultimately, he received a pass because adultery was successfully spun as a private matter. However, his public disgrace affected his ability to govern much more gravely then was acknowledged at the time.) Also detrimental to the nation, were Barack Obama's numerous untruths. Like Clinton, he was abetted by a fawning press—and a foolishly forgiving electorate.

That same latitude is never granted to their Republican counterparts. Remember, George H. W. Bush's broken pledge, “Read my lips: no new taxes”? That one flip-flop cost him his 1992 re-election bid. By contrast, Barack Obama, not Ronald Reagan, was the true “Teflon president” . His big government tenure was “transformative” in all the wrong ways: obtrusive, overregulated and overtaxed (read: the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ObamaCare mandate because its legal basis is a tax!). Combine those systemic problems with a ballooning federal government, wasteful programs, deficit-spending and virtually doubling the nation's debt: a record-shattering 9.3 trillion! That's more in Barack Obama's eight years than all previous presidents combined (read: 212 years from Washington (1789) to Clinton (2001))!

In retrospect, the pre-election electorate was ravenous for a new voice, specifically an unapologetically pro-American one. (Hillary Clinton isn't that. Essentially, she promised a de facto Obama third term.) Enter the plain-speaking Washington outsider, a billionaire capitalist, who brashly articulated all things wrong with progressives in government. Central to that message was the concept of winning: obviously for himself and theoretically, one hopes, for the country. Today, how is that goal achieved by threatening the Tea Party's Freedom Caucus? Ironically, he attacks the very group he should champion:

“The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!” — President Trump's tweet at 9:07 AM on March 30, 2017

Under any circumstances, it's frankly nonsensical to ever conflate conservative Republicans with militantly obstructionist Democrats. Such groups are naturally philosophically opposed: political oil and water! For a campaign promise thwarted, he calls out the Freedom Caucus for rightfully scuttling Paul Ryan's disastrous “ObamaCare Lite” replacement? Thus, in the superficial name of “winning,” isn't that precisely like burning a village to the ground in order to “save” it?

The political landscape is, and remains, ripe for meaningful change. However, as of late, Mr. Trump's appealingly razor sharp campaign rhetoric is not living up to his muddled actions. To again reference the same CPAC speech:

“I'm here fighting for you and I will continue to fight for you. The victory and the win were something that really was dedicated to a country and people that believe in freedom, security and the rule of law. Our victory was a victory and the win for conservative values.”

A self-proclaimed guiding principle negated by his recent rant against House Republicans who stand for that precise thing! Immersed in the Washington swamp, allied with House Speaker Paul Ryan, is it possible he's lost sight of what conservatism means in concrete terms? After all, words are insubstantial compared to policy and practice. For his part, Mr. Ryan talks an equally good game. (Recall, he's been in Congress since 1998. That's 17 years before he assumed leadership of the lower chamber on October 29, 2015. For further context, for the last 7 years, the GOP has promised to repeal and replace ObamaCare.) With his reputation as a policy wonk, where has Mr. Ryan been all this time? His Johnny-come-lately response was a rushed bill—with the Republican brand simply slapped on—that fundamentally lacked bipartisan consensus: no Democratic support and not enough Republicans to pass the measure.

The American Health Care Act should have been a free market solution to health-care, but it wasn't. Hopeful for a “win,” President Trump mistakenly backed Ryan's loser: a bureaucratic 3-phased shell game that would have kept the government behemoth in place with superficial changes like substituting tax breaks for government subsides. So, it's wrong to scapegoat the Freedom Caucus for their lack of support. This debacle—this legislative “Rosemary's Baby”—is all Paul Ryan's mad creation. For this mess, he should be replaced forthwith. To that end, someone from the Freedom Caucus would be fitting.

Thus far, Mr. Trump's dealings with Congress have not lived up to his appealing CPAC rhetoric. The author of “The Art of The Deal” need not play things so fast and loose by vilifying other Republicans. While he owes the Republican establishment nothing, he would be wise to adopt the following Reaganesque Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any conservative. To do otherwise artificially divides the GOP against itself. And given their demonstrated lack of effective leadership, they need all the help they can get.

Polarizing allies won't achieve the right results for the American people. Still, Trump's willingness to work with everyone is exactly what President Reagan did. In that regard, “The Great Communicator” effectively went directly to the American people over the heads of his detractors (as The Donald does with his well-conceived tweets). Yet, Mr. Reagan never used the bully pulpit to literally bully anyone. Therefore, killing his Tea Party darlings in this way is something “The Gipper” would never do. That's not winning; it's reactionary, shortsighted and ultimately self-defeating. 

Lasting success for America equals a staunchly conservative agenda. To get there, Mr. Trump needs to appropriate the cohesive framework of principles embodied by the Freedom Caucus. Going forward, embracing them—rather than Paul Ryan's ilk—would greatly aid his cause. For instance, they would make an ideal legislative sounding board while he makes deals and takes constructive action. As modern history clearly demonstrates, only Democrats get away with misbehavior and mixed messages. Those types of mistakes are invariably fatal to the prospects, and success, of any Republican president.

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

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

Clinton's For-Profit “Bill U”

“Greed... is good.” – Michael Douglas as corporate raider Gordon Gekko in “Wall Street” (1987)

“A lot of these private-education guys, they’re looking to get into events [a State Department dinner] like this one. 'The discussion itself is irrelevant. . . . It gets you very high-level contacts, and it gets you to the right people.'” – Sam Pitroda, a higher-education expert representing a policy commission from India

Laureate International Universities paid Bill Clinton an obscene $17.6 million as their front man consultant and “honorary chancellor.” Despite a largely undefined (and perhaps non-existent?) role, Mr. Clinton's lucrative five year contract ended conveniently two weeks before the wife launched her latest campaign for U.S. president. Back in 2009, Hillary Clinton wrote “... Bill likes [founder, businessman Doug Becker] a lot.” Well, turns out Mr. Clinton has 17.6 million reasons for that.

Per their tax returns, Laureate runs 80 educational institutions the world over. Notably, four of its six U.S. colleges are on a U.S. Education Department watch list for fiscal monkey business. Specifically, debt-ridden students complained Laureate's flagship U.S. school, Walden University, is essentially a slow-roll online diploma mill delivering substandard programs and degrees. Naturally, this murkiness was of no concern to Bill Clinton. (One assumes all payments to him have cleared.) Yet, how does this latest example of Clintonian sleaziness not fall under the umbrella of payment for high-level access? In other words, the pay-to-play basis of the $2 billion dollar sham that is the “charitable” Clinton Family Foundation?

Even the sycophantic Washington Post acknowledged that the Clintons “mixed” their public and private dealings. They reported:

“[Doug] Becker, for example, donated to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and last year donated $2,700 to her current effort. Laureate has given between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to the charity’s website … Laureate portrayed its association with the Clintons as a symbol of its legitimacy rather than the result of a business deal.”

Only to the crooked does the word 'legitimacy' and the surname Clinton harmoniously coexist. Likewise, faceless—and blind—ethics officials in wifey's then State Department saw no conflict of interest. (Barack Obama laughably granted oversight to Mrs. Clinton on such matters.) “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer noted an increase in USAID funding of $55 million to the International Youth Federation—a sister organization run by selfsame Laureate founder Doug Becker—while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State. Why does not a single Democrat in government publicly acknowledge a problem with any of this?

At least some House Republicans see clear wrongdoing. Last July, sixty-four requested investigations by the Internal Revenue Service, FBI and Federal Trade Commission into “possible” corruption between Laureate and the Clintons. However, given closed-eyed dupes like FBI Director James Comey—and the current administration still at the helm—there's no chance another investigation will happen.

Interestingly, The Post further reported that Laureate was bought out in 2007 by George Soros (and partners) for $3.8 billion. What these “journalists” left out about trouble-making billionaire Soros is his domestic funding of the anarchist Black Lives Matter death cult. What a corrupt click, these incestuous and moneyed progressives. With paid-off politicians, is it any wonder why America is in chaos—with a mountainous 19.5T debt? That's not a problem for the uber-rich Clintons: currently worth $238 million. Moreover, besides wrongdoing in common, Barack Obama aims to be the first ex-president billionaire. Mr. Clinton may beat him to that pot o' gold.

Roger Stone of “Daily Caller” in his exposé called “Trump U Is Nothing Compared To Laureate Education” put the matter plainly:

“New York State law requires specific approvals for an entity to hold itself out as being a university. In this case CGI [Clinton Global Initiate](a fraud) created CGI University (a fraud) in league with Laureate, a fraud. Laureate is a highly leveraged failing investment whose principal beneficiaries are Wall Street fat cats and billionaires, and [at the center is] William Jefferson Clinton.”

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Nail-biting Binary Politics

One way or another, Neo [an anagram meaning “the one”], this war is going to end. Tonight, the future of both worlds will be in your hands... or in his. – The Oracle from “The Matrix.”

Due almost entirely to anti-American progressives (read: lawless Obama and his lying would-be successor Hillary Clinton), national politics are so polarized, they are binary. That's exactly like on/off computer code. In the almost 8 years under the corrupt ministrations of Barack Obama (much like his O-shaped symbol) America has been a zero (0). In practical terms, that means off an economic cliff (with an escalating 19.3 trillion debt) and an impotent void (0) overseas. In truth, our republic's vitality and viability hangs by a thread. A 50/50 rescue/ruin paradigm to be determined by November's presidential election. Will America continue to be a zero (0), helmed incompetently by yet another lying Democrat? This one arrogantly exclaimed:

“For goodness sake, that is not gonna happen [a campaign-ending federal indictment]. I’m not even answering that question.” — Hillary Clinton

Or will it be revitalized to a First World one (1) by Donald Trump? The stakes could not be higher, the outcome more uncertain.

Make no mistake: neither Hill nor Bill care not one whit (0) for our country. Mrs. Clinton's potential election is a victory solely for them (2 = 0). The Oval Office is the ultimate economic trough for this tag team of amoral sows to stick their collective snouts back in. It's retaining political power for even greater shakedowns: power brokering for stratospheric self-enrichment. See the well-established pattern: how else does one go from Hillary's “dead broke” to worth over 100 million in 15 short years? So they can do better, become billionaires in 4 (or 8) short years from further ripping off America to the highest bidder?

That's a zero-sum (0) game for everyone else. One wonders if divine intervention is necessary for average Americans to finally wake up to the insidious truth. It is insanity to elect another America-hating, Constitution-disregarding Democrat to high office. Progressives Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are anti-Reagan and anti-Lincoln. They are twin scourges of Founding Fathers' nightmares. What their built-in checks and balances have failed to rein in (read: the Congressional do-nothing Republican establishment and “Notorious RBG” on the Supreme Court).

Let me be clear, a plague has flourished on the U.S. political landscape: hard left big government control fascists, equal parts lawlessness, lies and corruption. To ignorantly choose such creatures to “lead” America in the future is yet another self-inflicted wound with domestic, global and historical consequences. Liberty has been greatly dimmed at home—and virtually extinguished abroad (read: the Middle East takeover by ISIS, the Iran nuclear “deal” etc.). In the extreme, one no longer wonders how monstrous figures rise to absolute power like in Germany in 1933:

“He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.” – Adolf Hitler

This is why progressives (fascists), abetted by a propagandist MSM, make empty promises to the next generation of “free” stuff. This blatant trolling for votes is a resounding warning (school bell) to the wise.

Related specifically to Mrs. Clinton, the fix has been since the beginning. Specifically, way back in February during the Iowa Caucuses, how else does one explain 6 different dead-locked precincts tossing tie-breaking coins all fall Ms. Clinton's way? (Per Las Vegas oddsmakers, six consecutive appearances of heads or tails is a statistical probability of 1.5%. That's 64-to-1 against.) An outcome that luck has nothing to do with. Likewise, during the sham contest between she and now vanquished socialist Bernie Sanders, he kept winning state elections, but losing in the all-important delegate count. Moreover, fast forward to the political theater of last week. On the same day, the first day Clinton and Obama appear together on the campaign stump, FBI's Director James Comey announces his boundary-overstepping recommendation that criminal charges not be filed against Hillary for Server-gate?

So it's no rules or consequences for the elites like Hillary ‘scot-free’ Clinton, is that what our dilapidated democracy's come to? A coin flip that may place the fate of the nation (and perhaps the world) in immoral hands such as hers? In a poll released last Monday, despite clear evidence of law breaking—and treasonous espionage—only 56% disapprove of the decision not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton? That's little more than another coin toss. (How about completely failed Mr. Obama's approval ratings that also inexplicably hover at 50%?) Despite unambiguous criminality, why do half of those surveyed not seem to care?

This tragic political phenomenon is not exclusive to America of late. A case and point was the successful Brexit vote to leave the ‘bananas’ European Union. That was 52% for and 48% against, another virtual 50/50 split. In every one of these situations the political establishment (via the media) throws its nefarious weight in an autocratic direction beneficial to itself. That direction always maintains the status quo. This is the reason for moral equivalency, and the infestation of political correctness in today’s national politics. Since Obama, world-shaping decisions are either left in wicked hands, or to the whims of fate. A highly risky numbers game favoring the powerful (and enmeshed) establishments of both political parties (2 = 0). Therefore, for the voters to unite (1) behind the outsider—the unconventional candidacy of Donald Trump—remains the average citizen’s best bet to return America to her deserved First World (1) glory. It's a 50/50 proposition so choose wisely. One (1) or zero (0)?

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

Blathering “badder” Ginsburg

“I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be—I don’t even want to contemplate that. Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”

“He is a faker; he has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He [as she] really has an ego.”

— “Objective” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

It's no surprise an egotistical crone supports a lying witch. (Still, as every American citizen, jurist Ginsburg is entitled to her personal opinions, warped as they obviously are.) As she was appointed to the high court by Hill's philandering hubby Bill, it would be somewhat understandable if her stated reason for support of the coronated Democrat was misguided nepotism. But it's not. This veteran of the Supreme Court is just another partisan; an unapologetic ideologue wearing a black justice's robe. How can a person charged with faithfully interpreting the Constitution—an ultimate arbiter of our laws—support a plainly immoral, lawless creature for U.S. president?

The mind frankly boggles at Ms. Ginsburg's shameless audacity. In what alternative universe does one as she publicly excuse the candidate constantly under threat of multiple federal indictments, but criticize the populist outsider who isn't? This “great legal mind” is so pickled she can't imagine a Donald Trump presidency? Obviously insulated by her lofty perch, she is so far removed from reality she feels threatened by the pro-Constitution Republican (pledged to make America great again)? Does this Big Sister timeshare in “The Twilight Zone” or just perpetually reside in George Orwell's “1984”?

Barack Obama's fascist “fundamental transformation of America” has completely mangled Ronald Reagan's First World beacon of liberty. Now, America is an unrecognizable ultra-constitutional husk, no better than a Third World banana republic. Indeed, the wrongdoing of Obama's imperial “leadership from behind” has seeped like sludge into every major aspects of the executive branch: the White House, the weaponized IRS, the incompetent EPA, the blind Justice Department—and the hobbled FBI. Even the politically cowed do-nothing Republican Congress is not immune. Further, with the tragic passing of conservative icon Antonin Scalia, even the Supreme Court hangs in the most precarious balance: philosophically stalemated 4 to 4. This razor's edge is borne out by Ms. Ginsburg's fellow travelers on the bench. Specifically, I refer to the high court's “Leona Helmsley,” the coddled Sonia Sotomayer. One more rotten apple such as these (the next president may chose as many as three replacements) will doom the country to unimaginable leftist ruin for decades to come.

It's no laughing matter. Even given millennials' misbelief that TV's “Judge Judy” (Sheindlin) is a member of Ruth Ginsburg's elitist country club. (Much as one wishes she is, she's not. Yet, Ms. Sheindlin's no-nonsense adherence to law makes the future New Zealand bound Ms. Ginsburg the real faker here). A simple truth: a vote for Donald Trump is a vote for Judge Judy's America.

As a cautionary tale, see the untold collateral damage of electing Democrats/progressives. That specifically means all politicians surnamed Clinton—and their bad judicial appointees like the appropriately nicknamed “Notorious RBG.”

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

In Purple Rain with Ziggy Stardust

In the sexually liberated 1970s, trendsetter British rock legend David Bowie made gender bending chic with his glam alter ego Ziggy Stardust. That traditional of music—and androgyny—continued in the 1980s with Prince. (Both cultural icons are sadly deceased in 2016.) Like Bowie, Prince pushed the envelope for personal and creative expression. For a time, the Purple One was also known as The Artist. He of many monikers even went so far to adopt an unpronounceable love symbol (very much like a combination of the zodiac signs for male and female) in place of his birth name Prince Rogers Nelson. In this way, both entertainers were born to authentically stand out. And they did in talent, appearance—and everything else.

Still, what would any rock star be without a stunning supermodel at his side? For 26 years until his death, Bowie was married to such a woman, Iman. An interesting development despite a libertine's voracious appetite with a history of many lovers of both stripes. On the other hand, Prince was a conservative Christian (reportedly opposed to gay marriage). He was also meterosexual with an overly “pretty” and manicured gender-fluid persona. (Same as Bowie, being a defining sign of his time certainly escalated record sales.) Yet, in tight pants and silks what other straight guy could get away with wearing a feather boa—or frilly lace—and sweep any woman off her feet while in high heels? There's little doubt men held on tightly to their significant others when these musical geniuses were around.

Beyond the groundbreaking music, artistry and showmanship, both men inadvertently “fathered” a modern Western tolerance for gender and sexual diversity in all of its guises. Those brave and very public examples are remarkable cultural legacies in themselves. They've contributed to a domino effect that has positively influenced the views and social customs of today's youth. How else could a “non-binary” boy (neither identifying as male or female) be crowned prom queen at New York's Fiorello H. La Guardia High School?

Given the school's theatrical pedigree which inspired the 1980 movie and TV series “Fame,” might this be an attention-getting stunt? Something goofy teenagers (of any generation) are known for: a boy chosen for a role traditionally reserved for a girl? Surprisingly not for the individual in question, 18 year old Matthew Crisson. Interviewed by the local affiliate Fox 5, he said:

“I had always struggled with social anxiety and reaching for things I really want. Being prom queen was the first time I stepped out of my comfort zone and proved to myself that I have courage, and I have strength, and I have confidence.”

Beyond that, the even more amazing thing here is fellow student and prom king Kristion Matas's posted reaction to what some might view to be a rather dubious position:

“Its June of 2016 people are being terrorized for their gender, race and ethnicity. Trump is about to be our president! … But y'all arguing about prom king and queen. Y'all bullying people on social media acting like animals but its ok though. God don't like ugly. Congratulations to Matthew Crisson on winning prom queen! You deserve it. Sincerely the prom king of 2016.”

While the grammar is highly suspect, the poignant response of obvious acceptance is not. For further emphasis (and visual clarity), two emojis follow: a face with tears of joy and another blows a kiss.

After almost 8 years of polarizing, politically useful race-baiting how out of touch is “suave” Barack Obama now? How irrelevant is his intolerant creature Black Lives Matter?

The one mitigating factor in an otherwise happy story of tolerance and inclusion is several understandably upset young ladies left out of the loop. Among several gripes was this gem: “It just sucks that men win everything and we thought we at least deserve that.” Ah, the woe of an expectant lady denied what she feels is rightfully her due, a queenly prize.

Synchronistically, that's a fate corrupt Hillary Clinton will deservedly share this November. How does one know? Perhaps anyone in the habit of looking beyond surfaces—of a gender bending rock star or prom queen—can see into the heart of any matter including politics. If that holds true, the infinite wisdom of this 2016 prom king predicts another changing of the guard. Not at a school dance, but at the White House. ATrump presidency. That will preclude from high office another lady running solely on the empty selling point of her gender.

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

Democrats Play Misty For Me

From a political perspective, Bruce (Caitlyn) Jenner's true bravery was coming out publicly as Republican, not transgender. In Hollywood (a cliche of hypocritical limousine liberals like Angelina Jolie) being Republican is equivalent to a 21st century Underground Railroad. Something hidden and said in whispers: "to the right, to freedom!" When making such a public pronouncement, one either has to be untouchable—an industry titan like Clint Eastwood—or suffer Stacey Dash's fate of being blackballed, and fired by her representation (CESD, secured only last September). Ms. Dash said, “I just lost my agent because of my political beliefs.” As a modern day virtual Harriet Tubman, might our country be better served by putting Ms. Dash's face on that 20 dollar bill?

That's something America's first black president would never advocate. Why not? Because everything progressive Barack Obama does is literally a skin-deep political calculation. Therefore, as Ms. Dash is conservative, her views don't fit his fascist worldview. For example, Mr. Obama's “conversion” to gay marriage proponent wasn't about equal rights, it was about pumping a dwindling funding source. (And everybody knows: Mr. Obama is all about fundraising. Similarly, corrupt Hillary Clinton is all about the Benjamins in “Clinton Cash”.)

To Democrats, what the almighty dollar buys—political power—is their god. They care nothing for the rule of law unless it dovetails with their “1984” style hard left agenda. Likewise, they care nothing for the lives of their supporters (read: the death toll in Chicago). Minorities are simply pawns on a chess board to be manipulated—and sacrificed. Speaking of pawns, the Democrat Party is running two transgender candidates, both coincidentally named Misty. Is it just me or does Misty Snow (Utah) and Misty Plowright (Colorado) sound like the stage names for adult entertainers rather than serious political contenders? In any case, they both have a porn star's shot at success. Even the Democrats acknowledge that amounts to zero in November.

Recall that Utah has not elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate during Misty Snow's 30 years of life. As Democrats are all about political power, bet your bottom dollar they would field a more traditional candidate if they had any possibility of winning. Since they don't, they very happily make empty political gestures that cost them nothing:

“We're going to lose anyway; we might as well make a statement about inclusion,” gay state Sen. Jim Dabakis (D-UT) told the Associated Press.

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

Using Terrorism to Disarm America

Barack Obama should take a lesson from Founding Father Thomas Jefferson: the first American president to contend with radical Islam three centuries ago. Mr. Jefferson's 18^th century version were the Barbary pirates. These predators of Europe's waterways kidnapped innocent American citizens at will for ransom. What was learned Jefferson's sensible solution? He used four of the six extra-large frigates commissioned by Congress to go to war. A little-know historical nugget: the United States Navy was born in direct response to unprovoked Muslim aggression.

The danger, than as now, was obvious. For 17 years before he even became president in 1801, Jefferson wanted to combat Islamic extremism. As our third president, he dispatched a naval squadron to the Mediterranean to engage the enemy in a successful four-year war off the shores of Tripoli. Unlike Mr. Obama, Jefferson had a thorough grasp of the matter, and acted decisively. Our current poor imitation—a pampered selfie stick cupcake—is unworthy of the same office once held by the author of the Declaration of Independence.

Contrast that unwavering response to mealy-mouthed Obama's. Up until this moment, he can't even bring himself to utter the simple words: radical Islamic terrorism. An ideologue like himself sees the world as he wants it to be, not how it is. Consequently, he's too thick-headed to even acknowledge the three-word concept. Therefore, he will never do anything meaningful to protect the homeland. (His glib lip service doesn't count.) Indeed, Mr. Obama keeps his head safely buried in a millionaire golfer's sand trap; an out of touch broken record of our supposed intolerance of his religion of “peace.” Worse is his political misuse of this catastrophe to ridiculously advocate gun control. Seriously, his non-solution is disarming the victimized? This mind-set is true mad hatter, Alice in Wonderland stuff. How is lawless, feckless Barack Obama's enabling of terrorism any better than these lone wolves who slaughter innocents? He is a cowardly fop, a hapless collaborator. His hands, as Omar Mateen's, are as stained with the spilled blood of the 49 who lost their lives. The world will remember that the worst mass shooting in U.S. history happened during Mr. Obama's disinterested, irresponsible tenure.

Beyond sharing a funny name like Omar Mateen's, who is this do-nothing president who misconstrues the meaning of Orlando's death toll as easily as he ignores the weekly body count in Chicago? Democrats' constant, disconnected political fogginess coupled with almost eight disastrous years of this president makes one truism plain: Barack Obama is anti-American liberal fascist. His continued inappropriate responses expose his own personal ultra-constitutional jihad against the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second Amendment. After almost two full terms, his perpetual denial of clear danger rises to the level of psychosis. Politically, his professed desire to protect Americans is meaningless. Against the backdrop of this sheer horror—fellow citizens mowed down by the radicalized—Mr. Obama stands idly by making an obtuse speech about that three-word phrase he still refuses to say. That's not anybody to be taken seriously. That's not even someone with a basic love for, or loyalty to, a country that has given him so much.

Outrageously, this king of pajama boys idiotically insists on blaming inanimate objects. In other words, the firearms are the “problem,” not the wicked hands that use them. In this case, he uses the excuse of domestic terrorism to push his own hard left agenda: population disarmament. Making people “safe” by illegally restricting their right to access at-hand devices of protection? Meanwhile, criminals and terrorists—no respecters of law are they—always manage to arm themselves. Part of Mr. Obama's Orwellian 'fundamental transformation.' To him, all of America should be a Sandy Hook gun-free zone: a 3,000 mile land of sheep at the mercy of fate, and those lone terrorist wolves.

The basic facts of the Orlando mass murder are beyond despite. Omar Mateen was an American citizen. As a function of his security job, this perpetrator had legal access to guns (including conceal and carry) after the customary background checks. He had also been flagged and investigated by the FBI in 2013 and 2014 for making inflammatory remarks. That he was treated so gently is the high price of political correctness. In Obama's America, witnesses of potential wrongdoing are preemptively demonized as Islamophobes. Therefore, they understandably stay fearful—and silent—as evil flourishes. In San Bernardino, CA and now in Orlando, FL.

The liberal MSM is all too willing to parrot Omar's father's questionable tale that his mass murdering progeny was offended by “two men kissing.” If that's the case, why did his son frequent gay clubs where he was, ironically, accepted by the gay community? Consider the source here: a disgraced parent in full cover-my-own-ass mode. He's understandably desperate to keep a lid on his son's possible “extracurricular” dalliances. Therefore, he explains away his son's barbarism as a simple hate crime. Better Omar be viewed as a homicidal, homophobic bigot than a homosexual, radicalized Islamist.

What is likely closer to the truth? Witnesses indicate that Omar Mateen was actually a regular at Pulse:

“It’s the same guy,” Chris Callen, who performs under the name Kristina McLaughlin. “He’s been going to this bar for at least three years.” Ty Smith added, “(He’d get) really, really drunk... He couldn’t drink when he was at home—around his wife, or family. His father was really strict... He used to bitch about it,” these club-goers told the Canadian Press.

Another report indicates that Mateen the younger exchanged messages with at least one gay man on a gay dating app. (Certainly, why else would one have such a profile unless to attract those who interested him?) Even Mateen's ex-wife disclosed his “gay tendencies.” (Well, she of all people ought to know.) For someone who supposedly hated the gay community, he certainly spent a lot of time there. In any case, it would not be the first time a closeted individual used religious fervor as a deplorable excuse to strike out at those reflecting his own repressed proclivities.

Therefore, during gay pride Omar Mateen's presence at Pulse, on Latino night, was not a surprise. There he murdered 49, and injured an equivalent number. His stated reason of sympathy to ISIS, and other proponents of terrorism, is a good enough explanation for any rational person. Like a soon-to-be nuclear Iran, domestic terrorism is the disgraceful legacy of Barack Obama. Yet, these massacres need not be a regular and continuing facet of the American way of life. Thomas Jefferson's Reaganesque show of strength will be essential going forward. That means electing Donald Trump—and all fellow Republicans—by large margins. Hillary Clinton supporters embrace continued political weakness. Transmitting that foolish signal to the world will only encourage radicals to further target the vocal and particularly vulnerable LGBT community. It's time for the gay community to show solidarity for their fallen fellows by voting for the party with the historical record of promoting individual freedom: Abraham Lincoln's GOP.

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