Slut-Shaming A U.S. President

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

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

Why Democrats Love Illegals

Twice failed candidate Hillary Clinton received more votes than any unsuccessful presidential candidate in U.S. history. In the 2016 election, she garnered 2.9 million more votes than then President-elect Donald Trump. Her popular vote tally was 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%.), or a 2.1% differential. Back on November 27, 2016, Trump tweeted, “In addition to winning the Electoral College [304 to 227, needing 270] in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” On balance, that's likely true.

How many of Hillary's ballots were cast illegitimately? Outrageously, that's still unknown. Yet today, the jaw-dropping actuality can be reasonably inferred. To that end, Just Facts, a New Jersey research organization and conservative/libertarian think tank, suggests that millions of illegals vote in U.S. elections. Specifically, their analysis of 2008 data from an extensive Harvard/You Gov survey indicates that 7.9 million noncitizens were illegally registered to vote—and 594,000 to 5.7 million did so. These figures support a previous Old Dominion University study in which professors and co-authors Jesse Richman and David Earnest stated that as many as 2.8 million interlopers voted. Why is this obvious problem—a fundamental threat diluting the people's voice in elections—“nonexistent” for Democrats?

There's a mutually beneficial relationship between progressives and criminal squatters who vote. Via shared governmental largesse—as examples, direct welfare and/or indirect free public school education—the latter achieve a better standard of living than their point of origin. Meanwhile, statistically, Democrats have a built-in voting bloc despite their odious, out of step policies. Why else constantly encourage, and defend, this shadowy influx of 11 million illegal lawbreakers? Likewise, given the common occurrence of terrorism around the globe, why similarly promote unchecked migration, lax law enforcement and borderlessness?

The only logical reason is personal payoffs for the elite ruling class. Politically, enough warm bodies voting to keep limousine liberals perpetually in office. After all, their ilk doesn't experience the general chaos of street violence in Democrat-run sanctuary cities. Moreover, they don't care about exploding deficit spending; and they don't cover the cost of catnip benefits drawing persons like a magnet from impoverished southern countries.

Why does any of that matter to uber-rich progressives epitomized by “biggest loser” Hillary? Besides votes, don't they also need low-wage workers to do the menial jobs in their gated, safe palatial estates?

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

Brainless Griffin's “Headless Trump”

Is the abhorrent image of a “blood-soaked decapitated head” resembling President Donald Trump “art”? This visual horror is suspended in the air invoking the classic image of Perseus holding Gorgon Medusa's head. It's the kind of ugly propaganda one would expect from a proponent of radical Islamic terror, not self-proclaimed “D-list” comedienne Kathy Griffin, 56. This unapologetic liberal—an outspoken Trump critic—obviously subscribes to Irish dramatist Oscar Wilde's axiom: “There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.” Among those taking notice is the Secret Service, charged with evaluating all perceived threats to any U.S. president. One of the agency's tweeted responses: “Threats made against @SecretService protectees receive the highest priority of all of our investigations. #ProtectionNeverRests.”  That's territory well beyond the controversial. That's an idiotic foray into the foolhardy.

As Griffin's now on the Secret Service's radar, she's been on the fringe of Hollywood celebrity for a long time. For context, she's a less successful contemporary of has-been pop singer Madonna. Like the middle-aged “Material Girl” (most famous for her recent public utterance, “Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.”), Ms. Griffin's attention-grabbing militancy has utterly overshadowed her considerable comedic talent. That ability has resulted in notable past successes: she's won two Emmy Awards for her reality TV show “My Life on the D-List” and is one of only three women to win solo Grammy Awards for comedy. What she's known for today is this odious, anti-American political antic.

These days it's a rarity for the left and right to agree on anything. Yet, both sides widely condemned Ms. Griffin's publicity stunt. While morally challenged Hillary Clinton has remained tellingly silent, even her daughter Chelsea tweeted, “This is vile and wrong. It is never funny to joke about killing a president.” For comparison, let's consider an unthinkable scenario. What if vanquished Hillary had won the 2016 presidential election and a famous conservative had held her “blood-drenched severed head” in effigy? Better still, imagine the crazed and violent reaction of leftist political radicals if the likeness had depicted a “decapitated Obama”? Thus, how could the measure of Ms. Griffin's outrage be made any more plain?

How could this public figure—this veteran of naked self-promotion—not predict the thunderous backlash? (President Trump being defended—by any Democrat, for any reason—is disorienting stuff indeed!) So far Ms. Griffin received little more than a few slaps on the wrist. Per Variety Magazine, she's been fired from her ten-year gig as the co-host of CNN's annual New Year’s Eve program with anchor Anderson Cooper. Likewise, a couple venues on her Celebrity Run-In Tour in Albuquerque, NM and Grass Valley, CA have canceled scheduled appearances. Yet, counterbalance a few days of lost work with the media bonanza of numerous internet stories—and blurbs on the nightly news!

In her defense, Ms. Griffin (unlike Madonna) quickly apologized on Tuesday for the uproar she caused. Naturally, this provocateur enjoys First Amendment protections for her inflaming shenanigans. And as her comedic signature is known for brutal honesty, perhaps her posted mea culpa is genuine. Still, whether that's true or not, isn't really the point: TMZ reported Wednesday that President Trump's understandably panicked 11-year-old son Barron thought the horrifying televised image featuring Griffin was real.

How could this innocent know any better? Unfortunately, he was in the family's New York City penthouse with first lady Melania Trump, not in the White House. In any case, she released a statement that goes right to the heart of unhinged progressives' thoughtless tactics:

“[That photo] makes you wonder about the mental health of the person who did it. As a mother, a wife, and a human being, that photo is very disturbing. When you consider some of the atrocities happening in the world today, a photo opportunity like this is simply wrong.”

To that end, per Fox News, one is automatically reminded of 119 wounded and 22 killed, including many children, at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester on May 22^nd. Did the world really need the made-up gore Ms. Griffin peddled?

Unfairly, this reality TV star has benefited from Barron's suffering—and the presidential family's collective disgust. The fact remains that Kathy Griffin's gone viral in a way that the infamous Oscar Wilde of the 19^th century could not fathom. Hence, this social media firestorm is a good effort for the woman whose shtick includes such gems as, “Well, I've been trying to sleep my way to the middle for my whole career.” Although said in jest, Ms. Griffin's self-serving ploy of “cutting edge” pop culture infamy is accomplished.

Whatever the ultimate consequences—good or bad—this agitator's made her bed. A raunchy bed she alone must sleep in.

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

Exorcising Democrats' Confederate History

Why are progressives clamoring to remove many of America's mementos dedicated to the Old South? Generations later, can remnants of Civil War Democrats cause active psychological “harm”? That seems highly unlikely. However, what's real is the targeting of Robert E. Lee, J.E.B. Stuart and Jefferson Davis. If that's the liberal standard for destroying their icons, who has caused more recent and lasting damage than Barack Obama? Therefore, isn't it logical for them to purge both ancient root and modern branch? Yet, fear not, President Obama's safe from their revisionist historical pruning. It's only his antebellum counterparts who find themselves on the chopping block.

Let's pull some contextual threads from this spidery progressive web, shall we? Reportedly, Democrats in Alexandria, Virginia want to rename a main thoroughfare, Jefferson Davis Highway. Also, they want to move a statue on State Route 400 of a Confederate soldier, “Appomattox,” to the comparable obscurity of a nearby museum. Erected in 1889, is the presence of this unarmed Southerner—like the street named for the Confederacy's president—suddenly noxious to the average commuter? Do they trigger so much daily trauma that they're right to nix them? Not to be outshone, Fairfax County is embroiled in a two-year debate to strip Confederate General Stuart's name from one of its most racially diverse high schools. Their dragnet is not local however, it's a monstrosity cast widely across state lines as far as Louisiana.

As the left's revisionist hysteria is never satisfied, Stuart's famous contemporary General Robert E. Lee is targeted in both places. Atop a pillar since 1884, his towering figure was removed from its New Orleans perch last Friday after 133 years. (His was not the first to fall. On May 11th, the powers that be removed a statue from the Jefferson Davis memorial there. On Saturday, a display—the word “LOVE”—was found on its vacated platform.) Only time will tell if his Virginia likeness—mutely astride his majestic horse in Lee Park since 1924—will suffer the same “loving” fate. As the land was specifically donated to showcase this Southern soldier, is it right to unseat him after 93 years? What's more horrible here, destroying the vestiges of progressives' 19^th century past or the wasteful expenditure to taxpayers of $300,000 to do it?

Doesn't all history have a worthy place simply because it happened? How can eradicating the lessons that shaped our collective cultural experience ever be the “right” thing to do? Isn't the mind-set to wipe clean the landscape—of old dignitaries' names and harmless inanimate objects—really a fascist desire to ban ideas themselves? (Will these safe space liberal “do-gooders” advocate “Fahrenheit 451”-style book burning next?) Obviously, their predecessors' dual stains of slavery and segregation—never acknowledged or owned by them hereafter—are of lasting shame. Well, frankly, they should be. Hence, their current self-serving agenda to simply airbrush monuments out of existence.

To this end, their go-to narrative is one of distraction and manipulation. To the muddleheaded, the dishonest proclaim often repeated nonsense: America is “secretly racist”! In the same vein as “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” liberals have kind of a politically-motivated hysterical blindness. What of the widespread advancements since the 1950s and 1960s Civil Rights movements? A prominent trend—the “black is beautiful” paradigm shift of the '60s and '70s—doesn't matter? Heck, these naysayers don't even acknowledge the cultural significance of the former occupant of the White House! So, concrete facts of societal progression are meaningless to them. Only their deluded aim to erase transgenerational political sins.

Seriously, it's been 152 years since the end of the Civil War! Only misguided spendthrifts waste today's public funds to “purify” the past. Obviously, historical footnotes—like the name of a road or a school, or four statues—have no magical power to corrupt anything of the now. What relevance to the day-to-day life experience of Americans do they really have? Very little, if any. In fact, their only intrinsic value are as markers showing where America has been—and how truly tolerant she has become!

Despite these ridiculous assertions, racism is not infused in the bronze edifices resembling long-dead Southerners. Likewise, it's not found in the hearts of persons striving to preserve them either. Interestingly, only Democrats' self-hatred persists with the passage of time. That liberal malady is seen in their psychological projection of guilt upon the rest us whose ancestors never owned a slave. Clearly, that's a problem better suited to the analyst's couch then the political realm. (On a related note, can our country be correctly viewed as innately “sexist” as Hillary Clinton is the latest nominee of her party—and the winner of the popular vote?) All elements described above encapsulate the schizophrenic thinking pervading every level of the Democratic Party.

In truth, tangible proof of America's well-established—and ever-expanding—pattern of embracing and celebrating diversity is everywhere! What of commonplace interracial marriage or the recent legalization of gay marriage? So, is it fair to automatically demonize a Republican simply for expressing a history-protecting impulse? Virginia's firebrand GOP gubernatorial hopeful Corey Stewart recently said:

“There’s all kinds of things that offend people, but that [removal] doesn’t make it right. That doesn’t make it so [fix the past]. This [the statue of Robert E. Lee] is a part of our history; if you don’t like our history, that’s too damn bad.”

Well, precisely. What's crystal clear is the Democrats have a cringeworthy history. Understandably, they're desperate to annihilate any reminders of the irrefutable and indefensible. Chief among them is their sole ownership of two infamous institutions: Virginia's antebellum past (read: slaveholding) and white supremacy (read: creating the Ku Klux Klan). As Abraham Lincoln preserved the Union, his party has a duty to safeguard the other side's artifacts for posterity. Without them as silent witnesses, falsely tarring conservatives with their own ongoing record of misdeeds becomes easy. If successful, all that would remain is a nebulous war of words for progressives to dominate. As George Santayana wisely advised: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Ironically, destroying America's Confederate past also diminishes her freedom-loving future.

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

“Winning” In D.C.'s Swamp?

“[T]his was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.” – Democratic nominee Barack Obama's victory speech on June 3, 2008

Thankfully, the 2016 presidential election “shattered” heir apparent Hillary Clinton's White House prospects; perhaps forever. Mercifully, that means no Clinton promised “Obama third term”. America has finally been liberated from these twin progressive scourges. His was an utterly failed record: defined by divisive rhetoric—an almost Messianic cult of personality—and delusions of grandeur. (Specifically, Obama desired to dismantle the goodness embodied by “apple pie” Americanism.) On the other hand, her's is endless lies and scandals (strongly suggesting lawbreaking and corruption). Today, America is in far better hands, but only in relation to the grizzly alternative. Clearly, shifting from a dogmatic leftist ideologue to a populist outsider is an improvement. Yet, what remains is the unyielding quagmire of beltway elites (of both parties) coupled with Trump's surface narrative of “winning”.

For Mr. Trump's showiness, let us not be reminded of smirking selfie-obsessed Barack Obama. A superficial politician of illusory “accomplishments” (and hard leftist transformation who Bill Clinton pegged correctly as “an amateur”). Obama—the worst president of the modern age—was defined by a fatiguing number of inauthentic, self-congratulatory victory laps (between 333 rounds of golf per CBS reporter Mark Knoller). What's more egregious, his exchange of likely traitor Bowe Bergdahl for five high-level terrorists, his U.S. Iran payoff of 1.7 billion or his U.S.-Iran nuclear “deal” that wasn't? In every case, geopolitical adversaries were coddled and emboldened. Meanwhile, Obama claimed legacy-defining “successes” while America suffered domestically and receded further from relevancy on the international stage.

One hopes that the election of a real winner—a billionaire capitalist epitomizing the American Dream—will not follow suit. Indeed, doesn't such a person know the difference between Obama's show business tenure—and brick and mortar substance? Unfortunately, thus far, that remains to be seen. Specifically, the ObamaCare Lite “Republican” health-care bill, such as it is, finally squeaked by the House of Representatives. As it still faces the daunting and uncertain hurtle of passage in the Senate, it's hardly a done deal. Therefore, why did President Trump recently declare victory in the rose garden flanked by a phalanx of clapping, smiling GOP flunkeys? Obviously, pro-American deal making is necessary. Yet, isn't the devil in the details? Why are they being glossed over by this president in the same careless manner as the disastrous last one?

In fairness, Donald Trump has quickly discovered that confronting the status quo (read: “draining the swamp”) of the beltway bubble is a Herculean task worthy of that demigod's twelve punishing labors. This progressive/RINO “new budget compromise” funding the government through September is a measure precisely antithetical to the new president's priorities. Why then do they bankroll America's primary abortion provider Planned Parenthood? (For context, this organization was founded by Hillary Clinton's hero Margaret Sanger: an unapologetic racist and eugenicist. Thus, the reason it's overwhelmingly found in minority neighborhoods is no mystery.) Likewise, the GOP supposedly opposes sanctuary cities. Yet, those lawless enclaves—that regularly endanger local citizens' lives (read: San Francisco's Kate Steinle killed by a repeatedly deported illegal alien)—are fully funded too. Aren't Congressional Republicans supposed to be pro-life in all its guises?

Related to criminal border jumpers and the unnecessary cost of lives, what of Trump's pledge to build a U.S.-Mexican wall? Of the Republican response, Breitbart astonishingly reports:

“The fine print in the bipartisan 2017 budget plan includes several paragraphs designed to prevent Donald Trump's deputies from building a border wall with the reserve cash routinely stored in agency saving accounts.”

So, there's zero allotted to the meaningful construction of a long overdue physical barrier? By comparison, contrast that to the $295.9 million funneled to bail out Puerto Rico's bankrupt Medicare system. How is giving more money to island wastrels a good idea? Isn't that the definition of flushing good money after bad? What does this two-faced Republican majority actually stand for—besides themselves?

How else does one explain their intentional disregard of President Trump's election-winning agenda? Hence, a long-standing political pattern emerges from the murky bowels of the political swamp. In practice, Nancy Pelosi's priorities are indistinguishable from Paul Ryan's. Put simply, they're all entrenched Washington “swamp creatures”! Remember when this newly minted House Speaker promised a “fresh start”? Right out of the gate, what did he deliver? He rubber-stamped the progressives' 2 trillion dollar budget! Today's budgetary expenditures are just more of the same.

Paul Ryan and his weak-willed ilk habitually capitulate to Democrats despite their “leadership” position. Then, amazingly, victory is universally declared. Both sides crow about something “good sounding” at first blush. Yet, ultimately, their shortsighted choices are unmistakably detrimental in the well being of future generations. You know, those yet unborn left to pay the tab of their irresponsible largesse. In truth, what are these out of touch elitists really doing—besides rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic (read: the iceberg that's America's escalating 19.9 trillion dollar debt)?

Speaking of the massive, what's a bigger ego-trip then being a U.S. president? Still, Mr. Trump must resist Washington's insulated grandiosity. (A temptation so vulgarly indulged by his preening predecessor.) As a lesson, Ronald Reagan never engaged in such self-glorifying impulses. In this regard, he should consider William L. Jenkins's words as a template:

“President Reagan always gave the credit to the American people and American ideals. He treated his job as a valuable temporary loan from the American people, a loan that should be respected and returned with dutiful appreciation.”

Thanks to the ballast of the intractable D.C. swamp, the country remains in economic dire straits. That fragile state is equally due to spineless establishment Republicans and obstructionist, spendthrift progressives. For lasting success, Mr. Trump needs to continue to champion sensible, conservative policies. That means bringing needed doses of main street reality to heedless establishment power. Specifically, Congress should be held accountable with the veto, the bully pulpit and at the ballot box. Echoing Obama's absurdist practice of premature—or completely unwarranted self-serving “wins”—is a worthless photo-op. As valid as the ex-president's campaign hype that he could “heal” the planet, or “control” the rise of the oceans. That's the stuff of patients typically found in mental wards. Or is it the decision-makers in Congress? By their results and popularity, who can tell a difference?

Average citizens have had enough of swamp creatures: especially their hollow claims of “victory”. That much is clear. Despite our elected officials' rosy proclamations, rank and file Americans aren't close to experiencing legitimate wins. That's a vital distinction President Trump must make for his—and America's—enduring success. It's the only standard that means anything—and the only way to secure the future of our teetering nation.

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

Crying Over “Shattered” Hillary

“You know as well as I do, that plenty of people playing this game, they don't think that way. They're willing to sell their souls, crawl through sewers, lie to people, divide them, play on their worst fears for nothing! Just for the prize [to become a U.S. president].” – Jack Stanton (a.k.a. “Bill Clinton”), played by John Travolta, from “Primary Colors” (1998)

In light of the other option, the clear-minded are thrilled that Donald Trump is president. Deliciously, he finds himself ensconced in Oval Office while Hillary trolled the woods of Chappaqua, New York; a relegated political has-been too briefly put out to pasture. (Ah, if only she had stayed in the thicket. Without a hint of the grace demonstrated by defeated French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen, Mrs. Clinton has re-emerged to absurdly join the “Trump resistance”. With the power of the office behind him, it's utter lunacy for her to assume she'll be more successful now.) In hindsight, she ran on sheer superficiality: name recognition, her gender and an unstated message of entitlement. Given her (and Obama's) non-existent record of accomplishments, she could not run on issues or vision as Mr. Trump successfully did. So, she took Jack Stanton's low road described above, political polarization:

“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, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.” – Hillary Clinton at a New York City fundraiser on September 9, 2016

Her hollow narrative and divisive strategy were not nearly enough. The Electoral College results made this plain. Speaking of being grossly generalistic, the Clintons have always been about themselves. That's precisely the unintended message Hillary's campaign loudly proclaimed. Didn't her ego-centered, gender-specific slogan “I'm with her” say everything? Contrast that with President Trump's Reaganesque “Make America Great Again”.

Beyond his obvious love of country—as transparent as Hillary's is absent—one logically suspects Mr. Trump initially ran for the presidency on a lark. He's pleasantly surprised (as his supporters) to find himself in the job: “Hey, I'm president! Can you believe it?” While he naturally wanted the gig, unlike Hillary, he didn't need it. Herein is another important difference between the two.

A new political tell-all, “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign” by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, is making the rounds. Like Marley's ghost to Richard Cohen's Scrooge, this exposé has compelled this Washington Post columnist to write his own shallow Hillary postmortem called “The reason Clinton lost.” As shell-shocked as her most ardent supporters, this partisan begrudgingly acknowledges that it was supposed to be “her turn”. He can articulate no other rationale for her candidacy: “As a mental exercise, I tried to come up with a message myself: “Hillary Clinton—because she’s not Trump” is the best I could do. As it turned out, she could do no better.” That's because there was nothing else. In the final analysis, Mrs. Clinton ran for the highest office in the land simply because she felt she deserved it.

The skin-deep analysis of this award-winning investigative reporter—and four-time Pulitzer Prize finalist for commentary—is little more than pro-Clinton gossamer and anti-Trump spit. What of Cohen's sanitized description of Hillary as “a cold and somewhat distant Midwestern archetype” and “a politician with no gift for politics”? For real-life context, would anyone hire an auto mechanic with no innate ability to fix cars?

Along these lines, he insults the reputation of Walter Mondale by comparing her to him. Yet, Hillary has none of the former vice president's decency or warmth. Moreover, she lacks his governmental competence (read: As Secretary of State, Hillary's department lost 6 billion dollars) or the gravitas of an elder statesman (read: Hillary's “Russian reset”: her humiliating plastic red button stunt). In fact, their only relevant connection is the shared stain of two Democrats who failed to attain the White House.

Inconvenient truths regarding Hillary are barely mentioned by Cohen, or ignored entirely by him. For example, he minimizes “Server-gate”—a Nixonian scandal on steroids—as “a historically trivial matter”. So, Mrs. Clinton's illegal use of private email servers—that likely put American operative lives at risk by exposing national security secrets to foreign powers and/or bad actors—is no big deal? Beyond that, what of her ever-changing inconsistencies that amounted to boldfaced lies to the American people? Furthermore, what of “Charity-gate,” the influence-peddling of the now defunct Clinton Foundation? Kool-Aid drinker Cohen doesn't even bring it up.

He bases his missive on a few personal moments spent with her, finding Hillary “fresh, irreverent and funny”. Well, can't anyone be snowed with a false impression during a brief interaction? Behind the scenes, via day-to-day experience, it's well known that potty-mouthed Hillary's personality is cruel: a shrew in the extreme. Hers is the Secret Service's punishment detail: the worst assignment to be had. But when one wears Mr. Cohen's rose colored glasses one sees what he wants to, right?

On that basis, Columnist Cohen contends, “But [Hillary] Clinton’s great failing, the book—not to mention the election itself—makes clear, was her inability to fashion a message.” What a coy, cloying criticism for such an obviously fundamentally flawed candidate! Likewise, his juvenile conclusion that “She lost, and a fool won” is equally petulant and misleading. Candidate Trump—a first-timer in the political sphere—was just “lucky” to best 16 traditional Republican candidates, plus Hillary in the general election? By any fair measure that's more than the randomness that luck implies, that's genius.

Salt of the earth swing state voters in the economically depressed Rust Belt (that she basically ignored during her campaign) got unlikable Hillary's “coal miner” message all right: they didn't matter to her, so she didn't matter to them. Thus, in their wisdom, they made the better choice: Donald Trump. Richard Cohen should respect that despite his raw disdain for this president. It turns out this political dinosaur doesn't get “the message”. Neither does Hillary, an amoral person unworthy of sycophant Cohen's empty rationalizations.

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