What Triggers the Mob

How can the removal (or destruction) of any external object purge the human psyche of a disgraceful mind-set like racism?

Recall that all history is a series of discrete events locked in time: unchanging and unalterable. Therefore, today's revisionist fervor directed at America's antebellum past is misguided. Like amber dating back 100 million years to the mid-Cretaceous period (proving Tyrannosaurus rex had bird-like feathers), would it be right to destroy a specimen simply because the subject could evoke some existential human dread of prehistoric monsters? An absurd example that makes an important point: Confederate statuary, like dinosaur bones, only demonstrate the existence of a thing. Yet, meaning is inherently fluid: applied in the now by the living.

To eradicate historical artifacts in the name of progressives' “progress” is jackbooted fascism. It's the real-life manifestation of George Orwell's “1984”. Specifically, Big Brother is the identity politics-obsessed Democratic Party. Their creature is the violently inflamed street mob: faceless, mindless and everywhere. One prominent example is Black Lives Matter who on August 29, 2015 publicly proclaimed, “Pigs [cops] in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.” On CNN, this lawless group was praised by Georgetown University sociology professor Michael Eric Dyson who said Wednesday, “The people that we claim, Black Lives Matter, the antifa movement, and so on, are interested in preserving the fabric of America.” So, exactly how does a cop-killing advocacy group “preserve” American society?

Democrats demonize today’s law enforcement officers—simply for wearing a uniform (and perhaps carrying a gun)—as indiscriminately as long-dead American icons. Telling examples are found in the murder capital of Chicago. Instead of spotlighting the skyrocketing death toll, the aggrieved and clueless like Bishop James Dukes, pastor of the Liberation Christian Center, has asked the mayor's office to remove monuments to two U.S. presidents including Founding Father George Washington. Even worse, a Chicagoean malcontent has vandalized a giant bust of Abraham Lincoln—our slavery-abolishing 16^th president—with a flammable spray. Thusly, President Trump's Thursday Tweet is prescient, “Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson—who's next, Washington, Jefferson? So foolish.” What's foolish is in the name of “tolerance”, the intolerant constantly attack the undeserving, then as now, as “racist” bogeymen.

Anti-American anarchists populating the left thrive by causing chaos and disruption. Their whack-a-mole strategy is based on a fundamental flaw of reasoning: that the inanimate—especially what they label triggering symbols—can be blamed for flawed human choices that constantly mold society. Hence, their fascist impulses to prohibit what's objectionable only to them: guns, cops or Confederate figures. Yet, none of these groupings automatically cause problems. In truth, almost anything physical can be weaponized. For instance, would Virginia be wise to ban all cars because one crazed individual, James Alex Fields Jr., 20, killed Charlottesville resident Heather Heyer, 32, with his silver Dodge Challenger?

What plagues our culture are Democrats who exploit various tragedies for their own divisive political ends. They don't see the evolved reality of the melting pot that is 21^st century America. For them and their followers, individual responsibility is nonexistent. Instead, liberals promote victimhood narratives—eagerly embraced by those easily manipulated by fictional offenses—to incite actual violence.

Simply as a record, history deserves to be protected because all men are fallible, and wrongdoers exist in every age. The mistake our generation is making is focusing on them instead of their hateful modern-day equivalents.

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

Yelling “Fire” In Political Theater

Under certain circumstances, First Amendment protection of expression is not absolute. For example, causing a panic by uttering the false claim of fire in a theater. Such incendiary acts are disallowed precisely because they endanger public safety. In our contentious political realm, the social fabric of our culture is under equivalent attack by anti-American forces.

Naturally, that number does not include peaceful protesters. That assumes the MSM could bother to find any. For years now their spotlight has been exclusively trained on Black Lives Matter and/or other divisive figures detrimental to the healthy functioning of our democracy. In that regard, disagreement doesn't entitle anyone the latitude to threaten members of the Electoral College, the president, his wife or the White House itself.

Some fifty days into the Trump presidency all of the above has now occurred. In fact, the drumbeat of sedition started well before The Donald even assumed office. Recall that GOP electors in the Electoral College were hounded—even receiving death threats—if they cast their ballots for him! (Of the 270 required, Trump ultimately prevailed with 304, but lost two votes due to a pair of faithless electors.) To that end, anti-Trump Hollywood celebrities encouraged them to go rogue (via a viral video). Still, the gauntlet was really thrown down one day after the Inauguration. At the Washington's Women's March, singer Madonna announced she had “thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House”.

Today another attention seeking rapper, Snoop Dogg, has followed the Material Girl's lead. In a music video called “Lavender”, he shoots “Clown-In-Chief Ronald Klump”: a Donald Trump look-alike in clownface. (His weapon is a Joker-style prop gun with a 'BANG' flag so “President Klump” is unharmed, but the message of metaphorical assassination is clear.) True to form, an understandably miffed Trump tweeted, “Can you imagine what the outcry would be if @SnoopDogg, failing career and all, had aimed and fired the gun at President Obama? Jail time!” That's actually an astute observation despite its surface meaning. For starters, it's highly unlikely his predecessor would have been the subject of such a stunt. After all, can one imagine Snoop Dogg having the temerity to shoot a clownish caricature of Barack Obama?

To that end, Mr. Obama habitually employed methods to silence dissenters. That's why on January 2, 2014 CNN's Jake Tapper stated, “the Obama administration has used the Espionage Act [the draconian 1917 law] to go after whistle-blowers who leaked to journalists ... more than all previous administrations combined.” That law, coupled with others, was used to obtain the email and phone records of Fox News's James Rosen. Even a New York Times reporter, James Risen, was not immune. He fought a successful seven-year battle to protect a confidential government source with a potential jail sentence hanging precariously over his head. Still think Snoop Dogg would have dared to cross Obama as he did Trump?

Unlike with the last guy, public figures' lips are flapping with unfiltered abandon. The difference with past generations is political dissent was generally principled and civil, not based on a cultish devotion to a set of ideas, or automatically demonizing the other side. To make a political point for today's objectors, is it right that their messages be so acidic and deliberately personal? As bad as Snoop Dogg's video is, his nephew Shad Moss (a.k.a. Bow Wow, formerly 'Lil') took things to a new low with a salvo directed unfairly at Melania Trump: “Ayo @realDonaldTrump shut your punk ass up talking shit about my uncle @SnoopDogg before we pimp your wife and make her work for us.” Certainly, such a throwback attitude has no place in our evolved 21^st century sensibilities. That means mutual respect between the sexes, not objectification.

Contrary to Bow Wow's demeaning view, all first ladies are apolitical symbols of American grace. Thus, these types of malevolent statements are completely beyond the pail. Would such misogyny be tolerated if it had been directed at Michelle rather than Melania? Where's the feminist outcry in Mrs. Trump's defense? This is yet more maliciousness from a growing list of wacky Hollywood entertainers. A disturbing trend already tiresome in the fledgling Trump era.

The selective outrage was on full display only when it came to defending Mrs. Obama. Recall the firestorm when Pamela Ramsey Taylor, director of West Virginia's nonprofit Clay County Development Corp., posted this unkind comment to Facebook, “It will be refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified first lady [Melania Trump] in the White House. I'm tired of seeing a[n] Ape in heels”. In this instance, First Amendment freedoms—which are supposed to protect unpopular, even offense speech—did not shield Ms. Taylor from being fired from her job. (Amazingly, the fallout didn't end there. Local mayor Beverly Whaling also resigned over the controversy for posting a supportive reply, “Just made my day, Pam”.) So much for freedom of speech when it comes at the expense of a Democrat.

By any objective measure, isn't Bow Wow's first lady tweet targeting Melania as cruel as what was said of Michelle? Thus, the larger question looms: why the deafening silence in March of 2017 to the same venom that provoked fury in December of 2016?

Ah, the difference a presidential transition and a few months make; a tectonic cultural shift! Still, the underlying answer is that anti-First Amendment political correctness was weaponized during the Obama years. Then, for any reason under the sun—legitimate or not—no one could publicly criticize the Obamas without being absurdly labeled as a “racist”. From the fawning press to the eyes closed court of public opinion, virtually everyone treated the Obamas with kid gloves. This dynamic is further borne out by the fact that both remain widely popular despite his disastrous presidency and her coddled sense of entitlement (read: Air Force One travel, designer duds and 5-star White House living weren't enough for the missus. Michelle wanted to be paid to be first lady).

Unfairly, the Trumps have received extremely rough treatment compared to their indulged predecessors. I can recall no personal attacks leveled at Mr. Obama during his job-killing, government-expanding, debt-exploding tenure. While his gargantuan mistakes (read: Iran, Benghazi, Bergdahl, criminal aliens/porous border et cetera) and massive scandals (read: ObamaCare's broken promises, IRS targeting, Snowden's leaks and CIA spying et cetera) were repeatedly downplayed with the MSM's softest language. What should have been months-long newspaper filling Nixonian exposés were reported as one day stories, quickly dropped. Contrast that to the daily slings directed at Donald Trump. He's even denied the presidential tradition of a honeymoon! Beyond that, his administration, unlike Obama's, is under the media's microscope that wildly exaggerates the slightest missteps.

Rough treatment includes real or fictional threats of harm. That includes Snoop Dogg's character assassination of Trump—and his nephew's carnal call to engage Mrs. Trump in the world's oldest profession. Neither affront should be excused as a byproduct of our age's lack of civility. Likewise, Madonna's anarchist desire to incinerate the presidential residence should not get a pass.

Why should these lawless agitators enjoy First Amendment protection simply because they are geographically separated from their targets? A call to destroy the people's house. A veiled threat to the president's life presented as an artistic farce. A disrespectful tirade that belittles the presidential couple, threatening her with servitude. All are tantamount to yelling “fire” in that theater. Indeed, all statements strike at the heart of American's foundations that promote order and peace. Specifically, such anti-social communication incites violence by broadcasting alienation and mistrust. That, in turn, preys upon the impressionable to do wrong. The end result makes everyone less safe, keeps our society perpetually fractured.

For proof, one only need look to a U.S. president who was actually assassinated by a Hollywood actor. Today, that leader, Abraham Lincoln, is revered because he held the Union together despite the forces of chaos arrayed against him. His now famous words are ones all future rabble-rousers should heed: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

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

Krazy Kollege Kids!

“I was an unmitigated nuisance … by that time I was nearing the end of my schooldays, which I look back on as the most completely wasted and mischievous part of my life.” – George Bernard Shaw, Irish playwright, awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1925

In this generation, perhaps there's nothing more troubling than the befuddled thinking of young progressives. Unfortunately, examples are everywhere. In “Calexit” California, the state university in Los Angles embraces segregated, black-only housing. Not to be outdone, in lily-white Pennsylvania, Elizabethtown College's Democrats wear a 21^st century version of the Scarlet Letter: plain white puzzle pieces publicly proclaiming their imaginary genetic solidarity with 19^th century slaveholders. Now, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the left's political fun house finds expression in clown car antics there. These snowflakes demand free tuition for all black students due to their wrongheaded claim of “systemic racism”. So, are the rational to believe that prejudice is magically solved by promoting new race-based discrimination?

In America of 2017, the belief in deep-seeded societal bigotry is utter hogwash! Why do these millennials pretend to live in an antebellum time warp? Recall, slavery ended with Abraham Lincoln in 1865: 152 years ago! It's idiotic to ignore the reality that our culture has radically evolved for the better since then. Today, the celebration of diversity—and tolerance of differences—is widespread.

Specifically, this modern trend was seeded by the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. Indeed, the effects of those policies have germinated in our society for over 50 years. Don't the clear results of those strides count for anything? Apparently not to these collegians with their petulant demands and polarizing behavior.

Remember, any human society is inherently imperfect. Therefore, human conflict based upon dissimilar perceptions will always exist. Yet, these students' militant insistence on race-based unequal treatment—in the name of Orwellian fairness—is beyond bizarre. It's equivalent to proclaiming peace while actively making war. These hysterical know-nothings imagine an external enemy: a psychological projection of their own youthful ignorance.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

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

The West’s Confederacy of Dunces

“They created a system where it was virtually impossible to ever catch anyone cheating, removed all verification processes, automatically registered all drivers license holders—whether they like it or not, and then launched that program immediately after granting every one of the untold millions of illegal aliens in California a driver's license.” – Tim Donnelly, former California State Assemblyman

Per the highly respected and nonpartisan Pew Center, 11.1 (or is it 30?) million illegal aliens live within America's porous borders. Of this human tsunami, one in five illegal aliens reside in two metropolitan areas, either Los Angeles or New York City. Per their latest data, that translates into 2.2 million people.

Using simple math, we'll assume half of them reside in LA. To flush out the political landscape there, per a 2015 California Political Review poll, 13% admit to illegal voting. Also shown in that study is that 80 percent—or four of five illegal voters—cast ballots for Democrats. (As California is home to one-third of all welfare recipients, Democrats pushing cradle-to-grave dependence is unfortunately a natural fit.) Therefore, just in California, that means 114,400 fraudulent votes for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. (Hypothetically, double that result to include NYC.) Still, how ever it was achieved, with 60 percent of the popular vote, it's no surprise Crooked Hillary won there!

With 55 electoral votes—of the vital 270 needed—California remains a major player in choosing a new U.S. president. Is the Golden State—America's largest by population—actually a tarnished and seedy microcosm of voting corruption? Specifically, I refer to population dense, Democrat-controlled urban centers that delivered Hillary victories. For example, the regular cycle of dead people voting in Chicago readily comes to mind. Of this wrongdoing, expert J. Christian Adams—a former election attorney for the Department of Justice—told Fox and Friends last October:

“Dead people are voting and it’s something this [Obama's] administration does not want to do anything about. They must like it. They must like who they are voting for… Now we have four million, four million Steve, ineligible and dead voters on American voter rolls according to the Pew Charitable Trust.”

This is a fundamental threat to the very foundation of our democracy. An ever-present iceberg to the Titanic that is the good ship America. Let's be clear: election fraud is election stealing. Yet, on both sides of the aisle, obtuse establishment politicians blithely pretend this systemic problem is nonexistent. No wonder this finite reality so difficult to gauge! Finding accurate information is as tedious as counting grains of sand on one of California's beaches.

To go down Alice's rabbit hole further, obstructionist Democrats now call for “Calexit” due to the election of Donald Trump. Apparently, one in three Californians polled support the split. (Are they same one-third receiving those welfare payments?) In any case, California is making belligerent noises like South Carolina of 1860 (when it seceded from the Union over the election of Abraham Lincoln). In that rebellious spirit, officials grumble about not remitting legally obligated tax dollars to the federal government. Likewise, they insanely contemplate mutating sanctuary cities into one lawless state. Does Jerry Brown (a.k.a. “Governor Moonbeam”) envision Westworld debauchery as a real-life template?

Still, the most immediate “California problem” actually emanates from Washington State's Ninth Circuit of Appeals. Helmed by three loony lefties, their decisions are overturned 80 percent of the time. Essentially, this activist triumvirate ruled that foreigners' travel plans should not be inconvenienced by Trump's executive order (read: a 90-day moratorium regarding seven terrorist-infested countries with no trustworthy government to vouch for them). It doesn't matters to them that the President's action is expressly supported by federal law, 1952's Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 212(f), which specifies:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Thus, this kangaroo court radically overstepped its bounds; thumbing its nose at all concerned.

Three Ninth Circuit judges means three major legal errors. As described above, they encroached on the co-equal executive branch of government (read: Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution). Second, they granted non-citizens—with no constitutional right to live here—legal standing where none exists. Then, they compounded that mistake by gifting foreigners preferential treatment over the legitimate safety concerns of American citizens.

The President's duty is preserve our country's sovereignty. That means enforcing law to ensure the American people are protected. Therefore, in practice, Trump determines the conditions by which non-citizens can enter, leave or otherwise reside within our borders. After all, lives are at stake!

Progressive ideologues—whether politicians or judges—should not be playing chicken with our collective fate. Specifically, Trump's constitutional authority should not be usurped by this rogues' gallery extending from Washington's Ninth Circuit to California's state house. In this situation, the former pretends to be “beyond reproach.” Yet, unlike King Solomon, they cut the baby in half with their mangled misinterpretation of the equal protection clause. The fact remains: citizens' rights can't be countermanded by non-citizens' needs. (Likewise, one state's rambunctious desire for independence cannot prevail over the national interest in unity.) Therefore, Washington State's reckless ban block—like California's antebellum fantasy—demonstrate how badly out of step they are with the rest of us.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

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

“Hamilton's” Burr “Assassinates” Pence

“The fundamental source of all your [read: progressive Democrats] errors, sophisms and false reasonings is a total ignorance of the natural rights of mankind. Were you once to become acquainted with these, you could never entertain a thought, that all men are not, by nature, entitled to a parity of privileges [read: God-granted rights and freedoms]. You would be convinced, that ... civil liberty is founded in that; and cannot be wrested from any people, without the most manifest violation of justice.” – Alexander Hamilton on February 23, 1775

What is it with the unfortunate intersection of troublemaking thespians and political leaders in American theaters? In this case I refer not to Lincoln and Booth, but to Vice President-elect Pence and “Hamilton assassin,” lead actor, Brandon Victor Dixon.

Recall, Mr. Pence is newly elected, not yet in office. He's paid a small fortune for Broadway theater tickets. He's out for the evening with family for a few well-deserved hours of entertainment. It's bad enough that the partisan New York crowd ungraciously boos him. Given this polarized environment, was it really appropriate for Dixon (playing the ironically “murderous” Vice President Aaron Burr) to add editorial heat by publicly calling Pence out? Now imagine if President-elect Barack Obama was in Mike Pence's “Hamilton” hot seat.

By invoking the heightened emotions of a contentious election, Dixon targeted the innocent man present with damning words: disrespecting Pence, Trump and the voters. Despite his lofty rhetoric, this actor's clearly manipulative behavior was unmistakably designed to incite political tensions:

“We, sir, are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us: our planet, our children, our parents or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. But we truly hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us.”

How is this not metaphorical character assassination? One somehow doubts Dixon would have slandered Barack Obama as he unkindly insulted Pence. If that did happen, identity politics obsessed liberals would be shrieking from the rooftops how close-minded (even racist!) the spokesman of the “Hamilton” cast is. (How dare they not give Obama the benefit of the doubt!) While everyone is entitled to an opinion, another American value is giving the new fellow a fair shake. Thus, Dixon's premature and wholesale condemnation is the only “alarming” element here. It's fascism in full flower.

For the record, arrogantly smug Obama said in January of 2009: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” (Contrast that to Trump who tellingly said in his victory speech: “we won.”) The fact is that Barack Obama has been the most divisive president of the modern age. With overreaching executive orders he habitually ignored Congress and the rule of law, never considered the conservative perspective (populating the vast spaces between coastal urban centers), and never even pretended to represent the Silent Majority who has tapped Donald Trump to be the 45th U.S. president.

Apparently the “Hamilton” company is corrupted by progressive ideologues in desperate need of a crash course in Founding Father philosophy. They pay lip service to the value of “diversity” while rankly embodying intolerance. Today, poor Alexander Hamilton turns restlessly in his grave! His life is portrayed by a troupe of ignorant pretenders; led by “assassinating” actor Brandon Victor Dixon: the epitome of a rabble-rousing poser.

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

Hillary Voters: the Criminal, the Dead, the Illegal

Democratic political operative and Clinton fundraising bagman Terry McAuliffe didn’t hold a job as dog catcher before becoming Virginia’s current governor. Via an overreaching Obama style executive order, he tried to automatically restore the votes of the violent and non-violent alike. (The court stuck down Mr. McAuliffe's imperial edict, but the task can still be accomplished over time through a piecemeal, rubber-stamping process of 206,000 felons.)

Naturally, the MSM has spun blatant election stealing from law-abiding citizens as restoring a civil right to “disenfranchised” minorities (who by a complete coincidence vote overwhelmingly for Democrats). Virginia's House Speaker William J. Howell put the matter succinctly, “I am not surprised by the lengths to which he [McAuliffe] is willing to go to deliver Virginia to Hillary Clinton in November.”

In the same vein, Barack Obama's support for illegal aliens (read: sanctuary cities and open U.S. borders) is a numbers game designed to dilute the people's will in favor of his highly dysfunctional political status quo. That, too, is what his even more corrupt would-be successor Hillary Clinton wants. An illegal voting bloc that will, in essence, keep manna-promising, lawless progressives like them perpetually in power.

To achieve this un-American one party dominance, liberals pretend our society is stuck in a 1963 time loop. Interestingly, anyone who understands history knows that it was southern Democrats who suppressed the black vote not Republicans. Progressives have spun an amazing fiction: that today's GOP (the party of Lincoln who freed the slaves) is trying to repress legitimate minority voting. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The reasonable expectation of an easily obtained, widely available voter ID prevents fraud. It makes dead people voting—a common occurrence in Democratic run cities (like Mr. Obama's Chicago)—really problematic. Joking about something that anyone who believes in democracy would revile, Obama said:

“You can vote all week. You can only vote once. This isn’t Chicago,” Mr. Obama said. “I’m teasing, Chicago. I’m messing with you. That was a long time ago.”

I guess the 2012 election was “a long time ago” to this president. Per the Pew Center for the States, more than 1.8 million dead were still registered to vote; and 2.5 million could vote in more than one state. Further, Barack Obama's Orwellian Justice Department is actually fighting a state's legal right to correct their voter rolls.

All of this wrongdoing amounts to spoiled, meaningless elections. America's slipped on a ruinous banana peel for the last eight years, castrated by Barack Obama.  Should our nation be further demolished with a stolen election by yet another corrupt Democrat? The Founding Fathers intended a representative democracy not a banana republic. That's what invalid ballots cast by this motley crew will guarantee.

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

Another Time of Choosing

“Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it.” - President Ronald Reagan

In retrospect, Barack Obama has been a hard, leftist fascist: carcinogenic change based upon his personal ideology without a thought to the tremendous harm perpetrated by his ilk to this nation. Let me be clear: he is socialistic wolf masquerading in sheep's “Democrat” clothes. Back in 2008, he duped Edward “the Lion of the Senate” Kennedy as easily as he did the American people, not once, but twice. At that time (and ever since) Mr. Obama has used shiny, superficial surfaces to successfully appropriate JFK's moniker: a new, cool, youthful sheen. Notice how Edward Kennedy's words then invoked his martyred brother when speaking of Mr. Obama's candidacy:

“There was another time, when another young candidate was running for president and challenging America to cross a New Frontier... So it is with Barack Obama. He has lit a spark of hope amid the fierce urgency of now. I believe that a wave of change is moving across America. If we do not turn aside, if we dare to set our course for the shores of hope, we together will go beyond the divisions of the past and find our place to build the America of the future.”

Yet, all that glitters here has been fool's gold. Mr. Obama's presidency has actually been the antithesis of JFK's pro-American, anti-Communism (read: Fidel Castro and the Cuban Missile Crisis). Specifically, Mr. Kennedy's “New Frontier” was a youthful transition of American power into new hands that preserved their original ideals. Contrast that to Mr. Obama's “fundamental transformation of America” which has systematically dismantled American economic, military and geo-political influence worldwide.

Why is the millennial generation infatuated with progressives' “nanny” state socialism? This is the same coddled crowd that needs “safe spaces” on college campuses—and goes into apoplectic fits when someone at Emory University writes 'Trump 2016' in chalk on a public sidewalk. (Can these 20-somethings walk and chew gum at the same time?) What else explains a Gallup poll in which approximately two-thirds are comfortable with an “unconventional” person for president: 69% a socialist; 75% an atheist; 76% a Muslim? Seriously? Hence, the unexpected success of Bernie Sanders insurgent candidacy. (A sham designed to make polarizing, liar Hillary more mainstream and therefore more palatable to the electorate.)

In theory, it's great Utopian idea to “spread the wealth around.” That is, when we had some. Yet, our reality is a dystopian society now 19 trillion in debt (and counting, with interest). So a newsflash to entitled millennials: there isn't any—so stop whining! This latest generation is so indoctrinated by liberal touchy-feely (“don't question, do whatever feels good”) philosophy, that that exorbitantly expensive six-figure college degree is a complete waste of time and resources. Of this, the great Abraham Lincoln said, “The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” Indeed, colleges of today no longer teach reason or logical thinking (read: their defining purpose). That is why, for example, the most ridiculous, nonsensical appearances are tolerated by this tattooed generation of rainbow hair, masochistic body piercings and adult-sized onesies. Millennials know nothing about the patriotism (and sacrifice) of WWII's Greatest Generation or “pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps:” the take-charge responsibility inherent in every free, flourishing society. I'd wager they see the America's once pioneering spirit through the modern lens of unrelated “Brokeback Mountain” cowboys. In other words, everything in their careless, narcissistic heads is a scramble of anti-American college “intellectualism” and MSM spoon-fed propaganda. That's just how progressives maintain political power despite the abject failures of the current administration:

“Public opinion is controlled by the media (Hollywood, news, internet), and education. So, whoever controls media and education controls the country.” - William J. Federer

And what do the young find when they get beyond their empty-headed Kardasian style reality TV and their “safe” ivied walls? They join the 93 million other able-bodied Americans who cannot find gainful employment (read: Obamacare's restrictive employer mandates) as the country teeters towards bankruptcy like Greece, and complete disarray like Venezuela's two-day work week. (That's a “weekend” to the rest of us.) Of this deplorable latter dynamic, even the sycophantic Washington Post (which supports Mr. Obama's similar economy-killing policies) aptly observed: “Venezuela has a lot of problems, and a good number of them are quite clearly the government's fault.” Well, hallelujah! Out of the mouth of these leftist, drooling babes comes rare insight. Too bad, their hysterical political blindness prohibits them from seeing the same things transpiring here.

As present is often prelude to future, Venezuela—holder of the world's largest oil reserves—makes an informing case study. 40 years ago, this now failed state was then, per capita, the fourth richest nation in the world. For the last 20 years—like our mercifully ending two terms under Mr. Obama (and a possible further ruinous continuation under a Clinton 2.0 regime)—the Venezuelans also embraced Hugo Chavez socialism under the banner of his successor Nicolas Maduro. Their economy shrunk by 10% in 2015. Similarly, China overtook the U.S. as the largest economy by GDP in 2014 (and likely still is because they have artificially undervalued their currency. Indeed, in their closed society, the true strength of their economy is difficult to gauge.) Venezuela's inflation is in triple digits, their currency the bolivar is almost worthless, and the decline in worldwide oil prices has crippled the worth of their exports.

Here, our economy has been hot-wired to bolster Mr. Obama's political standing. Specifically, the Federal Reserve has kept interest rates at or near zero for almost all of the Obama presidency while simultaneously funneling $3 trillion into the stock market. (Likewise is the fuzzy math fiction of the Department of Labor's published of a “5%” unemployment rate.) Despite the political cover, Mr. Obama's “transformative” efforts at big government socialism were the same failed leadership decisions that wrecked Venezuela in just 20 years. Now what they have to show for it is hours-long breadlines to obtain basics like eggs and milk. Contrast that experience to any local grocery store—a for-profit venture—with a readily accessible, overflowing bounty of foodstuffs.

The poverty rate in Venezuela is now 76%. It's so bad there they've even had toilet paper shortages. Meanwhile, we blissfully debate the “high class” problem of how many bathrooms—and the wisdom of making them unisex for the gender fluid. As with Mr. Obama's failed stimulus programs, tax-and-spend policies and embrace of excessive regulations (related, for example, to discredited fictions like “global warming”), both Chavez and Maduro wasted tremendous amounts of money. (Ring any bells yet, supporters of progressives and/or Bernie Sanders?)

Spoiled millennials have gone from the safety of home, to college where they have been conditioned to believe that big government (“Uncle Sam” as Santa Claus) will simply provide for them as their parents did. Therefore, everything earned by previous generations through risk, hard work and capitalist enterprise, is now an entitlement: food (food stamps), shelter (vouchers and section 8 housing), health care (Medicare and Medicaid) et cetera. The majority under 30 do not support capitalism even though it has raised more people out of poverty than any other economic system. By why should these would-be welfare waifs work when everything is “free,” right?

Just ask the rioting, downtrodden Venezuelans: there is no such thing as a “free” lunch there anymore. Any U.S. presidential candidate claiming otherwise is a Sal Alinsky style class warfare fraudster. Such immoral politicians are wolves. They are power-hungry, promising the sun, moon and stars to hold the reins of political power. Yet, the fact remains that an empty treasury filled with IOUs can't fill a belly forever. After eating the MSG Chinese food, the economic hell of that $19 trillion bill is rapidly coming due. If Americans don't choose wisely will empty shelves and power blackouts become our new normal?

Make no mistake: a rebirth or a reckoning is inevitable. Once again, this election cycle is a critical heartbeat in our culture, what Ronald Reagan presciently called in 1964 “A Time for Choosing.” A free market, pro-capitalism Republican or a big government progressive/socialist “Democrat.” In 2016, which option is likely to preserve the Founding Fathers great experiment in liberty, what remains of our (gutted, mismanaged) democracy known today as Mr. Reagan's “shining city on a hill? Will that light flicker and dim or stay bright?

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

For the future: a 2017 anti-amnesty Conservative; A whimsical essay on politics—and time-travel

There's a funny line in the original “Back to the Future” (1985) movie where teenager Marty McFly uses an altered DeLorean to time-travel back to 1955 to the creator of the time machine, Emmett Brown. The inventor inquires who is president in Marty's future. When told, Brown's incredulous reaction: “Ronald Reagan? The actor? Then who's the vice-president? Jerry Lewis?”

That was always the unfair knock of Democrats on Reagan: he was really just an actor “playing at” being commander-in-chief. But the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Cold War and the economic collapse of the Soviet Union, then, proved Reagan very much the genuine article. Reagan symbolized the unbreakable American spirit of positive expectation, self-determination and self-reliance. He knew: America can accomplish anything—even the inconceivable—which he achieved in large measure.

What is required is simply the will to do a thing, steered by Christian morality and informed ultimately by kindness and charity. Indeed, his very American political philosophy of “peace through strength” put the Soviets, among others, rightfully on their backsides. Unlike today, his word was backed up by the big stick of unparalleled American military might as well as the carrot of authentic friendship. History bears out the truth: when Reagan spoke, enemies and naysayers alike listened—and in most cases—capitulated. To him, America was a “shining city on a hill;” a light that has dimmed considerably in recent years due to less clear thinking—and less capable leadership.

Contrast that to the anti-Reagan we have in office now: a chronically responsibility-phobic, “lead from behind,” weak-kneed, politically tone-deaf apologist of Western values; a rabble-rousing wholesale disregarder of law, precedent and the Constitution itself; a golf-obsessed Jerry Lewis fop on the world stage emboldening America's enemies and geopolitical foes while simultaneously alienating traditional allies like Israel. Indeed, 7 years of Mr. Obama's tirelessly schoolmarmish “teachable moment” finger-pointing—and equally feckless “red line” pronouncements—are completely ignored by bad actors like Vladimir Putin and ISIS who have flourished in the vacuum where American dominance used to be.

What we have, unfortunately, is an inflexible ideologue of scant ability whose every decision hobbles American strength at home and abroad. To draw a parallel to Chicago—the community Mr. Obama “organized” whose homicide rate (like Baltimore's) is skyrocketing—other “Chicagos” are popping up all over the globe: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and North Africa. The specter of ISIS has metastasized, destabilizing the Middle East causing the record-breaking torrent of 60 million migrants disrupting Europe to a greater degree than the terrorism that killed 129 innocents in Paris.

Paris proves that it only takes a handful of radicalized, armed militants. Yet, Mr. Obama can't wait to throw open the doors to a potential small army of 10,000 migrants from Syria; interestingly 96% Islamic versus only 3% Christian. However, given the logic that the terrorist acts are directly tied to religious fervor—and since there is no government to vouch for this group or other practical way to vet them—a litmus test (at minimum) makes sense to someone like Ted Cruz who actually cares about the future safety of the American people.

As commander-in-chief, Mr. Obama has the implicit responsibility to protect us from all enemies foreign and domestic. As with porous borders, Mr. Obama has the welcome mat already laid out. To him, any other policy is “... not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.” I, for one, would very much like to know when Mr. Obama's compassion for home-grown Americans is going to start.

This same brand of “compassion” has contributed mightily to the accumulation of 11 million non-Americans within our country or is it 12? Nobody knows the exact number of faceless de facto squatters, hence the logistical problem. Yet, each and every one of them shares a universal label: flagrant flouter of our laws (á la Mr. Obama). Like the president, the current House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) is wrong about the practicality and success of forced relocations. The powers-that-be in government don't like it—frankly neither do I—but mass deportations are called for.

There is precedent: the 1950s “Operation Wetback” expelled 1.5 million Mexicans. No doubt, the process will be ugly. Yet, none of the displaced is a victim as illegal aliens (not squishy, nonsensical politically correct terms like “undocumented immigrants”) chose to come here by their own means rather than honoring our in-place immigration system. In any case, a society is only “fair” when all abide equally to democratically-created laws. Under Democrats—for all the reasons articulated above—is it any wonder why our society is so polarized, fragmented and dysfunctional?

Since we can't time travel to 1980 or 1860, it will take a leader both with Reagan's fortitude and Lincoln's vision (in ending slavery for future, unborn generations) to do that which is difficult and necessary—rather than the 'go-along-get-along' political expediency that has gotten us into these colossal messes in the first place. That's not the Democrats who manipulate America into “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” so long as they can use the influx of new voters to hold political power in perpetuity. Similarly, of the contenders across the aisle, that's also not establishment Republicans (Bush), those soft on immigration (Rubio) or inclined to further compromise (Carson; Trump).

That's my litmus test for president in 2017 and the list is maddeningly short: Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina (withdrawn). Like Marty McFly, I dearly wish I had that time-traveling DeLorean idling in the driveway, ready to bring the perfect candidate “Back to the Future” for Inauguration Day in 2017.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

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

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